House of Commons
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
President-elect Trump has confirmed the importance of NATO during telephone calls with the Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary-General. I have written to General James Mattis to congratulate him on his nomination as Secretary of Defence, and I look forward to meeting him after his confirmation hearing.
Jonathan Reynolds
General James Mattis has warned against appeasing the Russian regime and has said it is President Putin’s intention to break NATO apart. Does the Secretary of State agree that President-elect Trump would do well to listen to his general and to recommit the US unequivocally not just to NATO but to article 5?
Sir Michael Fallon
General Mattis is not only experienced in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan but has served as a NATO commander. He is well aware of the importance of the alliance not only to our security but to the United States itself, and it is the unity of the alliance that sends the most powerful message to President Putin.
Jeff Smith
At the recent Warsaw summit, NATO leaders made a commitment to step up collective action against Daesh. What assurances has the Secretary of State had from the incoming Administration that they remain committed to that and to the principle of collective defence in working with allies in the fight against Daesh?
Sir Michael Fallon
I shall be hosting the counter-Daesh coalition ministerial meeting in London on Thursday. I have seen nothing from the incoming Administration’s plans to indicate that they would take any different approach. The United States is leading the coalition work against Daesh. Considerable progress is being made in Iraq and starting to be made in Syria. NATO, too, now has a contribution to make to that.
Dan Jarvis
Given the precision airdrop capability of the US and NATO, what conversations has the Secretary of State had with the incoming US Administration and with other allies on the feasibility of using this specific capability to alleviate the suffering in Aleppo?
Sir Michael Fallon
We have continually examined options for getting aid into Aleppo, where people are now in the most appalling situation. It is almost impossible to get food or medicines in by airdrop, when the air defences are controlled by Russia and the Syrian regime and permissions are not forthcoming. We have looked at other options, such as using the airfield—but it is outside the control of the moderate opposition—and militarised convoys. We will continue to look at all kinds of options, but it is already very, very late for the people of eastern Aleppo.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When I was a young officer serving in the British Army of the Rhine and in West Berlin, I made the assumption that article 5 was a trigger: if anyone attacked a NATO nation, every member would automatically go to war. I am wondering whether that is exactly right now or whether we have just a commitment to consult, which would take much longer than an automatic reversion to war.
Sir Michael Fallon
Article 5 was last invoked after 9/11, when the rest of the alliance pledged to do everything possible to help the United States following the most appalling attack on the twin towers. The answer to my hon. Friend's question, of course, is that once article 5 is triggered, each member state has to examine its obligations to the alliance as a whole. Before that stage, as tensions escalate, I would expect the deployments that we have prepared, including the very high readiness taskforce, to be enacted.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new Administration will be much more interested in deeds than in words when it comes to NATO and article 5, and that Britain is setting an example for the rest of Europe not just on the 2% but with the troop deployments we plan for Poland and the Baltic states?
Sir Michael Fallon
I agree with my hon. Friend, and, indeed, we agree with President-elect Trump’s call for other European countries to do more. It is true that eight of the 28 members have now set in place firm plans to reach the 2% figure. We reach 2%, but some 19 members of NATO do not even do 1.5%, and four or five of them do not even do 1%. So European country members of NATO, in particular, still have a long way to go to fulfil the pledges on which we all agreed at the Wales summit.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It was a pleasure to read recently of the work that HMS Torbay has been doing in helping to secure the maritime security of our allies. Does the Secretary of State agree, though, that it is vital that the incoming US Administration in January recognise that there is no such thing as a peripheral NATO state, because an attack on one is an attack on all?
Sir Michael Fallon
Absolutely; that is the principle of collective defence, and it is the best possible message to send on any further aggression from Russia—we have seen a huge increase in Russian submarine activity in recent years—or indeed on the threat from terrorism. We stand together.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On Friday, the head of MI6, Alex Younger, warned about Russian meddling in UK domestic politics. Given the revelations from the CIA about the Kremlin’s involvement in influencing the outcome of the US election, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with our NATO allies—US and European—to tackle this type of hybrid warfare interfering in other countries’ democratic electoral processes?
Sir Michael Fallon
We are now seeing a rather disturbing pattern of allegations of direct Russian interference in areas as far apart as Bulgaria, the referendum in the Netherlands, and continuing pressure on the Baltic states. We agreed at Warsaw that the European Union and NATO would come together to co-operate on hybrid warfare, in particular, and to look at the various techniques that were necessary to help us all resist that kind of pressure.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
For many years in this Chamber, people have been asking why European countries that are members of NATO are not spending 2%, and we are always told that it will happen, but it just does not seem to happen. What pressure can we put on other members of NATO to fulfil their commitment?
Sir Michael Fallon
We agreed this commitment at the Wales summit back in the autumn of 2014. That, at least, has halted the decline in defence spending across the alliance. As I said, a number of member states—roughly half the alliance—are now committed to increasing their spending, and eight of the 28 are firmly planning to get up to 2%. The transparency involved in publishing the table every year in itself stiffens the arm of Defence Ministers when they are tackling their Finance Ministers. It is certainly encouraging to see the increase in defence spending by the countries that feel most vulnerable: the Baltic states, for example, with increases also in Bulgaria and Romania.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State on this issue? The question was about the discussions he has had with the President-elect, and his answer was that the President-elect “confirmed the importance of NATO”. What does that actually mean for article 5 and for the policies that President-elect Trump will pursue when he becomes President? NATO and the defenders of the west need to know the answers on that. What are the Government actually saying to President-elect Trump about what policies he should pursue, and what are the answers that the Secretary of State is getting? We need a bit more than “confirmed the importance of NATO”.
Mr Speaker
That was a lot of questions to which I am sure a dextrous and pithy reply will trip forth from the tongue of the Secretary of State.
Sir Michael Fallon
As I indicated, there have been two phone calls with the Prime Minister. The incoming President has not yet taken office, and his nominees for the different offices have yet to be confirmed, but there is a clear understanding between us and the United States Administration of the importance of NATO not simply to us here but to the United States itself.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
My colleagues and I on Labour’s defence team recently returned from a briefing visit to NATO in Brussels and to SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—in Mons, where we were told about plans to ensure the security of the Baltic states and, of course, about our armed forces’ leading role in helping to defend Estonia. May I press the Secretary of State further on what assessment he and his Department have made of the impact that President-elect Trump’s policies may have on the ability of NATO to implement article 5, should that ever be necessary?
Sir Michael Fallon
The United States itself will be leading one of the four forward battalions next year. It will be leading the battalion in Poland, and we will be adding a company of our own troops to that battalion. We, as the hon. Gentleman said, will be leading in Estonia, and Canada and Germany will be leading in the other two countries. We have absolutely no evidence at the moment that the United States is going to alter its position on that; on the contrary, I have been over the Atlantic twice in the past three weeks, and from my discussions with the US military and with Senators and Congressmen who take an interest in defence, I have every reason to believe that the United States will confirm its commitment to the alliance.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
We have made significant progress in recent months: we announced our intention to derogate from the relevant articles of the European convention on human rights in future conflicts where appropriate, and I have launched a consultation on enhanced compensation for soldiers injured or killed in combat, so that members of the armed forces and their families do not have to spend years waiting to pursue claims against the Ministry of Defence. We hope to announce further measures shortly.
Andrew Bingham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My constituent 87-year-old Arnold Hustwick, himself a former soldier, will also welcome that news, because he has expressed his outrage about some of these claims. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it was not for the MOD submitting evidence of malpractice by Mr Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, and the Ministry of Justice cancelling Mr Shiner’s legal aid contract, this man would still be hounding our soldiers?
Mike Penning
I was at the Ministry of Justice when we revoked the legal aid, and if it was not for this Secretary of State and my former colleague sending submissions to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Mr Shiner would probably still be pursuing our soldiers and servicemen. Mr Shiner should probably do exactly what the Secretary of State called for him to do in December 2014 and apologise to our former servicemen.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
As someone who has served with distinction in Northern Ireland, the Minister of State must be disgusted by the industrial-scale abuse of the legal process against former soldiers, which has impugned the reputation of every single soldier who has served in Ulster over the last 40 years. Will he and his Department undertake to be a bulwark against that abuse and against that witch hunt, and will he stand up and make sure that it is stopped forthwith?
Mike Penning
I had the honour of serving in the Province and—I hope—I was part of the peace process. The vast majority of our servicemen and women served with distinction in Northern Ireland. The MOD and I will continue to support the police force in Northern Ireland with its ongoing inquiries. That is what was said on the radio at the weekend: these are not new investigations; they are ongoing investigations. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done in the past, and I wish him a happy 50th birthday today.
Mr Speaker
I had thought that the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) was stirring in his seat. If he were standing, I would call him, but if he is not, I will not. He is not, so I will not.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for not standing.
In the last few years, some 3,500 soldiers have had their lives wrecked by the investigations of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. That has been at a cost of some £90 million to Her Majesty’s Treasury, and I think one single prosecution has resulted from it. Surely, now that we have seen the back of Mr Shiner, it is time for the Government to bring to an end the dreadful IHAT organisation.
Mike Penning
The Secretary of State and I are doing everything we can to get IHAT to come to its conclusions and decide what it is going to do. The vast majority of those investigations will be concluded, and we hope and expect that in the vast majority of cases, IHAT will feel that there is no action to be taken. We must make sure that the investigations take place correctly so that they do not end up in some European court somewhere.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
It is not just a question of the IHAT inquiry and the disgraceful behaviour of the disreputable solicitor Phil Shiner; we are now faced with the prospect of hundreds of British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland again being brought before the court, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has just said. It is wholly unacceptable that nearly half a century on, men who have served their country to the best of their ability should face possible prosecution. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? This is a matter of public policy, for which Ministers must personally be accountable.
Mike Penning
We must make sure that if the police decide—I repeat that this is for the police to decide—that they need to investigate something, they can do so. As we bring forward proposals, we will help the police, but we will also ensure that we protect as much as possible those who have served their country—alongside me and other colleagues—throughout the years.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
With a rising defence budget and an equipment plan worth £178 billion over the next 10 years, we are renewing our capabilities. We spend up to 20% of our science and technology budget on research, and we have launched an £800 million innovation fund.
Nigel Huddleston
The Minister will be aware that the Ministry has a reputation among some suppliers of being somewhat challenging to work with. What is she doing to try to improve working relationships, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises, including many of the defence industry suppliers in Worcestershire?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right that it can be challenging to work with Ministry of Defence procurement processes. We are particularly keen to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to apply for business with us. We want to increase the level of our spending that we procure from small businesses from 19% to 25%. Acting on direct feedback from small businesses, we have introduced a network of supply chain advocates to help smaller businesses through the maze of defence procurement, and their contact details are available to my hon. Friend and other Members on request.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister has referred to renewing our capabilities. I have previously asked her about the programme to renew the Type 45 power and propulsion systems. I recognise that there are commercial sensitivities, but will she tell us whether there is a budget for the programme of improvements to the Type 45 power and propulsion systems, and when does she expect all six vessels to be improved?
Harriett Baldwin
I am very pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that there is a budget, and that progress is being made. These incredibly capable ships are performing a wide range of tasks. For example, HMS Daring is now in the Gulf, acting as part of our deployment there.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I was able to launch the first competition on Thursday at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. In the first competition—for up to £3 million—we are looking for new ways of exploring data to inform decisions. It does not sound as though that is exactly the area of specialisation with which the business my hon. Friend mentioned is engaged, but there will of course be further competitions, and applications are also open for a wide range of different ideas to be fed in directly.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
No one would deny that it is vital to do everything we can to encourage innovation in the defence sector. Does the Minister agree with me that to foster an environment in which innovation can flourish, business and industry have to be able to trust what they are told by the Government? Given that, will she take this opportunity to explain to the shipbuilding industry exactly why she did not deliver on the copper-bottomed assurances, which she gave on at least four occasions, that the national shipbuilding strategy would be published before the autumn statement?
Harriett Baldwin
Mr Speaker, did you pick up in that question any congratulations on or delight at the fact that I was at the shipyards on the Clyde on Thursday, cutting steel for two new offshore patrol vessels? I remain astonished at the very grudging way in which the Scottish National party fails to recognise the billions of pounds of work that is being sent to shipyards on the Clyde.
Brendan O’Hara
For the record, I am absolutely delighted that the OPVs are being built on the Clyde. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to workers and management across the UK shipbuilding industry for the misleading and contradictory statements that have come from the Ministry of Defence during the past few months? Will she also take this opportunity to explain why the shipbuilding strategy did not appear when she promised it would appear?
Harriett Baldwin
It is lucky the hon. Gentleman gets a supplementary, so that he can say some vague, grudging words of welcome for the fact that we have just announced two decades’ worth of work on the Type 26 frigates in Scotland. He is complaining about the lack of publication of a report that has been published; the Government will provide their response next year. [Interruption.] Sir John Parker’s report on shipbuilding was published on 29 November. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to read it, and will send him a personally signed copy.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a very excitable burgher of this House. I am not sure that he has quite attained the apogee of statesmanship to which he should aspire. He must try to calm himself and take some sort of soothing medicament. That will probably do the trick. Let us hear from a calm person. I call Maria Miller.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Minister’s focus on innovation is absolutely right. Will she look at the excellent work of the National Aerospace Technology Exploitation Programme, which is already running more than 100 innovation projects, and establish how she can help to continue that work?
Harriett Baldwin
Mr Speaker, you were absolutely right to call my right hon. Friend, who has asked such a calm and helpful question about the excellent work of that organisation. She also will be familiar with the work of the Defence Growth Partnership at Farnborough and the fantastic way in which it works to promote the excellence of the UK aerospace industry to people all around the world.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
The Royal Air Force has made a vital contribution to the counter-Daesh coalition, carrying out 1,092 strikes in Iraq and 75 in Syria, and providing essential intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. In Iraq, the RAF has helped Iraqi security forces reclaim significant territory, including supporting operations to liberate Mosul. In Syria, the RAF has already attacked Daesh’s capital in Raqqa while supporting opposition groups pushing back Daesh on the ground.
Bridget Phillipson
The RAF is making real progress in tackling Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and our thoughts at this time of year must be with our brave servicemen and women. Once Mosul has been liberated by the Iraqi Government what role does the Secretary of State anticipate for the RAF in Iraq?
Sir Michael Fallon
We shall be reviewing progress in Iraq and Syria with the military commanders at the counter-Daesh coalition meeting in London on Thursday, and will map out a road to longer-term peace in Iraq, including potential future deployments in different parts of Iraq that may help to continue the training we have been offering Iraqi forces, and further work on counter-terrorism. We will also discuss the need to control the spread of the return of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria to the different countries that they came from.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
At a time when our RAF is at full stretch on operations, the Secretary of State will be as concerned as I was to hear the announcement that RAF Halton is to close, not because the long-term defence estate consolidation is not the right direction of travel, but because the closure seems to have been sprung on the civilian and military personnel in order to meet the local council land bank deadline. Will he reassure personnel about timescale and staff support so that the decision does not create a serious retention risk?
Mr Speaker
Notably in relation to operations in Iraq and Syria, to which I am sure the hon. Lady intended to allude but did not quite get round to doing so.
Sir Michael Fallon
Decisions on closing some of the bases and airfields that we no longer need have been taken on the basis of military capability and on the advice of service chiefs. I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend, and indeed the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), in paying tribute to the work of the RAF—both the sustained tempo of its operations, which is probably at its highest for more than 25 years, and the enormous job it is doing to keep our country safe.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Defence Secretary on the level of defeatism in his statement that it is nearly impossible to envisage successful airdrops if Russia does not allow them? For all its belligerence, Russia does not want to trigger a conflict with the UK and our NATO allies. The longer that that cowardice, in essence, goes on in the face of Russia’s posturing, the more Russia will push and the harder it will be for any resolution to come to the dreadful tragedy happening in Syria.
Sir Michael Fallon
We continue to consider all possibilities for getting either food or medicine into Aleppo, or indeed some of the other besieged areas, but it is not simply a question of Russian permission; we would also have to make sure that any drops were feasible, considering the vulnerability of aircraft to ground-to-air defence systems.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State said that it was very late for the people of eastern Aleppo, but it is not too late, and I would second the calls for airdrops. RAF planes could be flying over and providing humanitarian airdrops. Some 200 Members on both sides of the House, including Front-Benchers and Back-Benchers in the Labour party, have signed a letter calling for airdrops. Leading humanitarian organisations have done likewise. Will he look at it again?
Sir Michael Fallon
We continue to look, almost daily, at the various ways we might get food aid in, but it is not possible, in a contested airspace, with ground-to-air missile systems and Russian aircraft flying overhead, denying permission, to fly coalition aircraft over Aleppo. Without that security, we cannot drop food where it is most needed, but we continue to look at all the options.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer on Aleppo to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and I recognise the RAF capabilities that he mentioned, but I share the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that we really need to look at this again. Will the Secretary of State continue to look—and not at any stage give up looking—for a way to alleviate the terrible suffering in east Aleppo?
Sir Michael Fallon
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. We continue to look at these options and to talk to non-governmental organisations willing to help us provide food and medicine. Some food and medicine is getting into other cities in Syria, but it is not getting into Aleppo itself, simply because of the impossibility of flying aircraft in the airspace over Aleppo and the very real risk of aircraft being shot down.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The armed forces are Britain’s biggest provider of apprenticeships. We have around 20,000 apprentices on programmes at any one time, ranging from engineering and IT to construction and driving. Defence has pledged to start 50,000 apprenticeships during this Parliament and will seize the new Treasury co-investment opportunity to work with the Department for Education, expanding and improving the current range of apprenticeships we offer.
Rebecca Harris
That is indeed impressive. I was expecting a good reply but not to find out that the armed forces were the largest provider in the country. What assurance can the Minister give those residents of mine who might want to take up an apprenticeship with the Ministry of Defence that they offer quality as well as quantity?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend is right to focus on quality, and I am delighted to say that following the last Ofsted inspections both the Army and the naval service were graded as “good”, with some individual programmes being graded as “outstanding”, while the RAF’s programme was graded as “outstanding”.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the Department for Education, and the Government website refers to England, so will he assure me that apprenticeships are available throughout the UK for people in the devolved regions where apprenticeships are a devolved matter to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly?
Mark Lancaster
Of course, we are always happy to work with devolved Assemblies, and I can absolutely reassure the right hon. Gentleman that apprenticeships are available to all our armed forces personnel.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to my constituency on Friday to open the Type 26 facility at David Brown Santasalo, the gear manufacturer, where he met and spoke to some of its many young apprentices. Will he and his Ministers continue to make sure that quality apprenticeships are a key part of the defence supply chain?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, I understand that the visit was a great success. Absolutely, as we look to the future, this is not just about apprenticeships in the armed forces, but about the transition for service personnel when they leave. We have a duty to prepare them for work potentially in the supply chain after their service. After all, this is a partnership with industry.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
This time last week, the SNP’s defence team visited BAE Systems on the Clyde and talked to apprentices about their future. What reassurances can the Government give to these skilled young men and women who are waiting to hear if the promised Type 31s will be built entirely on the Clyde?
Mark Lancaster
It is worth remembering that the apprentice who will work on the last Type 26 is yet to be born, but we continue to work closely with industry. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said just a few moments ago, the investment made in Scotland for many years to come should be celebrated.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
The strategic defence and security review 2015 committed us to a more adaptive force to meet the range of future threats. This means having the best mix of Challenger 2 tanks and the new Ajax multi-purpose armoured vehicles to deliver the Army’s contribution to future threats. We are planning to spend £700 million to extend the Challenger 2 capability out to 2035.
Dr Lewis
I thank the Minister for that answer. While we should warmly welcome the very large order for Ajax fighting vehicles, does he accept that these will be no match for the armour and the armament of enemy main battle tanks? Will he therefore confirm how many of our existing 227 tanks will go forward to the Challenger 2 life extension programme, bearing in mind the need to have capacity for regeneration in the event of a crisis?
Mike Penning
My right hon. Friend is the Chair of the Defence Committee and has taken a keen interest in defence matters for so many years. He knows very well that it is for the military to decide exactly what the capabilities are, but having £700 million available for Challenger 2 going forward to 2035 shows a clear commitment to Challenger.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
While I support having a diversity of vehicles available, there are reports that the Army is planning to reduce its number of tanks by a third. At a time when Russia has announced a new generation of vehicles, ours will reduce from 227 to 170. Does the Minister agree that now is not the right time for this sort of announcement to be made, because it sends out completely the wrong message about our defence?
Mike Penning
We should not believe everything we read in the press—as a former journalist, I might have written it in the past. We need to trust the armed forces to tell us exactly what they want. The Russian Armata tank, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, is an unmanned vehicle. We are making sure that innovation and adaptation is there. I would have thought that we would hear more cheers from Labour Members, particularly those in Wales, about the fact that the Ajax vehicle is going to be built in Wales.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the Ajax vehicle. When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he announced that the new Ajax fighting vehicle would be a “boost for British manufacturing”. While I welcome the fact that many of the vehicles will be assembled in Merthyr Tydfil, they are being built using Swedish steel and will have their hulls built in Spain—and some are to be completely built in Spain. Does the Minister accept that Mr David Cameron was somewhat inaccurate in his statement?
Mike Penning
No, I do not think so. The issue is about jobs in Wales, which are coming to Merthyr Tydfil, and making sure that the Army has the vehicle it wants. That is what this Government are going to guarantee. Unless the Labour party commits to spending 2% of GDP on defence, they are never going to reach this sort of expenditure.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
Next year, we are sending nearly 800 troops to Estonia and 150 personnel of the Light Dragoons to Poland. We are leading the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, and undertaking air policing, based in Romania, with the four Typhoons we are committing to NATO.
Mr Raab
I welcome the Government’s commitment, particularly to the Polish Prime Minister last month, of additional UK troops and armoured vehicles in the face of concerns about the Russian threat. Does the Minister agree that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our Polish friends, and that this shows how Britain can be an even stronger European ally—irrespective of Brexit?
Mike Penning
On behalf of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I had extensive talks with the Polish Defence Minister and his colleagues, who were thrilled that we were committed to being with them, which is what came out from the statement afterwards. The Light Dragoons, which will have their Jackals in Poland, are really looking forward to going there as well.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
On the day we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the USSR, can we do more to educate our people about the importance of defending the security of the states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—that regained their independence and were able to make a free, democratic decision to associate with NATO, and to end the nonsense we hear in some quarters, perhaps on both sides of the Atlantic, that NATO is not a voluntary alliance?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is as interested in hearing other contributions on his question as he was in hearing his own views. It is customary for colleagues to remain until the end of the exchanges on their own question, which does not seem unreasonable.
Mike Penning
The whole success of NATO lies in the fact that countries join freely. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is right that the countries he mentioned—Latvia, Estonia and so on—are particularly worried about their protection. It is not like the British Army of the Rhine, which I had the honour and privilege to serve with and which sat there, static, for long periods; what we and our allies in NATO are sending is a significant force to make sure the Russians know that we are serious.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Part of the strength of any alliance is sometimes being a critical friend of other members of that alliance. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, assure me that the next time they speak to the future leader of the free world, they might request that he starts reading his CIA briefings daily and so does us all a favour?
Mike Penning
I am sure that the future President of the United States will read the CIA briefings when he becomes the President of the United States. I am sure the hon. Gentleman saw this morning’s press coverage showing that the future President of the United States does not believe everything that he is told by the press.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The additional support to NATO is welcome, but for our land forces that requires high-end armoured formations. Will the MOD be making new money available to properly regrow and train with that capability?
Mike Penning
The armed forces, particularly the Army, have the money they require. Only recently, I visited the Light Dragoons and the Rifles, which will be deploying to Poland. The equipment they have is second to none, but we will keep their equipment under review, to make sure it is fit for purpose, particularly in view of the inclement weather in Poland.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
What a busy time for me, Mr Speaker. I am proud to say that, for the first time in a generation, the Royal Navy is growing. This Government are committed to increasing our maritime power to project our influence across the world and to promote our prosperity. That can clearly be seen in the personnel numbers we are aiming to reach—30,600—as well as the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, 19 frigates and destroyers, and further offshore patrol vessels, new tankers and support ships by 2030.
Jack Lopresti
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to fulfil the Government’s commitment to increase the size of the fleet specifically in relation to frigates and destroyers, we have to replace the Type 23 at a rate of one a year? Will he commit to that?
Mike Penning
What we will commit to is the new frigates that will replace the Type 23s. Having been on a Type 23 only in the past couple of weeks, when we were shadowing the Russian aircraft carrier in the English channel, I know we must not underestimate the capabilities of the Type 23s, not least because many other countries are looking to purchase them when we can sell them off. At the end of the day, the Type 23s are doing a fantastic job, and we will make sure that the new frigates do just as well.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Mike Penning
Importantly, last week’s report stated that what we needed to achieve was the best value for the Navy. We must make sure that shipyards bid for the work—previously, they have not done so. Let us see what bids come forward and who wins.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the basing and maintenance options for the Type 26 and Type 23 frigates? Will he confirm that Portsmouth is being considered for at least some of those welcome new ships?
Mike Penning
Of course we recognise that bids are coming in. As soon as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who is responsible for defence procurement, has the ability to make that announcement, I am sure she will do so. We are looking forward to the new frigates, not least because, as I said earlier, we can sell off the Type 23s to countries that particularly want them.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Today I received my first Christmas present: a Royal Navy calendar. [Interruption.] A calendar showing platforms, obviously. January features HMS Ocean. Can the Minister inform us how its decommissioning in the next 18 months, after years of impressive service, adds to the strength and power of our Royal Navy?
Mike Penning
While procurement does not fall within my bailiwick, I am reliably informed that HMS Ocean was always due to go out of service in 2018, and at the same time the new Elizabeth class carriers will come into force. She has done fantastic work, and we must praise the work the ship and, most importantly, her crew have done over the years, but her time is coming towards its end and she will go in 2018.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Well, I have to say that the answer from the Minister for defence procurement, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) on the publication of the national shipbuilding strategy is simply not good enough—not good enough for our Royal Navy, not good enough for workers in our shipbuilding industries, and not good enough for our international allies. The fact is that on 29 November the Government only published Sir John Parker’s independent review to inform the strategy, when just last year the Government promised to
“publish a new national shipbuilding strategy in 2016”.
With just six parliamentary days left until the end of the year, will the Minister tell us exactly when we are going to see that strategy?
Mike Penning
We will see it in spring 2017, but I do find it slightly difficult to be lectured on defence procurement by a party that will not even commit itself to 2% of GDP. The key to this is making sure that we get the ships built in the shipyards, that we get the apprentices we need, and that the whole community benefits from it.
Nia Griffith
I do not know where the Minister gets his information from; I do not know whether he reads Westminster Hall debates, and I do not know if he has been listening to what we have been saying very clearly from this Dispatch Box, but we are fully committed to a 2% spend of GDP to meet our NATO commitments and to spend it on defence, as is required.
May we now turn to a more specific issue to do with the naval fleet, and in particular the Type 26 frigates, which have faced very long delays with all the attendant risks to our naval capabilities? The Defence Committee recently said that the national shipbuilding strategy
“must include strict timelines for the delivery of the new Type 26 class of frigates and an indicative timeframe for the General Purpose Frigate.”
Will the Minister confirm that when we see this in the spring, it really will include those details?
Mike Penning
I did a little bit of research and it appears that the Labour Government started looking at Type 26s in 1997; they had 13 further years in government, yet it will be us who will be cutting steel, in spring next year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: the Type 26 is not just for our Navy, but is for our allies around the world as well. It will be exactly the type of ship that will replace the 26 around the world if we get the build right and actually get it out there, which is something the previous Administration forgot to do.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
In Iraq, operations to liberate Mosul are progressing, with Iraqi security forces reclaiming increasing areas of eastern Mosul. Many of those involved in the operation are among more than 31,000 Iraqi troops trained by the UK in counter-IED, engineering and medical skills. In Syria, coalition support has helped push Daesh back from the Turkish border and is now taking the fight to Daesh’s heartland, with the move on Raqqa.
Stephen Hammond
When my right hon. Friend meets many of his counterparts later this week, will he confirm that he will focus the discussion on how the threat of Daesh can be defeated, particularly in Iraq?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, we will be reviewing the military progress being made, which is substantial in Iraq: Daesh has less than 10% of Iraq now. We will also be mapping out the long-term plan to bring peace and stability, in particular to western Iraq. We will be working, too, as a coalition to monitor the dispersal of Daesh fighters from Iraq who may be moving to other theatres.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Does Daesh’s move into Palmyra this week not show that there is a lack of a coherent strategy? In our debate on airstrikes 12 months ago, Members argued that more boots on the ground were required. Should not the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister argue strongly for that in the United Nations? Otherwise, the slaughter of countless innocent individuals, which we have seen in the last 12 months, will just go on and on.
Sir Michael Fallon
Well, there is no support at the United Nations for the deployment of UN troops in Syria, and there may not be support in this House for the deployment of British troops on the ground in combat in Syria. Our role has been to provide the intelligence gathering from the air and the airstrikes on the ground. I can tell the House that the second front has begun to be opened up now, with a move by the Syrian Democratic Forces towards Raqqa, which is in effect the capital of the caliphate. That began at the end of last week.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How many fighters originating from the UK have been killed in the various regions? How many remain and how many have returned to the UK?
Sir Michael Fallon
If I may, I will write to my right hon. Friend with the exact numbers involved, but we believe that several hundred British fighters remain in either Iraq or Syria. Altogether there are many thousand foreign fighters from western Europe and further afield. One of the issues we will consider this week is how we properly monitor their dispersal either to other theatres or back to our respective countries, and how those who have fought for a proscribed organisation such as Daesh can be properly brought to justice.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
The Government are committed to increasing the defence budget by 0.5% a year in real terms, as well as increasing our equipment budget by 1% above inflation each year until 2020. Put simply, that means more ships, more planes and an increase in cutting-edge equipment for our Special Forces.
Mr Speaker
One of the great merits of having the Clerk in front of me is that I am on the receiving end of his specialist advice. May I say, for the benefit both of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who takes an interest in these matters, I know, and of the House, that the letter to which reference was made is strictly speaking a letter to the House and for its benefit? Notwithstanding the motivation of the right hon. Gentleman in saying, “You need not write,” may I with the greatest respect say to the right hon. Gentleman, a distinguished former Minister, that that is not for him to judge—the letter is for the House’s benefit. He may be disinterested in it, but others may be interested. We will leave it there.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, “How will we see it?” Toddle along to the Library and you will find it, man.
Edward Argar
Will my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that we will continue to provide our armed forces with the best possible equipment and that, where appropriate and where that standard is met, that will be equipment developed and manufactured in the UK?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the best equipment and getting the right capability for our armed forces. We will also always seek the best value for money for the taxpayer, but we will seek to get that UK content as strong as possible. The F-35 is an example. Fifteen per cent. of each of the 3,000 planes in the global programme are made at Warton in the north-west, and the UK has been selected as the global hub for a large number of elements for the maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade of those fantastic aircraft. [Official Report, 14 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 5-6MC.]
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
Our priorities remain success in our operations against Daesh and implementing our strategic defence and security review. As I have told the House, on Thursday I will chair the next meeting of Defence Ministers from across the coalition against Daesh, reviewing progress in Iraq and now in Syria and mapping out longer-term plans for peace and stability in the region.
Andrew Stephenson
On Saturday, I visited my constituent, 27-year-old father of two Shahbaz Saleem, a brave RAF serviceman who has dedicated the past 10 years of his life to the RAF, but tragically is now in Pendleside hospice with terminal bowel cancer. Despite that devastating diagnosis, he has taken on another challenge: he has raised over £15,000 so far for the hospice. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Shahbaz for his service in the RAF and for raising so much money for that very worthwhile cause?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am very happy to pay that tribute. Senior Aircraftman Saleem is an airman of the highest calibre who has supported our operations in Afghanistan and, indeed, in Libya. His wife and young daughter should be in no doubt about the highest regard in which the Royal Air Force holds him. We are all impressed and inspired by the courage that he has shown from his sickbed in raising so much money for Pendleside hospice.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Following the Government’s announcement of base closures, what guarantees has the Ministry of Defence given to civilian staff regarding their future employment?
Sir Michael Fallon
As the hon. Gentleman knows and, I think, supported at the time, we have had to reduce the number of bases to ensure that our servicemen and women are in better accommodation in fewer remote areas, and in places where their spouses and partners have more chance of getting into employment. Obviously, civilian jobs may be affected. We have plenty of time. We have set out the generous timescales for discussion. The moves are not immediate and we will certainly do everything we can to ensure that those civilians are properly looked after.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Sir Michael Fallon
This year we have established regional defence staffs in the Gulf, based in Dubai; in Asia-Pacific, based in Singapore; and in Africa, based in Abuja. That fulfils the defence engagement commitment that we made in the strategic defence review last year. The new regional defence staffs will work with our international partners to protect and advance our interests by reinforcing bilateral and multilateral defence relationships.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
Our allies in NATO look very carefully at what we can do and where we can do it. Other nations are also joining in. The French are coming with us into Estonia, with 200 troops in the first six-month tranche. As I said in response to an earlier question, as a coalition we will look carefully at what capabilities we need and where we need them, and we will step up to the mark as we always do.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The Ministry of Defence has co-operated with the legal process and will continue to do so. Now that that case has moved to the court martial appeal court, it would be inappropriate to comment.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Sir Michael Fallon
Russia has chosen to deploy Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad area that it controls. Part of the purpose of our deployment next year of troops to Estonia and Poland, and of RAF Typhoons down to Romania, is to reassure our allies that we all in NATO absolutely stand by the right to collective defence. We will continue not only to reassure, but to make it very clear to Russia that we will come to the aid of any member state that is attacked.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Mike Penning
As the Minister for the Armed Forces, or for ops, it is very appropriate for me to ask the House to join me in wishing everyone in our armed forces, and their families and loved ones, a very merry Christmas. We all hope that they will come home safe.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for having read that excellent report, for which we thank Sir John Parker. The Government will respond to his 34 recommendations in spring 2017.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, but I am pleased to report that a funded programme to rebuild or repair the five worst accommodation blocks will start next year for completion by 2022.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
We have already heard how Russian military activity in support of the Assad regime prevents aid from getting into Aleppo, but it also prevents people and medics who want to leave from getting out safely. What discussions are we having with our allies to ensure safe passage in this intolerable situation?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is an intolerable situation: hospitals are being bombed and humanitarian aid convoys are being attacked. It is clear that Russia and the Syrian regime are not prepared to allow the aid that should get in to get in. There were discussions at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Paris on Saturday, and there will be further discussions in the days ahead, but until Russia lifts its bar on getting aid into parts of eastern Aleppo, my fear is that a large number of people are going to die.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me—I am sorry; I have lost my voice, which will please many people in this House. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning those who have condemned in turn our deployment of troops in Estonia as provocative? Does he agree that the Baltic states themselves have welcomed it in the face of Russian aggression?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend will have noted the leader of the Labour party’s call for a demilitarised zone between NATO and Russia. It will be interesting to hear at some point whether the rest of the Labour party agrees with that, because President Putin certainly would.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
The unit cost of the five P-8 Poseidon aircraft that Norway is buying is $300 million, including the data uplink. After the Brexit devaluation, the unit cost of the nine P-8s that the UK is buying is nearer to $400 million dollars. Does the Minister call that value for money?
Harriett Baldwin
I am not quite sure of the hon. Gentleman’s exact point, because if it were up to him and his party, we would not be buying P-8s or basing them in Scotland.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend support me in obtaining Department for Communities and Local Government sponsorship for the lion’s share of funding to bring forward the iAero innovation hub in Yeovil? Rapid innovation in unmanned aerial vehicles could help the MOD to deliver aid and support our military.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of the excellent work done in his constituency on interesting, innovative projects, such as the unmanned helicopter system. We have committed to spend some £3 billion with Leonardo over the next 10 years as part of our long-term partnering arrangement.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Israeli and US navies have recently been attacked with anti-ship missiles by Hezbollah and the Houthis. Is it not time to look again at the River-class offshore patrol vehicles and the Type 31 frigate to ensure that they have ASAM capability?
Harriett Baldwin
It is important that the Royal Navy continually assesses the capabilities with which ships are fitted. I cannot go into some sensitive details at the Dispatch Box owing to operational requirements.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The UK’s frigates and destroyers are currently protected with Harpoon missiles with a range of 80 miles. Those missiles will be coming out of service in 2018, leaving our frigates and destroyers defended by Mark 8 guns with a range of 17 miles and, from 2020, Sea Venom missiles with a range of just 11 miles. Will the Minister reconsider extending the service life of the Harpoon missiles to ensure that our ships are properly defended?
Harriett Baldwin
The Royal Navy is, of course, continuously assessing the capabilities it requires, and work is ongoing across the Department to consider the options for the Harpoon replacement.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thanks to the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010, brought in by the Labour Government, we do not use or sell cluster munitions any more, but the Government are also required under the Act to persuade their allies not to use cluster munitions either. What are the Government doing to try to stop the Saudis from using cluster munitions in Yemen?
Harriett Baldwin
In line with our obligations under the cluster munitions convention, we continue actively to discourage all states that are not party to the convention from using cluster munitions and we encourage them to accede to it without delay. We have raised the issue of ratification of the convention at ministerial level with Saudi Arabia.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I was disappointed to learn of staff reductions at BAE Systems, including at the site in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend outline what support his Department can offer to our local suppliers to ensure that the skills behind the innovation are secured in my constituency?
Harriett Baldwin
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the news that BAE Systems is reducing employment at the Rochester site—after all, we are spending quite a lot of money with BAE at the moment. But I am sure that the people she mentions have exemplary skills, and I can say on behalf of the Government that we will do everything we can to make sure that those valuable skills are redeployed in other areas of this avionics speciality.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Further to the hon. Lady’s answer to me earlier, I am glad that she gave confirmation about the budget, but can she tell us when the last of the six Type 45 destroyers will have the new power and propulsion system fitted?
Harriett Baldwin
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timetable, because that has not been finalised, but I can tell him that the budget is in place, the contract will be competed for in the normal way, and that ongoing improvements are being made—as they have been made—all the time to that power and propulsion system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Ah yes, the good doctor—the Chair of the Select Committee no less: Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do Ministers accept that the Type 31 general purpose frigates are the only chance we will have for a generation to raise the number of escorts from the pathetic total of 19 back to the sort of figures we used to have when we really had an ocean-going Navy with enough escorts to protect it? Will the Minister therefore ensure that the design of these frigates is chosen to be of the most economical nature? All the bells and whistles can be added later but the maximum number of hulls must be commissioned.
Sir Michael Fallon
I say to the Chairman of the Committee that we have some 29 ships serving on the seven seas around the world at the moment, and I am sure that that has his support. He makes a very good point about the exportability of the Type 31 frigate, and our ambition to raise the number of frigates and destroyers above the current 19.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
(West Dunbartonshire) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Exceptionally, as I understand that it flows in some way legitimately from the exchanges that have already taken place, I will hear the point of order now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not abuse his privilege.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. During Defence questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), advised that the shipbuilding strategy had been published and said she would send a signed copy to my delighted friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). Yet, when cross-examined by the shadow Defence Secretary, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that publication would take place in spring 2017. Will the Secretary of State now answer the question: which one is it?
Mr Speaker
No response from the Secretary of State is required. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) had, a moment ago, a beaming countenance, as he obviously felt he had unearthed a crucial nugget. If he is satisfied with his prodigious efforts, I am glad to bring a little happiness into his life. We will leave it there for now.
Petition
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This is a grassroots petition, showing that in this day of multimedia it is still possible to campaign at a local level. This petition has been organised by Ken Chapman, Dennis Randall and Julia Murphy. It is about an alteration to a road, which I am sure the highways authority thinks is a very good idea, but it dramatically affects the people of Ashton Grove. The petition was signed by virtually everyone in the area, because people are very concerned about the effect that this alteration to the road will have on their neighbourhood.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of Ashton Grove, Northamptonshire and the surrounding area,
Sheweth,
That the petitioners believe that the development of the A509 as currently proposed should not go ahead due to reduction in safety, the increase to noise and air pollution, and the privacy concerns that raising the road and removing the trees would cause to residents of Ashton Grove.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Transport to encourage Northamptonshire County Council to reassess their plans for the A509 and amend them in consultation with local residents.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001992]
New Member
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Social Care Funding
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the crisis in funding in social care, and the effect it is having on the NHS and on the care of vulnerable older people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising today’s question. All Members of this House will agree that there are few areas of domestic policy that touch on so many lives and that are so important to so many of our constituents.
I wish to start by acknowledging the work of more than 1.4 million professional carers, the vast majority of whom provide excellent, compassionate care. I also wish to acknowledge the 6 million informal carers who also do so much.
Spending on long-term care in our country is more than the OECD average—in particular, it is more than comparable economies such as France and Germany. Nevertheless, I accept that our system is under strain, and that pressure has been building for some years now.
The Government response has been to ensure that councils have access to funding to increase social care spend by the end of this Parliament. We estimate that the increase could be around 5% in real terms. Additional funding comes from the better care fund, the additional better care fund and changes to the precept.
Another response has been to put into place and enforce a robust regulatory system. Between 2014 and early next year, all homes and domiciliary providers will have been re-inspected. Seventy-two per cent are classified by the Care Quality Commission as good or outstanding. Where homes are inadequate, powers now exist to ensure improvement or force closure. Those powers are being used.
Another Government response has been to work with local authorities to ensure that a continuing market exists. In the past six years, the total number of beds has remained constant, and there are 40% more domiciliary care agencies now than in 2010. Finally, the Government have responded by driving further and faster the integration of the care and health systems. We have seen that those councils that do that best demonstrate far fewer delayed transfers than those who adopt best practice more slowly.
Any system would benefit from higher budgets, and social care is no exception—but quality matters too. Today is not a budget statement or a local government settlement. I wish to end by commending again the many hundreds of thousands of carers who work hard to make the current system work for so many.
Barbara Keeley
That was a disappointment. Before the autumn statement, we debated the funding crisis in social care—it is not a strain but a crisis—and the serious concerns expressed by local government health and clinical leaders. We on the Labour Benches called on the Government urgently to bring forward promised funding to address that crisis. The Chancellor did not listen and did not bring forward any funding for social care—he did not even mention it. Will the Minister tell us in his response why Health Ministers do not stand up for vulnerable and older people in this country and fight harder to get extra vital funding for social care?
Over 1 million older people in this country have unmet care needs, 400,000 fewer people have publicly funded care than did so in 2010 and, as he recognises, a heavier burden now falls on unpaid family carers. The crisis in social care has been made by this Government as a result of £5 billion being cut from adult social care budgets. Can the Minister confirm what is reported by The Times—that the Government intend to dump this funding crisis on local councils and council tax payers by increasing the social care precept?
The King’s Fund has called that proposal “deeply flawed” because local councils in the least deprived areas would be able to raise more than twice as much as those in the most deprived areas. This year that means that the precept raises £15 per head of the adult population in Richmond, but only £5 per head in Newham and Manchester. That would widen inequality of access to social care across the country. Is it the care Minister’s intention to support a solution that widens inequality of access and denies social care to hundreds and thousands of vulnerable older people?
David Mowat
The hon. Lady fought the last election on a manifesto that said not one penny more for local government spending. She is against the change to the precept that we brought in in the spending review. She talked this morning about being against taxpayers and council tax payers having to meet the cost of increased social care. That raises the question who she thinks should be paying for it. Is it borrowing, or is it the magic money tree? She said that the precept increases inequalities because some councils are able to raise more than others from it. That would be true, if it were not for the fact that the additional better care fund is distributed in a way that balances that. That is precisely what we do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I should advise the House that there are three urgent questions to be taken today and I want all to be properly contributed to, but it is important that we also provide time for subsequent business, so I am looking at finishing the UQs by 5.30 or thereabouts. Perhaps colleagues could tailor their contributions accordingly. We will be led in this matter by Mr Andrew Selous.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope that in looking at co-ordinated policy across Government, the Minister will look not only at good join-up between the Department of Health and local government, but at other policies, such as lifetime homes, family strengthening and flexible employment policies, all of which will help us deal with these issues. Can he give us some encouragement on that score?
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right. There is a raft of measures that need to be taken on informal carers and on the holy grail of better integration of health and social care funding, and we are pursuing that vigorously.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
This was the substance of the letter from the Health Committee to the Chancellor, calling for extra money not for the NHS, but particularly for the capital budget and social care, because the back pressure from social care is what is causing the NHS to struggle. I totally agree with the Minister as regards integration. In Scotland, where we have the integrated joint boards, it has brought a change more quickly than we would have hoped. Our delayed discharges are down 9% in a year; in England they are up more than 30%. But this is not easy and it needs to be funded. We have debated the sustainability and transformation plans, which could be the basis for the future integration of the NHS, but all we hear within those plans is community hospitals being shut, losing the opportunity to have step-up and step-down beds, A & E departments being shut, and beds within hospitals being shut. This is the wrong way round. STPs could work, but they cannot start with the number they must reach—they have to design themselves around a service that keeps patients at home and keeps them well.
David Mowat
The hon. Lady made two points, both of which I agree with. The first was that in Scotland there has been a 9% reduction in delayed transfers of care. It is also true that in England many parts of our system, particularly those that have integrated most quickly, have achieved reductions of that size and more. She is right that the STPs are part of the process of re-engineering the system. Adult social care and the integration of adult social care are a big part of that and we need to ensure that we deliver.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that better integration could be driven by better patient data, which could help to show us where quality practices exist and how to spread best practice?
David Mowat
I do agree. I had a discussion with the Care Quality Commission on the dataset that is reported, and I hope that over the next months and years we can improve how we do that.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
I think that the Minister completely missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) from the Front Bench about the unfairness of asking councils to deal with the problem. A 1% rise in council tax in Doncaster raises 21% less than would the same rise in a council in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Does that not mean that the problem is being pushed on to the areas that can least afford it?
David Mowat
The right hon. Lady would be right that I had missed the point, had I not said that that issue is addressed by how we distribute the additional better care funding, which uses a formula that takes into account relative need.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister will know that following recent events I have taken a particular interest in this issue. Does he agree that saying that it is just about money is too simplistic, and we see a wide variety of the quality of care from homes with the same funding packages? Does he also agree that we need to improve the inspection regime to ensure that concerns are taken seriously?
David Mowat
I agree and I commend my hon. Friend for his work on the Morleigh homes in his constituency, which had significant issues and have now been substantially closed down. He is right that the issues there were not principally about money; they were about quality and about people doing their jobs properly.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Does the Minister share the view of the CQC that the system is close to tipping point, and does he understand the impact that has on many frail elderly people? Does he not agree that now is the time to bury our differences and work together to come up with a long-term settlement for the health and care system?
David Mowat
Today is not the day on which to announce a royal commission on the funding of care in the future, but I do agree that it is important that we put care funding on to a better structural footing for the future. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I applaud the Government’s commitment to £10 billion to the NHS by 2020, but does my hon. Friend agree that social care and healthcare must be better integrated across the whole country? Somerset County Council’s sustainability and transformation plan has that at its heart. It is a good model. Does my hon. Friend agree that such models should be copied, but that councils must be given the tools?
David Mowat
The STP for Somerset is excellent in that regard and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. She is also right to emphasise again the integration of health and social care, which is the holy grail of this. Those councils and health systems that do it best are making a huge difference.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
But is the Minister aware that in the course of the past few years local authorities—let us say in Derbyshire—have lost more than £200 million from cuts promulgated by the Government? On top of that, they are closing community hospitals in Derbyshire, including Bolsover, with a total of more than 100 beds between them. Does it make sense when those community hospitals bear the burden of looking after people who cannot occupy other hospital beds?
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman is right that there have been changes to the funding regime, but councils such as Knowsley and St Helens have virtually no delayed transfers of care and they have the same budget issues as his council.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
An ageing population, the welcome introduction of the national living wage and the rightly greater expectations on services provided are causing exponential growth in adult social care costs, to a far greater amount than can simply be found through efficiency savings. Although the council tax cap has delivered financial discipline, we have to be realistic, so may I urge the Minister to explore further flexibility with the social care precept?
David Mowat
I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) that this is not a spending statement or a statement on the local government settlement, so I will just leave it at that.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It would be a huge mistake to think that the Minister can plug the gaping hole in care funding with the social care precept alone. The poorest areas, which most need publicly funded social care, are the least likely to be able to get it by raising council tax. If not today, when will the Minister come to the House with a plan to solve this crisis and help families, care users and the NHS?
David Mowat
I have acknowledged that the system is under pressure, but I have also acknowledged that different councils respond to that pressure in different ways. For example, Leicester City Council has increased its adult social care budget for next year—2016-17—by 7% in real terms.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Shroud waving by the Labour party is particularly depressing given that it did virtually nothing on this issue during 13 years in power. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury to use fiscal incentives to encourage the construction of more extra care facilities? Does he also agree that it is important to iron out the disparities between different local authorities in the quality of care delivered?
David Mowat
Yes, there is disparity—still—in the marketplace and between local authorities, and we need to do everything we can, working with the CQC, to ensure that it is eliminated.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Does the Minister not realise that his statement today is totally inadequate for the crisis in social care and that the complacency he shows is totally unrealistic, given what has happened in the country? What we require is a very different response from what we have been given today.
David Mowat
I am tempted just to say, “No, I don’t acknowledge that,” but I make the point again that I am not complacent. We understand that the system is under pressure, and we acknowledge and accept that. That is not the same as saying that there are not things that we can do in terms of quality provision to manage better, and that is what we are trying to do.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Adult social care accounts for about 45% of Lancashire County Council’s budget, and that is a growing share. The key to addressing this challenge will be the better integration of health and social care to better manage demand. What funding is being provided to Lancashire County Council to allow that transformation to take place?
David Mowat
The better care fund is predicated on the assumption that we will drive that integration. I also make the point that not just Leicester, for example, but many councils right across the country—something like 40%—have increased, and will increase, their social care budget in real terms next year.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
By 2020, we will see a national shortfall of £2.6 billion in adult social care funding. If the Government are forcing councils to increase council tax, what percentage will they be expected to increase it by? How much of that percentage increase would go solely to adult social care services? How will the Government ensure that that happens?
David Mowat
The spending review increased the precept by 2%—that is what we brought in at that time. As I said earlier, this is not the local government settlement, and I have nothing to say on council tax.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Many people on, I think, both sides of the House feel that the social care system is broken because we have councils and the health service involved. Would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State or the Minister to work with Members on both sides of the House, with good will on both sides, rather than for us to have this petty point-scoring from the Opposition? [Interruption.] No, this is much more serious than politics—we have to get this right for future generations. Should we not work together and come up with a solution that both sides of the House can agree on?
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right that this whole system is more important than politics: there is nothing more important to more people—and more old people in terms of the dignity and quality of their lives—than getting this right, and it is essential that we do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Liverpool City Council has seen £330 million cut from its budget since 2010—58% of all its money. A further £90 million has to be found by 2020. In those circumstances, how will it be possible for the council to increase, as we all wish it could, the money it spends on adult social services, when it already spends more on them— £146 million—than it can raise in council tax?
David Mowat
It is not my role to lecture Liverpool City Council on how to deliver adult social care. I make the point, though, that Knowsley and St Helens, which are very close to Liverpool, have virtually no delayed transfers of care, and so possibly some best-practice sharing would be in order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is right that you chose the younger before the older this time, because you did the opposite last time.
In the Wirral we have an above-average number of older people, yet we have a very low council tax base, which means that we cannot raise enough money through council tax to deal with the shortfalls in adult social care. As the Minister knows, £5 billion has been cut from social care since 2010, and his better care budget is £3.5 billion, so there are huge issues here. Why was this not mentioned in the autumn statement, and what is the Government’s response to this ongoing crisis?
David Mowat
I have made the point already, and I will make it again, that we acknowledge that the precept is uneven in the way that it was announced in the spending review. That is why the additional better care fund component is allocated on a basis that remedies that.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; this is a timely moment to call me, given what the Minister says about remedies. I put in a freedom of information request about the adult residential weekly rate across every single council in the country. Buckinghamshire gets £615 a week, while Birmingham, including the home where my grandparents both died, gets £436 and has to make an additional charge of £55 per week on the residents who live there, who are no doubt poorer than those who live in Buckinghamshire. Does that sound like a discrepancy that is being solved by the Government’s system? Are nans and granddads in Buckinghamshire worth more than they are in Birmingham, Yardley?
David Mowat
In terms of quality in Buckinghamshire and Birmingham, we look at the CQC reports right across the system, and we are not finding a geographic variation based on those sorts of statistics. That is just the fact of the matter.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have heard nothing from the Minister to demonstrate that he understands the severity of the situation facing social care. Last week, the Local Government Association met a cross-party of group of MPs. It said that local government needs £1.3 billion to stabilise social care, and pointed out that that money cannot be raised by a council tax increase, especially because that raises the least money in the areas with the highest need.
David Mowat
In terms of council tax increases, this is not about the local government settlement that has already been announced. The additional better care fund will start to deliver more money from next April, and will deliver more money after that. During the course of this Parliament, there will be a 5% increase, in real terms, in money spent on adult social care.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says about the better care fund, but that obviously applies from next April. How is it fair that this year the area I represent—the 19th most disadvantaged constituency in the country—will be able to raise only half of what an area like Kingston upon Thames can raise? We can raise about £5; it can raise about £10. How can that be fair for social care?
David Mowat
This year, 42% of councils are increasing their adult social care funding in real terms. The discrepancy caused by the precept is addressed by the way in which we allocate the additional better care fund component and the formula that is used for that.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I think the Minister recognises that there is a crisis and that the precept alone will not address it, so does he agree with the former Health Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, who said this morning that it was a missed opportunity in the autumn statement not to invest in social care?
David Mowat
I am not giving the autumn statement, but I will say again that there is a 5% increase in real terms in adult social care funding during this Parliament, and that 42% of councils are increasing the budget in real terms this year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister needs to recognise that not only can it be more difficult for cities to raise money—we have already heard from colleagues comparing the amount that would be raised by increasing council tax in cities as opposed to more affluent rural areas—but demographic concerns make delivering health services more challenging in cities such as Bristol. We are already looking at £92 million of cuts or savings that we have got to find over the next five years. Will the Minister come to Bristol to talk to the Mayor and see what challenges we are facing?
David Mowat
Cities do have issues with delivering social care, but so do rural areas, which quite often have a very high proportion of older people. That, in itself, can absorb a great deal of cost. The truth is that, as I have acknowledged, the whole system is under pressure, including in Bristol. We acknowledge that, and we are increasing the total spend by 5% during this Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
We have heard from my hon. Friends about the failings of the social care precept model to address this issue, but what of councils such as Cambridgeshire, which chose not even to take the meagre resources available? Offered 4%, the council took just 2% this year, leaving the local hospital with 100 over-85-year-olds with nowhere to go. When are the Government going to stand up for older people in Cambridgeshire?
David Mowat
That was a decision made by Cambridgeshire County Council, and a number of other councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, made the same choice not to increase the precept. Presumably, they did not feel as though they needed to use that money for adult social care. That is a choice that those councils have, and it is a choice that they must take to their voters.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Sheffield is about to lose its last emergency respite care centre for patients with complex dementia needs. Those patients cannot be cared for in the community, and people desperately do not want to see that centre go. Sheffield already has the second-largest better care fund in the country. If today is not the day for the Minister to issue a royal commission, when will he act?
David Mowat
I am not aware of the specific issue that the hon. Lady has raised about the respite care centre in Sheffield that is on the point of closure, and I would be happy to discuss that with her so that I understand it better. I can only repeat that today is not the day that we are going to announce a royal commission into funding.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Care providers in my constituency tell me that they are losing staff to Asda because they cannot compete on pay and conditions, because the council cannot commission care at a price that enables them to do so. What is the Minister going to do to stem the haemorrhaging of careworkers from the profession and, therefore, the haemorrhaging of the provision of care?
David Mowat
There is an issue with that, and that issue exists in various parts of the country. We acknowledge it and we need to manage it. We also need to manage the total number of beds in the system and the total number of domiciliary providers in the system. The total number of beds, as I said earlier, is the same now as it was six years ago. The total number of domiciliary providers is around 40% higher.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Minister, in a debate on 16 November, congratulated
“both Halton and Warrington Councils on being two of the best performing councils in the country on delayed transfers of care and on increasing their budget.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 350.]
Halton still has a massive shortfall, because the precept goes nowhere near meeting the demand on the services in the area. The simple fact is this: there is no coherent national strategy or funding package in place to solve this crisis we now face. The Government are abrogating their responsibility, and the system will tip over.
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I congratulated Halton and Warrington Councils on being two councils that have particularly low rates of delayed transfers of care. The fact that they are achieving that in spite of the budget constraints that he mentions demonstrates that this is not just about money; it is about quality, it is about leadership and it is about best practice.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The chief executive of Care England has said that under the current regime,
“about 40% of care services will no longer be viable,”
meaning that a number of services will be lost. When does the Minister intend to do something about this crisis?
David Mowat
The number of beds available in the system right now is about the same as it was six years ago. There is an issue with managing the financial performance of significant care providers. One thing we brought in two years ago was a robust process, led by the CQC, to look at the financial performance of the biggest providers and to warn us of any issues that may arise. We are very keen on pursuing that and making sure that it happens.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
This is a national crisis that this Government have wilfully ignored for years. The Minister said in his opening statement that there is no issue that cannot be solved by throwing money at it. Is it not about time that he put his money where his mouth is?
David Mowat
The hon. Lady paraphrases what I said rather inaccurately. I said that money would help with any system, but the issues are about quality, leadership and best practice as well. All those things are within the ambit of my job, and that is what I am pursuing.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Everything we have heard today from the Minister seems fundamentally to deny that the council tax precept is no solution to the problem and in fact exacerbates it. Is he aware that Ray James of the Association of Directors of Social Services has said:
“The Council Tax precept will raise least money in areas of greatest need which risks heightening inequality”?
If that is what experts in the field are saying, why does the Minister think he knows better?
David Mowat
I often discuss this and other issues with Ray James. It is true that the precept on its own would result in an uneven distribution of revenue, which is why the additional moneys coming from the better care fund will be allocated using a formula that corrects that.
Sky: 21st Century Fox Takeover Bid
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on 21st Century Fox’s bid to take over the remaining 61% of Sky.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
As the House will know, Sky announced on Friday that it had received an approach from 21st Century Fox to acquire the 61% share of Sky that it does not yet already own. The announcement made it clear that the independent directors of Sky and 21st Century Fox have reached an agreement on price. However, the offer is subject to further discussion, and Sky has advised that there is no certainty at this stage that an offer will be made. The terms of any deal will obviously need to be agreed by the non-21st Century Fox shareholders of Sky. The announcement also said that under the takeover code, 21st Century Fox is required to set out its intentions by 6 January 2017.
The Secretary of State has powers to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Government guidance on the operation of the public interest merger provisions under the Act indicates how the intervention regime will operate in practice and the approach that the Secretary of State is likely to adopt in considering cases. Any transaction will be looked at on its merits, on a case-by-case basis. The guidance makes it clear that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene within 10 working days of formal notification of the merger to the competition authorities, or of the transaction being brought to her attention. No such formal notification has yet been received.
The role of the Secretary of State is a quasi-judicial one, and it is important that she acts independently and is not subject to improper influence. It would be inappropriate for me or the Secretary of State to comment further on the proposed bid under the Act. In the light of Friday’s statement and given the role of the Secretary of State, the Department is putting in place procedures to ensure that her decision-making process is scrupulously fair and impartial should a decision be necessary. This will include guidance for other Ministers and officials on dealing with the parties to the bid or any other interested parties. We are of course aware of the wider interest of Parliament in these matters, and we will keep the House updated as appropriate within the legal framework.
Kevin Brennan
I thank the Minister for his response. Late on Friday, a new bid for Sky was revealed. Five years ago, an equivalent bid was abandoned, after Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation were engulfed in the phone hacking storm. At that time the House was united behind a substantive motion calling on Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid. The concerns back in 2011 were not only about the serious wrongdoing being uncovered in the phone hacking scandal but about the concentration of media power and ownership in fewer and fewer hands. I have re-read the motion—which we all supported, on both sides of the House—and nowhere does it say that we should sit quietly for five years and come back when we have forgotten all about it. We have not forgotten about it, and we also have not forgotten that when the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street this summer she said to the people of this country:
“When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you.”
This is a big call, so we need to know whose side the Government are on.
Ofcom’s original assessment was that the deal may
“operate against the public interest”.
Will the Minister commit the Government, here and now, to issuing a public interest intervention notice and referring the bid to Ofcom? Remember that, back in 2012, Ofcom’s assessment was that the chief executive officer of Fox, James Murdoch,
“repeatedly fell short of the exercise of responsibility to be expected of him as CEO and chairman.”
The Prime Minister met Rupert Murdoch in New York in September. Was the bid discussed then? Did she give him any assurances about the bid, or discuss his future support for her and/or for her Government?
I understand that, as the Minister said, this is a quasi-judicial decision, and that the words he says today will be scrutinised by some of the highest-paid lawyers on at least two continents. Nevertheless, will he assure us that the Secretary of State is prepared to stand up to powerful interests and ensure that this deal is properly and independently scrutinised?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for the acknowledgment by the Opposition Front-Bench team that, owing to the quasi-judicial nature of the decision, procedures have to be followed properly. That is what we fully intend to do. Formal notification of this proposal has not been received, and the Secretary of State cannot make a decision prior to that. As I said, the rules are that she should aim to take such a decision within 10 days of formal notification.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I also recognise the quasi-judicial nature of the decision the Secretary of State has to make. I have two technical questions. Since the bid in 2010, which was withdrawn, the Murdoch empire has been divided, with the newspaper operations separated from the broadcast and film operations. How much weight will the Secretary of State give to that separation in determining any questions of plurality in the UK media? Secondly, given that separation has happened, to some extent, how much weight will she place on it when determining whether to issue a public interest intervention notice?
Matt Hancock
The plurality rules are clearly set out, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the Secretary of State will follow them very carefully in this determination.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the event of a bid there is a strong case for asking the regulators to provide advice about any concerns on competition or plurality grounds? Does he agree that this bid would essentially be an investment decision rather than an acquisition, as 21st Century Fox already has effective control of Sky? Does he also agree that since the last bid, which was approved by Ofcom subject to certain remedies, there has been a considerable increase in competition in the pay TV market?
Matt Hancock
The decision has to be taken in the context of the world as we find it. The situation, as we find it, in terms of ownership is that 21st Century Fox owns 39% of Sky, and the notification to the stock exchange on Friday was about the proposal to buy the other 61%. Those issues will be taken into account when the decision is made.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I understand the Minister’s complex position on these matters, but will he take into account the fact that when we compare the situation now with five years ago, when the House passed unanimously the motion saying that the bid should not go ahead, we see that we still have unresolved phone hacking issues in the courts and a system of self-regulation that has not satisfied the victims of phone hacking? Will he bear in mind this question—what has really changed since the House passed the motion five years ago? In my view, very little, which is why I believe the bid should be rejected.
Matt Hancock
It is enjoyable to be at the rerun of one of the right hon. Gentleman’s greatest hits. He says that my position today is complex, but actually it is very simple: we have not yet received a formal notification, and when we do, the Secretary of State will have 10 days to consider, under the Enterprise Act and other legislation, whether it is necessary to take action.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
At this early stage, is the Department considering whether some of the conditions that Ofcom attached to the deal last time, such as the guarantee of editorial independence for Sky News, would be required this time around, given the restructuring of the Murdoch companies?
Matt Hancock
The notification was given to the stock market on Friday morning, but no formal notification to the competition authorities has been received, so it is fair to say that we are quite early on in the process, but all things that it is appropriate to consider will be considered.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What differences can the Minister see between this bid and the one referred to the competition authorities by Vince Cable in 2010?
Matt Hancock
It will be quite hard, until formal notification, to know the shape of the proposals. When we do, we will have a look at them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the shadow Minister on tabling the urgent question, and I completely understand the Minister’s problem of not wanting to judge an application of which notification has not actually been given, but will he take it from today that there is a concern across the House about this issue and will he undertake to keep the House fully informed? That is the message coming across.
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course, I would be delighted to keep the House as informed as is appropriate under the legislation the House has passed. I apologise to the House if some of my remarks sound a little reticent, but it will understand that this is a quasi-judicial decision. The Secretary of State does not want her position prejudiced—I do not want to do that—but all these considerations will be taken into account.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
From whom will the Secretary of State take advice about the competition implications of the bid?
Matt Hancock
Of course, advice will be taken from officials in the Department, and procedures are being put in place to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest and that the decision is taken appropriately.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I would like to give the Minister a second chance to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). Did the Prime Minister discuss this deal with Murdoch back in September in New York?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Surely the only thing that really matters is the public interest. When one man controlled 40% of the newspapers in this country, including the largest daily newspaper and Sunday newspaper, and by far the largest broadcaster—by value—in the country, it poisoned the well of British politics. I urge Ministers, as they go through this business, in the quasi-judicial manner the Minister suggests, that they keep that close to the front of their minds.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a great interest in these affairs for a long time.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
More than 8,000 people work at Sky’s headquarters in my constituency, and many will be concerned about this news, particularly those in journalism. Is the Minister at all concerned that through this deal one man would take 100% ownership of one of the UK’s biggest media outlets?
Matt Hancock
I want to make it clear that the Secretary of State’s decision relates to media plurality. Of course, there are competition and labour market issues, but the Enterprise Act rules are clear about the breadth of the decision she will take, and she will follow those procedures very carefully.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said about the public interest in and concern about this issue. Phone hacking has not died in people’s memories, and anyone who watched the American elections would have had real concerns about the way in which Fox News operates. I urge the Minister to realise that in the public’s mind, this man is not a fit and proper person to have control of our media.
Matt Hancock
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State is a fit and proper person to take this decision. Members of all parties have made their views clear, and we will operate carefully, with appropriate guidance in place for both Ministers and officials, to make sure that this decision is taken in the proper way.
Yemen
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): Will the Minister provide an answer to the urgent question of which I have given him notice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
As the Foreign Secretary made clear during his trip to the region this weekend, Britain supports the Saudi-led campaign to restore the legitimate Government in Yemen. Ultimately, a political solution is the best way to bring long-term stability to Yemen and end the conflict.
We continue to have deep concern for the suffering of the people of Yemen, which is why making progress on peace talks is the top priority. As with all negotiations of this kind, they will not be quick or indeed easy, and a lot of tough discussions will need to be had. The United Nations has drawn up a road map for ending the conflict, which outlines the security and political steps the parties must take. The UK is playing a central role in this process.
The Foreign Secretary hosted the last meeting of the Quad, comprising Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the United States and the United Kingdom, which UN Special Envoy Ismail Ahmed attended, in London on 16 October. In addition, I travelled to Riyadh on 20 November to discuss the road map with President Hadi and to seek ways to find a political solution to the conflict. Most recently, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary raised the issue of Yemen during their visits to the region, and I met Vice-President General Ali Mohsen on Saturday during the Manama dialogue.
As the House will be aware, Yemen is one of the most serious humanitarian crises in the world. So, in addition to our considerable diplomatic efforts to try and bring an end to the conflict, the UK is the fourth-largest donor to Yemen, committing £100 million to Yemen for 2016-17. UK aid is already making a difference there; last year we helped more than 1.3 million Yemenis with food, medical supplies, water and emergency shelter.
The situation in Yemen is indeed grave, which is why we are debating this matter today. There are now plans for the Quad to meet in the very near future, so that we can move this very important process forward.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the great pithiness of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in referring to the urgent question of which he had given the Minister advance notice, but in the name of transparency and for the benefit of those attending to our proceedings from outside the Chamber, I should advise that the question is “To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement to clarify the United Kingdom’s policy on the conflict in Yemen.”
Keith Vaz
I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister for his answer.
Until now, our foreign policy objectives in Yemen have been crystal clear: pursuing a cessation of hostilities and backing a UN mandated intervention. Last week, the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to speak of his profound concern for the Yemeni people and correct to say that this conflict could not be solved by force alone. However, his words also revealed an inconsistency in our foreign policy, which if not addressed immediately, threatens to wreck everything that we are trying to accomplish.
Will the Minister please confirm that we would never be involved in any puppeteering or proxy wars anywhere in the world, including in Yemen? Our influence and credibility as an honest broker is now being seriously questioned. We criticised Russia’s bombing of Aleppo; the Russians accuse us of supporting the same thing in Yemen.
Further to the Minister’s reply, can he clarify that our objective is an immediate ceasefire, and can he lay out the detail of how we will get to that position? As the Foreign Secretary has said, we hold the pens on Yemen at the United Nations. There is already a draft Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, resumption of peace talks and humanitarian access. Where is that resolution now? Will it be tabled before the Security Council before the end of the year? We must not fiddle as Yemen burns. On Saturday, Islamic State bombed a military camp in Aden, killing 35 soldiers. The UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Stephen O’Brien, calls Yemen a “man-made brutal humanitarian disaster”, with four fifths of the population in desperate need of emergency aid.
On Wednesday, the House, including the Minister, will show its support for the incredible work of the humanitarian agencies at “Yemen Day”. Today, the Disasters Emergency Committee announced a long overdue emergency appeal, but if the fighting does not stop that will not be enough. The Government must speak with one voice and with one aim for Yemen, and that should be an immediate ceasefire. Anything else only plays into the hands of terrorist organisations, damages our diplomacy and increases the suffering of the Yemeni people.
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his continuing work and interest in Yemen and for bringing it to the attention of the House. I can confirm that we remain resolute in working toward a cessation of hostilities, developing confidence-building measures, working with the United Nations and supporting the UN envoy. I absolutely agree that we will not win by military means alone; we need a long-term political solution for a country that, as he knows, has been fragmented since its beginning.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we are the UN penholder and therefore take a lead on these matters. Humanitarian access is vital. I made it clear that we are investing more funds to support the UN agencies and others. The UN Security Council resolution is being discussed in New York as we speak, and as I mentioned, the Quad meeting that will take these matters further takes place in the very near future.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on a comparison between Yemen and Syria. President Hadi and the coalition that has been created to support him has the backing of the United Nations through resolution 2216, so there is a legitimate call to support President Hadi and the work he has done. Without that, the Houthi advance would have pushed much further, through the capital and down to the port of Aden, and we would have had a full-scale civil war. In contrast, there is no UN resolution to support Russia’s involvement in Syria. The Russians are supporting a brutal regime, which has used chemical weapons and barrel bombs against its own people; they have compounded the situation. The two are not comparable in any way.
Britain remains resolute in its support for President Hadi and for the United Nations and its envoy in bringing the necessary stakeholders back to the table. I hope that we will see some developments in the very near future.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Given that I have only just come down from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not only to work hard to get the macro-deal on a ceasefire between the competing parties at the top level, but to make sure that the work of all the international agencies is engaged with all the subsidiary interests in Yemen—a nation of enormous complexity? We must not just get a political track at the top level and ignore all the consequences that may flow regionally and more locally in Yemen.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is right to point to the complexities of Yemen and what is going on there. On the face of it, the Houthis are against President Hadi, but as those who have visited or are familiar with the country will know, there is a complex network of tribal loyalties which are not necessarily supportive of any circumstance at the time, and those loyalties move depending on movements of funds, weapons, interests and so forth. It is a very complicated situation.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who raised the urgent question, spoke of the attack at the weekend. Reports suggest Daesh was responsible for it, although we still await confirmation. That shows how al-Qaeda, which is firmly based in the peninsula, and, indeed, Daesh, are taking advantage of the vacuum created by the absence of governance. That is all the more reason why we are encouraging the necessary stakeholders to come to the table.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) is right to say co-ordination of humanitarian aid is needed. The port of Hudaydah is currently under Houthi control, and until we can open it up, ships with humanitarian aid will continue to queue up and be unable to get in to provide that important aid for the rest of the country.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me in the circumstances. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for securing the urgent question. The authority and passion he brings to the issue of Yemen is without equal in this House. For the last year and a half my right hon. Friend has been consistent and principled in his advice. Let us be clear that the difference between that and what we have heard this week from the Government could not be more stark. On Yemen, there is no consistency and no principle.
Last Thursday, we heard the Foreign Secretary say that Saudi Arabia was fighting proxy wars in countries like Yemen, and we know the consequences all too well: thousands of civilians killed, the country’s agricultural infrastructure destroyed, millions of Yemeni children facing starvation. Let us be clear: the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right on this, and we say, “Good for you, Boris.” Yet he has still been slapped down by Downing Street and forced to go to Riyadh to “clarify his remarks”—and he has sent his junior Minister here today to support Saudi Arabia’s actions to the hilt. It seems that he will not support our calls for an independent UN investigation into Saudi Arabia’s alleged war crimes, and he will continue selling it arms to prosecute its proxy wars. There is no consistency, there is no principle, there is just more shabby hypocrisy.
There are many questions I would like to ask the Minister today, but let me just ask one. It is the same question asked of him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, and he has not had an answer, so I will ask it again. For two months now the UN Security Council has been waiting for the United Kingdom to present its proposed resolution to effect a ceasefire in Yemen to allow access for humanitarian relief. For two months, a draft resolution has been in circulation, so let me ask the Minister again: why has the resolution not been presented and who is holding it up, because the people of Yemen cannot afford any more delay?
Mr Ellwood
I am not sure where to start. I will focus on the serious questions the hon. Lady poses rather than the political point-scoring she tries to involve in all these things, which I am afraid means I take on board less and less the points she actually made. Because she has obviously run out of questions to ask this week, she is regurgitating last week’s questions, instead of focusing on what is needed today.
Mr Ellwood
If the hon. Lady holds on to her seat, I will answer all the questions—not just one question, but all the questions.
First, the Foreign Secretary made it clear—the hon. Lady should read the full passage of what he was saying—that there are concerns about the leadership needed in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, and that needs to be pushed forward; we need strong leadership in those places. As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the UN Security Council resolution is being discussed, but the hon. Lady should be aware of the details of how they are put together: we do not simply do it as a paper exercise; we do it by ensuring the work has been done to make sure it can stand. If the homework has not been done to make sure that the stakeholders are supportive of the resolution, what is the point of having the resolution anyway, other than to pat ourselves on the back and make ourselves look good? That may be good enough for the Labour party but it is certainly not good enough for the Government.
The hon. Lady did not mention the challenges we face with the Houthis themselves. I do not dispute that this has been a difficult campaign for the coalition. It has been new to conducting sustained warfare and has had to learn very difficult lessons in how to do that, governed by 21st-century rules. However, I make it clear that the Houthis are causing huge problems in that country. That needs to be acknowledged by this House as well. They have committed extrajudicial killings, unlawful arrests, detentions, abductions, enforced disappearances and the shelling of civilians in places such as Taiz. Landmines have also been used. Those are all things that have prolonged this conflict; the Houthis have not been brought to the table. What is required now is for all sides to work with the Quad and the UN to ensure that we can get the necessary ceasefire in place, which will lead us to the UN resolution that the hon. Lady is calling for.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
To what extent is intransigence on the part of President Hadi a block to a ceasefire?
Mr Ellwood
The President is the legitimate leader of the country at the moment and we have to work with the stakeholders that he is representing to ensure that the road map is compatible with the needs and support of the people he represents. That is why we have had long discussions with him and the vice-president to ensure that we can bring them to the table. I take this opportunity to thank the Omanis, who have played such an important role in bringing the Houthis forward so that they can accept a long-term deal to take us away from military action to a political dialogue.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is regrettable that the humanitarian situation has worsened to such an extent that the Disasters Emergency Committee has had to launch an appeal. We hope that it will be widely supported so that the people of Yemen do not, as has been predicted, literally run out of food in the coming months.
What more will the Government do to co-ordinate with the DEC and responders on the ground on the humanitarian response? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that humanitarian response is not undermined by their continued laissez-faire attitude to the behaviour of Saudi Arabia? Calls for arms sales are only getting louder. Although we keep hearing that UK military officials are not carrying out strikes and are not directing operations, it begs the question, what are they doing on the ground to ensure that the coalition respects international humanitarian law? We hear so much about the Government’s positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, although it not clear whether that extends to the Foreign Secretary, but what good is that relationship if the Government cannot or will not use their influence to prevent the killing and starvation of innocent civilians?
Mr Ellwood
Perhaps I can start with the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I would be happy to present to him the speeches that the Foreign Secretary made during the Manama dialogue, which confirmed not only our important working relationship with our close ally Saudi Arabia, but the frank conversations we have with that country and the work we do in stopping terrorist attacks from taking place. The hon. Gentleman could then become familiar with why that relationship is important. If we broke that relationship, the Gulf and, one could argue, the region and the UK could easily become a more dangerous place. That is not something he would advocate.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the war itself. He has made the point in the Chamber before—he has been consistent on this—about concerns over the errors that have been made. I share those concerns. Forgive me; I did not respond to the point that was made earlier about the call for an independent investigation into the incidents that have taken place, but I have made it clear that I will support the call for a UN independent investigation if it is deemed that the reports—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) let me finish the point? If it is deemed that the reports that are coming forward—that is the way any country conducting sustained warfare operates—are not worthy, we will call for an independent investigation, but that is the process that we follow, that the United States is following right now on incidents that have taken place in Afghanistan, and indeed that Saudi Arabia follows: they conduct their own investigations. If those investigations are found wanting, I will support a UN independent investigation.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend what chance he would give President Hadi if Saudi Arabia were to withdraw from its engagement—a proper engagement under UN resolutions—in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is right in implying that, were President Hadi not to receive the legitimate support through UN Security Council resolution 2216, the country would be in full-scale civil war. The complete breakdown in governance would provide incubation for organisations such as Daesh, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. That would spill out way beyond the peninsula into the region. That is not something that we would want to contest. It is right that the coalition was formed and it is why we support the coalition. However, we absolutely share the concerns raised in the House that the conduct of that war needs to be scrutinised very carefully indeed.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
On Saturday, Liverpool Friends of Yemen held our fourth monthly vigil in solidarity with the people of Yemen and for peace in that country. I have spoken to the Yemeni diaspora in Liverpool and their very clear message is that they fear for the lives of people back home. This is a country on the edge of famine. May I urge the Government—it is good to see the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), present—to ensure that we do everything we can as a country to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Yemen? And when will we support an independent UN inquiry into alleged violations on both sides of the conflict?
Mr Ellwood
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, we will not support an independent report until we allow the Saudi Arabians to do their reports. That is the process that we face. They have never actually undertaken such publications and reports, so they are having to learn themselves. As we know, it is a conservative country that is unused to the limelight that is now being thrown on it. They must act responsibly, respectfully and transparently, as we would in the same situation.
On humanitarian aid, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This House and this country can be proud of the work that we are doing, not just here but right across the piece. He is right to say that the DFID Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State for International Development are very much engaged with that. At the UN General Assembly in September, it was us who held a donors conference to encourage other countries to match our funding so that we can provide support to the people of Yemen. However, it is not a lack of funds or equipment that is the problem—
Mr Ellwood
That is absolutely right: it is a lack of peace and a lack of access, particularly through the central port on the Red sea.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Charity agencies report that it is very difficult both to get into Yemen and, once there, to get aid out, because of all the bureaucratic challenges, arrests of charity workers, suspensions of programmes and difficulties in obtaining new programmes. Will my hon. Friend bring that up directly with all parties in the conflict, as it is the charity sector that is doing much of the delivery and it should be allowed to have rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access throughout the country?
Mr Ellwood
I think that that is the point that everybody is most concerned about. Although it can take time for both parties to come to the table and work out the details, there is a sense of urgency in making sure that the humanitarian aid can get in as early as possible. That will be the focus of the next Quad meeting. Yes, we want parties to come together, but we immediately need access routes. We need the port to be opened fully so that container ships can go in and equipment can be distributed right across the country, not just through the port of Aden, which is how the material currently goes in.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Now that the Foreign Secretary is encouraging transparency and honesty in foreign affairs policy, does the Minister accept that, by signing up to the convention on cluster munitions, the UK is taking a stance that cluster munitions are always in violation of international humanitarian law owing to their indiscriminate and disproportionate nature? If so, arguing that the Saudi use of them is legitimate, as the Minister does, is completely contradictory and in violation of the convention, which states that the UK should always encourage Saudi Arabia not to use them. Why are the UK Government adopting that position?
Mr Ellwood
To be clear, it is against international law only if the country has signed the convention, and there are countries across the world that have yet to do so. We have signed it and it is our policy to encourage others to do so. I had a meeting last Sunday with all the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council nations, and I formally invited every single one of the Gulf countries to consider signing the convention. I hope that we will be able to move forward on this.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the UK has doubled its humanitarian commitment to Yemen to £85 million. Does my hon. Friend believe that the UN General Assembly can be of more help in actively resolving the situation?
Mr Ellwood
If I understand my hon. Friend’s question correctly, she is asking about the General Assembly, as opposed to the UN Security Council, in which case there is no veto. In this arena, it is not so much about the challenge that we face from other permanent members in getting a UN resolution through. If we are going to draft a UN resolution, the important thing is that it needs to work; otherwise, it is simply a paper exercise. That is the homework that our head of mission is currently undertaking with other nations, to make sure that what we write on paper will lead to the cessation of hostilities, confidence-building measures and access to humanitarian aid, which are important; otherwise, it is not worth writing a UN Security Council resolution.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Iranian Government about stopping the flow of arms to the Houthis? At the same time, what representations have been made to facilitate with the Iranians the opening of the ports so that much-needed aid can get through to the Yemenis who are suffering in this civil war?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point: what is Iran’s involvement in Yemen? Is it helpful or is it hindering events? The Prime Minister made it clear that Iran can play a more constructive role in ensuring that weapons systems are not entering the country, that the Houthis are encouraged to come to the table, that the Red sea remains free of ships that may want to arm the Houthis, and that the port is opened. Those are the messages that we are asking Iran to recognise.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
There is no doubt that the conflict in Yemen is a war of proxies, and the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to criticise Saudi Arabia in the way that he did. However, there had been no mention of Iran until the previous question. The United Kingdom must take some responsibility for the continuing and escalating violence in Yemen, because if we had not agreed to the nuclear deal, the billions of pounds of resources would not have been able to enter this conflict and others in Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the middle east.
Mr Ellwood
The signing of the joint comprehensive plan of action represents an opportunity for Iran to take a more responsible role on the international stage. We know that it has an influence from Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut and, indeed, to Sana’a. We want Iran to step forward and recognise that it is in the region’s interests for it to be more secure and more prosperous. It should elevate itself and rejoin the international community, not continue to hinder the peace process right across the region.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
What is particularly pernicious about the use of cluster munitions is that many of the bomblets lie around for a long time, effectively creating minefields where many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, are killed. I am therefore slightly confused by the Government’s position. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who is fortunately still here, said in Defence questions earlier that the matter had been raised with the Saudis, but this Minister seemed to indicate just now that he does not oppose the Saudis’ use of cluster munitions. Surely we are opposed to their using such munitions and surely the Minister will be happy to condemn it from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Ellwood
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to put words in my mouth. I made it very clear that our policy is to discourage the use of cluster munitions across the world and to encourage people to sign up to and support the convention. In fact, I think I said in my answer that I absolutely condemn the use of cluster munitions. As he said, they are a legacy that lie around on the battlefield long after it has turned back into a civilian arena, and that is why they cause damage. That is why we signed this important convention and why I have invited all Gulf Co-operation Council nations to support its signing.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend has already said that there are issues around tribal agreement with the framework, but what measures has he taken to engage all relevant parties in the region to test the framework’s robustness?
Mr Ellwood
We need a collective approach to ensure that stakeholders are supported in coming to the table to discuss not only Yemen but stabilisation, which applies to Iraq, Yemen and Syria. That is where the Gulf nations have a responsibility not only to support legitimate governance, but to take an interest in and commit to stabilisation, post-conflict planning and peacekeeping resolutions after the guns fall silent.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are vital in their lifelong development. Not only are Yemeni children’s basic human rights not being met now in this awful conflict, but they will not have a chance even when the conflict ends. What are the Government doing to ensure that Yemeni children have access to vital nutritious food for the duration of the conflict?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is right; the travesty is that the length of this conflict is denying a generation, in terms not only of health but education. This is the generation that needs to rebuild the country in the longer term, which is why, as the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), has confirmed, we are working with UNICEF specifically to make sure that we can provide the necessary nutritional meals to support those infants in the important years in the first 1,000 days of their lives.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who asked the urgent question, as I believe the whole House would recognise that he has almost single-handedly kept the issue of Yemen before this House. May I say to the shadow Minister that it was not right to make party political points on Yemen? May I ask our excellent Minister, who has a lot of knowledge of this issue, whether I am right in thinking that the humanitarian aid problem is not the amount—the money for it—but the fact that we cannot get it through? If that is the case, how can we try to open up the blockage?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. He is right to point out the difficulties in getting access to these areas. There are a series of checkpoints on roads which mean that humanitarian aid is denied. There are non-governmental organisations and commercial organisations—we are not forgetting those—that do have access in some cases, but some of the aid is taken away as a punishment or penalty, or as the cost of getting into the country. The port is not running properly; the cranes are not working—not one of the old cranes is working there. If we get them working, we will be able suddenly to increase tenfold the aid that can get into the country.
Mr Speaker
A point of order on cluster musicians? Very well, I will take it now. [Interruption.] Not on musicians, no—I am sorry if I misspoke. It is on cluster munitions, which was what Jack Straw would have called the gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. Let us hear it.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will have heard, just a couple of minutes ago, the Minister say that the Government are against cluster munitions, but I have before me a letter from the Minister dated 3 November 2016, in which he states:
“The UK maintains the view that cluster munitions are not prima facie illegal, and can be used in compliance with international law by States that are not party to the Convention…provided that they are used in a manner that is compatible with international humanitarian law, including distinction, proportionality and the obligation to take all feasible precautions.”
I am confused, because the Minister says that the Government are completely opposed to cluster munitions and yet in this letter he sets out a view that in some circumstances they are perfectly legitimate and acceptable to use.
Mr Speaker
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is twofold. If what he wants is personal reassurance, I suggest that his appropriate recourse is to sidle up to the junior Minister and ask to have a cup of tea with him. Secondly, if he is concerned for the benefit of the House as a whole and he wants something formally on the record—as a former Deputy Leader of the House, I doubt he particularly needs my advice, but I will proffer it—he should table a written question on this substantive point upon which he requires clarification, and I think he will probably find his salvation coming pretty soon.
Mr Speaker
A helpful nod from a sedentary position from the Minister confirms that my expectation is correct. If there are no further points of order, I shall in a moment call—
Mr Speaker
I do beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. Patience is a virtue, and I thank her for waiting.
Point of Order
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I attended a Christmas fayre in my constituency at which a 76-year-old man with diabetes fell and broke his shoulder. He had to wait almost two hours for an ambulance. When I spoke to the emergency services, they said that they were “re-triaging” as they were experiencing high levels of delay, with 162 calls across London unattended and awaiting ambulances, and that the situation had been worse before. The latest figures seem to show that not one ambulance trust in the country met its targets in October. Perhaps you could tell me whether you have received any advance notice or indication of the intention of a Minister to make a statement to this House on ambulance delays and on the Government’s plans to address NHS capacity issues as we near the Christmas period.
Mr Speaker
From memory—I apologise if I am incorrect, but I do not think that I am—there are questions to the Secretary of State for Health before we rise for the Christmas recess. That is extremely fortuitous as far as the hon. Lady is concerned. I predict with complete confidence that she will be in her place on that occasion bobbing with the required intensity to be called to put this matter to a relevant Minister. If she does so, I do not think that it is the revelation of a state secret to say that she is likely to be successful. I hope that that is helpful in relation to what—all levity aside—is an extremely serious matter.
East Aleppo: Evacuation
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the need for immediate and concerted international action to evacuate from east Aleppo approximately 40 doctors and 70 nursing staff, up to 500 children, at least 100 of whom have been wounded and are receiving rudimentary care, and thousands of terrified civilians caught between the different fighting groups in a 10 km by 10 km enclave where most of those who are trapped now are.
Mr Speaker, I make no apology to the House for raising this vital issue again. You granted a debate on these matters two months ago. On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary made his first major speech from the Dispatch Box and expressed the horror so many feel at what is happening in Syria and Aleppo.
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that if you grant this emergency debate the whole House will hope to hear an update from the Foreign Secretary who has already shown his deep and principled concern about what is taking place. The debate will enable us to explore, with the Government, how Britain’s immense diplomatic muscle—the finest foreign service in the world—can do more to secure a deal that will ensure a ceasefire for at least 24 hours to enable innocent civilians to be rescued from the hideous circumstances that now prevail in east Aleppo.
Britain took a lead some years ago at the United Nations in developing the international community’s responsibility to protect. We said after Srebrenica, Darfur and Rwanda, “Never again.” It is happening today as we meet. There are reports this afternoon, accompanied by the most hideous photographs, of the use of sarin—a nerve gas—by the regime in Hama. At dawn today, a chlorine bomb, the second in three days, hit a medical point at Kallaseh. There is no escape from chlorine bombs—civilians are forced to come out from the rubble and cellars where they are hiding. The use of chlorine munitions is a war crime. Their use defies every facet of international humanitarian law.
Many of these terrified civilians trapped in this hellhole, which now resembles Stalingrad at the end of its destruction, are children. They have few places to hide. Tomorrow night in Aleppo, the temperature is expected to reach minus 4°.
Mr Speaker, as we contemplate a warm and secure Christmas here in Britain, I hope you will agree that the House should urgently discuss not “Something must be done,” but “What in the name of humanity we, the international community, will do to save those who today are in such dreadful jeopardy.”
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria. I have listened carefully to the application and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I now put it to the House.
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, on Tuesday 13 December, as the first item of public business. I must simply remind the House, as the prelude to what I am about to say, that there is other important scheduled business to follow and there is flexibility and discretion with the Chair in terms of the timing of such debates. I have decided that the debate will last for two hours, and will arise on a motion, “That the House has considered the specified matter,” as set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
I am hinting to the House, by the way, that if lots of Members who are showing up today also show up tomorrow, there is no reason why they should not be called to speak. If it is helpful to the House, the emphasis will perhaps be on hearing pithy speeches from several people.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a different matter, today marks precisely 150 years since an explosion at the Oaks colliery killed 383 Barnsley miners. A number of the victims were under 14 and the youngest were just 10 years old. I seek your guidance on how best to ensure that this House commemorates the service and sacrifice of all those who lost their lives at the Oaks colliery disaster 150 years ago today.
Mr Speaker
First, I think the hon. Gentleman has gone some distance towards achieving that recognition and commemoration by virtue of his ingenious use of the device of the point of order. Secondly, it is open to the hon. Gentleman, with colleagues, to table an early-day motion on the matter. My hunch is that he will not find it difficult to identify colleagues who are willing to assist him. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman is still not satisfied with what will by then be his prodigious efforts, it is always open to him to seek an Adjournment debate in which the matter can be more fully marked. I hope that is helpful to him.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Monday 12th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2016 - (12 Dec 2016)
18:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 45 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Impact review: automatic enrolment and pensions savings—
‘(1) The Treasury must review the impact of Lifetime ISAs on workplace pensions automatic enrolment and pensions savings within one year of this Act coming into force and every year thereafter.
(2) The conclusions of the review must be made publicly available and laid before Parliament.’
This new clause would place a duty on HMRC to review annually the impact of Lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment.
New clause 3—Lifetime ISAs: Advice for applicants—
‘(1) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision for all applicants for a Lifetime ISA to have independent financial advice made available to them regarding the decision whether or not to save in a Lifetime ISA.
(2) Any applicant that opts in to the services offered under subsection (1) shall be given a signed declaration by that service provider outlining the financial advice that the applicant has received.
(3) Any provider of a Lifetime ISA must confirm whether an applicant—
(a) intends to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1,
(b) has a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2), or
(c) is enrolled on a workplace pension scheme or is self-employed.
(4) Where the provider determines that the applicant is—
(a) self-employed and does not participate in a pension scheme,
(b) not enrolled on a workplace pension scheme,
(c) does not intend to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1, or
(d) does not have a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2),
the provider must inform the applicant about the independent financial advice available to them under subsection (1).’
This new clause would place a duty on the Treasury to make regulations that ensure all applicants for a Lifetime ISA have independent financial advice made available to them.
New clause 4—First-time residential purchase: research and impact assessment—
‘(1) Within one year of this Act coming into force the Treasury must conduct a review into the potential impact of provisions within paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1 on—
(a) house prices in the UK, and
(b) the operation of the housing market.
(2) The findings of the review must be made publicly available and laid before Parliament.’
This new clause would require a review of the Bill’s effect on the UK housing market/house prices.
New clause 5—Distributional analysis of the impact of the Lifetime ISA and Help to Save—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force the Treasury must conduct an analysis of the distribution of benefits of Lifetime ISAs and Help-to-Save accounts including between—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people of different genders,
(c) people with disabilities, and
(d) black and minority ethnic groups.
(2) The findings of the analysis conducted under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.’
New clause 6—Lifetime ISA and Help-to-Save: value for money—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force the Treasury must assess the value for money provided by the Lifetime ISA and Help-to-Save scheme.
(2) The assessment must in particular include—
(a) the cost to the Exchequer of the measures,
(b) the number of individuals who have benefited from the measures, and
(c) the average tax deduction received by an individual as a result of the measures.
(3) The findings of the assessment must be made publicly available.’
New clause 7—Advice for applicants—
‘The Treasury must make provision by regulations to ensure all providers of Lifetime ISAs or Help-to-Save accounts provide applicants, at the point of application, with advice about the suitability of the product in question for each individual applicant.’
This new clause would require advice to be provided to applicants for LISAs or Help-to-Save accounts which must include information on automatic enrolment and workplace saving schemes.
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.
See explanatory statement for amendment 16.
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out “1 or”.
Amendment 18, page 2, line 19, leave out “Lifetime ISA or”.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 23, leave out “Lifetime ISA or”.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 32 to 36.
Amendment 21, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 11.
Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, leave out line 23.
Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out from “on” to end of line 37 and insert “30 April 2019”.
This amendment would delay the commencement of the Bill until the end of April 2019, when all firms will be auto-enrolled and the increase in minimum contributions to eight per cent. will be completed.
Amendment 16, page 5, line 1, leave out schedule 1.
This amendment, together with amendments 15 and 17 to 22, would remove provisions for the Lifetime ISA from the Bill.
Government amendment 3.
Amendment 1, in schedule 2, page 16, line 3, leave out “48” and insert “24”.
Amendment 12, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) The conditions specified under subsection (1) shall not include the condition that the individual be over 25 years old if that individual meets all other specified conditions relating to the working tax credit.”
Currently those aged under 25 only qualify for Working Tax Credits if they work at least 16 hours a week. This amendment would ensure any individual aged under 25 would qualify for a Help-to-Save account if they met other specified criteria.
Amendment 2, page 17, line 36, at end insert—
“(d) a credit union.”
Amendment 8, page 18, line 16, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 11.
Amendment 9, page 18, line 19, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 11.
Amendment 10, page 18, line 19, after “means”, insert “an average of”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 11.
Amendment 11, page 18, line 19, after “£50”, insert
“across every two month period within the maturity period”.
Together with amendments 8, 9 and 10, this amendment would allow HTS to provide for “top-up” monthly payments above £50 so long as the average payment for every two months is £50.
Government amendment 4.
Amendment 14, page 19, line 2, at end insert—
“(e) provision for eligible persons to be auto-enrolled into Help-to-Save accounts through deductions from salaries or benefit entitlements unless the individual chooses to opt-out.”
This amendment would enable an ‘auto-enrolment’ workplace saving scheme which would see an individual automatically signed up to a Help-to-Save account. He or she must opt-out to stop money being deducted from their pay or benefits into a savings account.
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 13, page 19, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a bankruptcy order is made against a person with a Help-to-Save account any bonus paid into the Help-to-Save account will not form part of a debtor’s estate during insolvency proceedings.
(3B) Any bonus paid into a Help-to-Save account shall not be liable to be taken as repayment via third party debt orders.”
Amendment 7, page 20, line 23, at end insert—
“(ba) for a bonus in respect of a Help-to-Save account to be paid after six calendar months beginning with the calendar month in which the account is opened and at six month intervals thereafter;”.
This amendment would reduce the time before the holder of a Help to Save account would receive a government bonus to six months.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak not only to new clause 1, but to amendments 1 and 2. I should declare an interest as a member of the M4Money credit union and as chair of the all-party group on mutuals.
New clause 1 seeks to give a statutory right to anyone wanting to save with a credit union via payroll deduction. Amendment 1 would reduce to one year the two years that those who are just about managing will wait before getting the Government top-up under Help to Save, to better incentivise saving under the scheme. Amendment 2, about which I shall speak a little more first, seeks to allow credit unions to offer the Help to Save product.
I took part in the Second Reading debate and raised the concern that credit unions would not be allowed to offer the Help to Save product. I have read through the transcripts of that debate and of the Committee proceedings and I can still see no good reason for the Government’s resistance to allowing credit unions to offer the Help to Save scheme. I recognise that Ministers want to ensure national coverage of Help to Save so that everyone who meets the criteria—the potentially 3.5 million people across the UK who Ministers think might do so—regardless of where they live can access the scheme. That clearly makes sense. I have no objection to the choice of National Savings & Investments as that national provider of choice. What I cannot see is any valid reason why credit unions cannot be allowed to complement the NS&I offer.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I too declare an interest as a member of the Cardiff and Vale credit union and I am also pleased to be, like my hon. Friend, a member of the Co-operative party. Does he agree that the Government need to be far more ambitious as regards credit unions playing a full part in financial services, and that, as I mentioned on Second Reading, we need to be heading in the direction of other countries, such as Canada, that have a much bigger credit union sector?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need much more ambition for credit unions and for financial mutuals and co-operatives more generally. I am thankful for his intervention.
Ministers claimed in Committee that a multiple provider model for Help to Save would not offer value for money, yet as far as I can see they have produced no costings to justify that claim. It is not as if Ministers are dealing in the case of NS&I with a private company demanding an exclusive arrangement as it feels threatened by the competition that credit unions can offer. NS&I is a state-owned bank, effectively, and is responsible to the Treasury. Indeed, I understand that the Minister responsible is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is also responsible for policy on credit unions. NS&I has some 25 million customers and £135 billion in assets. By comparison, credit unions across the UK have £1.37 billion in assets, less than 1% of the value of NS&I’s investments. In short, credit unions are no threat to NS&I.
NS&I is under the control of the Treasury, as I have said, and it is in Ministers’ hands, or it was until the start of the House’s proceedings on this issue. The House now has the opportunity to decide whether credit unions should be allowed to offer the Help to Save scheme.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am delighted to serve as a Labour and Co-operative MP alongside him. Does he agree that allowing such diversity is important in helping to change behaviour? Many of the issues with savings are about cultural attitudes, and having ways to reach out to communities that might not have engaged in such behaviour is an important part of changing the savings culture in this country.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope to deal with it a little more in due course. She is right that credit unions have scope to reach out to more of the 3.5 million people Ministers want to assist through the Help to Save scheme, whom NS&I might not be best placed to help.
Credit unions are not-for-profit financial co-operatives, owned and controlled by their members. They are, I would argue, more uniquely exposed to low and middle- income financial services markets and are used to offering financial services to those who are often excluded from other better known sources of finance. They provide safe savings and affordable loans, with some credit unions offering other products, such as current accounts, individual savings accounts and mortgages.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Is it not true that what is key is that credit unions can also provide loans? We know that low-income families have more bumps in the road than the majority of people on a higher income, so that provision, combined with the opportunity to keep saving, is an important service that NS&I cannot offer.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend has stolen one of my lines from later in my speech. She makes an entirely appropriate point: credit unions can offer access to an affordable loan while encouraging people to save at the same time. When the loan is paid off, the incentive to keep saving is still there.
Credit unions have until now enjoyed the support of Members on both sides of the House. From 2006 to 2007 the growth fund, launched by the Co-op party’s—and now Strictly’s—very own Ed Balls, saw more than 400,000 affordable loans offered and saved recipients between £120 million and £135 million in interest that would otherwise have been paid to high-cost lenders. It is that type of success that, after a long Co-operative party campaign under the last Government, saw Ministers, led by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), agree to allow three credit unions to offer services to our soldiers, sailors and airmen and to their families—in short, to offer an armed forces credit union. Given the funding from the Department for Work and Pensions under the last Government to expand credit unions, it seems odd that Ministers should tonight want to continue to exclude credit unions from offering a product in a market in which they already have significant interest and penetration.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It will come as no surprise to many people in this House that I am here in full support of my Co-op party colleagues on this matter, and in full support of the vital importance of supporting our credit unions because of the debt tsunami that is coming our way as a nation. Some people may think that it is one of my greatest hits to talk about personal debt and the scourge of the high-cost lenders. The credit unions have always been very much part of the answer to this, and I support amendment 2 on that basis. It is absolutely critical, with the debt tsunami that is coming towards us, that we act to support the credit union movement as a vital component of helping people.
For too many people in our nation, debt is a part of life. There is simply too much month for their money. That has been the case for many years, but the problems are becoming endemic, to the extent that people may not even realise the level of debt that they have. For other people, it may be all too clear: two out of five people are very worried about their level of personal debt. Let me be clear that we are talking about unsecured personal debt. These are not people who are just worrying about their mortgages; these are people who are worrying about the day-to-day cost of everyday living.
For 54% of people who are struggling, the cost of food is the problem—literally, the cost of putting food on the table as well as keeping a roof over their heads and those of their families. For 30% of people, the problem is the cost of energy. Those people will look at the weather forecast fearfully as the temperature drops, knowing that they simply cannot afford to put money in the meter to keep their families warm. Increasingly, people are in debt because of their debt: 22% of people are struggling because of credit card repayment debt.
That is everyday Britain. That is the kind of country we have become—a country where debt is so commonplace that people are not just waving but drowning in it. It is the responsibility of all of us to act. We must not simply give people debt advice, or shrug our shoulders and see this as part of how our economy works. We must ask whether there are things we can do to help people to manage their debts.
The debt tsunami will only become worse as we head into 2017. We all recognise that inflation is likely to rise from 1% to possibly 4%, some experts suggest. The cost of food and basic goods such as energy is going to get higher, not lower. So many people’s wages have been frozen for so many years that in 2017 the gap between the start of the month and the end of the month will feel very large. That is why we have to be pragmatic. Pragmatism is about offering people good options for managing what little money they have, and that is where the credit union movement comes into its own. When the Government want to encourage saving, it is absolutely vital that instead of excluding the credit union movement, they embrace it and the benefits that it can offer. A quarter of people in this country have no savings at all, so we need to ask ourselves which movement always has its doors open to every citizen, and how we can help it to bridge that gap. That means looking to the credit union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has made an admirable case for helping our credit union movement and its work. At the risk of repeating what has been said, I want to echo his words and say that we can do so much more. This scheme and the involvement of credit unions are the start, not the end, of that conversation. My own credit union struggled for many years to get on to the high street in Walthamstow, but what a difference that has made. My credit union struggled for many years to get into workplaces and to work with people, but what a difference doing so can make.
Councils around the country, such as Southampton, are working to give people access to a credit union as savers, in return for helping those who would otherwise have gone—let us say it—to a payday lender to get the money that they needed. That sort of work enables us to link communities together. It is crucial that we see credit unions as being not just about borrowing, but about saving. We must recognise that saving enables us to support wider social objectives in a local community.
That is why this omission must be corrected and why Co-operative MPs are standing here tonight to try to get the Government to think again about excluding credit unions from the Help to Save scheme. Instead, we ask the Government to embrace credit unions by accepting the amendment. I join my hon. Friend in saying that if we do not get support from the Government for this change, we will seek to divide the House.
We want to send a message. We know that people will have to borrow. When 2017 looks as dire as it does, with inflation rising, people’s wages still stalling and the cost of living continuing to rise, we have to make sure that people have sensible borrowing options. They also need to have sensible saving options, and the credit union movement is the answer. It is the solution for people who might not have gone anywhere else. If we can get them into a credit union, we can start dealing with their debts and getting them to save.
This is a critical time for our country’s debt portfolio. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, a debt tsunami is heading our way. Let us not turn our backs on it. Let us be sensible about what we can do to help, and let us make credit unions part of the solution.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for his indefatigable pursuit of the issues he has raised today, particularly on the role of credit unions. He is supported by other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). No reasonable person could disagree with anything articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West in his usual coherent, cogent and reasonable way. He has the support of Labour Front Benchers and of many other hon. Members in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend is in line with organisations such as StepChange Debt Charity, which welcomes the concept of Help to Save, but feels that the Government have not gone far enough in their commitment to facilitating saving. It says that only one in seven people eligible for the scheme are likely to take it up, and it supports the payroll deduction concept suggested by my hon. Friend.
Before I deal with the Opposition new clauses and amendments, I will first summarise our overall view. Although we fully support any measure that will encourage people to save, particularly young people and those on lower incomes, we feel that the proposed lifetime individual savings account will do little to help those two groups. In the Public Bill Committee, we heard a raft of expert evidence in support of that view, with many experts citing their concern that this may be simply another product in an overcrowded market. The products are not necessarily complicated per se, but the market is.
The Opposition will not stand in the way of the Bill, but we want to make a number of reasonable changes to ensure that the proposed ISA and right-to-buy scheme proposals do what they say they will do. Those with low incomes are already struggling to make it through the week, and they have seen the Government drastically cut in-work benefits. I do not see how people will meet the minimum threshold, particularly given the reports showing that half of UK adults have set aside less than £500 for emergencies. Some families will simply not be able to save £50 every month, as was raised by Scottish National party Members in Committee.
On the impact review of auto-enrolment, the Opposition’s wider concern is that the new savings scheme will interfere with and perhaps even have a negative impact on the automatic enrolment of people into pensions. Do the Government really want to gamble that, with 6.7 million people already auto-enrolled across 250,000 employers, they will not reach their target of 10 million by 2020? The Opposition new clauses and amendments are designed collectively to address the concern expressed across the board, including by the pensions industry, the trade union movement, Select Committees of this House and the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is that the lifetime individual savings account poses a threat to traditional pension savings and, most significantly, to auto-enrolment.
It is self-evident that automatic enrolment, which was mandated by the previous Labour Government, is an outstanding initiative that, as time passes, is starting to achieve the objective set for it. Hence our new clause 2, which proposes to place a duty on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to review the impact of lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment annually. Auto-enrolment is one of the few success stories in the pension landscape, and it is widely acknowledged in all sectors to be right. We fear that, intentionally or not, the Government’s policy may put the wider landscape in jeopardy and be a dangerous path to follow. Pensions history suggests that this will only be recognised in years to come. We want the Government to review the situation and the impact on the auto-enrolment scheme annually to ensure that the introduction of lifetime ISAs does not have a negative impact on the success of automatic enrolment.
Similarly, not all employees will be auto-enrolled until February 2018, and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will not be completed until April 2019. The level of drop-outs is relatively low among younger people, but we do not want anything whatsoever to jeopardise the maximum possible number of people enrolling or to provide any incentive for them to opt out. That is not an unreasonable position to take, given the implications of getting things wrong. We have therefore tabled amendment 6 to delay the commencement of the Bill until the end of April 2019, when all firms will have been auto-enrolled and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will have been completed. The simple truth is that many people cannot afford to pay into both a pension and a LISA. In fact, many can do neither. The Work and Pensions Committee has warned the Government:
“Opting out of AE to save for retirement in a LISA will leave people worse off.”
Government messages on the issue have been mixed. The DWP has been very clear that the LISA is not a pension product, but the Treasury has proffered an alternative view.
New clause 3 is on independent financial advice. If the Government cannot get their position on the lifetime ISA clear, how will ordinary people in the street be clear about it? Compared with those of other pension plans, the benefits of the LISA are relatively confusing and unclear when set in the context of the wider market. That is why we have tabled the new clause, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that ensured that all applicants for a lifetime ISA
“have independent financial advice made available to them”.
In other words, the new clause’s purpose is to ensure that those opening a lifetime ISA for retirement savings receive independent financial advice.
Advice is crucial in purchasing any expensive product, in particular one involving post-retirement income. The advice would be offered automatically—through an opt-in service, for example—and the service provider would sign a declaration outlining the advice the applicant had received. Any provider would have to confirm the status of the applicant, whether they were enrolled in a workplace pension scheme, whether they had signed a declaration of financial advice and whether they planned to use the lifetime ISA for a first-time residential purchase.
Independent financial advice does not have to be expensive. In fact, to give an example, the Government could mandate a robo-advice scheme, which is an online platform where an individual can get independent financial advice. Given the putative simplicity of LISA that the Minister has championed, experts inform me that having a robo-advice scheme would be a reasonable course of action, although such a scheme would need safeguards. First, it should be backed up by accredited financial advisers. Secondly, the Government should take steps to ensure that no one company has the contract, something that is all the more important to avoid a repeat of the Concentrix scandal.
The Opposition believe that it is only right that anyone considering a lifetime ISA be given the opportunity to see its benefits compared with those of other schemes on the market. New clause 3 would ensure that people could make an informed choice with the benefit of independent financial advice. It would enable parity in the quality of advice for all those entering the scheme and mean that much-needed oversight and education about the benefits of the scheme would be in situ.
It goes almost without saying that a pension is perhaps one of the most important purchases a person makes. That issue has exercised the minds of many people in government, in the regulatory sector and in the products sector. The history of mis-selling has left a long, deep shadow across the financial products sector. We must take that into account—we cannot ignore it. With so many bodies from across numerous industries outlining their concerns that there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is not the most beneficial retirement savings option, I cannot see a reasonable argument against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice before opening an account.
Millions of people have lost confidence in much of the sector to some degree or other. As witnesses in Committee alluded to, that is partly why when people are saving they do so in cash ISAs. They are not sure about stocks, shares and other products and so put their savings into products that give them a return of 0%, 0.1% and so on—up to 1% if they are lucky. We must create an environment in which people save and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their investment, especially if that investment is for their later years. That, too, is perfectly reasonable.
On new clause 4, the Opposition recognise that many people want to own their own home, and would encourage people to do so if that is what they wish, but we are concerned that the Government’s housing policy will only inflate housing prices further, and that the lifetime ISA will make things even more difficult in a housing environment that is already strained because of the limited numbers of houses being built nationwide. I will not even mention the huge cost of housing, particularly in London and the south-east. The average figure nationally is as much as £250,000 and over £500,000 in the capital. That is why new clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a review, within a year of the Act coming into force, of the potential impact of the lifetime ISA on house prices in the UK. It would also require that the review be made publicly available and be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Evidence received in Committee, from the likes of Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, acknowledged the potential popularity of the lifetime ISA but highlighted concerns about its potential impact and argued that unintended consequences of the scheme were a possibility and a concern. Worryingly, fewer homes were built in the last Parliament than under any other peacetime Government since the 1920s. The lifetime ISA might help to overheat a market already short of capacity. The Government’s priority should be to try to mitigate, not to add to, the problem. I do not consider that an unreasonable point either.
People are increasingly chasing a product in a market that has low supply levels. As I indicated in Committee, it so happens that that product is housing. The facts speak for themselves: the Government are almost two years through their five-year housing plan—not counting the previous five years—and still falling badly behind on their targets. If I recall correctly, the OBR’s assessment suggests a 0.3% inflationary effect on the housing market from products such as lifetime ISAs. If there are 100,000 house transactions a year, at £750 a time, that will add about £70 million a year to prices. If we are to implement policies that will affect an already overheating sector, it is important that we take into account their overall impact.
New clause 5 calls for a distributional analysis. As mentioned earlier, the Opposition’s underlying concern about the lifetime ISA is that it will do little to help those on low incomes to save. That is why we would like the Government to produce, within six months of the Act coming into force, an analysis of the distribution of benefits of lifetime ISAs and Help to Save accounts, including of the distributional effects between households at different income levels, genders, people with disabilities, and black and minority ethnic groups.
We should not forget that the Government’s huge cuts to universal credit will see 2.5 million people in working families lose as much as £2,000 a year, even after the Chancellor’s recent minor adjustments. It is difficult to imagine that such families will have a spare £50 a month to put into a Help to Save account. I made a point earlier about the low take-up. Those who can afford to save are generally better off, so the lifetime ISA will deliver subsidies to those who least need them. Meanwhile, the danger is that the Help to Save measure, which is specifically for universal credit and tax credit recipients, might encourage those on low incomes to save money when it is not, at that point, necessarily in their best interests. According to the Women’s Budget Group,
“Incentives to encourage saving—via the ‘Help-to-Save’ and ‘Lifetime ISA’ measures”—
are
“likely to disadvantage women”
and tend to represent
“a move away from collective provision of welfare”.
It is concerned
“that in the future such individual accounts are used to provide an income during periods of caring, illness or disability…As women are both less likely to have funds to save and more likely to require time out for caring, they would be significantly disadvantaged by such an individualized approach as opposed to a collective system that enables redistribution.”
New clause 6 feeds into the overall debate about whether the lifetime ISA and Help to Save measure will be good value for money, particularly if they do not help those on low incomes and minority groups to save. We welcome the sensible measures to address the thorny issue of the low retirement savings of the less well-off, and anything that puts money into the pockets of middle and low earners is welcome, but I wonder how that aim sits alongside the Conservatives’ planned cuts—they are more like a heist—to universal credit. According to the OBR, the various pensions and savings policies introduced since 2011, including the lifetime ISA, will create a £5 billion lacuna in the public finances.
It is therefore imperative that the scheme benefits everyone in society, not disproportionately those who are already in a position to get on the housing ladder and save. It would be a real shame if the beneficiaries of the scheme were limited to those who were already able to afford to save and afford the deposit for a house. Given that the two policy announcements come at more or less the same time as cuts to tax credits, the juxtaposition of an investment of £1.8 billion in housing support for those in a better position to afford to buy against the significant cuts for those in lower-paid work will be seen at the very least as insensitive, and by some as crass and unfair.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I rise to speak to new clause 7 and amendments 7 to 11 and 13 to 22, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
We in the SNP—[Interruption.] I see that Conservative Members are laughing, but if the Government had taken this issue seriously and accepted some well-intentioned amendments in Committee, we would not have had to table all these amendments this evening. Let me tell Conservative Members that this Bill is a seriously bad piece of legislation, and they should take it seriously, not scoff at it.
The Scottish National party has consistently warned of the dangers of the Bill and its consequences for savers. The SNP is supportive of any initiative that promotes savings, but the lifetime ISA is a gimmick, as it will work only for those who can afford to save to the levels demanded by the Government to get the bonus. The LISA falls short of real pension reform, and it is a distraction to allow the Treasury access to taxes today rather than having to wait for tomorrow.
Savings into a LISA are made out of after-tax income; pension contributions are tax exempt and tend to receive employer contributions. Saving through pensions remains the most attractive method of saving for retirement. While anything that encourages saving for later life has to be welcomed, the danger is that the Government will derail auto-enrolment. Help to Save is another example: we agree working to encourage savings is welcome, but once again the UK Government are only scratching the surface, rather than really targeting those struggling to plan for emergencies or later life.
The Bill risks seducing young people away from investing in a pension by encouraging investment in a lifetime ISA. We have said before that no one investing in an ISA can be better off than someone investing in a pension. Why are the Government persisting with the Bill? Let us be clear: if we pass the Bill tonight, we could create circumstances in which young people might be sold a lifetime ISA when their interests would be better served by investing in a pension. That is what we will do if we pass this Bill.
In Committee, we sought to make sure that safeguards were in place and that advice was available for applicants to remove that risk, but for some reason the Government refused to accept our reasonable proposals. This evening, we are pressing new clause 7, which would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all providers of LISAs or Help to Save accounts to provide applicants, at the point of application, with both advice on the suitability of the products to the individual and information on automatic enrolment and workplace pension schemes. Auto-enrolment is still in its infancy and is due to be reviewed next year, although we heard today that increases in payments to auto-enrolment schemes are now off the agenda. That too should be debated by the House and changed.
That has to be our priority for savings, but if we are not successful in pressing the new clause tonight, our only alternative is amendment 15, which would completely remove the LISA from the Bill. Our primary problem with the Bill as drafted is the LISA. While the UK Government rely on low opt-out rates from auto-enrolment to justify their claim that the LISA would not risk pension savings, we are not convinced. The Bill is a missed opportunity to focus on strengthening pension saving, rather than tinker with the savings landscape.
The amendments we tabled in Committee aimed to delay the LISA until safeguards were built in; they also highlighted the need for mandatory advice. The Government say that the LISA is a complementary product, not an alternative to pension saving, but they have given no real thought to the difficulties facing consumers in understanding their options and, for those who have savings, whether they are in the best product for their needs. Pensions are already confusing and complex; the LISA as it stands adds to that complexity. We need to build trust in savings. That can only come if consumers have confidence in what is offered to them. A new suite of savings products that in many cases are inferior to existing offerings does not help build confidence in savings.
On Second Reading the Financial Secretary said:
“What is attractive about the lifetime ISA is that people do not have to make an immediate decision about why they are saving this money…people not having to make that decision at an early stage when they cannot see what is ahead.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 607.]
That is an astonishing statement. Why is the Financial Secretary not saying that we ought to be encouraging pension savings? I get the point that we need to consider ways to help young people to get on the housing ladder. Perhaps we need to think about how investments in pension savings might help in that regard. That is one of the reasons I keep asking for the establishment of a pensions and savings commission, so we can look at these matters in a holistic manner. I keep making the point, and I make no apology for saying again, that nobody should be better off with a LISA than with pension savings.
The long-term cost of forgoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of salary by saving into a LISA would be substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be savings of roughly one third less in a LISA over a pension by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning £25,000 per annum and saving 4% of their income each year would see a difference in excess of £53,000. After 42 years, someone saving through a pension scheme would have a pot worth £166,289.99 at a growth rate of 3%; in a LISA at the same growth rate the value would be only £112,646.75. That is a difference of over £53,000, and the difference would be even greater if wage growth was factored in. That is why we cannot support the Government tonight on the LISA elements of the Bill.
Without the introduction of advice, we are creating the circumstances in which mis-selling can take place. How can we stop someone being sold a LISA when a pension plan would be better for the consumer’s needs? We cannot. That, quite simply, is why the Bill is wrong. The Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They are creating the circumstances in which mis-selling can take place. I point the finger of blame at the Government for introducing this Bill and at every Member who is prepared to go through the Lobby tonight to support the Bill. Dwell on the example I gave where someone earning £25,000 per annum saving 4% of their salary could be as much as £53,000 worse off after 42 years. Who can honestly support that? That is not in consumers’ interests. It is de facto committing a fraud on savers in this country.
Today research has been published by True Potential. A poll of 2,000 employees showed that 30% of people aged between 25 and 40 would chose a LISA instead of a pension and that 58% of 25 to 34-year-olds would use their LISA for retirement savings. These statistics are the early warnings of the potential for mis-selling. Tonight, the House must vote to protect the consumer interest by backing new clause 7 to put in place an advice regime; failing that, Members should support amendment 15, which would delete LISAs from the Bill. Failure to do so will be a failure to take responsibility by each and every Member of this House.
I said on Second Reading:
"We would resist any further attempts to undermine pension saving and, specifically, to change the tax status of pension savings. That would be little more than an underhand way of driving up tax receipts—sweet talking workers to invest after-tax income in LISAs when their interests are best served by investing in pensions.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 620]
The sheer fact that the use of LISAs for retirement savings will be encouraged will confuse the public that this is a pension product and could disincentivise retirement savings in what should be traditional products. The Government's response that an amendment on advice would not work in practice, as it would create a barrier to accessing the LISA, is another quite extraordinary argument, as all that advice would do is make sure that consumers can make informed decisions. If there are consumers who choose to invest in a pension rather than a LISA product, I would be delighted, and so should the Government be.
The Government said it would be the role of the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place. Specifically on advice, we welcome the FCA’s proposed protections: firms will be required to give specific risk warnings at the point of sale, which include reminding consumers of the importance of ensuring an appropriate mix of assets is held in the LISA; they will also have to remind consumers of the early withdrawal charge and any other charges and they will have to offer a 30-day cancellation period after selling the LISA. However, still the risk is simply too great for the Government to treat it as an afterthought. There must be a formal mechanism to assist those seeking to increase saving, particularly where they are looking for a retirement product.
Even the Association of British Insurers, which cautiously welcomes the LISA, has said:
“LISA (and other ISA products) receives savings from money that is already taxed. This keeps the burden of taxation with working age people and takes money out of the real economy”.
This takes us back to why we are here and what the Government are proposing and why it is wrong.
As I also said on Second Reading:
“SNP Members welcome any reasonable proposals that encourage savings—we will work, where we can, with the UK Government to seek to encourage pension savings—but we very much see the Bill as a missed opportunity for us all to champion what we should be focusing on, which is strengthening pensions savings. Instead we have another wheeze that emanated from the laboratory of ideas of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and his advisers, who had form on constantly tinkering with the savings landscape. The right hon. Gentleman may have gone from the Front Bench, but his memory lingers on with this Bill.
Let us recall what the former Chancellor said in his Budget speech this year:
‘too many young people in their 20s and 30s have no pension and few savings. Ask them and they will tell you why. It is because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible, and most young people face an agonising choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.’”—Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 618-19.]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, albeit with a relatively small number of speakers. Many of the arguments today were given a good airing during our Bill Committee discussions. I will try to address the key points raised by hon. Members, and will also set out why we think the Government amendments are necessary.
First, however, I want to touch on a point of policy that is of some relevance to the debate: a change to charges in the first year. We are making a small change to charges on early withdrawals from the lifetime ISA in its first year of operation, for the benefit of consumers. Although these rules will be set out in regulations, so do not affect the substance of the Bill before the House today, as a courtesy I thought some hon. Members would be interested, given the points raised in oral evidence to the Bill Committee.
The 25% Government charge on unauthorised withdrawals from the lifetime ISA recoups the Government bonus and applies a small additional charge. This is fair as it reflects the long-term nature of the product and ensures that individuals save into it for the intended purposes, protecting Government funds and taxpayers’ money. However, in 2017-18 only, the bonus will not be paid monthly, as it will be from April 2018 on, but will be paid as an annual bonus at year-end. This could create a difficult case where people face a 25% Government charge up to 12 months before they receive the bonus. We have listened to representations on this point, and so, to improve the product for consumers, I can confirm that there will be no Government charges in 2017-18.
If people want to withdraw from their lifetime ISA in 2017-18, they must close their account, and there will be no Government charge to do so. No bonuses will be paid on such closed accounts.
An individual who has closed their account will be able to open another lifetime ISA in 2017-18 and contribute up to £4,000 into it, if they wish to. From April 2018 the Government bonus will be paid monthly. This means that the 25% Government charge on withdrawals other than for a first-time house purchase, in the event of terminal illness or when the individual is over 60 will apply as per the overarching policy intention.
Government amendment 3 is about data sharing, and I wrote on this issue to the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and copied in the rest of the Bill Committee. We have heard that the lifetime ISA will provide an eligible first-time buyer with a new choice in saving for their first home, in addition to the existing help to buy ISA scheme. Both schemes provide that generous Government bonus of 25% that can be put towards a first home.
As we set out when we first announced the lifetime ISA, we intend that individuals will be able to save into both a Help to Buy ISA and a lifetime ISA, but they will only be able to use the bonus from one of the schemes when they buy their first home. Amendment 3 introduces a new paragraph to schedule 1 to allow HMRC and the administrator of the Help to Buy ISA to share information about bonus payments and charge-free withdrawals so that those rules can be policed. It also provides appropriate safeguards and sanctions in relation to the use of account holders’ information, including a criminal offence for unlawful disclosure of that information, in line with HMRC’s established duty of taxpayer confidentiality. The amendment is straightforward and will ensure that the scheme rules on Government bonuses can be effectively administered. I hope that the House will accept it.
Government amendments 4 and 5 concern residency conditions for Help to Save. That is a targeted scheme, as we have heard, that will support lower-income savers by providing a generous Government bonus on their savings. It is only right that that Government bonus should be available for savings made while an account holder is in the UK or has an appropriate connection with the UK, such as Crown servants serving overseas. The Bill already provides that, as well as meeting conditions in relation to working tax credit or universal credit, an individual must be in the UK to open an account. However, it is currently silent on the rules that apply where an account holder leaves the UK during the four-year lifetime of an account.
The amendments address that situation by allowing regulations to provide that the monthly payment limit for Help to Save can be set at nil in certain cases. We intend to use that power to provide that an individual cannot make payments to an account, and cannot thereby earn additional Government bonus, when they are not in the UK or do not have the appropriate connection to the UK. That will be supported by a requirement to notify the account provider if an account holder’s circumstances change and they will be absent from the UK. That approach broadly mirrors the arrangements currently in place for ISA accounts. The amendments also provide for a penalty where there is a failure to notify the account provider of such a change. However, that penalty will not apply where there is a reasonable excuse for the failure, and any person who receives a penalty will have the right to appeal. The House will have the opportunity to consider regulations dealing with eligibility for an account before the launch of the scheme.
These amendments allow an effective targeting of the generous Help to Save bonus, so that it can be earned only on savings made by individuals in the UK, or with an appropriate connection. On that basis, I hope that the House will accept them.
I will now respond to the non-Government amendments and new clauses. Again, we debated most of these issues at length in Committee. I will try not to recap all the arguments and to summarise the main ones.
New clause 3 and new clause 7 both concern advice for people opening either type of account. We have heard concerns that people may not get all the advice they need. I have been clear that the regulation of providers is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates ISA providers and will likewise set the framework for the Lifetime ISA. It is consulting on its approach at the moment. On 16 November, it set out its suggested approach.
The Government of course want to ensure that people have the information that they need to make important financial decisions. We will provide clear information on gov.uk as well as work with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure that they make appropriate and impartial information available. The risk of mandating that people receive independent advice is that it makes investing in these products prohibitively expensive for many people. In Committee, we talked about the cost associated with mandating financial advice of that nature. Therefore, although I understand the sentiment behind those new clauses, I urge hon. Members not to press them and instead look at what the FCA has recommended in its initial suggestions to us.
Jane Ellison
I will, although the hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes on this subject. I will take a brief intervention.
Ian Blackford
Speaking for 20 minutes when consumers are exposed to risk is not unreasonable. Can the Minister tell me which workers who have access to auto-enrolment will be better off under a LISA than they would under a pension?
Jane Ellison
I accept entirely, and it is evident from the hon. Gentleman’s speech, that he objects in principle to the lifetime ISA, but the matter before the House is whether we legislate for it, and the new clause I am addressing at the moment concerns financial advice. I have given examples of where the Government will be steering people towards advice. We are as keen as anyone that people have access to advice, but I urge him to look at the FCA consultation and what it has said, because it is the FCA’s job to steer us in that regard.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I listened with interest to the points made by Labour Members about credit unions. I am a member of the Bedford credit union. Will the Minister look specifically at this issue? I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was saying that the Bill was an opportunity to expand the role of credit unions—they could be given almost a preferred provider status. When the Minister considers expanding the provider model beyond NS&I to include alternative providers, will she look specifically at expanding it solely to credit unions, rather than more broadly?
Jane Ellison
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for what she is saying. Our concern is that savings are a critical part of credit unions’ ability to deliver the services that they provide. Her argument does not preclude the amendment that Co-op MPs have tabled. The conversations that she is talking about could then happen. There has been no suggestion that there would be any legislative bar. She is making the case for accepting the amendment in saying that it is exactly what she wants to do in future.
Jane Ellison
I am just saying that nothing in the Bill precludes that from happening now, so the amendment is unnecessary. We are in constructive discussions with the credit unions. They are not precluded from being part of a multiple provider model in future. I have laid out that, throughout the consultation, we identified that that was not a suitable model for the starting point. However, I honestly think that we are essentially coming at this from the same point of view. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, hon. Members will not press the amendment. As I say, we will continue to have those constructive discussions.
Amendment 7 seeks to pay the bonus every six months, rather than at the two and four-year mark of the Help to Save product. We believe that paying the bonus at two years and at account maturity strikes the right balance between giving people enough time to build up their savings and develop a savings habit and allowing them to access the bonus within an appropriate timescale. That is supported by evidence from similar savings schemes. Some Members will be aware that the savings gateway pilots showed that the optimal period for the saving habit to be embedded is two years.
I emphasise that people will still have full access to their savings with Help to Save, so even if they are able to save for only six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at the two-year point or at maturity. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we have looked carefully at the issue. I accept that it is, to an extent, a judgment call, but evidence from the savings gateway pilots, as well as from other peer-reviewed research, shows that the optimal time for the saving habit to be embedded is about 19 to 24 months. We think that we have struck the right balance, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendments 8 to 11 centre on the contribution limits. Not many Members spoke specifically about the issue and we explored it well in Committee. It is about being able to contribute a two-monthly average of £50. Our consultation specifically addressed the question of whether individuals should be able to pay in more than the £50 limit in certain circumstances. Respondents were very clear that that would add complexity to the scheme, both for savers and for account providers. It is worth noting that the Office for Budget Responsibility-certified forecast suggests that people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month on average. The £50 monthly limit is adequate, so I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Amendment 12 centres on eligibility for under-25s. The issue was explored in Committee and it has been touched on briefly today by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Our intention is to passport people into eligibility for Help to Save from working tax credit and universal credit. That is a well-established way of targeting people on lower incomes, and we think that it is the most simple and effective method for determining eligibility. Importantly, it removes the need for people either to complete a further means test to prove that they are eligible for an account or to contact the Government, both of which deter people from opening accounts. It also avoids additional costs associated with developing a new and complex eligibility checking system.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on amendment 13, which seeks to exempt bonuses from bankruptcy proceedings. Our approach is consistent with what we have done elsewhere. In the benefits system, for example, deductions are sometimes made to claims to repay debts. We think that, in reality, any accrued bonus represents an asset to the account holder and should be treated as such during any insolvency proceedings. Again, I urge Members not press the amendment.
The hon. Member for Harrow West began by speaking to new clause 1, which focuses on save-as-you-earn and the payroll reduction, which is also the subject of amendment 14. Both proposed amendments seek to introduce rules to allow people to deduct automatically amounts from their salary into a Help to Save account. In fact, amendment 14 goes further by proposing the introduction of auto-enrolment for Help to Save, allowing employers or benefit-paying bodies to divert money from employees’ pay into a Help to Save account, unless they opt out.
As I said in Committee, we want the decision to save into a Help to Save account to be an active choice made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them. For many, that will mean saving flexibly, putting aside what they can afford each month, rather than committing to having a fixed amount deducted each month from their salary. There is nothing in the Bill to stop an employer offering payroll deduction for Help to Save to their employees, but we do not intend to make it a statutory requirement for employers to offer payroll deduction for Help to Save. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions must remain the priority for employers.
New clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6 seek to place a duty on the Government to review or publish analysis on certain aspects of the policies. In all cases we have already conducted an impact assessment, published alongside the Bill. At the time of the autumn statement, we published a cumulative distribution analysis of all the policies implemented during the 2015-20 Parliament, including of the lifetime ISA and Help to Save. We believe that it is important to look at the cumulative impact of tax and spending decisions, rather than the impact of individual measures in isolation. The distributional analysis that the Government have published since 2010 has always taken that cumulative, rather than measure-by-measure, approach.
As with all Government policies, we will, of course, keep the lifetime ISA under review to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. Indeed, we already regularly publish a wide range of detail about the take-up of Government-supported savings accounts such as ISAs. We intend to take a similar approach to the lifetime ISA, so we have already done a lot in that regard.
We discussed the interaction with the housing market in Committee, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has said. In essence, any impact that the lifetime ISA has on the housing market is likely to be very difficult to detect among other factors. As was said in Committee, the accusations that this product benefits only the wealthy do not bear scrutiny, given that the Help to Buy ISA has been used to buy homes worth on average £167,250, which is well under the property price cap. The accusations are not fair.
The interaction with automatic enrolment dominated the contribution of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. We covered the issue in detail in Committee, and I once again stress the Government’s absolute commitment to automatic enrolment. It is wrong to say that we are seeking to derail it. The lifetime ISA—the Treasury is clear on this—is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace pensions, not a replacement. Our costings do not assume that people will opt out of their workplace pension in order to pay into a lifetime ISA. Encouragingly, the figures show that the opt-out rate is very low so far. Taking all those things together, we do not think that the proposed new clauses are necessary, so I urge hon. Members not to press them.
Amendments 15 to 22 would effectively cancel the lifetime ISA from the Bill. It is evident from my comments so far that I have no intention of accepting the amendments. It is clear that we have a disagreement in principle. The hon. Gentleman’s accusations against the measure bordered on hyperbole. He said that he is prepared to look at any reasonable proposal that helps people to save, but we know from the consultations on the complex subject of saving for the future that this is a product that will help many people save. It is a direct response to the comments made in response to a public consultation about the complexity of savings options.
Jane Ellison
No. We have had a good debate, both in Committee and here, and I am going to press on. I have to date taken slightly less time than the hon. Gentleman—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. It is apparent to everybody else in the Chamber and I am sure that it is now apparent to the hon. Gentleman.
Jane Ellison
Amendments 15 to 22 seek to cancel half the Bill—I am not going to accept them. I refer the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to the FCA’s consultation; I do not think that it would recognise his comments, and neither do I.
Amendment 1 would change the normal maturity period for Help to Save accounts from 48 to 24 months. In practice, people would be able to save into a Help to Save account for only two years rather than four. We designed the scheme so that people can save into a Help to Save account and get a Government bonus after two years, and then continue to save and receive a further bonus when the account matures after four years. We have done that because we want the target group to be able to save as regularly as other people and they may take longer to save towards that vital rainy day fund. It also provides an incentive for people to continue saving beyond two years, which fits with our objective to encourage people to develop a long-term saving habit. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Finally, amendment 6 would delay commencement until April 2019, when automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will be fully rolled out. We have been very clear that we do not expect lifetime ISAs to drive opt-outs from pension saving. There is, therefore, no reason to delay. In fact, such a delay would disadvantage those who wish to open a lifetime ISA and who have been preparing for a 2017 launch. The hon. Gentleman completely disregarded the fact that self-employed people do not have the option of access to a workplace pension scheme. That came out in evidence to the Bill Committee. There was not a word about the self-employed.
Jane Ellison
No, I will not.
The proposal would also delay Help to Save for a year, disadvantaging the savers on low incomes who will benefit from the scheme. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about the Help to Save scheme and want to see it go ahead as planned. I intend to work with all who have been mentioned—the credit unions, many financial inclusion charities, and the Churches—to ensure that we exceed the take-up target for Help to Save. I will be delighted if we vastly exceed the target, and that is my intention.
Mr Speaker
The final words in respect of this group of amendments are for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).
Mr Gareth Thomas
This debate has been short but interesting. I hope that Members will forgive me if I confine my brief remarks to the three amendments tabled in my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a characteristically excellent speech dwelling on the debt tsunami coming our way. She rightly alluded to the challenges that many credit unions face in providing a service through local employers to their employees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) made an excellent speech from the Front Bench—perhaps inspired by listening to the works of Shostakovich, of whom he is a devotee. Given the numbers who might be eligible, he is rightly worried that the number of people who sign up for Help to Save will not be as great if credit unions are not included among the providers that can offer Help to Save.
I was interested by the Minister’s response, and I hear her concerns about new clause 1, which I look forward to exploring more in a meeting with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I was grateful to hear the Minister offer some reassurance on amendment 1 and the possible reduction to 12 months from 24 months. As a result, I will not press amendment 1 or new clause 1 to a Division.
I will, however, seek a vote on amendment 2 because I gently suggest to the Minister that she did not make a convincing case as to why credit unions should not be allowed to offer this product. It is clear that NS&I will be a good national provider, but it is unclear why credit unions cannot be given the opportunity to offer the product at the same time. Given all the effort and expense that the Treasury is going to, it seems odd not to take advantage of the opportunity that credit unions can provide to get more people signed up. In that spirit, I intend to press amendment 2 to a vote, but I will not press new clause 1 or amendment 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Impact review: automatic enrolment and pensions savings
‘(1) The Treasury must review the impact of Lifetime ISAs on workplace pensions automatic enrolment and pensions savings within one year of this Act coming into force and every year thereafter.
(2) The conclusions of the review must be made publicly available and laid before Parliament.’—(Peter Dowd.)
This new clause would place a duty on HMRC to review annually the impact of Lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jane Ellison
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through the House for the good, constructive debates, which have been very helpful. We want to make it easier for everyone to build up savings, to meet their ambitions and to feel secure in their personal finances, and we have already set to work to make that the case. We put an end, for example, to 17 million people having to pay tax on the interest they received on their savings and we announced the biggest ever increase in the ISA allowance, to £20,000 from April next year. This Bill, legislating as it does for the lifetime ISA and the Help to Save account, carries on that hugely important work.
As we have heard, the lifetime ISA provides a new option for young people looking to save for the long term. It is a positive move for savers that complements pensions and is yet another way in which we are supporting people who are doing the right thing and putting money aside.
Help to Save has received cross-party support in the House. We know why this is so important. Research from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that 3 million low-income households have no savings at all, so we can be in no doubt that moving forward with this account is a hugely important step.
The Savings (Government Contributions) Bill is important, and its passage through the House has been met with thoughtful and constructive challenge. We have debated a number of important principles during our deliberations, but the Bill is fundamentally about people who are trying to save for the future so I have no hesitation—indeed, I take great pleasure—in commending it to the House.
Peter Dowd
I echo the Minister’s sentiments about the scrutiny the Bill has received. I am grateful to the witnesses who came to our sessions, as well as for all the written evidence, informal information and contact that we received.
Of course, the provisions are in two parts: the lifetime ISA and Help to Save. No one has any objection to helping people to save; it is a question of how to do it. We are not convinced that the Bill will help people to save. We do not think that there is sufficient evidence to back up what the Minister said and we do not think that it sorts out the problem with the shortage of housing. It sets aside £1.8 billion by 2019-20, there are questions about its value for money, and we think that it complicates the market and might introduce a Trojan horse. Not everybody is convinced about it.
I am not sure that Help to Save does the business for those on a low income. It comes in the wake of major cuts to tax credits and only puts a little drop back into a very big ocean. The Government should listen to what many people, including our witnesses, have said. Nevertheless, we accept that we need to help people save for the future, and all the information that has been provided to us sets the scene for continued future debates. I thank the Minister for her helpfulness and civility throughout the process.
Ian Blackford
I must say that I think we will repent of this legislation in due course. We cannot get away from all the evidence that was presented to us. The evidence from the Association of British Insurers makes it abundantly clear that anyone who has the opportunity to invest in a workplace pension will be worse off investing in a LISA than investing in their pension. I listened to the Minister talking about those who are self-employed and who do not have the opportunities and advantages of auto-enrolment when what we should have been doing was introducing legislation to deal with that problem.
We have the opportunity to do that when we review auto-enrolment next year. There is no need for this legislation for ordinary people; they will not benefit from the LISA. I put it to the House that this will reward those who have already maxed out their pension schemes by giving them another opportunity that will help them through this Government bonus. It is not so much a LISA as what we would call a “Rupert”—a really useful perk for extremely rich Tories. They are the only people who will benefit from the Bill.
When it comes to what is really important, I am delighted that True Potential has published its evidence today. Let me give two statistics from that. First, 30% of people aged between 25 and 30 would, if given the opportunity, choose a LISA instead of a pension, and 58% of 25 to 34-year-olds would choose the LISA for retirement savings. We know that those with the opportunity to invest in a pension will always be better off. As I said on Second Reading, the Government have wilfully created circumstances in which young people in this country will be mis-sold LISAs. The Government should be utterly ashamed.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I was a member of the Bill Committee and I made many of the points I wish to make at that time. I was not able to be in the Chamber for the first part of this debate, but I wanted to say a few words in support of what we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), speaking for the Scottish National party, have expressed strong words of scepticism about the Bill. I reinforce those words.
The very poorest need a much bigger state pension. For many people, a compulsory earnings-related state pension scheme would be much better value and would guarantee that everybody saved some of their earnings for a decent old age. That would be a much more positive way forward. I echo what has been said by the Opposition Front Benchers and am grateful for this opportunity to speak.
Mr Gareth Thomas
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). I did not have the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee, but I spoke on Second Reading and on Report. I welcome Ministers’ commitment to continue to engage with credit unions, which was the primary issue I sought to raise.
There is one issue we did not address in relation to Help to Save. With a national provider—National Savings & Investments—it would be relatively easy to disaggregate the data on who is taking advantage of the Help to Save product and to publish them in an anonymised form. We could track the postcodes to see where people are taking advantage of it. I raise that issue in the context of work that the Treasury is doing with the British Bankers Association to encourage banks to publish data about what financial services products are being offered to whom and who is taking advantage of them. The banks have been forced, reluctantly, to reveal where they are lending, but the information being provided is not yet perfect—we are on a journey with the banks.
One thing the Treasury could do once it gets this Bill through both Houses, as it seems likely to, is to require NS&I to publish on a postcode basis where people are taking up the Help to Save product. I commend that point to Ministers, and I hope they will take it up. I also hope that Members of the other House will explore this additional issue in a little more detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Welfare Cap
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
I beg to move,
That pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2019-20 and 2020-21, due to higher forecast inflation and spend on disability benefits, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
Today’s motion is about Government accountability for welfare spending before the House and, indeed, before the public. This debate is about the welfare cap. I hope right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that our welfare system is about more than just the numbers. We have a set of principles to build a welfare system that works for everyone. We need to look beyond just benefits, and to work with employers, health professionals and the voluntary sector. We need to ensure the system supports people to get into work, to stay in work and to progress in work. We must also offer care for the minority of people who cannot work, whether through sickness, disability or personal circumstances.
We introduced the welfare cap in 2013 to strengthen control of welfare spending and improve parliamentary accountability for that level of spending. The welfare cap is an important part of our fiscal framework, and it plays a crucial role in delivering our commitment to a sustainable and affordable welfare system. Our welfare reforms are creating a system that makes sure that work always pays and that is fair to those who receive welfare but also to those who pay for it.
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility assessed performance against the welfare cap at autumn statement, and it is now forecast that the current cap will not be met in each year until 2020-21. A similar debate was held in the House on 16 December 2015 on the breach of the welfare cap in the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, resulting from the decision not to pursue the tax credits measure proposed at summer Budget 2015. The House agreed that the breach of the cap in the earlier years of the forecast period was justified and that no further debate would be required on that specific matter. Therefore, the motion we are putting before the House today seeks agreement on the justification of the breach of the cap in the later years of the forecast period—2019-20 and 2020-21.
I would now like to outline the reasons why the cap is forecast not to be met in those years. This is due to increased forecast inflation and spend on disability benefits, partly due to the decision not to pursue the personal independence payment measure proposed at Budget 2016. As with our decision not to pursue the tax credits measure, the Government have once more listened and responded to public concerns, and we have decided not to pursue the changes to the personal independence payment. Higher forecast inflation is another factor contributing to the cap not being met in 2019-20 and 2020-21. In view of the uncertainty facing the economy, inflation is now forecast to be higher than when the cap was set at summer Budget 2015.
I would like to reassure the House that the latest forecasts do not mean that welfare spending is out of control. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at autumn statement, we will deliver the welfare savings we have already announced and legislated for. I would also like to repeat that the Government have no plans for further welfare savings in this Parliament.
The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. That is why we want a welfare system that helps people who can work to get back into work, but that also supports those in most need. Our welfare reforms are working. Employment has risen by 2.8 million since 2010, and is now at a record high of 74.5%. Unemployment is at an 11-year low. Universal credit is revolutionising the welfare system, enshrining the principle that working more always pays more. Through the benefit cap, we are restoring fairness to the system, while ensuring there is a clear incentive to work.
There are now over 1 million fewer people on out-of-work benefits. Some 3.5 million disabled people are now in employment, and in the last three years, the number of disabled people in work has increased by nearly 600,000. We also want a welfare system that is a strong safety net for those who need it—
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Could the Minister confirm whether it is still the Government’s commitment to halve the disability employment gap by 2020?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work at her recent Select Committee appearance. She has made the point repeatedly that we are determined to reduce the disability employment gap, and we are working incredibly hard to do that, but we acknowledge that more needs to be done.
The welfare cap plays an important role in ensuring that the welfare bill is sustainable and affordable. We introduced the cap to allow us to bring welfare spending under control, and we have done so. The system we inherited was unaffordable and unsustainable. Under Labour, welfare spending increased by almost 60% in real terms. The number of households where no member had ever worked nearly doubled, and unemployment went up by 457,000.
As part of our continuous commitment to a sustainable welfare system, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at autumn statement the introduction of a new welfare cap, alongside a new fiscal framework. The Government are firmly committed to returning the public finances to balance as soon as is practicable. Given the uncertainty we face, it is important to allow for enough flexibility to support the economy. That is why we are changing the fiscal framework, and why we are introducing a new welfare cap as part of that.
The new cap sets a target for welfare spending in 2021-22, with a pathway for welfare spending in all the years before that. The new cap is set in line with the latest autumn statement forecast. The scope of the new cap remains unchanged. The Office for Budget Responsibility will continue to assess performance against the new cap, and if the cap is assessed as breached, Ministers will still need to hold a debate and justify the breach in the House, or to propose steps to bring spending within the level of the cap.
The House will have the opportunity in due course to debate and agree the new fiscal framework, including the new welfare cap, which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at autumn statement. I commend the motion to the House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to be here when you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As Members will probably gather, I take a slightly different view from the Minister, and I will go on to the details in a moment. However, as the Minister acknowledged, this is the second year the Government have been forced to come to the House to explain their failure not just in breaching their own social security cap but on the economy.
As a quick point of clarification, the Government spent £130 billion more between 2010 and 2015 than the previous Labour Government spent between 2005 and 2010. So this Government have spent more. That is absolutely—[Interruption.] It is very interesting that Government Members should take that approach, but I will go on. It turns out that the long-term economic plan is really nothing more than a slogan, and that probably “long-term economic failure” would have been slightly more apt.
Debbie Abrahams
I will come on to the record number of jobs. The hon. Gentleman is trying to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions from the Whips’ Bench. [Interruption.] We just cannot, even when there is nobody else here.
Debbie Abrahams
That is fine, Madam Deputy Speaker —I have no problem with answering the hon. Gentleman. He said, “More jobs”, but 80% of the increase in employment is in self-employment, and half—[Interruption.] These are the facts. Half of those in self-employment are earning less than the living wage.
As we saw in the autumn statement, growth is down, borrowing is up—again—inflation is on the rise, deficit targets are hopelessly missed, and productivity is flatlining. The Office for National Statistics has described this as “unprecedented”, with the worst levels of productivity since the second world war. Of course, productivity is the driver of wage growth, so we are seeing stagnant wage growth as well as precarious levels of employment.
The Government have failed on every single one of their fiscal targets, so much so that at the autumn statement they had to define a new set. They promised us an economy based on high wages and lower social security spending where work always pays, but in over six years they have done nothing to deliver the high-skill, high-wage, productive economy that this country desperately needs to compete in the global market. As a result of their failures, the Government have once again breached their own welfare cap—not just last year, not just this year, but every year for a full five-year term. For the remaining years of this Parliament, the Government will miss their cap by £5 billion, £6 billion, £7 billion and £8 billion respectively—a record of the complete and utter failure of their economic strategy.
Instead of reforming the social security system to reflect the reality of today’s flexible labour market, the Government have sought to cover up their economic incompetence and take it out on the working poor, the sick and the disabled, raining down austerity on the most vulnerable in our society. We have had six wasted years while the poorest have picked up the bill, with a full four years of failure yet to come. This is a far cry from the former Chancellor’s proclamation in 2014 that
“The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state”
and
“ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374-381.]
All the evidence is to the contrary. This debate is further testament to the Government’s complete failure to manage the economy or—and this is the most important point—to tackle any of the drivers of social security spending. It is incredible to watch the Government as they bound aimlessly from one broken promise to the next. Whatever their favourite slogan—“We’re all in it together”, “Fighting against burning injustices”, or “A Britain for everyone”—it is clear that gimmicks and grandstanding are all the Government are capable of.
In the motion, the Government claim that they could not meet their own rules due to spending on social security support for disabled people and higher than expected inflation. As ever, they are pointing the finger of blame at the most vulnerable rather than apologising for their own economic mismanagement. Let us examine the facts in a bit more detail. At the autumn statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the Government will spend £120.5 billion in 2019-20 and £123.2 billion in 2020-21 on social security considered within the cap. Of this, the OBR estimates that changes in forecasts for CPI—consumer prices index—inflation will increase spending to 2021 by £0.8 billion in total. At less than a percentage point of total spending inside the cap, this can hardly be said to be the major driver of the Government’s failure to keep their promises. The Government have lost control of the economy, if they ever had control of it in the first place, and failed to tackle the key drivers of social security spending other than pensions—low-paid work and high housing costs.
Furthermore, the Government’s claim that increased disability spending will cause a breach of the cap at the end of the Parliament is just another attempt to point the finger at sick and disabled people. I admit—I am pleased about this—that there has been no language from Ministers around the “shirkers and scroungers” narrative that we have seen in recent years. That is a very welcome move. However, I am not clear whether this extends to press releases from Conservative Campaign Headquarters or to some of the coverage in less responsible sections of the media. We must be careful of our language in this respect. Even if derogatory terms such as “shirker” and “scrounger” are not used, what is implied by “incentivising” people who have been found not fit for work? Is the implication that they are at home avoiding work—that it is their choice to stay at home instead of being in productive work? That is offensive to very many people.
Instead of blaming everyone else for their mess, the Government should start taking responsibility. It is not just Labour Members who are making these points. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has described the approach of the past six years as a “grave and systematic violation” of disabled people’s rights. We have heard similar comments from our own Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government’s Social Security Advisory Committee, and, indeed, Government Back Benchers. All have raised concerns about the lack of evidence in many of the Government’s social security policies, particularly regarding their punitive effects. I am pleased that the Minister said that the Government had taken the view that because of the implications that changes to tax credits would have for the working poor, they had decided not to proceed with them, but what about work allowances around universal credit? We are talking about the same people. The taper rate will make a difference of a couple of hundred pounds a year instead of the net effect of over £2,000 a year.
I want to explore some of the real reasons the Government have totally failed to meet their promises. They have failed because they have not tackled the drivers of social security spending. Rather than creating a strong economy with high wages, progression in the labour market, affordable housing and accessible childcare, they have starved the economy of much-needed investment, leaving us all worse off after six wasted years of austerity. This is not just our analysis; in every regard, the evidence speaks for itself. On housing, under this Government we are projected to spend more than £20 billion a year, every year, on housing benefit, which, after pensions, is the second largest spending area of social security spending. This amounts to more than £100 billion spent over the course of this Parliament, with nearly half going straight into the pockets of private landlords.
All the while, the Government’s own figures show that the number of affordable homes being built has slumped to a 24-year low. Indeed, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that we need to be building 80,000 affordable homes a year to meet demand and keep the current spend on housing benefit stable. This year, we have managed to build just 30,000. Instead of focusing on reducing the housing benefit bill by building affordable homes, the Government have chosen to force the sale of the remainder of our socially rented stock, worsening the housing crisis and driving up housing benefit spend. This is one of the key reasons they have breached their own cap.
On top of this, there is the squeeze on in-work support for people in low-paid jobs. We will spend over £50 billion on tax credits in the two years covered in this motion. Why? Because the Government have failed to ensure that wages keep up with the cost of living, leaving many working people relying on top-ups to get by. Real wages are now set to remain lower in 2021 than they were in 2008, yet the Tories still turn their backs on working people by trying to cut the amount of tax credit support available under their failed austerity plans.
Likewise, under universal credit the Government have weakened incentives to work by cutting billions—about £10 billion over the life of this Parliament—from the programme’s work allowance under their austerity plans. Their meagre reduction in the taper rate does not touch the average cut of £2,000 a year, as I have just mentioned, which will affect 2.5 million working people. If the Chancellor was serious about reducing the social security spend, he would follow Labour’s lead and implement a real living wage calculated on the basis of what people need. That would ensure that people get a fair and proper wage for a working day, while reducing the expenditure of the state.
Our Chancellor is apparently not capable of making such an obvious decision, despite the fact that the Living Wage Commission has shown that the Government’s national living wage falls well short of providing a decent standard of living. The Chancellor used his autumn statement to chop 1w0p an hour off the previously promised wage increase, at a cost of about £200 a year to the average worker. That is all in the context of flatlining pay, which leads to the average wage being £1,000 lower in 2020 than was predicted at the last Budget. How can we ever expect to reduce social security expenditure when the Government will not act on wages?
High wages alone will not clear up the mess, however. We also need to act on progression in the labour market if we are to tackle the drivers affecting social security spending. The JRF has shown that four out of five low-paid workers are still low paid 10 years later. There is no automatic progression to higher pay. That is further proof of the deep structural problems we face in our labour market.
Finally, we should turn our attention to the disability employment gap, which the Government claimed they would halve by 2020. I am grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on that point. The gap narrowed from the end of last year, but it is now back up to the level it was just before the general election last year. Perhaps the Government’s plan to force people into work before they are ready by cutting the employment and support allowance can be added to the mounting examples of the Government’s flawed strategy.
Why have the Government not acted to improve the retention of disabled people in their current jobs? The Resolution Foundation has shown that doing so could reduce the number of people transitioning from employment to health-related inactivity, which was 350,000 in 2015. Keeping disabled people in their jobs would surely be a better strategy to bring down social security spending than slashing support for those who are further away from the labour market. But no; sadly, the Government have not been able to see that far, and their record on supporting retention is very poor.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is an important issue. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the Government will breach their target in each year of its forecast. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that means that the welfare cap is not working, because the Government cannot look after those who are genuinely ill and in need of benefits? An example of that is Concentrix, where lots of people were put on benefits and then taken off benefits. The number of such people, when it comes to the cap, is very difficult to forecast, and the Government need to forecast that better.
Debbie Abrahams
That is an interesting question, and I would have to look at the figures. I have tried to show that the high cost of housing is a real issue, as is low-paid work. There are a number of factors, but those are the key drivers. The Government really should have been more careful in their impact assessment when they set out their policy in the first place.
To conclude, this breach of the Government’s self-imposed welfare cap every year for five years is further proof of their utter failure on the economy. They have refused to act on the fundamental areas that are driving the cost of social security spending, and they have made bankrupt attempts to meet their targets on the back of the most vulnerable. Only Labour has an economic strategy that will bring the costs of social security down without fraying the safety net that we all rely on. Now is the time to invest in the housing we need, offer a decent wage for a working day and support people to find a job, keep a job and progress in their chosen work. We will transform our social security system to ensure that, like the NHS, it is there for all of us in our time of need, as part of our plan to create a stronger, fairer economic settlement for all in our country.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I pay tribute to the Minister, who showed that she had a genuinely deep understanding of the issues. She already has a record of being very willing to engage, particularly with charitable groups, which have a wealth of experience. We, as a Government, would do well to listen to them and allow them to help to shape future policies.
The debate is important because it focuses our minds. We have set a clear marker, and we have to justify any deviation from our original plans. It was interesting to listen to the last speech. The shadow Minister said that the Government have spent something like £130 billion more, but she then criticised us for not spending sufficient money in basically every area. The two things did not quite marry up. It is right to focus our minds, because under the previous Labour Government welfare was simply left to drift. The number of workless households doubled and an extra 470,000 people were abandoned to unemployment. Those are not just statistics; they represent real people who were in desperate need of the right support.
Through our strong economic growth—I am not sure what the shadow Minister was referring to, because it is still the strongest of any major developed economy—we have seen record employment. That is not just a south-east phenomenon; it has happened in every region of the country. I know that hon. Members are all desperate to know the situation in my constituency: 8,100 more people are in work since the general election, and that is even larger than the number of people who go to the county ground to watch the mighty Swindon Town. Unemployment is at an 11-year low.
We have introduced the national living wage, directly benefiting 2.75 million of our lowest earners. The income tax threshold rises year on year, taking 3.2 million people out of paying any income tax at all. While wages have grown, on average, about 2% this year, the wages of the lowest earners have risen by an average of 6%. That is in addition to the welcome extension of free childcare, which has created more opportunities for people to work.
The recent Green Paper announcement gives us a real opportunity to build on the progress that is being made, particularly if we look at the 590,000 more disabled people in work in the last three years. Now, 48% of disabled people are expected to be in work—up from 44% when we first came into office. We still have much further to go, but charitable groups and people who work in this area are encouraged by the fact that we are going in the right direction. The key thing is to deliver tailored individual support, because for those who are still looking for work, there are challenges. It is not as simple as learning how to create a CV and taking part in interview training. We are right to look at delivering more tailored support, to make further progress in delivering more people into work and thus reducing welfare spending.
We are right to identify that we have to do joined-up work with health. Many people who are now looking for work will also have to navigate health challenges, and they need support from the beginning. We are, rightly, introducing the small employer offer to engage proactively with employers on providing opportunities. People who play by the rules and work with the support on offer need the opportunity to go into work at the end of the process.
The announcement on disability apprentices and the increase in funding for Access to Work and universal credit, which has universal support across all parts of the House, reinforce the point that work should always pay and recognise a welfare system that is fair to those who receive it and to those who pay for it. Crucially, we are removing the 16-hour cliff-edge rule and providing, on average, 13% more time for the claimant to look. Most importantly, for me, for the first time ever a claimant has a named contact who can help them to navigate the process of not just looking for work, but dealing with all the different forms of benefit and the extra support they will need.
Crucially, when a claimant goes into work, the named contact will continue to provide support. Until now, we, as a society, would help people to get into work and wish them all the best, and that would be our last contact with them unless they came back to look for work again. Now we realise that those people, many of whom are taking their first step into work, may need support. They may lack confidence. If they attend work regularly and engage in the right way, their named coach can help them to try to increase their hours, increase their responsibility and earn more money in work.
Jim Shannon
One of the things I would like to see in my constituency and across the whole of the United Kingdom is incentives for small and medium-sized businesses, which, because they are small, find it difficult to support disabled people in gaining employment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that small and medium-sized businesses have so far not been encouraged to do just that?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very important point. Large employers, with their well-resourced HR and highly educated personnel teams, are very good at making such changes—they are often small changes—to take full advantage of the disabled people who are looking to work and have the great skills and abilities needed to fill the existing skills gaps. Small and medium-sized businesses often do not have the necessary confidence and skills, and may not even be aware of the talent that is available.
The small employer pilot is so important because it is about going around industrial parks, business parks and shops to ask, “Where are your skills gaps? We will match them to the people who are looking for work.” We have had some really encouraging results from the pilots. I had a Disability Confident event in my constituency, and the Shaw Trust managed to place a further 22 people. We got small and medium-sized employers who had never thought about doing this to come forward and say, “These are our skills gaps. Please help find people for us.”
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that the rate of employment among disabled people has risen, but the overall employment rate has risen as well, so the disability employment gap has not been reduced. Why has there not been any progress on that issue?
Justin Tomlinson
The right hon. Gentleman has been very diligent on this issue, and he is determined to be proactive in supporting disabled people to have such an opportunity. The reality is that the growing economy is benefiting everyone, but perversely, the last time we had a recession, the disability gap actually shrank because non-disabled people came out of work at a quicker rate than the disabled people. If we had a recession, we would not celebrate the closing of the gap if people were also coming out of work.
Greater minds than mine will now have to decide what way to go. For what it is worth, I think the only thing that matters is that, as quickly as possible, more disabled people should have an opportunity for work year on year. We should be looking at ways to do that. When we came to office, the then Prime Minister said that we wanted to halve the disability employment gap, which meant employing about 1 million more disabled people. We should be trying to get to that target as quickly as possible, by looking at it annually. Stakeholders and charities are keen that we can demonstrate on an annual basis that we are making real, tangible progress. So far, with 590,000 more disabled people in work in the past three years, progress has been good, but there is still much more that needs to be done.
The final area I want to mention is disability benefits. As a Government, we now spend £3 billion more a year, which is welcome. That recognises the fact that under the old system of disability living allowance, only 16.5% of claimants accessed the highest rate of benefit, while under PIP, the figure is about 22.5%, because the system recognises hidden impairments better, particularly mental health ones. It is right that we are getting support to the most vulnerable people in society as quickly as we can.
However, I have an ask. Everybody in Parliament recognises that we have a growing challenge with mental health conditions in this country. Whether in relation to people in work, people trying to get into work or people in their everyday lives, about one in four people will have a mental health condition at some point. I suspect whoever was in government would, like our Government, look to committing additional funding to support people with mental health conditions. One of the challenges is that no one has quite resolved the best way to direct and provide such support. There are lots of different pilots, but we have a real opportunity in that the one way in which we are identifying people with mental health conditions is through the PIP benefit. However, we do not do anything with that information: we do not signpost people who have gone through the system and been identified as having a mental health condition to the traditional support offered by the NHS, local charities, support groups and so on. I am not looking to get people off PIP.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sorry that I came in late and missed the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. To be quite frank with him, it is not so easy for people with mental health disabilities to get benefits. I now have a number of cases of people with mental health and other disabilities who have had their benefits stopped without any notice and without a by-your-leave.
Justin Tomlinson
The overall picture is that about 20% of those with a mental health condition accessed the highest rate of benefit under DLA, but the figure is now in the region of 80% under PIP. The system is better, although there is still work to be done. We have fantastic organisations, such as Mind, that regularly engage with Ministers and provide proactive suggestions about how to make further improvements.
My point is that when we identify such people, we should then signpost them to the additional support that is available. Through our own casework, we know that people who have experienced a mental health condition often do not know where to turn. There is no guidebook to tell them where to go. If we identify somebody with a mental health condition, we have a duty to do our very best to work with organisations such as Mind to signpost them to the help available, so that they can once again share the same opportunities that all of us take for granted.
This is an important debate. It is right that we are increasing spending on the most vulnerable people in society. We are rightly helping to give people an opportunity to get into work. The statistics are showing that real people are benefiting from our strong economic growth. I urge the Government to keep pressing forward with the positive action we are taking.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He has been a loyal supporter of the Government from the Back Benches during the past few months, and it sounds very much as though he is putting in a job application to the Prime Minister as much as to anyone else—[Interruption.] Well, you never know.
Another breach of the cap calls into question what its actual point was in the first place. As a means to reduce welfare spending, it continues to be inflexible and unworkable. When we look at the motion and words of the Minister from the Dispatch Box, we see a mea culpa. The Government are admitting that the cap has in effect gone for the next four years. The Minister will not have to continue to come back to the Dispatch Box to say that it is not working, because we have now given them a blank cheque for the next three or four years, which I guess we should welcome.
We should really be talking about the fundamentals of the economic circumstances that got us into this situation in the first place. We need not the soundbites we used to hear about the long-term economic plan, but a real plan to make sure that we are boosting investment in productivity in this country. The challenge in delivering that has just got a little bit harder as a consequence of Brexit, which I suspect is really why we are having this debate today. It was always going to be about circumstances, and Brexit—the fall in the value of the pound, the declining confidence in future growth—has had the impact of bringing the Government to the Dispatch Box with the display we have seen this evening.
On social security, the Chancellor missed his opportunity to be the reformer he claims to be for “just about managing” families. He should instead have focused on addressing the underlying root causes of poverty by working to address unemployment and employment support. We acknowledge that the Government have now had to abandon their own targets on the welfare cap, and the projected increases in resources are welcome, after they had used the cap for so long as a source for cuts.
The welfare cap is a reprehensive and regressive measure that places the burden of the UK Government’s failed economic strategy on the shoulders of the most disadvantaged in society. We should remind ourselves that the welfare cap was a flagship policy for the Government in the last Parliament, but it ended up as a tool to find more cuts that the Treasury has used and abused to squeeze resources from the Department for Work and Pensions.
The new Chancellor will again have to breach the target set for him, but we ask him to acknowledge that the sheer fact this Government cannot even stick to their own targets proves that the inflexibility of the welfare cap makes it unworkable. The fact that they will breach the cap again and again illustrates a desire not to provide guidance about forgoing the cap for the next four years, but to abandon for good the policy of having a cap. An arbitrary cap in these times of uncertainty is neither useful nor adequate, as the Government’s previous breaches have shown.
The best way to reduce and manage welfare spending is to restore the economy to a healthy state, not to hit the most disadvantaged with the bill. The cap will not address the underlying structural problems that are keeping people reliant on social security, including low pay and wider labour market inequality. The fact that people in well-paid jobs cannot afford to pay rent, because of high housing costs, should at least provoke the Government to listen to the point that reliance on welfare is more than what they perceive as a culture of dependency. We keep coming back to the issue of housing and housing costs, but the only way to address that is to make sure we address the issue of supply in the housing market, which the Government have singularly failed to do.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said of the welfare cap target:
“The Conservative government already has the unimpressive record of meeting nought-out-of three of its fiscal targets.”
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said in March 2014:
“The government’s newly-announced welfare cap will disproportionately target benefits claimed by the least well off”.
The IFS green budget, from February 2016, said that
“in practice, the welfare cap has proved much less binding. Spending is already forecast to exceed the cap that was set in July 2015 for each of the next three fiscal years. In other words, even though the welfare cap has only been in operation for less than two years (since the March 2014 Budget), it has already been broken by the Chancellor. It is therefore not clear whether it remains a real constraint on the government’s actions.”
The IFS was right then and is right today. What is the point of the welfare cap as a principle if it is breached time and again? It is, in effect, no constraint on what the Government are doing, or at least on what they should be doing. It is unworkable and meaningless. It was simply a sop to show that the Government were talking tough, and pays no regard to changing circumstances. It is intellectually, morally and ethically daft.
The £1 billion allocation to benefits in the autumn statement is a drop in the ocean, with billions of savings still to come from cuts to social security benefits over the next few years. Changing the taper rates will not, on its own, mitigate the impact of those cuts on low-income families. Instead, the Government should reverse cuts to the work allowance in full, so that working parents in low-paid jobs—people whom we, as a House, should want to support—do not lose out. Changing that taper rate—the rate at which support is withdrawn from low-income working households under universal credit—will be less effective at targeting support towards low earners with children than simply reversing the cuts to the work allowance would be.
The Scottish National party has consistently argued against the reductions in the work allowance and helped to force a Tory U-turn on tax credit cuts last year. Although the UK Government kicked the cut to the work allowance down the line, it will come back to bite next April, hitting “just about managing” families on low and middle incomes. The maximum gain from the 2% reduction in the taper is only around £500, which will fall short of what low and middle-income families need to manage when the maximum losses from the work allowance cuts are around £2,800. That is the reality of what is happening under this Government.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, has said:
“When it comes to boosting ‘just managing’ family budgets, all roads lead to universal credit. The most effective way to support families would be by reversing the £3bn cut to work allowances announced by the last chancellor”.
He added that a modest reduction in the taper rate would
“leave a bittersweet taste among just about managing families.”
Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested the partial U-turn would cost £700 million a year by 2020-21, compared with the £3 billion a year taken out of work allowances previously announced. Now that the welfare cap has gone, why do the Government not reassess these challenges, and make sure that they support the families that so desperately need that support?
With losses for families on universal credit, the repugnant rape clause—let us not forget that—and cuts for the sick and the disabled still to come down the line, it is clear the Tories have not abandoned their obsession with austerity. For all their rhetoric on the JAMs, they are still unwilling to deliver. Although it is welcome that there are to be no more welfare spending cuts, the sheer fact that the Tories are ploughing ahead with the pre-planned cuts next year, hitting low and middle-income families, shows that there are real-time cuts for families across the UK in this Parliament.
In a report to the Scottish Parliament’s Social Security Committee, researchers from Sheffield Hallam University showed that by 2020-21 Scotland can expect to lose just over £1 billion a year as a result of the latest welfare reforms introduced by the UK Government. That is £1 billion of cuts that have yet to hit ordinary working people in Scotland, delivered by this Westminster Government—happy Christmas. Sheffield Hallam University also estimates that the pre-2015 reforms are already costing claimants in Scotland just over £1.1 billion a year. That brings the cumulative loss expected from all the post-2010 welfare reforms up to more than £2 billion a year. We will not grow the economy by taking cash out of the pockets of the poorest. We will fix the economy, the debt and the deficit by putting in place measures that will grow the economy. This obsession with punishing the poor must stop.
The UK Government are saving a whopping £30 million in 2017-18, rising to £450 million in 2020-21, from the cuts to the employment and support allowance work-related activity group and the component in universal credit, according to figures published by the Treasury in the summer Budget 2015 and updated in March 2016. Already we have seen Tory Back Benchers rise again and again to vote with us on the Opposition Benches against those regressive policies. Even if the Government will not listen to those of us on the Opposition Benches, it is high time they listened to their own Members. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested the partial U-turn on the universal credit taper rate would cost £700 million. Why will the Government not do the right thing by the people affected?
Any move to increase the national living wage, as the Government call it, is to be welcomed, but the UK Government are still dragging their feet; they lack the ambition to really tackle low pay. The UK Government’s national living wage is not a living wage; it is simply a further tier of the national minimum wage. The real living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard.
Why will the Government not accept that definition and recognise that that should be the bare minimum for those who are working hard in our society? The UK Government’s decision to set an arbitrary rate for their national living wage fundamentally challenges the value of having an organisation providing independent advice on wage levels across the UK. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government start to accept that impartially provided advice?
The Scottish National party supports the payment and promotion of the real living wage and, in Scotland, continues to set the bar on fair work. Leading the way, on Monday 31 October, the First Minister welcomed the new living wage rate of £8.45 per hour, which will benefit thousands of staff in Scotland, and urged more Scottish organisations to sign up as accredited living wage employers. That rise of 20p will benefit thousands of employees at living wage accredited organisations in Scotland.
The best way to reduce and manage welfare spending is to restore the economy to a healthy state, not to hit the most disadvantaged with the bill. Austerity is a choice, not a necessity—an obsession that has been proved, time and again, to fail. It is time for an economic strategy that focuses on inclusive and fair growth. The SNP is delivering for Scotland; Westminster is delivering ongoing austerity. We are all paying the price for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2019-20 and 2020-21, due to higher forecast inflation and spend on disability benefits, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
20:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 103 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Acquisition of Land
That the draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding Amendments) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.
Bank Levy
That the draft Bank Levy (Double Taxation Relief) (Single Resolution Fund Levy) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 16 November, be approved.
Companies
That the draft Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Non-Financial Reporting) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.
Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary standards Authority
That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mr Shrinivas Honap be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 27 January 2017 to 26 January 2022.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Education
That the draft Coasting Schools (England) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 20 October, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)
Culture, MediA and Sport
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
A509 Development Ashton Grove
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This is a grassroots petition, showing that in this day of multimedia it is still possible to campaign at a local level. This petition has been organised by Ken Chapman, Dennis Randall and Julia Murphy. It is about an alteration to a road, which I am sure the highways authority thinks is a very good idea, but it dramatically affects the people of Ashton Grove. The petition was signed by virtually everyone in the area, because people are very concerned about the effect that this alteration to the road will have on their neighbourhood.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of Ashton Grove, Northamptonshire and the surrounding area,
Sheweth,
That the petitioners believe that the development of the A509 as currently proposed should not go ahead due to reduction in safety, the increase to noise and air pollution, and the privacy concerns that raising the road and removing the trees would cause to residents of Ashton Grove.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Transport to encourage Northamptonshire County Council to reassess their plans for the A509 and amend them in consultation with local residents.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001992]
EU Data Protection Rules
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am grateful for tonight’s opportunity to consider the implementation of the European Union data protection rules, and I look forward to a robust and constructive response from the Minister.
Let me start by stating the obvious: the way we send, receive, collect, analyse and use data has been transformed in the last few decades, and that transformation is only going to become more marked as time goes on. It is truly amazing that around 90% of global data that exists today was created in just the last two years, and that amount is predicted to grow year on year for the next decade. I was staggered to learn recently that Transport for London record 4.5 million pieces of information about bus movements every single day—a very far cry from the old days of clipboards and manual counters.
Of course, significant opportunities are presented by the growth of big data, a term which refers to the growth of large, complex data that can be analysed to provide valuable new insights and personalised services. Yet as our lives become increasingly digitised, the growth of big data has equally big implications for privacy and consequently very big questions for policy makers regarding how we should most appropriately regulate this digital revolution to protect the rights of the individual without stifling the flexibility to innovate.
Of course, the vote to leave the European Union has created a much more uncertain context within which we are approaching this complex issue, with the UK’s data protection rules closely intertwined with EU law. As I will argue in a moment, it is vital for the UK to have a strong data protection system that is in line with EU standards. We need to be part of a strong, open digital economy across Europe, which will be critical if we are to remain globally competitive. As Tech UK has pointed out, and I thank it for its assistance in preparing for this debate:
“As the leading digital economy in Europe, the UK has the most to gain, and conversely the most to lose, from the European data protection landscape.”
Whatever our future relationship with Europe, information will have to flow freely if we want to remain part of the growing global digital economy. I should declare, in passing, that I chair the recently established all-party group on data analytics, which is looking at the issues surrounding the growth of big data.
Let us move on to some history. The basis of EU data protection law is the 1995 data protection directive, which was implemented into UK law by the Data Protection Act 1998. Member states across the EU, however, have implemented the 1995 rules differently, resulting in divergences in enforcement—and, of course, the world has changed dramatically over that time. So in January 2012, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of data protection rules in the EU. After more than four years of deliberations, the general data protection regulation was agreed by the European Parliament in April 2016. The GDPR aims to strengthen consumer protection and enhance trust and confidence in how personal data is used and managed, giving citizens more control over their own private information. It will replace existing legislation that has been in place since the mid-1990s, which in the UK means superseding the Data Protection Act.
The new regulation entered into force on 24 May 2016. As a regulation, it will directly apply to all European Union member states from 25 May 2018; there will be no need for new national legislation. The new data protection directive also entered into force in May, with EU member states required to transpose it into their national law by May 2018. European Commissioners called the GDPR an
“essential step to strengthen citizens’ fundamental rights in the digital age and facilitate business by simplifying rules for companies in the Digital Single Market…The Directive for the police and criminal justice sector protects citizens’ fundamental right to data protection whenever personal data is used by criminal law enforcement authorities”
and will especially protect the personal data of victims, witnesses and suspects of crime.
Data protection is ultimately underpinned by the European Union’s charter of fundamental rights. The right to the protection of personal data is explicitly recognised by article 8, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Data protection is a highly developed area of European Union law—indeed, some describe the free movement of data as a fifth freedom. Given all that, what could Brexit mean for data protection in the United Kingdom?
It is encouraging that the Government have confirmed that the GDPR will still apply to the UK from May 2018. Ministers have stated this on a number of occasions, and I am confident that the Minister for Digital and Culture will do so again today. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said:
“We will be members of the EU in 2018 and therefore it would be expected and quite normal for us to opt into the GDPR and then look later at how best we might be able to help British business with data protection while maintaining high levels of protection for members of the public.”
The Minister for Digital and Culture has said:
“the Data Protection Act 1998…provides for very strong safeguards that are set to get stronger. The Government have said that we will opt in to the forthcoming general data protection regulation, which includes stronger enforcement measures than the current Data Protection Act.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1277.]
It is clear that the Government plan that the GDPR will apply in the UK from May 2018, presumably because, as the Secretary of State said, in 2018 the UK will still be a member of the EU. But what about after we leave?
Very little has been said about what data protection law in the UK will look like after that point. In fact, the Minister for Digital and Culture has said that there may be
“changes to data protection regulatory landscape after the UK exits the European Union.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 36WS.]
That point is particularly significant because the GDPR will apply directly, without needing to be transposed into national legislation, so when the UK leaves the EU our main data protection law will still be the Data Protection Act 1998, which is now not fit for purpose.
The Digital Economy Bill and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 were introduced with little mention of how they would adhere to the GDPR. Unless the GDPR is transposed into national legislation, our country’s main data protection law post-Brexit will be the outdated Data Protection Act. This matters, because without the new protections, UK citizens are vulnerable. Government research shows that nine out of 10 organisations have suffered data breaches, but the vast majority are under no obligation to report incidents. Falling back on the old system will not be good enough; we need to be moving forward into the 21st century in data protection, not backward into the last century. A further very real question mark hangs over the future implementation of the GDPR because of the Digital Economy Bill. Big Brother Watch has suggested that part 5 of that Bill fails to show how the legislation will adhere to the GDPR—indeed, the Bill refers to adhering to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but both pieces of legislation are now out of date.
The Information Commissioner pointed out that when the GDPR takes effect in the UK,
“The government will have to introduce national level derogations as part of implementation”,
so there will have to be
“a thorough consideration of the impact of the new legal framework on all aspects of the Bill affecting data sharing”.
The Open Rights group says that the GDPR
“should be looked in more detail”
adding that:
“Since the vote to leave the European Union we simply do not know what data protection regime will be in place when the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, and we fail to see how in this context Parliament can satisfy itself that the Bill will balance the needs of government with the privacy of citizens.”
It certainly seems illogical that this Bill should have been introduced with no reference to the GDPR when it will have to adhere to the GDPR in less than two years.
It is vital that the UK maintains data protection rules in line with EU rules after Brexit if we want to remain a major player on the digital stage. Many businesses and services operate across borders, and international data flows are essential to UK business operations across multiple sectors. In fact, half of all global trade in services already depends on access to cross-border data flows. There is a risk that after Brexit the UK may be treated as a “third country” on data protection issues. That is because the recently adopted Investigatory Powers Act is currently a UK competence, but that will not be the case once we are out of the EU. In a perhaps exquisite irony, we would find our legislation being judged against the standards of the GDPR. We would be a third country and could be required to come to what is termed an “adequacy decision” with the EU to allow data to flow freely between the United Kingdom and EU member states and to enable trade with the single market on equal terms.
In order to adopt an adequacy decision, the European Commission must be satisfied that a third country offers an equivalent level of data protection. A number of commentators fear that the recent Investigatory Powers Act means that the Commission may take some convincing. The risk is that such negotiations could take years to resolve, leaving protections for UK citizens in the meantime weak, as well as hugely disadvantaging the crucial tech sector, one of our great success stories. How easy it would be for our competitors in mainland Europe then to say to people, “Move here, where you can be inside the system. Don’t stay outside in the cold.”
Ministers should be working to ensure that our data protection rules are strong enough to secure an EU-UK adequacy decision, which will be vital to underpin trade rights across the digital economy. That is what we need, but as with the rest of the Brexit negotiations, we are in the dark, unless the Minister can shed some light this evening. Will he tonight confirm that the Government will prioritise guaranteeing international data flows post-Brexit during negotiations?
The Information Commissioner has also stated that, with so many businesses and services operating across borders,
“international consistency around data protection laws and rights is crucial both to businesses and organisations and to consumers and citizens.”
Will the Minister also confirm that the Government are seeking to secure an EU-UK adequacy decision? It is worth noting in passing that the last adequacy decision, with New Zealand, took more than three years to negotiate.
Data are the currency of the digital economy and we must not shy away from the broader challenges and opportunities this presents. The data landscape is shifting and legislation must keep pace if we want to protect citizens’ rights while simultaneously tapping into the potential offered by the internet of things. If we want the UK to remain at the forefront of the digital revolution, our data protection legislation must remain at least equivalent to European Union rules. As the Information Commissioner has succinctly said:
“I don’t think Brexit should mean Brexit when it comes to standards of data protection.”
The danger is that, to paraphrase, when it comes to data, Brexit could mean exit for tech.
The Government should champion the GDPR as a starting point for a comprehensive examination of how we can make better policy on big data. I hope the Minister will tonight provide further reassurance that the Government recognise the strategic and economic value of data for our country, as well as the importance of facilitating public confidence in how data are being used, and are consequently putting data, and data protection, at the heart of their negotiations.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It normally says at the start of a Minister’s speech in response to an Adjournment debate, “Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for securing this important debate,” and this time I really mean it, because this is an important subject. Although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I sit on opposite sides of the House, we have a similar interest in the subject and want to go in a similar direction in terms of the data protection regime that applies in the UK. We also share a common understanding of the value of data in a digital economy.
That does not surprise me, because the hon. Gentleman is not only an expert in his own right, but as MP for Cambridge he represents one of the most data-rich constituencies in the country. It is very good to see continuing investment in tech companies in Cambridge, including after 23 June. In fact, one of the biggest foreign investments in any British company ever was the investment in ARM Holdings based in Cambridge in July this year. That was a vote of confidence in British tech post-referendum, and since then we have seen investment decisions intrinsically based on the strength of our data systems, by companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, IBM and others, all of whom have made significant investment decisions into the UK post-Brexit. We have been clear that the general data protection regulation will apply in the UK from May 2018. We fully expect still to be in the EU at that point. That is why we have announced that we will ensure that the GDPR will apply in the UK from then.
The information rights landscape has evolved rapidly in the past decade, as the hon. Gentleman set out. The ability to collect, share and process data is critical to success in today’s digital global society. It is right to update our data protection regime not only because we will still be in the EU, but because it is time to update it, given the enormous changes that have taken place.
We were clear in the negotiations on the GDPR that any new data protection legislation needs to meet the need for high standards of protection for individuals’ personal data while not placing disproportionate burdens on businesses and organisations. The UK was successful in negotiating a more risk-based approach to the GDPR, allowing for greater flexibility in relation to the regulation’s mandatory requirements, such as on data protection impact assessments and data protection officers. We want a scheme that works effectively, protects data and is flexible to ensure that our data economy thrives. Therefore, we were successful in negotiating a reduction in some of the red tape and bureaucracy for ordinary businesses whose primary activities are not data processing but who have data that need to be protected. We succeeded in the negotiations to give greater discretion to the UK’s Information Commissioner in the way it enforces breaches of the regulation.
The new rules will strengthen rights and empower individuals to have more control over their personal data, for example, by providing individuals with greater access to their personal data and information on how their data are being used, and a new right to data portability, making it easier to transfer personal data between service providers. In addition, the GDPR provides important new safeguards, including new fines of up to 4% of an organisation’s annual global turnover, or €20 million, in the most serious cases of breaches of the regulation. Therefore, this is an important call to action for businesses to offer individuals assurances that their data are protected.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about the implementation of the GDPR. We now need to press ahead with implementation. It will become directly applicable in UK law on 25 May 2018, but a lot of preparatory work needs to be done in the meantime, both in government and by businesses throughout the country. We are now working on the overall approach and the details of that implementation. Details of any new legislation in this area will be made in due course and announced in the normal way, but I can tell him that we are considering these matters in great detail as we speak.
It is important for businesses and organisations to prepare now for the new standards of data processing. A lot of work has already taken place, but there is much for businesses to do to ensure that their processes and practices are aligned with the GDPR. The Information Commissioner is providing regular updates on the steps that organisations and individuals should take to prepare for the new legal framework and will continue to provide guidance over the next few months. We plan to consult with stakeholders on key measures where we have the opportunity to apply flexibilities, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the regulation to maximise and to protect our domestic interests and to get the balance right between delivering the protection that people need and ensuring that the regulation operates in a way that ensures that the UK’s data economy can be highly successful. For example, one measure will be on what the age of consent should be for children who wish to access information services. We want a data protection framework that works best for the UK and meets our needs. Those consultations will be forthcoming.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the issue of adequacy and the need for our data protection regime to be interoperable with data regimes around the world. It is a question of our data relationship not only with the European Union, but with other countries, too, because the data economy is truly global. We have made progress in our argument within the EU that data localisation rules are not appropriate. That is a live issue in the EU at the moment. There is also work to be done between now and 2018 to make sure that we achieve a coherent data protection regime and that data flows with the EU are not interrupted after we leave. The Government are considering all options for the most beneficial way of ensuring that the UK’s data protection regime continues to build a culture of data confidence and trust that safeguards citizens and supports businesses in a global data economy.
Without having been able to prejudge the publication of consultations and of legislative plans, I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the tech industry in the UK that we are doing all we can to ensure that our future data standards are of the very highest quality, including their international links, and that we get the balance right between ensuring the high levels of protection that individuals and companies need and ought to expect with the appropriate levels of flexibility to make sure that our data economy can be one of the strongest in the world.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister is making a deft response and I am listening closely to him. Could he say more about the impact of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which has been raised, and the difficulty that it might present to achieving an adequacy agreement?
Matt Hancock
I was about to come on to that issue, which was raised in the Digital Economy Bill Committee. The Bill includes important data-sharing arrangements, supported by the Labour Government in Wales, to improve public services and other things by ensuring that data are appropriately shared. Those sharing arrangements will still be protected by the data protection regime. The Bill is drafted according to the current law, which is the Data Protection Act. It is not possible to draft legislation in anticipation of future legislation; that is not how the body of legislation works. If and when legislation is proposed to amend an existing system such as the Data Protection Act, one would expect it to include an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, should this Parliament enact it, in order to make it consistent. That is how legislation is made in the UK. It is neither possible nor logically sensible to legislate in anticipation of future legislation, even if we fully expect it to come into force. All of the existing statute and the Digital Economy Bill, which is currently before the other place, are drafted with reference to the existing regime because the Bill will come into force before the expected future regime comes into existence in 2018.
That explanation may have been more convoluted than it needed to be, but I hope it shows why the Bill—and, indeed, other recent legislation—is drafted in that way. I have heard the complaints, but they simply miss the point of how legislation is made and framed. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question and that he is reassured that we are working to implement a modern and effective data protection framework, fit for purpose for the digital age. I welcome his input.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Consumer Rights (Enforcement and Amendments) Order 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I know that the Minister is unwell, so I will allow her, if she so wishes, to move the motion from a sedentary position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Consumer Rights (Enforcement and Amendments) Order 2016.
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am very grateful for the Committee’s indulgence.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which came into force last year, simplifies UK consumer law, empowers consumers, improves consumer choice and drives competition. It provides clear rights for consumers when buying goods, services and digital content, and clear remedies so that consumers know what they are entitled to when things go wrong, and action can be taken where needed. It also provides enforcers such as trading standards offices with a set of updated powers to aid them in investigating potential breaches of law while ensuring that businesses have the relevant rights of appeal.
The order makes a number of small but essential amendments in relation to schedule 5 to the 2015 Act. It adds a number of pieces of legislation to the list in schedule 5 so that enforcers such as trading standards can access the updated investigatory powers in the schedule. The order will ensure that a comprehensive range of powers is available to enforce the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which harmonise trading rules on how tobacco products are manufactured, produced and presented, and the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015, which require cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco to be packaged in a standard colour with a standard typeface.
The order also makes consequential amendments to two pieces of legislation to make them refer to the investigatory and enforcement powers contained in schedule 5. The legislation that the order affects is the London Local Authorities Act 2007, which tackles rogue traders by requiring mail-forwarding businesses in London to register with their local authority, and the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which regulates the quantity of goods and measuring equipment used by traders.
The Government consider that the order provides for the application of the most modern suite of enforcement powers to those pieces of legislation. Importantly, it will allow trading standards offices to play their full part in enforcing new tobacco legislation introduced by the Government. In turn, it will continue to drive down smoking rates in this country. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The order does not change anything that is already on the statute book; it just updates enforcement provisions, following the passing of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We therefore welcome it and will not divide on it.
Enforcing the regulations and legislation relating to the sale, packaging and marketing of tobacco is incredibly important, especially as we are continuing down the road to becoming a smoke-free society. Currently, one in five adults smokes, and although the number has halved since 1974 we still have a long way to go before we can cheer and pat ourselves on the back for achieving that vision of a healthier society.
Over the years, important work has been done to reduce the prevalence of smoking in our society, including the ban on smoking in public places introduced by the previous Labour Government and some important measures introduced under the coalition Government, such as the standardised packaging of tobacco products, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) spearheaded so valiantly. I know it is peculiar for a shadow Minister to be bipartisan, but the hon. Lady deserves credit for her work on this matter, especially on the previous tobacco control plan.
That brings me nicely to my last point. I cannot miss the opportunity to remind the Minister that we remain concerned that our work to reduce tobacco consumption in our society could stall if the new tobacco control plan is not introduced sooner, rather than later. I want to use this opportunity to ensure that it is at the forefront of the Minister’s mind—I am sure it is—and that she does not forget it over the Christmas break.
Nicola Blackwood
I thank the shadow Minister for her support and the spirit of bipartisanship in this festive season. The Government share her view that reducing variation in smoking, especially among vulnerable groups, is a top priority. That is exactly why we are working hard on the tobacco control plan to ensure that it is the best possible plan and that it delivers on its aims. I would be happy to update the House as soon as that is possible.
Consumers and businesses benefit from the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in all sectors. The Act was introduced to strengthen, simplify and modernise the law and to consolidate enforcement powers. It is right that the powers are applied to the specified legislation without further delay to provide legal certainty for enforcement authorities. Through that, we can see the benefits of the tobacco legislation that we have delivered and that has made us one of the leading countries in the world on tobacco enforcement. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016.
The regulations will bring £3.6 billion of support to ratepayers in the 2017 revaluation, including help to 500,000 business owners with small properties. Taken together with the reforms to the small business rate relief introduced by the Chancellor, the 2017 revaluation will mean that nearly three quarters of businesses will see no change or a fall in their bills next year.
Business rates are the means by which businesses contribute to the cost of providing essential local services. They represent an increasingly important part of local council income, and by the end of this Parliament we will allow local government to keep 100% of all local business rates income. The design of this new finance system will shape the future of local government. Councils have been calling for a move away from dependence on central Government for decades.
However, as with all taxes, we must ensure that the business rate remains a fair, modern and fit-for-purpose tax. That is why we have reformed the business rate system. From April 2017, 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates under the newly reformed small business rate relief system. A further 50,000 will benefit from up to 100% rate relief and another 250,000 smaller properties will pay rates based on the lower small business multiplier—a cut worth 2.5%. From next April we will reduce the small business multiplier from 48.4p in every pound of rateable value to 46.6p—the lowest multiplier since 2013—which will ensure that we do not raise any extra money from the revaluation.
For the largest businesses we are reducing the standard multiplier from 49.7p to 47.9p. From April 2020 taxes for all businesses paying rates will be cut through a switch in the annual indexation of business rates from the retail prices index to be consistent with the main measure of inflation, currently the consumer prices index. This represents a business rates cut every year from 2020, worth approximately £370 million in 2020-21 alone and growing significantly thereafter. Taken together, these reforms are worth £6.7 billion over the next five years. That is the biggest ever cut in business rates.
We are also modernising the tax to make it fit for the 21st century. We are ensuring that all businesses will be able to pay their business rates online and we are ending the overly complicated practice of local authorities issuing demands combining several years of bills. In future it will be simpler for businesses to understand and pay their bill.
Business rates are a property tax, so the amount that businesses are asked to pay depends on the value of their property. The rateable value of all properties is assessed independently by the Valuation Office Agency. Its assessment represents the annual rental value of the property; for most ratepayers it is based on actual rents paid by actual ratepayers. To ensure that rateable values are kept up to date, the Valuation Office Agency undertakes regular revaluations. The most recent revaluation takes effect from April 2017 and updates all rateable values based on the market at 1 April 2015. This has been a considerable exercise involving the valuation of more than 1.8 million properties, based on more than 300,000 rents collected and analysed by experienced chartered surveyors.
All valuations were published online on 30 September, giving ratepayers six months’ warning of their new assessments. An online rates calculator allows ratepayers to estimate their rates bill. We have funded local authorities to write to ratepayers alerting them to their revaluation and the online rates calculator. To date, 500,000 visits have been made on the website to check rates bills.
Overall, the revaluation does not raise any more or less in business rates. Indeed, nearly three quarters of businesses will see either no change or a fall in their bills next year, thanks to the business rates revaluation, with 600,000 businesses set to pay no business rates at all. The revaluation will reduce bills for all regions except London. Although many ratepayers in London will also see reductions, the results of the revaluation show that prime office and retail markets in inner London have seen rental values increase considerably over recent years, so it is right that they should pay more based on the accurate and updated values.
For the minority of businesses that face an increase, a £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme will ensure that no business is unfairly penalised. The regulations will implement that relief scheme for those ratepayers facing increases. London will benefit more from the transitional relief scheme than anywhere else in the country; in total, properties in London will benefit from transitional relief worth more than £1 billion during the scheme’s lifetime. More than 140,000 properties in London will benefit from transitional relief, of which more than 100,000 are small properties. We are providing the same transitional relief to small and medium-sized businesses as was provided at the previous revaluation in 2010, so the regulations will ensure that, before inflation, no small property will see an increase of more than 5% next year because of the revaluation.
The largest of businesses—those with a rateable value of more than £100,000—will face higher caps on increases as they are best placed to manage the impact of the revaluation. We listened to concerns raised during the consultation about the cap on increases for larger properties. In the final scheme, we have provided as much support to those properties as possible. We have reduced the cap on increases in year 1 for large properties from 45% to 42%, and in year 2 from 50% to 32%. That is the maximum change we can make while keeping the scheme revenue-neutral, which we are required to do by law.
The regulations have been finalised following consultation with ratepayers during the autumn, and the detailed regulations have been shared and discussed with experts in local government and the software companies that calculate bills. The transitional relief will be applied automatically to business rates bills for 1 April 2017. The regulations are just one part of a set of reforms that, from next April, will transform business rates. The revaluation will reduce bills for eight out of nine regions, supporting nearly three quarters of ratepayers. A £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme will support those facing increases, including £1 billion for London. Over the next five years, our wider reforms will deliver another £6.7 billion of help, proving that this Government are determined to help business and support growth.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
The draft regulations set out the rules for the transitional relief scheme that will apply when the business rates revaluation comes into effect next year. Business rates are revalued roughly every five years. The most recent revaluation was carried out back in 2010, as has been mentioned, and it was based on values from 2008. Revaluations have a big impact on small businesses throughout the country. The transitional rate relief scheme is worth £3.4 billion, so it is only right that we properly review and scrutinise the proposals.
Business rates have been revalued for the first time in seven years. The new rate will come in at the beginning of April 2017. Although some businesses will get a rate cut as a result of the revaluation, others face rises. Some areas of the country will be affected more than others. The Institute for Fiscal Studies studied the latest business rates revaluation and found that there is a “growing divergence” in property prices throughout the country, and especially between the capital and the rest of the country. Because of the extortionate prices of property in the capital, London raises more from business rates, but businesses in London are often disproportionately affected. The revaluation will see the values in some parts of London jump by as much as 400%.
The Minister says that the revaluation is fair, but a whole host of organisations have come together to oppose the proposals. The Mayor of London, London Councils and 43 bodies representing retailers and businesses, such as the Federation of Small Businesses London and the New West End Company, have opposed the proposals. They have estimated that London businesses will have to pay £885 million more in total annually due to the revaluation. In fact, because of the proposals, they have called for a full review into the effectiveness of the business rates system. I heard what the Minister just said about how the regulations will benefit London and advantage, rather than disadvantage businesses. What literature and advice has gone out to businesses in London to ensure that they are aware of the situation?
Some industries are particularly badly affected. For instance, analysis from CVS shows that pubs across England and Wales will face a tax increase of £421 million in the five years after the revaluation. Some pub operators have estimated that they might need to increase prices by 30p a pint, and I am sure that none of us wants to see that. What advice has gone out to that industry to explain the transitional relief and the multiplier? The industry is scared about what will happen, but the Minister seemed to suggest that there will be a relief that operators can claim or automatically get.
A hike in business rates on the scale proposed by the Government could damage many businesses. That is why the transitional reliefs are so necessary. Local government has already severely suffered from brutal, devastating cuts to its funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that between 2010 and 2020, local government will have had its direct funding cut by 79%. Those cuts are often unfair, because they hit some of the councils with the greatest need the hardest. Nine of the 10 most deprived councils in England have had cuts higher than the national average.
On top of that, reforms to local government finance have increased reliance on council tax and business rates. Owing to the huge divergence in income-raising power from tax bases in different areas of the country, the measures could entrench regional inequality, which is having a drastic impact on local government services, including youth centres, museums and libraries. Many libraries have had to close and our social care system is teetering on the edge of crisis. Councils are having to prioritise efficiency savings over the health and happiness of their communities.
While the transitional relief scheme and the multiplier are an important system, they will not help to plug the enormous gap in local government finances. Although we do not oppose the statutory instrument, I would be grateful if the Minister could let the Committee know what thinking is going on regarding the long-term future of business rates. We see more and more that businesses exist in the digital economy, rather than on the high street, and if we are committed to funding local government—I am sure we all are—there needs to be a root-and-branch review of how that money is to be raised.
The Minister mentioned modernising business rates, but a tax on business properties in a digital age seems a bit 20th century. I would be grateful if he could let the Committee know whether there are any plans to bring the rates into the 21st century. It is fair to say that local government finance is complex, but it is vital, and I am more than happy to work with him to find a long-term, sustainable solution to the funding of local services that our constituents rely on. That problem has been ducked time and again, and I hope that he agrees that on our watch we must push to find a modern, long-term, sustainable solution.
Mr Jones
I will start my response to the hon. Lady by taking on the issue about London, which she spent an extensive amount of time raising. London is obviously an extremely important area in the context of the business rates revaluation. She did not mention it, but I am sure she would welcome the fact that there are eight regions—particularly parts of the midlands and the north of the country—that will see significant business rates reductions as a result of the revaluation.
With regard to London, while many ratepayers will see reductions, the results of the revaluation show that prime office and retail markets in inner London have seen significant rental value increases, as I mentioned in my opening comments. Those increases have been considerable over recent years. On that basis, it is right that they should pay more based on the accurate and updated valuations. As I have said, for those ratepayers facing increases, London will benefit more than anywhere else in the country from a transitional relief scheme. In total, properties in London will benefit from transitional relief worth over £1 billion during the life of the scheme. Over 140,000 properties in London will benefit from transitional relief, including 100,000 people running businesses that involve smaller properties.
The hon. Lady asked what information ratepayers have been given. Their local authorities have contacted them—we have paid and facilitated councils to do this—to tell them about the revaluation and, through that, ratepayers had an opportunity to go online and look at their business rates bill for 2017-18. We have given businesses a period of six months to adjust to those new bills.
The hon. Lady also mentioned pubs, which are an extremely important part of many of our communities, not just in London, but up and down the country. I am sure she will recognise that the sector is diverse. Many pubs have seen significant changes in what they offer customers since 2010—many now offer casual dining—and from that many have experienced significant turnover increases, which are reflected in rental and, therefore, rateable values for the revaluation. Many regions—and many properties in the pub sector—are also seeing business rates fall.
With regard to the approach to valuing pubs, which is unique, there is an approved guide for valuing pubs that relates to rents but also to fair maintainable trade. At the outset of the revaluation we consulted the five main bodies that represent the beer and pub sector, and the sector decided that the approved guide for the valuation of public houses should be continued following the 2017 revaluation.
The hon. Lady also mentioned local government finance. I can reassure her that we will make changes at the point of the 2017 business rates revaluation to ensure that councils are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by that.
Question put and agreed to.
Emission Reductions and Low Carbon Investments
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I shall briefly outline the procedure for the Committee. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about that Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes. Questions to the Minister will follow. The total time available for the statement and the subsequent questions and answers is up to one hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister will move the motion on the Order Paper and debate will take place on that motion. We must conclude proceedings by 7 pm.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It might help the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain the background to the document and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended it for debate.
Since its introduction in 2005, the European Union emissions trading system has been a central component of EU and UK efforts to meet carbon reduction targets in a cost-effective and technologically neutral way, using tradeable permits that allow emissions of carbon dioxide. It was initially based primarily on allocation by member states, but the current phase, which covers 2013-20, introduced an EU-wide allowance system and an increased emphasis on auctioning allowances, rather than allocation.
Following the European Council’s agreement in October 2014 on a 2030 policy framework for climate change and energy, including a binding target to reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40%, the European Commission advanced a proposal for a directive to give effect to that decision during phase IV of the ETS from 2021-30 and to make a number of other changes. Although the Government said that there were a number of detailed aspects that they wished to examine further, they had been pressing the Commission to produce proposals and therefore welcomed the document.
On 16 September, the European Scrutiny Committee took the view that the document was of some significance, given the importance of the ETS. It therefore had no hesitation in recommending it for debate in European Committee. Notwithstanding the outcome of the EU referendum on 23 June, it has since confirmed that view, on the grounds that the ETS is likely to impact the UK after 2020, irrespective of whether the UK is still an EU member state.
The EU’s 2030 policy framework involves separate reduction targets for sectors covered by the ETS and for the non-traded sector. Document 11483/16 seeks to deliver emissions reductions in the latter area by setting binding targets for 2030 for each member state. The Government see those proposals as likely to have a relatively limited additional policy impact on the UK, but since they complement the proposals for the EU ETS, the European Scrutiny Committee regards them as also relevant to the debate.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the issue and a lively debate.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that interventions are not allowed during the Minister’s opening statement.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for a clear opening statement of intent on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee. I, too, look forward to a lively debate on a very important subject.
I should start with something of an apology. Today the Department reviewed our processes for interacting with this Committee on this issue. I am not sure that we have demonstrated best practice in keeping the Committee up to date on the file. It has been complicated. When best to debate files is a difficult judgment call: too soon and there is not enough to discuss, as has certainly been the case on this issue—for long periods, absolutely nothing happened. On the other hand, sometimes things move quickly and the process may work against us, which is what we were arguing in this instance.
I am extremely happy to have this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, the emissions trading scheme matters for the UK. I argue that negotiating the reform of phase IV of the emissions trading scheme matters for us, our constituents and the businesses in our constituencies, whether or not we stay in the emissions trading scheme. That is the second point that I recognise in my hon. Friend’s opening remarks. We are clearly leaving the European Union, but we have not yet decided whether we will stay inside the EU emissions trading scheme or carve a different path.
The decision has not been taken—it is part of a wider set of issues and debates about disentangling ourselves from a complex web of agreements and relationships, and resetting our relationships—but we are clear in our mind that rolling up our sleeves and being a full, active participant in the negotiations is absolutely in our national interests.
If we stay in the EU emissions trading scheme, it is clearly in our interest to shape the rules of the mechanism, given its impact on our economy and the economic life of our partners and competitors. However, even if we decide to leave, it makes sense to take this opportunity to play whatever role we can in shaping the rules of an important mechanism—not least to ensure that our European partners and competitors play their full part in the global efforts on climate change. Given the impact for our competitors, it must make sense for the UK, which has arguably played more of a role than any other country in shaping the emissions trading scheme, to stay at the table.
We are in until we are out, and we are playing an active role in shaping this important mechanism so that it does what it was set up to do: be a technology-neutral, market-based platform to help European economies decarbonise at the lowest possible cost, particularly in relation to our power and heavy industrial sectors. That is what we set it up for. The debate matters, and this phase of reform matters whether or not we stay in the emissions trading scheme, which is why we are playing such an active role in the negotiations.
Finally, on our approach, I should say that we accept the case for reform. The emissions trading scheme has had some success in reducing emissions, and the mechanics, although complicated, broadly work, but there is a structural problem of imbalance in demand for and supply of allowance: in fact, there are an estimated 1.8 billion surplus allowances in the system. The concern that we share with many is that the overhang in the supply of allowances makes it hard to develop the stronger price signal needed to drive and incentivise the investments in low carbon technology that will be required if we are to have a solid chance of meeting our long-term carbon targets. I argue, representing a country that set a carbon price support due to concerns about the emissions trading scheme’s failure to deliver a strong price, that carbon price support has played an active role—possibly the key role—in ensuring that this country is moving off coal faster than any other.
Our reform focuses on four areas. The first is agreeing further action to take the surplus out of the system, keep the market liquid and deliver a more effective carbon price. The second is ensuring that industry sectors at risk of carbon leakage, where production moves abroad to an area with lower carbon prices, are adequately protected. The UK, along with France, continues to press for the allocation of free allowances to be targeted effectively to support those industries most at risk and avoid imposing unfair uniform reductions on all sectors.
The third area is reducing administrative burdens—there is still room to do that—by simplifying procedures where possible. Most notably, that should include increasing the scope for small operators to opt out of the main scheme. The final area is preserving the principle of fiscal sovereignty. The Commission’s proposals underline the importance of providing appropriate compensation to those industries affected by the indirect costs of EU ETS, but allow member states to choose how to do that, within state aid rules. Others have called for a more harmonised approach. For the UK, preserving our fiscal sovereignty in the final agreement will be of central importance and we continue to press that point.
Taken together, we believe these changes have the potential to put the ETS back on the path to effective delivery of the EU 2030 target, which in turn would contribute to the UK’s own domestic targets. I look forward to hearing the Committee’s perspective on those comments.
The Chair
We now have until 5.43 pm for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that questions should be brief? It is open to a Member, subject to the discretion of the Chair, to ask related supplementary questions.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I note that the Minister has set out the UK’s position on phase IV of EU ETS in a document supplied for the Committee’s attention this afternoon. In that document, mention is made of the overhang of allowances that the Minister said will remain within EU ETS, but no mention is made of any Government position concerning what might be done about that overhang as we go into phase IV. Does the Minister any views on that and does he think there should be a Government position on it?
Mr Hurd
Yes, we do. What we have argued for is what is called a volume-based approach. This is our second crack at this issue. In the 2014 initiative, we were instrumental in setting up the market stability reserve, which is basically a mechanism for taking surplus allowances above a certain threshold out of the system.
What we suggest this time around, and it seems to be gathering some support, is that we should accelerate that process, in terms of both scale and time. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his deep experience of tracking the ETS, that is because the fundamental problem is a structural imbalance of demand and supply allowance. Our proposal is a volume-based approach, which is seeing whether can we accelerate the mechanisms for taking this surplus out of the system.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, the question of taking surpluses out can be done by means of the market stability reserve, which will be completely transported from phase III to phase IV, with all the surpluses, as things appear to stand at the moment. That means that, because the system is currently trading at about 200 million allowances below the capped level, there will be increased surpluses coming into phase IV, in addition to those in the market stability reserve and those carried over. The suggestion that might be put is that those should be forcibly retired in phase IV. Does the Minister have any views on that?
Mr Hurd
We are open to mechanisms and discussion about the how. The point that we are trying to make is that we need to accelerate the process of taking surplus allowances out. We think the MSR continues to be the right primary tool for doing that; the issue is the pace at which it is done. We are trying to gather support for doing that on a bigger scale at a faster pace.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I have questions on three different aspects of the Minister’s statement. With your permission, Chair, I will go through them all now, so the Minister can deal with them together.
First, the Minister has confirmed that no decision has been taken as yet as to whether the UK wants to be in or out of the emissions trading scheme after leaving the European Union. What are the implications for the UK’s future influence on the rules of the scheme if we decide to stay part of the scheme but not part of the European Union? We would not have a place on the Council of Ministers and so on when EU directives were being agreed.
Secondly, although—
Mr Hurd
I have explained the decision we have taken. As with many of the climate-related issues in relation to the EU—we have participated in negotiations about the burden-sharing regulation following the Paris agreement and this scheme—we have taken a view that while we are still a member of the European Union we will participate fully in these negotiations. Whatever we do in the future in terms of our ongoing relationship, these negotiations matter for our national interest. It is entirely right that we are at the table negotiating fully.
Our participation in these reform discussions has been welcomed, as far as I can see, by our European partners. There has been no resistance, and no suggestion at all that we are not in a position to influence the future. In fact, our participation is welcome—not least because most people recognise that we were one of the principal architects of the scheme and one of the thought leaders on how we can make the mechanism work in the future. Our participation is welcome, and our influence continues to be real.
Peter Grant
With respect, the Minister is describing what happens now, while the United Kingdom is still a full member of the European Union. Although the directive is intended to run until 2030, it will not be long before we have to start looking at updates, reviews and amendments; the next time the European Union looks at amendments to these regulations, it is likely that the United Kingdom will no longer be a member. Is there any process in place by which states that are not members of the European Union can have a say and, if necessary, a vote on any future revisions of the directive?
Mr Hurd
We are talking about negotiating the principal elements of the reform of the emissions trading scheme. As far as I can see—it is a fairly opaque process—that is due to be completed by the end of 2017. That is when the base of the agreement is likely to be reached, and work can then begin on underpinning the implementation. That is well within the Brexit timeframe. Our view, therefore, is that we should continue to be a very constructive, positive, inquisitive voice at the table to ensure that the next phase of the emissions trading scheme—I would argue that it is in one of the most critical phases in its history—is structured in the right way.
Dr Whitehead
Pursuant to whether we will be a member of the EU when the fourth phase comes into operation, the Minister of course knows that a number of non-EU members are already in the EU ETS. First, does he have a model in mind of what our relationship with the EU ETS might be, bearing in mind that there are already non-EU members in the EU ETS?
Secondly, does the Minister have any views on the recent announcement in the autumn statement that there is no definite commitment to extend our carbon floor price mechanism beyond 2020-21? As was said in the autumn statement, it is possible that the EU ETS level will coincide with our carbon price support in the middle of the next decade, which strongly implies a relationship, whether we are in the EU or not, between the EU ETS and our carbon price support mechanism.
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman’s first question—he tempts me to allude to models that I might have in my mind—takes me into the territory of providing a running commentary, which would have career consequences that I am not prepared to contemplate. The point is fundamentally right: we are one of the principal architects of this system. It matters a lot, because at the moment the emissions trading scheme covers 50% of our emissions, and we have very serious long-term carbon targets, so getting it right and making it work more effectively is absolutely in our interests. We have an opportunity to do that by shaping these negotiations. Once we leave the European Union, there are options to think through. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are models whereby countries continue to participate in a scheme and influence the rules. However, we are categorically not at the point where we have got a clear view on that. We have to look at it in the round and think through what is in the national interest.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, he is entirely right to recognise the structural failure—if that is not too harsh a criticism—of the emissions trading scheme in setting a price for carbon that drives behaviour. We are now talking about €4 a tonne, and I do not think anyone is arguing that that is as powerful a driver of behaviour as we would like. This country took a unilateral decision to implement the carbon price support mechanism. In that context the carbon price signal and the emissions trading scheme matter a great deal to us because ultimately the objective should be to ensure the level playing field across Europe we want so that our industry remains super-competitive. That in large part underpins his point. The point I am trying to make is about why it is in our interests to ensure that the reform of phase IV of the emissions trading scheme is sufficiently ambitious in terms of taking out surplus allowances to give the opportunity to narrow the divergence between the carbon price in the UK and that across the EU.
Peter Grant
With reference to the 1.8 billion surplus allowances to which the Minister referred, simplistic economics theory of supply and demand suggests that supply is far too high and that we should cut it and reduce the overall emissions target for the whole of the EU. Is the fact that so many allowances are going spare an indication that the EU could be more ambitious in the targets it sets for others to reduce carbon emissions more quickly than we were doing previously?
Mr Hurd
That is a good question; let me break that down. On ambition, because we are talking about a cap and trade scheme, there is a debate about whether the level of ambition should be accelerated. The Council’s suggestion is that the current reduction of 1.7% a year should be escalated to 2.2%. There is a discussion about whether there should be more ambition, but I do not detect any real political traction behind that and therefore the focus of our energy—apart from on preserving fiscal sovereignty, pursuing simplicity and the other things I mentioned—is on gathering a coalition of the ambitious in terms of accelerating the withdrawal of surplus allowances from the system.
Peter Grant
My final question, I promise. As I look at the exchange of correspondence the Minister and his predecessor have had with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I note that his predecessor wrote on 23 November 2015, in agreeing to the request for the debate, that it would be better held in six or 12 months’ time once the shape of the new directive had become clearer. Almost exactly 12 months to the day, the Minister wrote to the Scrutiny Committee asking for scrutiny to be lifted because there was not time to hold a debate in the four weeks that remained before the Council decision. Can he see why that kind of behaviour causes members of the Scrutiny Committee and others to wonder how committed various Departments are to holding themselves properly to account and to parliamentary scrutiny? Will he explain why on 21 November neither he nor presumably his colleagues who set House business thought it would be possible to timetable a two or three-hour debate in the four weeks between then and the intended Council decision?
Mr Hurd
I opened with, in my experience, uncharacteristic candour on behalf of the Government in saying that I do not think our Department demonstrated best practice in that way. It is quite hard. We are having the debate 12 months after my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) made it quite clear that we were open to that. The situation has moved very slowly from one where there was frankly nothing to debate to one where under the Slovakian presidency everything was turbo-charged and moving fast. Our first instinct—I think a natural one—was to say that with things moving so fast perhaps we did not have time, but on reflection I am extremely glad we are having the debate.
I emphasise that I and the Department are aware of the importance of proper procedure, in terms of scrutiny clearance, not least in the present context. I have been candid about putting our hands up to say I am not sure we have demonstrated best practice; but we certainly intend to do so.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
What changes will the Minister seek with respect to the existing binary system for classifying carbon leakage as the negotiations proceed?
Mr Hurd
We have received many representations on that point, because it is highly emotive for a number of sectors. My hon. Friend may be aware that along with France we have argued for what is called a tiering system, based on the premise that if we are going to have free allocations in the system—and we are going to, for a period of time, as we manage the transition—those allowances should be targeted at those sectors that are clearly at most risk from carbon leakage based on their carbon intensity and what is called their trade intensity. Therefore we have simply been trying to assert the argument that free allowances should be targeted on those who need them most, rather than spreading the jam across the system. I should tell my hon. Friend that I think we are losing that argument.
Jake Berry
Will the Minister also explain his concerns in relation to sectors that are not liable for free allocations being at risk of a windfall profit and how that will affect UK industry protection?
Mr Hurd
There has been a clear suggestion in the past of over-generous allowances and windfall profits, and various bodies have tried to measure that and the value runs into large amounts of money. The emissions trading scheme is extremely complicated, not least because of the difficulty of ensuring fairness and transparency around the allocation of free allowances. Because we want the system to work and deliver what it was set up to do—which is to set a market-based mechanism that allows and incentivises low-cost abatement of carbon—we are hawkish in terms of making sure that the system is not gamed, and that it works effectively.
At the same time—and this is part of the complication, and, to be clear, I remind the Committee that I speak as the Minister for Climate Change and Industry in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy —we have to listen to all voices. I had a round table last week with representatives of the power sector and industries which, in many cases, were arguing against each other. It is Government’s role to find a path through the various rocks on the road. I am not entirely sure that in the past the path has led to the outcome we want, but my hon. Friend will know that we must be extremely sensitive, particularly at this time, when various sectors of the economy are feeling vulnerable and uncertain, not least because of Brexit. Therefore they need as much visibility and certainty as possible. Those are just some of the compromises that the Government must think through and negotiate on behalf of the country.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions we will proceed to debate the motion.
Motion made, and question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 1 1065/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments; welcomes the European Commission’s intention to reform the EU Emissions Trading System in line with the conclusions of the October 2014 European Council; and calls on the Government to continue to negotiate, in line with Cabinet-cleared positions, with the aim of agreeing a well-functioning and balanced System that is environmentally robust and supports cost-effective emissions reductions while preserving industrial competitiveness and promoting a level playing-field.—(Mr Nick Hurd.)
Dr Whitehead
We have had a good session, and the Minister was asked number of pertinent questions. They focused, first, on whether we are actually going to be there to influence the EU ETS in any way in the future, and, secondly, even if we are not there to influence it, on the extent to which it will continue to have a substantial influence on us, however it is sorted out in the absence of the UK as a member of the EU.
I suggested that it is worth examining the EU ETS’s structures in respect of the countries that fully participate in it but are not EU members. There are particular regulations relating to that, but those countries participate fully in the EU ETS and are not just observers at the table. They are bound by what happens in the ETS, but they are active participants in shaping it. I hope at the very least that, in our future relationship with the EU ETS, we aim to be a full member and sit round the table, even if we are not a member of the European Union, so that the fact that the development of the EU ETS reflects our country’s priorities for the decarbonisation of our industries and for climate change is fully taken into account.
The Minister made it clear that the Government’s aim in the discussions was to ensure that the allocations were retired or removed from the system at an accelerated pace. I very much concur with that aim, because we need to understand where the EU ETS stands at the moment and where it might position itself relative to our carbon price support mechanism in the future. We are coming to the end of phase III, but particularly because of the recession and crisis of 2008-09, the number of allowances that are being generated in the system—we have already achieved the targets that the EU ETS requires us to meet by the end of phase III—means, as I mentioned in questions, that we are not retiring or reducing allowances at the moment, but creating 200 million additional allowances before the end of phase III. The proposal for dealing with that—the market stability mechanism—effectively loads those allowances, which have been placed in quarantine, as it were, into the beginning of phase IV, in addition to the new allowances.
Unless we do something about rebasing where we start from in 2020, we have the prospect of a continuing overhang of emissions through the whole period of phase IV of the EU ETS. My first proposition, which I suggest the Government ought to look at in their continuing engagement with the outcome of this—although, as the Minister said, it will be on a vastly accelerated scale to that which was previously the case—is that the 2020 starting point for phase IV should be rephased so that it is based on actual emissions in 2020, rather than the trajectory that they have been on hitherto, which would mean that the 2020 figure did not reflect real emissions and therefore institutionalised the overhang of allowances in the system into the fourth phase.
This afternoon the Minister said that there is not a great deal of support for the linear reduction factor to rise from the proposed 2.2% per annum. Again, however, when it comes to attacking those outstanding allowances, some figure higher than 2.2% would be very helpful and important. Considering whether it could go up to something like 2.4% would be a useful addition to the fight to shape the EU ETS, so that it is fighting fit and combative over the next period, regarding what it is trying to do not only about the overall capping of emissions but having a reasonable price level for allowances. Of course, that is the big question over the next period—whether those allowances get that price, which can only be really achieved by the cap and those allowances decreasing, and their coming together to keep the price up to a good level.
I take the Minister’s point about energy-intensive industries and the aim during phase IV of reducing allocated allowances from 80%—I think—to 23%, and therefore concentrating those allowances particularly in relation to energy-intensive industries and making sure the carbon leakage is properly accounted for over the next phase. I fully support that.
However, the Government’s present position regarding what the EU ETS will look like in phase IV is not sufficient, particularly in the context of what we have said about the future of our own carbon price support system. It is not sufficient at the moment to secure that convergence, which is potentially so important regarding what we do about the future of our own carbon price support system.
We have two possible ways forward. We either commit ourselves now, at an early stage, to saying that we think the EU ETS, in whatever form it is going to be in, will have, a respectable-ish price for allowances, but because we will not have solved the overhang problem, we will never get to the right amount so that we can confidently say that our own carbon price support system will at any stage start to align with whatever that price is in the mid-2020s. In that case, we presumably need to say, “Well, we act now to secure our own carbon price support system for the long term and we take a decision on that fairly early”, or we press for proposals that are quite a bit more radical within the EU ETS, so that it can achieve that particular level.
To my mind, that means, first, that we need mechanisms that do rather more than the market stability reserve to retire allowances, and have them permanently retired and not quarantined for future reference—actually taken out of the system entirely over phase IV—and, secondly, that we have a realistic starting point for phase IV, so that it allows those retiring allowances to have maximum effect on price over the next period.
Without looking at those particular aspects of EU ETS over the next period, we will almost certainly have a level of crisis in EU ETS over the next decade similar to that we have at the moment, as that overhang of allowances takes its toll on the good intentions of EU ETS.
I would appreciate hearing any thoughts that the Minister has on that particular way of going about things, which I think is important. I know that he cannot say too much about this, but a small nod and a wink in the direction of saying that we are pretty committed to staying in the EU ETS, although we cannot actually say so right now, would be very helpful for future discussions.
Mr Hurd
For the record, I am neither nodding nor winking, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for a typically thoughtful and constructive response. He is probing exactly the right issues, which are the effectiveness of the cap and the right mechanisms for accelerating the withdrawal of allowances. Without effective action there, we are unlikely to get the robust price signal which he and I want, and which will drive the behaviour we want. I thank him for his constructive attitude to our approach to energy-intensive industries. It is a difficult balance to get right, but he and his colleagues know that we have done a lot over the years to try to protect our energy-intensive industries in this process while trying to ensure that they are fully incentivised to pursue energy efficiency and decarbonisation.
I addressed the hon. Gentleman’s point about the convergence with the carbon price floor in my comments. I simply say to him that we are open to ideas on the best mechanisms for accelerating the withdrawal of allowances from the system, but as a very experienced politician he will know that politics is the art of the possible, particularly in the European Union. We are trying to forge an agreement with 28 member states, and some of them take a very different view on the right levels of ambition and where their national interests lie. That reinforces my point about the need for the UK—we have consistently been a voice for ambition in this context—to be at the table and to continue to be in the business of forging coalitions of ambition.
It has been a helpful debate. I hope I have been clear on our objectives in the negotiation. We want to: maintain ambition in line with our carbon targets and an effective carbon price signal; protect industrial competitiveness where it is at risk; minimise administrative burdens; and protect our fiscal sovereignty. I hope that those four overall objectives for the negotiations meet with the Committee’s approval.
Question put and agreed to.
Europol
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, it may be helpful if I remind Members of the procedure in a European Committee. The whole proceeding must conclude no later than two and a half hours after we start. I shall begin by calling a member of the European Scrutiny Committee to make a brief statement about that Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate. I shall then call the Minister to make a statement, which will be followed by questions for up to an hour, although I have discretion to extend that by up to half an hour—if there is an appetite for it. The Committee will then debate the Government motion, and I shall put the question on that motion when the debate or the time available is exhausted—whichever comes first.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the documents to this Committee?
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Europol is at the forefront of the EU’s response to international crime and terrorism. As we know, it provides analytical and operational support to national law enforcement authorities in all 28 member states, enhancing their capacity to tackle cross-border security threats. The UK has participated in Europol since its creation in 1995. Although the coalition Government decided in 2014 to opt out of several EU police and criminal justice measures, they decided that the UK should remain part of Europol and opted back into the 2009 Council decision establishing Europol. They concluded that the UK’s continued participation in Europol would be more cost-effective than establishing a complex system of bilateral agreements and liaison networks with each member state and would enable the UK to maintain access to Europol’s cross-border data-sharing systems, analytical resources and expertise, and contribute to Europol’s forward-looking threat assessments, which set the agenda for EU action to combat serious organised crime and terrorism.
Despite that positive assessment of Europol, the coalition Government decided not to opt into the Commission’s proposed new Europol regulation in 2013. A new regulation is necessary as the Lisbon treaty requires Europol to be based on a regulation adopted jointly by the European Parliament. The Government feared that a strengthening of member states’ obligation to provide information to Europol and Europol’s right to request the initiation of a criminal investigation might undermine the operational independence of the police. The Government’s recommendation that the UK should not opt in was debated on the Floor of the House in July 2013. However, the Government made it clear that they wished to “remain part of Europol” and intended to
“play an active role in negotiations”.
The motion passed by the House stated that
“the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 878-883.]
Following three years of negotiation, the new Europol regulation was adopted in May. This debate concerns the Government’s recommendation that the UK should opt in so it can participate fully in Europol when the regulation takes effect on 1 May next year. This is undoubtedly the most significant opt-in decision that the Government have taken since the referendum in June. If the Government’s decision not to opt into the Commission’s proposal in 2013 merited a debate on the Floor of the House, their decision to opt in now, shortly before they intend to trigger article 50 negotiations about the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, surely merits exposure and scrutiny in a debate on the Floor of the House. I therefore ask the Minister to explain why the Government have disregarded the European Scrutiny Committee’s clear recommendation that there should be such a debate.
The European Scrutiny Committee has asked the Minister to address several questions during this debate. Is he satisfied that the regulation contains sufficient safeguards to ensure the operational independence of the police? What impact will the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice have on the ability of UK police forces to set their own operational priorities, and what views have UK law enforcement authorities expressed on the Government’s opt-in recommendation?
The European Scrutiny Committee also asks the Government to make clear the consequences of not opting in to the regulation. How great a risk is there that the UK will be ejected from Europol next May if it does not opt in before then? Will Denmark remain part of Europol, even though it cannot participate in the new regulation? Will the new regulation make it easier or harder for the UK to establish a close working relationship with Europol once it has left the EU?
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House in October that the Government’s aim during Brexit negotiations would be
“to keep our justice and security arrangements at least as strong as they are.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 55.]
Does that mean that the Government will seek to preserve the access to Europol’s databases and analytical information once the UK has left the EU as it currently enjoys as a member and, if so, will that require a bespoke model of co-operation, beyond that envisaged in the regulation?
I thank the Minister for being here to answer those questions and I very much look forward to his response and to an informed and, I hope, lively debate.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to make an opening statement, I remind the Committee that interventions are not permitted during the statement.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I will take a few minutes to outline, and hopefully deal with, some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome has raised and then we will have time for questions about anything else.
We are in a modern interconnected world where organised crime is increasingly international and does not respect borders. In that context, we can hopefully all agree that Europol provides a valuable service to the UK, both within the EU and in collaboration with non-EU partners. After all, we must remember that the United States has a substantial partnership with Europol. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK obviously remains a full member of the EU, with all the rights and obligations that membership entails. We seek to opt into the new regulation in line with our right to do so as an EU member state, and that is part of “business as usual” activity while we remain an EU member.
Operationally, Europol is a vital tool in helping UK law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigations involving cross-border serious and organised crime, to keep our public safe. Opting in means that as long as we remain a member of the European Union we can continue to benefit from the co-operation and the operational advantages of being a member of Europol. We would not be able to do that as a non-participating member state. Not opting into the new measure while we remain in the EU could risk our being ejected from Europol, which would have serious consequences for our law enforcement operations.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this is not the first time that Parliament has examined the regulation. Many will recall the original opt-in debate in March 2013, and my hon. Friend is right that the general consensus at that time was that although we supported the overall aim and the objectives of Europol—and we made it clear that we did—certain elements of the draft text were not acceptable and the Government would not take the risk of opting into an unacceptable text. We had two main concerns about that text, first, that it would interfere with the operational independence of UK policing and, secondly, that it would increase the UK’s obligation to provide data to Europol, even when such provision conflicted with national security or endangered ongoing investigations or an individual’s safety. As such, we decided not to opt in at that point, at the start of negotiations, but we made it clear that a post-adoption opt-in would be considered, if we were able to address those concerns in negotiations.
During the negotiations, we worked hard with other EU members to do just that. The UK and like-minded member states successfully negotiated a much more balanced regulation, which maintains the status quo regarding Europol’s relationship with member states. That is explicitly set out in article 3 of the regulation:
“Europol shall not apply coercive measures in carrying out its tasks”,
clearly dealing with the first point. The Government believe that the new regulation defends national interest while allowing Europol to consolidate its position in supporting member states to combat serious cross-border crime and terrorism.
I will set out what the new legislation does. In broad terms, the new regulation maintains the existing relationship between member states and Europol while updating the way in which Europol operates and its relationship with the EU institutions. The new regulation expands Europol’s tasks in a number of positive ways. It sets out a clear mandate for the EU internet referrals unit, which is based at Europol and replicates the UK’s approach to tackling online terrorist propaganda. Importantly, it does not expand Europol’s work in a manner that would lead to competence issues.
The new regulation establishes a framework for joint investigative and operational actions between member states’ competent authorities, for example via joint investigation teams. The framework supports and strengthens the actions of member states. It also ensures that we retain control, as Europol would need our consent to undertake any actions in the UK. Europol’s capacity to undertake operational actions is likely to be helpful in regard to its role in tackling organised immigration crime via joint operational team Mare.
The new regulation formalises co-operation with EU bodies, and the provision of information and support to EU crisis management structures, such as for the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. It also clarifies the mandate of the existing European cybercrime centre as a centre
“of specialised expertise for combating certain types of crime”.
That is welcome, as we in the UK participate in the joint cybercrime action taskforce.
Much of the new legislation is about putting existing practice on a comprehensive legal footing. Europol’s remit remains squarely focused on enhancing law-enforcement co-operation between member states. As I have outlined, Europol’s actions remain fundamentally in support of member states, not the other way round, which means that Europol will continue to add value to UK law enforcement without in any way reducing national control of law enforcement-activity in the UK. I suspect that that is why every single police chief I have met throughout the country, along with the National Police Chiefs Council, has been explicit about their desire that we should ensure that we took the opportunity to opt in.
As I have set out, Europol is a vital tool to help UK law-enforcement agencies co-ordinate investigations in cross-border serious and organised crime. Our operational partners, such as the National Crime Agency, have made it clear that they value our continued membership of Europol while the UK remains in the EU. The deputy director-general of the National Crime Agency made that clear in his evidence to the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee in October. The NPCC lead, Sara Thornton, has also been clear about that.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact that we are leaving the EU. My hon. Friend therefore asks a fair question: why opt into the new regulation now? Opting in means that, for as long as we remain a member of the EU, we can continue to benefit from the co-operation and operational advantages of being a member of Europol. Failure to opt into the new measure might risk our being ejected from Europol which, in my view, is something we should seek to avoid while we remain in the EU. My hon. Friend mentioned the experience of Denmark, but I might add that Denmark still has hurdles to overcome. Its situation is such that it does not have the full benefit, as we do, of being a member of Europol.
In practical terms, the measure will ensure that our liaison bureau at Europol is maintained and that law-enforcement agencies can continue to access Europol systems and intelligence. Our operational partners have made it clear that continued operational capabilities are crucial to keeping our people safe.
I should make it clear, however, that this does not represent the start of our exit negotiations. The issue before us is not how the UK will work with the EU after we leave; opting into the new regulation does, however, put us in the strongest possible position entering into negotiations. It signals our intention to continue practical law-enforcement co-operation with EU partners after we leave. It also means that we can negotiate the new model of co-operation, whatever form that may take, as active participants rather than outsiders trying to gain access to something.
In conclusion, the Government’s view is that opting into the regulation now is the sensible thing to do. The regulation as it stands means that remaining in Europol continues to be in the national interest while we are still in the EU. Opting in maintains operational continuity while the UK remains in the EU, and it helps support a smoother transition as and when we leave. Again, I want to stress that this decision is without prejudice to the discussions on the UK’s future relationship with Europol. The Home Office is exploring all options for co-operation once the UK has left the EU, but it is too early to speculate on what future arrangements may look like. This measure is about what is right for our country today.
The Chair
We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to Members, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I absolutely appreciate that the position is for today while we remain full members of the European Union and it is not in any way a pre-judgment on how the negotiations to exit may take place. However, by opting in, how will our Europol systems and habits of operating and sharing intelligence and information on crimes that need to be dealt with on a cross-border basis, because they occur on a cross-border basis, be appropriately replicated and provided for after we leave the European Union? For example, is the Minister thinking of setting up shadow systems as a safety net for the post-Brexit world? If not, what other contingencies are the Government putting in place to ensure that today’s Europol protections that the Minister outlined are continued after we leave the European Union?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is right to opt in at the moment. We have been working with Europol, a lead partner, for some considerable time. About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady tempts me to give a running commentary on our Brexit negotiations, but I will resist that temptation because we are at the start of negotiations, not the end. However, hon. Members and hon. Friends should bear in mind the fact that there are other countries that have partnership agreements with Europol. In fact, the United States has one of the biggest liaison offices. It is obviously not a member of the EU, but it has come to an agreement to work with Europol. It sees the benefit and has found a way to do that. Opting in now puts us in a strong position from which to be able to negotiate what is right for us when Brexit comes, but we will see how that goes in the negotiations.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I do not think you will have any call to cut me off early, as you were forced to do the last time I spoke before you.
Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, we welcome the Minister’s announcement, and we appreciate his position in not giving a running commentary. However, it appears to be fairly clear, given the submissions made, that Europol is valued. It keeps us at the forefront; it enhances capacity. According to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, justice and security arrangements should stay as they are. We have participated in Europol since its creation. Every police chief has made it clear that they want it. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position that we want to remain in Europol after we leave the European Union?
Brandon Lewis
The Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House that she did not think anybody voted in June to be less safe. It is important to do everything we can to ensure that all our residents are safe. It is important to work with our partners across Europe on cross-border issues, whether it is around terrorism, cybercrime or other forms of crime. It is important to work with our partners around the world to make sure we do everything we can to keep people safe. As tempting as it is to outline where we might be at the end of the negotiations, I will resist that temptation. As I said earlier, it is right that we opt in at the moment. Europol plays an important part for our law enforcement agencies and the security of this country. Countries that are not members of the EU have found positive ways to work with Europol. The other 27 countries that are members of the EU will want to continue with that, but that is part of the negotiations yet to come.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of Unnumbered European Union Document, a Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA; endorses the Government's decision to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government's assessment that Europol provides a valuable service to the UK and opting in would enable us to maintain our current access to the agency, until we leave the EU. —(Brandon Lewis.)
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am grateful for your clear explanation as to the process. I obviously needed that today and I am dead pleased that you are in the Chair.
The Minister did not answer the question about why we are not having this debate on the Floor of the House, which the Opposition would welcome. We have argued consistently that participating in Europol helps to keep Britain safe. It is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. Opting into Europol’s revised governance framework will allow Britain to continue to participate in Europol and strengthen Europol’s capacity to help to tackle serious crime. We therefore support the Government’s decision to opt in.
Europol’s role is to facilitate the rapid exchange of criminal intelligence and security information between EU member states. Europol supports more than 40,000 international criminal investigations each year, and many of those cases are vital to British security. In 2011, police were able to identify links between an investigation in Northern Ireland and an investigation in Portugal after basic checks of Europol systems. That led to a large investigation of a west African organised crime group operating across Europe, west Africa and south America. There have subsequently been 25 co-ordinated arrests and seizures across Europe, and that gang has been well and truly broken up.
In 2012, a law enforcement agency received intelligence regarding a threat against an individual’s life in another EU member state and a probable suspect in a third member state. Checks of Europol systems enabled the speedy identification both of the intended victim and of the potential suspect, and law enforcement authorities were able to take swift action and save a life.
If I go on much longer, our Whip is likely to pull me down, but those two small cases show that Europol co-operation means that criminals and terrorists cannot easily use European borders to evade the intelligence and oversight of law enforcement authorities. Europol is a vital tool for ensuring that national Governments, not international crime organisations, are in control. In May, the European Council and Parliament adopted a new set of regulations, which updates Europol’s governance structure, objectives and tasks and will take effect on 1 May 2017. Those regulations make some important changes, and I will briefly outline the benefits of those.
As we know, cybercrime is one of the greatest challenges that our police face. It pays no attention to national borders, and the activity of an individual in one country may have perilous consequences for citizens in another. The European cybercrime centre estimates that cybercrime costs EU member states €265 billion a year. The new regulations will make it easier for Europol to help member states tackle cybercrime by giving that centre a clear mandate as a Union centre of “specialised expertise for combating” crime. Similarly, the regulations give the EU internet referral unit a clear mandate to tackle online terrorist propaganda.
I stress that the regulations do not allow Europol to mandate national investigations. Article 4 of the regulations states:
“Europol shall not apply coercive measures in carrying out its tasks.”
Article 3 makes it clear that Europol “shall support” national security forces rather than lead them, and national Governments are not required to share data if they think that would threaten their “essential interests” or jeopardise current operations. Taken together, those measures preserve Europol’s status as an information and data-sharing hub rather than a supranational crime agency. Indeed, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that it is
“satisfied that the outcome achieved respects the division of competences between Member States and EU institutions”.
Although the benefits of the changes that I have outlined are important, the nub of the issue is that the regulations bring about substantive changes to Europol’s governance arrangements. Having spoken to the House of Commons Library staff and studied the European Scrutiny Committee report, I understand that if we do not agree to the regulations, Britain’s participation in Europol could be called into question altogether. There is indeed a process for ejecting us, or anyone, from Europol if the Commission and Council agree that our opt-out renders co-operation inoperable.
Put plainly, we could find ourselves out of Europol by May next year when Brexit negotiations will only just have begun. Indeed, the Minister implied the same thing on the 14 November when he notified the European Scrutiny Committee of the Government’s intention to opt in:
“Opting in will maintain operational continuity for UK law enforcement ahead of exiting the EU…and that law enforcement agencies can continue to access Europol systems and intelligence.”
Given the enormous benefits that Europol participation brings to Britain, the Opposition would not want to bring about any risk of the UK being ejected from Europol on 1 May. We therefore support the Government’s decision to opt into the new regulations.
As I am sure the Committee will know, the current director of Europol is a British man called Rob Wainwright. He took over Europol after a career serving major British security institutions such as NCIS and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. His career shows how European co-operation allows for British influence to spread abroad. Director Wainwright tweeted that the Government’s decision to opt in is
“Good for Britain’s security, great for police co-operation in Europe.”
I agree entirely with Director Wainwright. International crime did not stop on 23 June 2016 and, sadly, the threat of international terrorism persists. That is why I want us to remain part of Europol if and when we leave the European Union, and I want Britain to continue to lead the way in furthering police co-operation across the continent.
Unfortunately, the Government cannot guarantee our continued participation in Europol after Brexit. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has offered warm words about maintaining security arrangements. In fact, he said that he wants us to “maintain or even strengthen” co-operation, as we have heard, but when he has been pushed as to whether that means we will continue to be a member of Europol he has not been able to make that guarantee. Instead he told the House that the Government will seek to
“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever our Government want to do, the other 27 Governments would have to agree to our remaining in Europol? They would in fact have very good reason to do so, since we provide about 40% of the intelligence on which they rely. We are an extremely valuable and massive net contributor of the intelligence and information that they enjoy through their membership of Europol.
Lyn Brown
I am not going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not even going to play party politics with this. I am going to move on gently and seamlessly to say that I think that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service is a competent and loyal advocate of Government policy, so I am sure he will say exactly the same thing as the hon. Gentleman. However, I must say that I do not find a pledge to do the “best we can” particularly reassuring when we are dealing with matters as fundamental as national security and the lives of British citizens.
I would press the Minister to go a bit further today, and say that preserving our security arrangements and maintaining British influence over security matters will be a top priority for the Government in their exit negotiations. I do not think that is too much to ask. Keeping citizens safe should always be the first priority of any Government. Europol and other forms of European security co-operation such as the European arrest warrant are vital tools to keep our citizens safe.
Whatever else the Government do in the negotiations, they must not leave us in a situation in which we fall out of Europol and start to co-operate less with our European partners on security matters. If that were to happen, the Government would be letting the British people down. Their ability to tackle crime and keep citizens safe would be diminished. The Government would be ceding control to serious criminals.
Richard Arkless
I will keep my comments brief. To be clear, we support the revised Europol co-operation framework and we acknowledge that it is to preserve membership of Europol at least until we leave the European Union.
To pick up on a point made by the Opposition, we not only think that it is vital to have the UK within the Europol regime, but it makes sense for the whole of Europe. Police Scotland and law-enforcement agencies in Scotland are given comfort, in the short term at least, that we continue to exchange the information that allows them to catch the bad guys. The solution is, however, only temporary, as has been alluded to.
Beyond leaving the European Union, it is unclear whether we will be in Europol and whether we will have the benefit of being able to exercise the European arrest warrant. I know that the Government do not want to give away their negotiating hand, but as I alluded to in my question, it is fairly clear what the Government’s position is. I welcome that, because it is good that the Government are making positive noises about staying in Europol beyond leaving the European Union. I sincerely hope that they take those comments and that sentiment into negotiations to ensure that the UK remains a member of Europol, because if it does not, as the hon. Member for West Ham rightly identified, we will be letting down people right across these islands.
Brandon Lewis
I have a couple of points to make. The hon. Member for West Ham rightly raised the issue about the Floor of the House—I hope this will answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome as well. However, that does a disservice to this Committee, because any Member may attend and take part in it, so they have all had the opportunity to be present today, to ask questions and to join the debate. As we can see from the fact that I am making the closing speech, we have had discussion, questions and debate with plenty of time to spare within the allotted time. Members could have come to take part. I hope that that indicates that across the House—this is my view from speaking to Members informally—there is recognition of the importance of Europol. While we are full members of the European Union, opting in—with the negotiations we have managed to secure the changes, in particular on the coercive issue—is the right thing to do for this country.
I will pick up the hon. Member for West Ham on one minor matter. When she was paying me a kind compliment, I could feel a “but” coming, and there was a small “but” in there. She was talking about what happens if or when we leave the EU. I need to make it clear that there are no ifs or buts: we will leave the European Union, and our job is to ensure that we do so in the way that is best for the United Kingdom. Security is clearly a priority—one of our priorities to ensure that we keep our residents safe. At this point in time, while we are members of the EU, UK law-enforcement agencies must continue to benefit from and contribute to the work that Europol undertakes, without prejudging in any way, or without prejudice to, the negotiations that will go ahead in time.
The negotiations that have led us to where we are today, with this opt-in decision, are negotiations that have delivered a very good outcome for UK law enforcement and Europol more generally. Without doubt, the organisation is good and strong. As the hon. Lady said, the chief exec has great experience in the field. Without doubt, opting into the measure is in our country’s best interests, until such time as we will need a new agreement from our position outside the EU. For now, I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Further to that, the simple question is: will we be a member of Europol post exit from the European Union?
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we recently opted into the new elements of Europol. In terms of looking forward, we are in discussions on that matter. I can tell him that we are one of the largest contributors to Europol. We play an important part in it. It will be part of the ongoing negotiations. [Official Report, 5 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 10.]
Letter of correction from Amber Rudd:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) during Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The correct response should have been:
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we recently announced our intention to opt in to the new elements of Europol. In terms of looking forward, we are in discussions on that matter. I can tell him that we are one of the largest contributors to Europol. We play an important part in it. It will be part of the ongoing negotiations.
Petition
Waste transfer station in Scunthorpe
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Retail Store Closure: Boxing Day
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 168524 relating to the closure of retail stores on Boxing Day.
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I confess that, being a bit long in the tooth, I can remember when Boxing day closure was the norm; it was a bank holiday, and nobody thought of doing anything other than closing. Certainly all big stores were closed, and people stayed at home with their family. In fact, I am old enough to remember when the new year sales actually began in the new year, after 1 January. People stayed at home, and if they wanted to go to the sales, they went later on—and here’s the thing: nobody starved to death. The world did not run out of cheap televisions. Nor did the country run out of supplies of winter coats and boots at reduced prices.
When I first realised that people were shopping on Boxing day, I would look at people going to the supermarket, and the queues, and would think, “For heaven’s sake, get a life.” However, I have moved from indifference to anger, because all the evidence shows that poorly paid retail workers are being exploited to fuel a national obsession—a debt-fuelled shopping binge that, in the end, does no one any real good. As my family will tell you, Mrs Moon, I can shop with the best of them, but if my shopping on Boxing day is done at the expense of some of the lowest paid workers in the community, something has to give way.
I should declare an interest, because I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, although it is quite a long time since I worked in a shop. When I did, I learned two important things. First, the job is physically exhausting, because workers are on their feet most of the day—and in my day, we worked only 9 till 5. Secondly, shop workers need inexhaustible reserves of patience and self-restraint to deal with the rude, demanding and frequently abusive customers that they have to put up with. Of course, that gets worse in the run-up to Christmas, which is why my union runs its “Keep your cool at Christmas” campaign before the Christmas rush, but for shop workers and those who work in warehouses and distribution—it is not only those on the shop floor who are affected—there is no respite.
The responses to our online consultation were interesting and overwhelming. We had nearly 6,000 responses. Many told us that they were not allowed to take holiday in December. One person working in distribution said that they could not take holiday in November or December. Indeed, in one case, people were not allowed to take holiday from October onwards. That means that people in the sector arrive at Christmas very tired. They now often work late on Christmas eve to prepare for Boxing day. In fact, we heard of one person working until midnight on Christmas eve. They arrive home to their families exhausted, long after the rest of us have begun our celebrations, and are then expected to be in work again on Boxing day.
As we know, Christmas day can be a very nice day, but it is not necessarily very relaxing. It is not relaxing for people with young children who are up as early as possible, or for people who have to cook the Christmas dinner, so many of us—including me—say that Boxing day is our day of rest. That choice is not available to many people in retail—if, indeed, they get Christmas day off. There are constant suggestions that some people are called in on Christmas day to keep preparing for the sales. The British Retail Consortium has said that large retailers are not allowed to open on Christmas day. We know that; it is a prime example of answering a question that was not asked. It also says that most preparation for Boxing day is done by Christmas eve, and that people working on Christmas day is not a problem. I am afraid that it is a problem; it keeps being reported as a problem, and I do not believe that the people who report it are lying to us.
If people get Christmas day off, they often find that they are unable to enjoy it fully, because they must be in work again on Boxing day; many people are expected to be in work by 7 o’clock. There is little public transport, so there are stories of people having to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to get to work. The Minister shakes her head, but those testimonies were given to us online in our consultation.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech that rings true in the light of the many testimonies that I have seen and heard. Christmas is special because people who might not normally be able to spend time with family can do so. Is it not another issue that many people who work in retail do not have the option of travelling to see their family, because now they must travel so early on Boxing day to make it back in time for the sales?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. We have heard from people who work from 7 am to 6 pm on Boxing day. We heard from one lady who has to stay in work until 10 o’clock. People are at work not just when the shops are open; they do the restocking afterwards as well. So that lady has to get her partner to come and get her late at night, bringing with him their two small children—there is no one else to mind them—because she cannot afford taxis. Retail wages do not stretch to taxis at the best of times, and certainly not at Boxing day premium rates.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is indeed making a powerful speech. She has talked about families, and I know of families where both partners work in retail and have young children; they have extreme difficulty in getting childcare on Boxing day, because, obviously, childminders also want a break at that time.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. We heard from a number of people whose relatives have to look after their children on Boxing day because no childcare is available.
We heard from one lady who described her “nightmare” journey to work. She works in London, but there are no trains from where she lives on Boxing day. She has to get three different buses to work. It takes her a long time. However, she told us that some of her colleagues cannot get home to see their families outside London over Christmas, because they finish too late on Christmas eve and have to get back too early on Boxing day. She described herself as one of the lucky ones. Some luck, I would say.
For all that, many people in the sector now receive no extra pay. It is true, to be fair, that a few people in an online consultation with MoneySavingExpert.com said that they rely on their extra pay on Boxing day to pay for Christmas. I understand that. My answer would be that they should be paid a proper rate of pay throughout the year. Those people are unusual; most companies no longer pay premium rates. They have disappeared, just as the premium rates for Sundays did. The House may remember that we were promised, when Sunday trading was introduced, that people would not have to work on Sundays if they did not want to, and would be paid extra for doing so, but that arrangement disappeared as new people came in, and there were new contracts requiring them to work Sundays and holidays. If they did not sign up for that, they did not get the job. That is how it is for Boxing day as well. It is clear from talking to people in the sector that they can be required to work; an employer has a right to require people to work if it is in their contract, or if it is the usual practice in the industry—and working on Boxing day is increasingly becoming the usual practice. One person said to us, “I don’t get the choice of whether I want to work or not.”
We have been told over and over that people who are sick on Boxing day face disciplinary action, and that a refusal to work means instant dismissal. The worst case we heard of was of a woman who had her drink spiked on Christmas. She was ill and unable to work on Boxing day, and was therefore dismissed. The Government might want to reflect on how difficult it is for those who have the right not to work on Boxing day to enforce that right, given that the Government have extended the time that people have to be employed for before they can claim for unfair dismissal, and have hugely increased employment tribunal fees. Low-paid workers, many of whom are not in unionised workplaces, have very little chance of enforcing their right not to work.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am hugely enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech; she is making a powerful case. Some 181 people in Kettering signed the petition. The Library briefing for the debate says:
“Under the relevant legislation…workers do not have a statutory entitlement to time off on Bank Holidays”,
which includes Boxing day. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but is it the hon. Lady’s wish that employees be statutorily entitled to have Boxing day off?
Helen Jones
I think the hon. Gentleman is right about the law as it stands; if he will forgive me, I will come to that in a moment.
Retailers say that Boxing day trading is important to them. The British Retail Consortium declined to give written evidence to my Committee before the debate, but in the past it has said that last year’s sales were up 0.7% on the year before. However, it is important to remember that those sales did not reach the December peak, which last year was on 23 December, or the November peak, which last year was on the day after that appalling American import, Black Friday.
The director of retail intelligence at Ipsos Retail Performance said:
“Boxing Day has grown in significance as a shopping day over the last 5 years, as increasingly more retailers have started their Sales immediately after Christmas.”
I say two things to that: first, sales are on now, as anybody who has looked around knows; secondly, I have not seen any evidence that Boxing day opening generates more trade, rather than moving it about between days. If retailers were closed on Boxing day, there might well be more trade on 27 December—or, more likely, the Saturday following Christmas, when most people are off work.
However, we have had evidence that some stores may not even be that busy; I accept that some are, but some are certainly not. One store manager told us that his store was less busy than on a usual Sunday. Other people working in retail have told me that they are not busy, and that they do not accept returns on Boxing day because that would make the sales figures look worse. There are differences across the sector, and it seems that many shops open simply because others do; staff and store managers in my constituency say that that is often the case. As someone said in our consultation, retailers are great followers. Many in the sector would like Boxing day to be treated like Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. In fact, 92% of respondents to an USDAW consultation did not want to work on Boxing day, but 78% felt that they were pressured to.
The opening of the stores has a price for our communities, for families and for individuals; nothing in life is for free. If more shops open on Boxing day, there needs to be more of other services, such as waste collection; emergency services must be on duty; and there is more pressure on transport to run as normal. There is a spiral effect when more and more people are made to work the bank holiday. As I said, there is a price for families. People lose the time with their children or their parents, and other members of the family are very often pressed into service looking after children, meaning that they cannot make plans for the day. The real impact is on the poorly paid retail workers and their families, and from the comments that we have received, it is clear that most people would rather have that day off.
Catherine McKinnell
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I will put on the record another thing that, like childcare, is not generally available on Boxing day: the usual support for those whose family members require care. There is testimony from retail workers who are in the difficult position of both having to care for their family and being forced to go to work or ultimately risk not being able to bring the bread home.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. That is an example of the pressures that those retail workers come under, many of whom are women and have caring or childcare responsibilities. I doubt that much would change if store openings began on 27 December. As one of the contributors to the consultation said about stores, “They will make their money back, but we will never get our time back.”
What is the purpose of all this? Does anyone actually gain? As another person said to us in the consultation, “I should like to think that the keen shoppers of the UK could wait one more day to grab a juicy bargain”—or, as staff call it, stock that has been gathering dust in the stockroom since 1993. Another person said, “Isn’t seven-day trading and numerous late nights enough?” I think it is.
Mr Hollobone
I am even more impressed by the hon. Lady’s speech as it goes on; she is making an extremely powerful case. However supportive I might be of her argument, one of the difficulties is that if people cannot physically go to a high street or out-of-town shop, they will shop online on Christmas day or Boxing day. That will ultimately take business away from the very shop workers whose livelihoods we are seeking to protect.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. My view is that, if people are going to shop online rather than go to the shops, they are going to do that anyway. For instance, it was put to me that many people receive vouchers for Christmas, particularly children, and that they enjoy spending them. Yes, they do, and I suspect they would enjoy spending them just as much on 27 December.
We need to find a balance. If my right to shop is being exercised at the expense of some of the poorest-paid people in our community, their time with their family should take precedence. It is a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want a society in which people are able to spend time with their family—their children or parents—or maybe even invite in an elderly neighbour who is on their own, or do we want a society that is a free-for-all, and in which the weakest go to the wall?
Helen Jones
No I will not, because the hon. Lady has just walked in; she was not here from the beginning of the debate.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the responses to the consultations have been heartbreaking? For most of us, Christmas is about the memories that we have had over the years with our family and friends. I will read a response to the USDAW consultation from a man who says he has to work the nights between 23 and 24 December, 24 and 25 December, and 26 and 27 December. He has limited time with his wife and 10-month-old son, and is majorly fatigued due to the hours he spends working. He said:
“I'm unable to enjoy our festive time together. I will never forget losing my son's first Xmas.”
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the testimony is heartbreaking. I come at this from this direction: if I deserve time with my family over Christmas, other people do, too.
Of course, there are exceptions. A number of workers in the emergency services—nurses, paramedics and police—have responded to our consultation, and they all accept that they may have to work on Boxing day because it is a matter of life and death. Shopping is not. Politicians are often quick to jump in if they think Christmas is being downgraded. People respond to spurious stories about Christmas being renamed; they say, quite rightly, that they do not want to see a Christian festival downgraded. Here is the news: it has been already. Contrary to what we might think, Christmas does not begin the day after bonfire night, or whenever the commercial frenzy sets off. It begins on the 25th. The 26th is the second day of Christmas—St. Stephen’s day. Boxing day is originally when servants were given their presents and time off. It is coming to something when in 21st-century Britain, we cannot give people the rights that indentured servants had hundreds of years ago. The situation could be vastly improved by a simple amendment to legislation to put Boxing day on the same footing as Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. We could do that.
The Prime Minister says that she wants a country that works for everyone. I have to say that it is not working for the retail trade at the moment. She also said quite recently:
“our Christian heritage is something we can all be proud of.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1515.]
I agree. That heritage has shaped our country and how it works. That is why I get Christmas cards from my Jewish colleagues, my Muslim colleagues and people of no faith at all. They recognise the importance of Christmas. If, as I have heard many people say, we want to preserve this country’s Christian heritage, we should preserve it and give people some time off at Christmas. Good King Wenceslas did not look out and see the queue for the next sale. As someone said in response to our consultation —forgive me for the language—“Christmas is about spending time with your family, not sodding shops!” I could not agree more.
It is about time we did something about this. In the end, a civilised society is judged by how it treats not the most powerful people in it, but those without power. Boxing day and bank holidays were introduced to ensure that workers got time off. We have moved away from that. We could at least move back a little bit by ensuring that large retail stores had to close on Boxing day.
Catherine McKinnell
I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, because she is making a brilliant speech. Who has less power in this world than children? It means everything to them to spend Christmas with their family. One retail worker said in testimony:
“I’ve got a little girl and these early years are such a magical time for her. I feel that I miss out on her enthusiasm and wonder by having to work over Christmas.”
That says it all.
Helen Jones
It does. We hear much from the Government about supporting families and the family being very important. We show how important it is by our deeds, not just by words. It is time we gave these lowest paid workers the right that we all take for granted—the right to have a day off on Boxing day.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
May I ask Members who wish to speak to stand, as I have not received notifications from any speakers?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mrs Moon. In truth, I had not intended to speak, but I was so moved by the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) that I felt inclined to do so on behalf of my 181 constituents who signed the petition.
I find myself in the awkward position of seeing both sides of the argument. My instinctive sympathy is for retail workers who are forced to work on Boxing day, when they feel they should not have to do so. I feel for them, as I would anyone who was forced to work on Christmas day, which of course has statutory protection. My solution to this dilemma is for the Government to enact the relevant legislation, such that it would not be compulsory for retail workers to work on Boxing day if they did not wish to do so. I do not see why that would be difficult for the Government to do. There would be retail workers who were prepared to work on Boxing day if they had, to their mind, the requisite recompense to do so.
The reason I come to that compromise is that we now live, rightly or wrongly, in the age of the internet. Whether physical shops are open or closed on whatever day of the week, internet shopping will always be available. The bald, bold truth is that many retail workers will have signed this petition who will themselves go online on Boxing day to shop for items they want. While that is a digital choice, at the end of the day that digital request goes through to a warehouse—perhaps one of the warehouses in Kettering—where an employee is given an instruction to get that item from a shelf and put it on a pallet to go into a lorry for delivery to that consumer.
We are talking today—I recognise that it is with the best of intentions—about retail workers in physical shops on the high street or in our retail parks. However, they are in competition with real human beings who are employed in warehouses to respond to digital requests for consumer goods. Those digital requests are being posted online 24/7. People are shopping on the internet at times when you and I, Mrs Moon, may not think about shopping. Those retail requests go through to employees in warehouses who physically have to get those items off shelves and put them on pallets to go into lorries. The difficulty that I have—I am sure other Members have the same difficulty, if they are really honest about it—in responding to this petition is that we have to make a choice between retail workers on our local high street and employees in our local warehouses. It is a difficult choice that we, as parliamentarians, have to be honest about.
A fair compromise would be for the Government to say that no one should be required to work on Boxing day. That would give an element of statutory protection, recognising that Boxing day is the day after Christmas and has special meaning in our country. As the hon. Lady said, it goes back to giving servants boxes to thank them for their service over the previous year. We would then recognise the contribution that retail employees make and say to them that they do not have to work on Boxing day if they do not want to. There would be no downside for them—no loss of pay, pension or holiday entitlement—if they decided they did not want to work on Boxing day, but someone who wanted to would have every right to do so.
Helen Jones
I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but does he not recognise that, even with the right he suggests, many low-paid workers in this sector are and would be pressured into giving up their Boxing day? There is little to prevent that because, with low-paid workers often in non-unionised workplaces, there is not an equal balance of power here.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Lady, following on from her good-natured speech, makes a characteristically powerful point. I recognise that, but the brutal, honest, bald, bold truth is that if we said that shops were not allowed to open on Boxing day, millions of our fellow citizens would shop online. Instead of talking about human beings in high street shops, we would be talking about more of our fellow human beings in our local warehouses responding to people shopping online. That is the reality.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Surely his argument is one for 24-hour shop opening. People can shop online at any time. Is there not some place where we just have to draw a line?
Mr Hollobone
I am very sympathetic indeed to the hon. Lady’s cause. I voted against extending shop opening hours during the Olympics, and I voted against liberalising Sunday trading, but I recognise that I am probably on the wrong side of history in this debate because of the influence of internet shopping. I am trying to be honest with the hon. Lady and the Chamber. Ultimately, we are here to represent the citizens in our communities. Some of those citizens will work very hard in our local high street shops and some will work very hard in a local warehouse, especially in Kettering, just down road responding to digital requests. If I supported the thrust of the debate and said we should ban retail sales on Boxing day, I would be saying that that local high street employees were not allowed to work on Boxing day, but employees in the warehouse down the road could work and would be working harder, because they would be responding to online digital requests from our fellow citizens who decided to shop on Christmas day and Boxing day.
Do I think there should be 24/7 shopping? No, I do not. Do I think we should recognise what is left of our Christian heritage? Yes, I do. Do I think this request for a special exemption for Boxing day is religiously driven? No, I do not. I think that whatever Christian meaning there was in Boxing day has probably long departed us, unfortunately. Do I recognise there is still a religious and cultural significance to Christmas in our country? Absolutely, I do.
That is why I suggest what I hope is a reasonable compromise: employees should not be required to work on Boxing day and there would be no redress against them if they decided not to do so. I recognise absolutely what the hon. Lady is saying about hidden pressures, or sometimes overt pressures, on employees who do not wish to work on Boxing day, but I hope Her Majesty’s Government could establish a system that was fair enough and understood by enough people for it to be accepted in this country that if people did not want to work on Boxing day, that would be fine.
That would probably mean that employees who wanted to work on Boxing day would have to be paid more. In many ways that is not a bad thing, but it would have to be accepted by employees who chose not to work on Boxing day that they would not be entitled to that double or triple pay. They would have to make a choice. If we are honest, many employees who do not want to work on Boxing day now might want to if they were offered double or triple time. I am not saying that is a satisfactory choice. I am just saying it is probably a realistic one that would result from such a system.
With that compromise, I think we would end up with a smaller number of people who were dissatisfied and a larger number who were happy to accept the end result. I cannot see any other way of solving the problem and cracking the nut. That is difficult because we now live in an online world. If we were having this debate 20 years ago, I would have agreed absolutely with the hon. Lady that retail shopping on Boxing day should be banned, but in 2016-17 it is almost impossible to do that because of the internet. I do not like it; I am not advocating it. I am just saying that is the way it is.
My solution and my humble petition to the Chamber in response to this excellent petition signed by so many people is that Her Majesty’s Government should make a sensible compromise and tell retail workers they do not have to work on Boxing day if they do not want to, but if they do, they have every right to do so.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I apologise for not submitting my name to the list of speakers, Mrs Moon. Like the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I felt compelled to speak because of the way the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) spoke and introduced the petition. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe I can sum up what he said more succinctly or eloquently, although I will try.
I agree with the overall outcome of the hon. Gentleman’s synopsis. I say that with great respect to the hon. Lady, who led on the petition. I agree with almost every word she spoke, save in two respects. I have no view either for or against Black Friday, which is not something that exercises me to any great degree. However, in politics, we want to achieve the art of the possible: the hon. Lady’s speech was strongly couched in terms of providing safeguards and protections for workers who need them most, and the solution suggested by the hon. Gentleman is, to my mind, the most pragmatically workable outcome.
I am not old enough, regrettably, to remember the new year sales when they were new year sales, but I remember that stores in Belfast such as Gilmore’s Electrical and Sam’s Yer Man on Holywood Road had people camping out on Boxing day for opening day on the 27th. They did so because the first television was half price and the second had 30% off, and so on. The person at the front of the queue got the best deal.
The thing about Boxing day opening was that folk were not preparing to purchase on Boxing day; they were leaving their homes and their Christmas meal to make sure they were at the front of the queue on Boxing day. We should forget about Christmastide and the religiosity we attach to Boxing day, or the feast of St Stephen, as people disrupted Christmas day to secure the best deal. For me, that quest for a saving was a tragedy for family and community life. Whatever motivates someone to secure that saving, whether it is because they really need it or cannot afford the normal cost, leaving what should be and remains a special day in this country—Christmas day—disrupting it and not spending time with family, friends and close loved ones simply for a retail experience is a great shame.
With that in mind, it would be useful if the Government considered how best to protect those who feel compelled to work, perhaps because they are on zero-hours contracts and feel that if they do not work on Boxing day they will be shut out of employment opportunities, and how best to send a message that if people worked on a Sunday or on what is considered and provided for legislatively as a special day, there would be an economic inducement and double or triple time would be available.
I remember the change in Northern Ireland when large stores opened from 1 to 6 on Sundays and staff who chose to work greatly appreciated the additional recompense. They factored it into their overall household income and knew they would be able to provide more for their family. That opportunity is not currently afforded to them on Boxing day. I would like choice to be injected into the retail sector, and if folk have to work there should be financial benefit for doing so.
Another restriction of the petition is that it focuses solely on retail. The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to emergency services, and I believe that there is a sub-category, not only through vocation but because of the risk of death and injury and the unbelievable work that those workers in the emergency services do.
Another key sector that we should consider is hospitality. Those in the sector will not just be thinking about going to work on Boxing day; they will be working on Christmas day, because many people set aside doing the nitty-gritty, hard work of cooking a Christmas meal themselves. They go to a hotel, their local pub or a bar and restaurant and they expect staff to be there to serve them on Christmas day. Many people in the hospitality sector work incredibly hard, but at this time of year, with Christmas parties happening right the way through December, they work even harder. As a group of staff, they will not get the chance to celebrate together until February or March; on Christmas day they will be expected to work. Whether people are generous with tips is one thing, but the issue for us is whether the Government are prepared to ensure that workers in that situation are given protection, and given choice and options. I think that that would be the greatest outcome of this petition debate. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide, if not comfort today, then a pathway to how we, as representatives of our people, can ensure that those workers who request, need and deserve rights and protections are afforded that.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I apologise for coming in late, Mrs Moon; my meeting overran. I did want to be here at the beginning of the debate and I appreciate your giving me the chance to speak.
Retail is in my blood. I was in it for nearly 20 years. I started off at Greggs bakery at the age of 16, worked my way up, and worked for many major and small retailers, so I was one of the low-paid workers that hon. Members have been talking about, and I have to say that I disagree with what the petition is about. I have worked Boxing days and new year’s days. I have worked over the Easter period and on Good Friday. When you go into retail, that is expected. Times have changed. I agree with what some hon. Members have said: what about the other industries? I was also a performer and singer and used to work Christmas eves and Christmas days with my pianist, singing and entertaining people in restaurants. I did that because I wanted to make ends meet. To me, it was part of the lifestyle that I had chosen and it was my choice. When I worked on those Boxing days and new year’s days—
Andrea Jenkyns
Sorry, not at the moment; I will come back to you. So many times when I was working on those Boxing days, new year’s days and so on, colleagues who had the day off would come in and see us because they were out shopping with their families. You are talking about giving people time off, but I saw that a lot of my colleagues were out shopping anyway. Times have changed.
The retail sector has Christmas day and Easter Sunday off, but it is not just about the Christian side of things. We live in a multicultural society, so this is not about any particular religion, really. I would like to put forward the other view, which is that of retailers. Retail is in my blood, as I said. High street retailers have found things so hard over the last decade, because of the internet. I have seen so many businesses close down. I used to work for Comet. It had been around for more than 100 years. Look at what happened to Comet; look at what happened to Woolworths. I also used to work for Allsports. All of those went bust after decades.
Boxing day was the busiest day of the whole year for us in retail. I remember that in one Comet store, we took more than £100,000 in one day. Normally, on the busiest Saturday, we would be lucky if we took £15,000, so to me, we are biting the hand that feeds us. Retail is struggling. The high street is dwindling; the internet is killing the high street. More and more people are shopping online, and that is just an inevitable aspect of the internet; I am not saying anything against it. However, if Boxing day is the busiest day of the year and we stop the ability to trade on that day, what will happen to the job security of these low-paid workers?
Helen Jones
That is because the hon. Lady did not come in for the beginning of the speech. It is rude for someone to try to intervene when they were not here for the beginning of the speech. The hon. Lady is wrong: Boxing day is not the busiest day of the year overall. It may well have been where she worked, but it simply is not—
Helen Jones
That is not the case. Figures from the Library show that, overall, Boxing day sales are not as high as those for the peak day in December or the peak day in November.
Andrea Jenkyns
With respect, in all the years that I worked in retail—you have not worked in retail like I have—it was the busiest day.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. I have worked in retail. I assume that you are referring to me.
Andrea Jenkyns
No, sorry, I was talking to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but thank you, Mrs Moon.
My point is that we need to provide this opportunity. I know so many students who would welcome the opportunity to work on Boxing day and new year’s day to earn extra money and, as has been said, what about hospitality workers or those who work in the NHS? Are we just going to ban anyone from working so that life completely stops on Boxing day? That is not realistic. To those who say that we should stop people working on Boxing day, I say that I do not want any more retailers to go out of business. I worked in retail for more than 20 years, and a large number of the workers whom I worked with in my 20-year career were happy to work on Boxing day. Not everyone is signing this petition, and look at how many people work in the retail industry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the petitioners and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on initiating the debate. It is a pleasure to be in the company of so many former retailers—and I was a retailer, too. I was thinking that my time in retail was such a long time ago until I started listening to the hon. Lady; all the memories came flooding back of those times and of the stresses at peak season, as we called it.
I should point out that I have been in not only physical, bricks-and-mortar retail, but internet retail. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a shareholding in teclan ltd.
Being in retail is incredibly tough. If my memories are as fresh as the experiences that we have heard about today, it is an extraordinarily demanding job, not just at Christmas, but all year round. I know that from people who are still experiencing the kinds of pressures that I did when I was in retail. I started off on the shop floor, part time, and worked my way up through the trainee management programme. The worst kind of job must be doing trainee management in retail, because people really have to do quite a lot as part of that.
We have heard stories about people being pressured to work all the time—not just at those times when people should be able to have time off legitimately, but throughout the working day. I am talking about people having meal breaks standing up because they do not have time to sit down to enjoy their breaks. There is also pressure in terms of pay versus hours. In many cases, the rates of pay are quite low, which is challenging. Where they are better, that is often negated by the fact that the hours that people are working for those fixed rates are longer than they would be required to work normally. Retail staff have to put up with a lot.
We are talking now about people working on Boxing day and Christmas eve. Often, when the shop is closing on Christmas eve, it is a hive of activity, getting things ready for Boxing day, and people work late into the night. From personal experience, I know that that could go on until the morning of Christmas day in some cases. I very much hope that that has changed for most people, but I know that it did happen in those days and am concerned that there are still those pressures out there today.
The hon. Member for Warrington North gave some clear examples of gross unfairness in the system and the pressures that people are put under, and particularly cases where people feel that their job is at risk because they have not complied with retailers’ requests to work. That is clearly unacceptable and should be considered unacceptable by everybody. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was keen, and absolutely correct, to demonstrate that he has great empathy and sympathy with the people working under those conditions. He was also keen to show both sides; he brought in the issue of internet shopping and the pressures on the retailers and businesses to cope with that. He mentioned there being something of a conundrum with that issue.
Has the boat been missed? I contend that it has not, and that there is still a lot that can be done. I hope that we will hear more from the UK Government. I want to talk a bit about what is happening in Scotland, in order to challenge some perceptions about that. While I am talking about Scotland, may I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who was keen to take part in this debate but was unfortunately the victim of delayed travel arrangements? He apologises for not being here to those people who expected him to be.
The hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) perhaps missed the point about people going shopping if they are not working. It is about choice. It is about what someone chooses to do with their family on the day; it is up to them whether they decide to go shopping to spend time with their family, or to stay home. She talked about her experience with Woolworths, Comet and Allsports; I bet that many retailers are glad that she did not work for them, given that they all went bust.
Andrea Jenkyns
I actually did not work for Woolworths, just for the record. I was just saying how they—
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be called before making an intervention.
Drew Hendry
I am, of course, introducing a bit of levity. I did not intend to—
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. Can we not have conversations across the Chamber?
Drew Hendry
Thank you, Mrs Moon, I will bear that in mind. May I say, for the record, that I did not intend to cast any aspersions? That was merely a bit of humour that I hoped to bring in. One thing that I do agree with the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood about is that Boxing day is part of the key trading season. I remember being involved in retail and know, from speaking to retailers, that it has not changed, and is still an important part of the mix. Although it may not be the most important day of the year, it is still part of the important season for them.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) brought up the spectre of Black Friday. I am so delighted that I never had to endure Black Friday. It looks like an absolute nightmare. He was right to talk about the quest for savings, because that brings us back to an earlier point: people have this desperation to go out and make a saving at that time of year, because they have been conditioned to do so by the sales process over many years. He was also correct to bring up the hospitality sector, in which a great many people have to work over the festive season, and they face quite challenging circumstances. Even though their arrangements can be changed, we should still think of them at this time of year.
I said that I want to talk about what is happening in Scotland. We should take into account that there is an opportunity here to look at different behaviours; the boat has not been missed if we can encourage retailers to act in a different way. It is not easy to ask them to change the drive for sales; I understand that, and as I said, I have been in that market. However, when organising Christmas rotas, employers should take account of the needs of employees with caring responsibilities—that should be a fundamental part of the job that they do—and of those with family far away, as well as other relevant personal circumstances, where possible, to ensure compassionate working practices.
If an entitlement to leave on Boxing day is agreed between an employer and an employee in a contract, that contract must be upheld. Employer flexibility should be part of ensuring that workers achieve the right work-life balance, which in the long run benefits the employer, the employee and the economy as a whole. Compassionate and fair employment practices, in which employers take reasonable steps to support the wellbeing of their employees, should be part of the foundation of any sustainable and inclusive economy. When employers are engaging on holiday rotas, especially over the Christmas period, all those personal requirements should be taken into account, and it should not cause someone disproportionate detriment to work on Boxing day.
The Scottish Government will shortly take forward a commission on a flexible job index for Scotland, to determine the availability of genuinely flexible jobs that meet the needs of people who want to work flexibly. The index will analyse the ratio of jobs advertised as being open to flexibility, breaking that down by city and region, by role type, by sector and by salary band. It will also seek to identify the demand for flexibility in Scotland and the proportion of people who need that flexibility. The index will be used as a key step to promoting flexi-recruitment and other working practices in the private sector. In 2017, the Scottish Government will pilot mentoring on flexi-recruitment issues for small and medium sized businesses, building on existing support services.
Employer investment in the wellbeing of the workforce will improve economic outcomes. This is proved time and again: when businesses look after the welfare of the employees who work for them, they become more productive, do better and often make more profit. We share the idea of the fair work convention that by 2025 people in Scotland will have a world-leading work life, with fair work driving success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society. This vision challenges not only business but employers, unions and the third sector, and there are clear actions for Government. In Scotland, we fully endorse the convention’s framework and will work with it to embed its principles in workplaces across Scotland. We will continue to raise awareness among employers in the public, private and third sectors of the benefits of fair work, to promote the fair work framework and to champion fairer, better workplaces.
Mr Hollobone
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest. Things are always slightly different in Scotland—often for good reasons, but sometimes for not so good reasons. My understanding is that the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004 prohibits large shops from opening on Christmas day. The petitioners say:
“If only everywhere could be closed boxing day!”
I think they would like to see a Boxing day trading Act prohibiting large shops from opening on Boxing day. Would the Scottish Government support that?
Drew Hendry
The petitioners are quite right to look to protect the rights of workers. We heard compelling words from the hon. Member for Warrington North about the pressures that the petitioners feel need to be addressed. I am of the opinion that holidays should be respected; for example, in Scotland, traditionally, on new year’s day, shops are closed. I am unsure how we could make that work across the business sector, for small businesses and large retailers, through legislation. I have described the moves by the Scottish Government to improve the working lives of workers across Scotland through a different approach to working with businesses and organisations. In Scotland, the proper living wage, which is higher than the living wage that the UK Government have stipulated, has been adopted by a great many businesses. Encouraging good behaviour by businesses, including retailers, can and does work when we can get the message of positive change across.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Am I right in thinking the Scottish Government do not favour stopping large stores from opening on Boxing day?
Drew Hendry
I have clearly given my own view: I see this as challenging. I do not think there has been a proposition from the Scottish Government on this issue, and I would not presume to speak for them, so I gave my own answer to the question.
The way forward needs to be innovative and to include a different approach from the Government. We should adopt a model whereby retailers in particular—but other businesses as well—are encouraged to act. I gave the example of the living wage being adopted at a much higher level in Scotland. The Scottish business pledge has been signed up to, and employers have been encouraged to provide much better working conditions for their employees. There is measurable evidence that when businesses adopt those practices—when they are more considerate towards their employees and introduce measures to improve the situation for employees—they see increased productivity, increased profit and better sustainability. Staff are more likely to be retained and to stick with those jobs, and to be able to achieve a more effective work-life balance. We are discussing Boxing day, but the core of the issue is surely not just one day in the year, no matter how important that day is, or how stressful people might find it to miss out on it. This must be about making working conditions better for people across the entire year, so that they can all benefit from a better work-life balance from the beginning of January through to the end of December.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on making a comprehensive, passionate plea to support working people in the retail sector. That was supported by nearly everybody who spoke, and the contributions made by hon. Members around the Chamber were entirely consistent with what she said. The hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) were entirely sympathetic, as were my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in their interventions. The one discordant note came from the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), who frankly gave a description of retail that many workers in the retail sector would not recognise.
On Christmas day, my children will wake my wife and me early—we are still in that stage of family life. We will go and visit other family members, and we are lucky to be able to do so, but such a happy family scenario is not available to everybody in this country. As other hon. Members have mentioned, many workers in sectors beyond retail have to work over the festive period, for very good reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said that shopping is not a matter of life and death, but for key workers in the NHS, the care sector and in our police and fire services, working is a matter of protecting life and sometimes dealing with death. Sadly, that includes on Christmas day and Boxing day. We can take this opportunity to thank everybody who works in the emergency services and the care sector for the contribution that they make every day of the year, and especially at the festive time, when most of us are able to take time to be with family and friends.
Many people have to work in the hospitality sector over Christmas, as has been mentioned, and it is right to recognise the realities for such people. There are also some in retail, in small shops, who work on Christmas day and sometimes Boxing day—typically shop owners. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that smaller shops tend not to want what it describes as “paid staff” working—staff who are not owners or family members—because of the costs. However, it recognises as part of that equation the desirability of paid staff—again, the ACS’s term, not time—being able to have time off to spend with their families.
That leaves us with the large stores. The successful USDAW campaign saw the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) become law in the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004. At the time, the internet was not as advanced as it is now—I will come to some points made about online trading later. What happens to staff on Boxing day is increasingly a concern, and it has led to this petition, which has been signed by a very large number of people. The petition was the result of an increasing number of large retailers opening on Boxing day—and opening earlier and for longer.
As we have heard—I have heard this from constituents of mine—people are finishing later and later on Christmas eve. They still have to prepare for Boxing day, sometimes on Christmas eve, and sometimes on Christmas day itself. I heard a story about a major high street retail name that opens at 5 am on Boxing day, and staff have to be there at 3 am or 3.30 am. They have to travel—what time do they get up? Are some of them even starting on Christmas day? What kind of a Christmas is it for someone who knows they have to be at work at 3 am or 3.30 am on Boxing day? I cannot even begin to think what that must be like. However, that is where some large retailers are headed—that is the reality—and why there has been this petition. When we look at the consequences for family life, I think we can all understand and share people’s concerns—as everybody in the Chamber did, with one sad exception so far, although we have yet to hear from the Minister.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, I am a very proud member of USDAW. Its survey said that 16% of workers say that they face working longer hours this year, 7% say the hours will be shorter and 77% say the number of hours will be much the same. The number of hours that staff are being asked to work is therefore increasing. We have heard about the impact of long hours in the run-up to Christmas and about the inability of most staff to take time off for a considerable time—time off that would enable them to recuperate—and about the impact on families, especially those with children. Parents who finish late on Christmas eve then have to come back and put the stockings together.
Bill Esterson
Yes, and the toys—I thank my hon. Friend. They also have to prepare the food for Christmas day with very little time to enjoy themselves.
Mr Hollobone
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech hugely. We are all sympathetic to the plight of retail workers at Christmas time. I am not a member of USDAW, but my grandparents were small shopkeepers. To my mind—and in answer the petitioners who have gone to such efforts to draw this plight to our attention—the point is that the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004 prohibits large shops from opening on Christmas day. Are Her Majesty’s Opposition in favour of a Boxing day trading Act, which would prohibit large shops from opening on Boxing day?
Bill Esterson
I had not realised just how much I had in common with the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I had grandparents who ran a cornershop—I am assuming his grandparents ran a cornershop?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman is nodding; so we both had grandparents who ran cornershops.
Bill Esterson
I am struggling to make progress, Mrs Moon, because I am being given all sorts of interesting suggestions.
My grandad told me that if people cannot afford to pay decent wages, they should not open a shop. That is a good piece of advice about being a responsible employer. He might have amended that, in the context of this debate, to say that if employers cannot give decent time off over Christmas, they should not be opening a shop, especially on Christmas day and Boxing day. The hon. Member for Kettering is suggesting one option. Only 1.5% of the thousands of staff surveyed by USDAW said they wanted to work on Boxing day, so something needs to be done and it needs to be addressed. One option, undoubtedly, would be to amend the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004; another would be to have a Boxing day trading Act. I wait to see what the Minister has to say on that score. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if nothing is done through that piece of legislation, there should be action to ensure—this goes back to his earlier comments—that staff who do not want to work on Boxing day will not be under pressure to do so.
The hon. Gentleman reminded us that he voted against the Government’s attempt to include relaxation of Sunday trading in the Enterprise Bill in Committee and on Report. He will remember from that debate that points were put forward very forcefully and that extremely strong evidence was presented to us that many staff are simply unable to take time off on Sundays because of concerns and pressure, and the same applies to Boxing day, even though the legislation is different unless Boxing day is on a Sunday. We have to find some way of addressing the issue. I do not think the answer is necessarily for the Opposition to be prescriptive, but we need to get to a point where no one has to work in a large store on Boxing day unless they want to. Like the rest of us, they want to enjoy Christmas. They want to travel, see family and enjoy Christmas eve, not to feel under pressure through to Boxing day.
USDAW’s view is that the only staff who should be available to those large retailers at that time are volunteers. I suppose the point it is making is that if a store could manage purely with volunteers, there would be no objection in principle to that store opening. However, if stores are relying on only the 1.5% of staff who are prepared to work and the 5.5% of staff—I think that was the figure —who are non-committal, most stores would struggle to open without forcing staff to work.
Let me turn to the points about online trading. Things have changed since 2004. The nature and scale of online trading is very different. A number of hon. Members have made points about the impact of online trading on high street and, indeed, out-of-town stores. Perhaps the time has come to look at the needs of staff working in the warehouses such as those that the hon. Member for Kettering described in his constituency. Perhaps it is time to look at what the Government’s responsibility is towards staff who work in warehouses or for internet retailers, and the way in which they are treated. Those staff have a right to a Christmas day and at the moment they are not covered by the Christmas Day (Trading) Act, let alone by what we are talking about for Boxing day. The time has come to consider how that might be addressed and how we might get the kind of fairness that we would all expect for our own families.
Points have been made about the level of trading over Christmas. One estimate is that more than £77 billion will be spent in the Christmas period in the retail sector. Most of the people who work in retail, of course, are very low paid. As we have heard, premium pay is now a thing of the past in most businesses. In that context, is it too much to ask of the major retailers to do more to support their staff by not trading on Boxing day? Remember that those major retailers all have their own internet retail presences, so it is not as if they cannot trade online. By the way, plenty of people go online on Christmas day. It is not just Boxing day, is it?
Some online retailers do not necessarily fulfil orders. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) made the point from his own experience in the internet retail sector—he may want to intervene to set me straight on this—that there are plenty of opportunities to delay fulfilment of orders. There are plenty of retailers that do just that, so they are not open 24/7.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful for the opportunity to underline that point. There is room for retailers to be innovative by using the new technology—what would in other circumstances be the challenge of internet retailing —to help to create a much more equitable situation with in-store retail. The big benefit of having in-store staff is that they can give advice. Boxing day is a day when people are picking up units. They do not need advice; it is just about picking up the goods at a discount.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because it really adds to everybody’s understanding of the challenges, opportunities and some of the realities. Perhaps the Minister can take some of these points away and, as well as responding to them, look at how online and offline retail operate and at what might be appropriate in supporting staff in both parts of the industry.
I want to talk a bit about some of the retailers who have so far resisted the pressure to open on Boxing day, because not every major retailer does. The initial consultation for the Christmas Day (Trading) Act, which was carried out in 2002, suggested that competitive pressure was one reason the Act was needed. Although at the time not every retailer by any means was opening on Christmas day—indeed, it was only a few—the sense was that in the end everybody would have to do so to keep up or they would lose ground.
A similar pressure now applies with Boxing day. So far, retailers including Lidl, Aldi and John Lewis have resisted the pressure, and have done so successfully, which suggests a public appetite for delaying shopping to a degree. In the last year, those retailers have seen their trading figures go up at the expense of some of their competitors, but we do not know for how long that will continue. Earlier evidence suggests a concern across the sector that businesses will ultimately all have to work and trade on Boxing day unless there is Government intervention—nobody else can make such an intervention.
The Conservatives say that this is nothing to do with them—that it is a free market and that it is up to businesses to decide what to do. The problem, if we follow that argument, is who will prevent abuse. The problems with Sunday trading, and now with Boxing day, mean that workers are unable to take time off. Who will intervene to look after workers and ensure fairness between employers on the one hand and staff members on the other?
We have seen far too many abuses recently. We have seen the behaviour of Sports Direct, and some of Amazon’s behaviour in Scotland was highlighted over the weekend. A number of us will have constituents who have been affected by the cuts in pay and conditions at Marks and Spencer. It is all our responsibility, and particularly the Government’s responsibility, to intervene on the side of working people, whether on fair pay or hours of work.
Who looks after responsible businesses? The businesses I mentioned, Lidl, Aldi and John Lewis—and there are many more like them—want to do the right thing and act responsibly. How will they be encouraged and supported unless the Government introduce the necessary conditions so that they can do that without succumbing to competitive pressures? As we discussed when we were considering a statutory instrument last week, the Prime Minister is consulting on boards having a representative with responsibility for staff. It is regrettable that the Government appear to be walking away from having elected worker representation on boards, but will such board representatives be strong enough? Will they have the interest to ensure that staff are treated fairly? The concern is that the measure just will not go far enough. This is an example of where Government intervention cannot just be left to the market. It cannot just be voluntary.
Perhaps the time has come to consider a cautionary tale. We can either go down the route of supporting responsible businesses and treating workers fairly, or we can consider what has happened historically. I have mentioned some of the more recent cases, but we saw all sorts of horrors before there was Government support. I am not suggesting that the Minister is in any way interested in repeating what happened hundreds of years ago, but my mind goes back to “A Christmas Carol”. I wonder who Ebenezer Scrooge might be in this scenario. Surely not the Prime Minister.
Where is the line if the Government say they will not intervene? We used to send children up chimneys in Victorian Britain, and I know the Minister is not suggesting that, but let us remember the ghost of Christmas past and make sure that the ghosts of Christmas present and Christmas future show fair treatment for workers and responsible businesses. That is the way forward, and the right solution will ensure that workers are looked after on Boxing day, that family life is protected, that responsible businesses are encouraged and that there is the right balance between online, high street and out-of-town shopping. I challenge the Minister to deliver on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on introducing the debate on the closure of retail stores on Boxing day. I must be of a similar vintage, because I can recall when there was no shopping whatever on Boxing day. I have great sympathy with some of her comments on the many changes that our society has undergone since those days.
Even in those days, however, people still worked on Boxing day. People in retail might not have worked, but I remember going to my first football match, Chelsea versus Ipswich, on Boxing day. That match employed a lot of people, as do horse racing and many other sporting events that used to take place on Boxing day, and still do.
Also like the hon. Lady, I can attest to the exhausting nature of work in the retail sector. I would hardly call my time in retail a career, but I worked in a shop for about six months—obviously a great deal less than my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), who colourfully described her extensive career and experience in the retail sector. Retail is an exhausting occupation on any day of the year. I completely agree that it is particularly exhausting in the run-up to Christmas, and I have great sympathy with workers who, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, work until late on Christmas eve and have to be back at work on Boxing day, sometimes as early as 3 o’clock in the morning. When he asks what sort of Christmas that is, I agree with his sentiment.
Christmas is a time for family, which is why one of my constituents, community worker Julie Lees, signed this petition. She is fed up of losing some younger adults in her family to the world of work on Boxing day. There is no doubt that there is considerable feeling about the issue, as expressed in the debate. That feeling prompted the e-petition, which has now reached more than 140,000 signatures. I understand those who feel it unnecessary for shops to be open so soon after Christmas. Many points have been made about other sectors that are busy working straight after Christmas and about online trade, which I will address in a little more depth.
For a number of reasons, the Government do not support an outright ban on shops opening on Boxing day. Boxing day is a bank holiday, and the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 specifies which days are to be bank holidays and contains provisions for appointing additional or substitute days. Additional bank holidays, including those created after 1971, are appointed by royal proclamation in early summer each year for the coming year. Bank holidays are so called because the Act makes provision for banks to close for business by deferring the placement of bills of exchange until the next appropriate day. However, there are no other statutory restrictions on trading associated with bank holidays; in fact, we have few legislative constraints on trading hours at all. There are no constraints on online retail trading, and few constraints apply to small shops.
Mr Hollobone
The Minister’s remarks are of great interest. I think that the general public do not fully appreciate that point; I certainly did not. A bank holiday is not a public holiday. Lots of employees have bank holidays off not because the Government say they should but because their contract of employment says that they should. She would serve the public well if she put what she just said into plainer English, so that everyone could understand it.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for doing what he asked me to do by making that point simply. It would be good if more people were aware of it.
The Sunday Trading Act 1994 restricts the opening of large shops to a maximum of six consecutive hours between 10 and 6 on a Sunday. The Act also recognises the religious significance to Christians of Easter Sunday by obliging large retailers to close. By comparison, Boxing day has little if any religious significance. Neither the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004 nor the Sunday Trading Act contain provisions for varying their terms, so any additional constraints on retailers would require new primary legislation.
Although the House has considered changes to the Sunday Trading Act numerous times since 1994, it has always considered that the Act strikes a good balance between the rights of workers and those of retailers and consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) mentioned that he voted against the watering down of the Act; he will be pleased to hear that the Government have no plans to make changes to it in the coming years.
On statutory leave entitlement, although there is no statutory entitlement to time off on Boxing day, almost all retail workers, like those in other sectors, are entitled to a generous statutory paid leave entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year, which equates to 28 days a year for someone working five days a week. That is more than the 20 paid days of annual holiday a year mandated under EU law and ensures that workers in the UK get at least four weeks’ paid leave on top of bank holidays, assuming that they have leave on those bank holidays.
An employer has the right, whether or not it is explicitly reflected in the employment contract, to require a worker to work on a public holiday. It is common in industries such as retail or emergency services. We have also heard from hon. Members about other sectors such as hospitality, sport and leisure. Employers can determine when workers take their leave—for example, to cover an annual shutdown at work—and can refuse to give leave at a certain time, but they must give workers the opportunity to take their leave at some point during the leave year. The entitlement should give all workers sufficient time to see their families over the year, although I accept that Christmas and various other times of the year are absolutely associated with spending time with family.
In addition, there are special provisions for shop workers who do not wish to work on Sundays, at least. All shop and betting shop workers can opt out of Sunday working, unless Sunday is the only day they have been employed to work. A shop worker can opt out of Sunday working, even if they agreed in their contract to work on Sundays, by giving three months’ notice.
In putting the legal case before hon. Members, I am sympathetic to the fact that, in practice, many workers, fearing for their jobs, might find it more challenging to give effect to their legal rights than I find it to read them out. I regret that, but staff who opt out of Sunday working are protected from being treated unfairly. If an employer needs shop workers to work on Sundays, they must tell the employees in writing that they can opt out within two months of starting work.
In terms of the potential impact on retailers, the Government recognise the huge importance of the retail sector to both national and local economies, and the pressures under which it labours. The sector generated £91.7 billion in gross value added in 2015, and accounts for 5.6% of the UK economy and more than 3 million jobs. Boxing day sales are extremely popular; we have debated whether it is the busiest day of the year. House of Commons Library figures indicate that although it is not the busiest day, it is certainly very busy with consumers. Last year, an estimated £3.7 billion was spent with retailers, around 22% of it online. If we were to ban high street outlets from opening on Boxing day, that would result in a significant loss of business for them to online retailers, which would particularly disadvantage retailers without a strong online presence. We must bear that in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and a number of other hon. Members pointed out.
Mr Hollobone
The Minister is making an interesting speech. She has basically said that she is not in favour of a Boxing day trading Act to ban retail shops from opening on Boxing day, but she has also said that the Government have existing provisions to allow retail employees to opt out of working on a Sunday. There are 52 Sundays in a year. Why would the Government object to allowing retail employees to opt out of working on Boxing day, which is just one day a year?
Margot James
It would be interesting to look at the picture when Boxing day falls on a Sunday. Presumably that would give people greater rights, at least on those rare occasions. Any changes to the legislation that I have mentioned would require primary legislation. I would hope that there were other ways to afford shop workers some protection without recourse to primary legislation. The law is a balance that Parliament has accepted, and the Government are reluctant to disturb that balance. To change the law would risk opening new disagreements; new primary legislation would create new demands and new risks.
Bill Esterson
The Minister is making some reasonable points, but she said that she hoped that there was some recourse for the Government other than primary legislation. I thought that she was going to tell us what it was, but she seems to have moved on to another point. If I can bring her back, what does she see as the recourse, other than primary legislation, to ensure that staff who want time off get it?
Margot James
I have no suggestions at the moment to put to the hon. Gentleman, and I would not like to give the impression that the Government are exploring that. We are opposed to a ban on retail trading on Sundays. More generally, Boxing day is a day on which some people like to get out of the house. It has long been a major day for shopping and other events, and I have covered the point that an increasing number of workers in other sectors are busy at work.
Another argument against banning offline retail—that is what it is now—from opening on Boxing day is that many other workers would want to know why we were making an exception for the offline retail trade when employees in other sectors work on Boxing day. There are many aspects to the issue other than the threat posed to retailers by an outright ban, particularly, as I have mentioned, to retailers without a strong online presence.
May I respond to a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington North in her interesting and well researched speech? Workers have many protections under the working time regulations, including entitlements to rest breaks, daily and weekly rest periods, and a maximum working week of 48 hours, normally averaged over 17 weeks. However, workers can choose to opt out of the 48-hour limit, and I accept that some jobs are more or less conditional on their exercising that opt-out. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal, which the hon. Lady also mentioned, is intended to strike the right balance between fairness for employees and flexibility for employers.
Helen Jones
The Minister mentioned the working time directive, but the problem in retail is that many workers work flexible hours, so it is difficult for them to enforce that provision.
Also, the Government often miss the point about unfair dismissal and the balance between employers and employees. The law does not say that employers cannot dismiss people; it says that they cannot dismiss them unfairly. That is the key point. Because the time has been extended, those who are forced to work on bank holidays find it difficult to enforce their rights without being dismissed, so they simply cannot make a claim.
Margot James
I take the hon. Lady’s point. It is true that employers can dismiss people, as long as they are not unfair about it and they go through proper consultation and so forth. The flexibility cuts both ways. People increasingly want to work flexibly, especially if they have caring responsibilities and suchlike; likewise, employers, certainly in the fast-changing world of retail, require some groups of workers to work flexibly.
I will finish by reaffirming that we do not believe that it is for the Government to tell businesses how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers. Notwithstanding the many very good arguments that I have heard this afternoon in favour of giving employees greater freedoms on bank holiday periods, particularly around the family-associated festive season, we believe that the current legislation provides the right balance between the interests of employers and workers, and at least provides workers with a generous leave entitlement. The Government therefore do not propose to ban shops from opening on Boxing day.
Helen Jones
I shall be brief. This has been a very interesting debate, with thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). The last named, whose constituency is in a beautiful part of the world but has a very long name, has at least tried to propose some ways to solve this dilemma, but I must pick up on something he said. No doubt he was a compassionate manager, but we do not legislate for the good; we legislate for the worst.
As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) both acknowledged, there is a problem with workers being forced to work on Boxing day when they do not want to. The Government really have to take on board the opinions of most Members who contributed today and look seriously at the issue, because it is the Government’s responsibility to regulate. I know many members of the Government do not like doing that, but if they did not we would still be sending children up chimneys and people would still be working long days in factories, as my hon. Friend said.
We need to find a way out of this dilemma. It is clear from the debate that the current situation is not fair to workers in retail or to their families. It is not even terribly fair to employers, because workers who are treated well are more productive. There is an issue with people working in warehouses, as the hon. Member for Kettering said, but there are ways to deal with that and with internet shopping without doing so on the backs of retail workers. Of course some people have always worked on bank holidays—hospitality workers have to do so, and so do people who work at sporting fixtures—but those in retail are in a particularly difficult position: having had an exhausting time in the run-up to Christmas, they then do not get a proper Christmas break.
I hope that the Minister will go back to the Department, think very seriously and discuss with her colleagues what can be done to resolve the situation. It is clear that at the moment it is really unfair on those in retail.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 168524 relating to the closure of retail stores on Boxing Day.
Written Statements
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neighbourhood Planning
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Neighbourhood planning was introduced by the Localism Act 2011, and is an important part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to let local people have more say on local planning. With over 230 neighbourhood plans in force and many more in preparation, they are already a well- established part of the English planning system. Recent analysis suggests that giving people more control over development in their area is helping to boost housing supply—those plans in force that plan for a housing number have on average planned for approximately 10% more homes than the number for that area set out by the relevant local planning authority.
The Government confirm that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. However, communities who have been proactive and worked hard to bring forward neighbourhood plans are often frustrated that their plan is being undermined because their local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing sites.
This is because Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date, and housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
As more communities take up the opportunity to shape their area we need to make sure planning policy is suitable for a system with growing neighbourhood plan coverage. Building on proposals to further strengthen neighbourhood planning through the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, I am today making clear that where communities plan for housing in their area in a neighbourhood plan, those plans should not be deemed to be out-of-date unless there is a significant lack of land supply for housing in the wider local authority area. We are also offering those communities who brought forward their plans in advance of this statement time to review their plans.
This means that relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan that is part of the development plan should not be deemed to be “out-of-date” under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made:
This written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less;
the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and
the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
This statement applies to decisions made on planning applications and appeals from today. This statement should be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework and is a material consideration in relevant planning decisions.
My Department will be bringing forward a White Paper on Housing in due course. Following consultation, we anticipate the policy for neighbourhood planning set out in this statement will be revised to reflect policy brought forward to ensure new neighbourhood plans meet their fair share of local housing need and housing is being delivered across the wider local authority area. It is, however, right to take action now to protect communities who have worked hard to produce their neighbourhood plan and find the housing supply policies are deemed to be out-of-date through no fault of their own.
On 7 July 2016, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), extended for a period of six months the criteria for consideration of the recovery of planning appeals to include proposals for residential development over 25 dwellings in areas where a qualifying body has submitted a neighbourhood plan proposal to the local planning authority but the relevant plan has not been made (Hansard HCWS74). In order to allow time for the Neighbourhood Planning Bill to complete its passage through Parliament, and in the light of other potential policy changes currently under consideration, I am now extending that period for a further six months from today.
[HCWS346]
Race and Faith Policy
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
Today, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK Government are the first European Union country to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism. The Government believe that the definition, although legally non-binding, is an important tool for criminal justice agencies, and other public bodies to understand how anti- Semitism manifests itself in the 21st century, as it gives examples of the kind of behaviours which depending on the circumstances could constitute anti-Semitism. It will be for public bodies and agencies to implement the definition and embed it within operational guidance as relevant.
In addition, the Government have published its response to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report on anti-Semitism, and provided a progress update to the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism Inquiry into the rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents following the Gaza conflict in 2014.
Our response to both reports demonstrates the significant progress we have made in combating anti-Semitism which has been acknowledged by the Home Affairs Select Committee and the All- Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism. Our approach has also been cited as best practice across Europe and the Americas.
However, we cannot be complacent. Anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in this country and it is right that, as a Government, we are able to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take it, as we do for other forms of hate crime. Anti-Semitism must be understood for what it is—an attack on the identity of people who live, contribute and are valued in our society. Our relationship with the Jewish community has been built on the solid work of the cross-Government working group on tackling anti-Semitism, which ensures that we are alive to any issues and concerns of the Jewish community and can respond quickly.
The adoption of the definition and our positive response to both reports underlines how the Government have done much to establish Britain as a safer place for Jewish people.
[HCWS345]
General Affairs Council December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on Tuesday 13 December is expected to focus on:
Multiannual financial framework review/revision; enlargement and stabilisation and association process; preparation of the December European Council 15-16 December; inter-institutional agreement and legislative programming; and the European semester 2017.
Mid-term review of the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)
The presidency will present an update on the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework.
Preparation for the December European Council
There will be a discussion on the draft annotated agenda of the upcoming December European Council (DEC), which covers: migration, security (internal and external/defence) economic and social development (youth) and external relations, which will cover the EU/Ukraine association agreement.
Inter-institutional agreement on “Better Law-Making”
The presidency will provide information on the implementation of the inter-institutional agreement and seek approval of the draft joint declaration on inter-institutional priorities.
European semester 2017
The European semester is the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy co-ordination with member states. The presidency will present the autumn package of this year’s EU semester.
Enlargement package
The Foreign Office Minister of State will take part in the discussion on enlargement. The Council will agree a package of conclusions in response to the 9 November Commission communication on EU enlargement policy and country reports.
[HCWS343]
Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns), has made the following written ministerial statement:
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, are today publishing the annual report 2016 on progress on the UK’s third national action plan on women, peace and security, which was published on 12 June 2014 (HC Deb, 16 June 2014, cc72-4WS).
The national action plan sets out our priorities on women, peace and security from 2014-17. It provides direction and vision to the Government and their partners as we work to ensure that women and girls are at the centre of our efforts to prevent, respond to and resolve conflict.
The report published today outlines our overall progress on the national action plan. It highlights our overseas work in the six focus countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Somalia and Syria. It gives details of our activities under the four main pillars of women, peace and security: participation, prevention, protection and relief and recovery.
It also reports on our progress towards implementing the commitments we made in October 2015 at UN Security Council high level review of resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.
We will continue to report to Parliament annually on progress, with our final report due in December 2017. We are already planning our fourth national action plan which follow directly afterwards.
I will deposit copies of the report in Library of the House. The progress report has been published online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-action-plan-on-women-peace-and-security.
[HCWS344]
Foreign Affairs Council December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
The agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is expected to include EU-Africa relations, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and external migration. Ministers will discuss Syria and Iraq over lunch.
EU-Africa relations
EU Foreign Ministers will discuss EU-Africa relations ahead of the EU-Africa summit (which is likely to take place in November 2017). The UK remains committed to working with African nations in partnership and for mutual benefit on shared interests of security, migration and prosperity, strengthening the continent’s own ability to respond to threats and maximise opportunities. European partners play a key role in Africa and we expect discussion to range across politics, security and economics. Migration will be covered substantively later in the day. The UK will look to ensure EU-Africa relations are positively focused on mutual growth, trade and investment.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Discussions will focus on EU sanctions in response to recent violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the ongoing political impasse there. President Kabila is deeply unpopular but is showing no sign of stepping down when his term of office ends on 19 December. Widespread protests are expected. The Council will agree sanctions against seven individuals identified as having been responsible for human rights abuses and the obstruction of the electoral process. The UK, alongside France and Belgium, has led the EU response to the political crisis. The sanctions aim to apply pressure on the Government to find an inclusive political solution and schedule timely presidential elections, ideally in 2017.
Migration
High Representative Mogherini is expected to provide an update on progress establishing migration partnership frameworks with the five initial priority countries— Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. The discussion may also cover potential countries for the next wave of partnerships. We support the comprehensive approach envisaged under the frameworks and will continue to argue that there should be enhanced engagement on migration, even if not full partnership frameworks, with major source and transit countries. The frameworks should not divert attention from other migration initiatives, such as the Khartoum process and implementation of the Valletta action plan (between EU and African states).
Syria and Iraq
Ministers will discuss the devastating assault on eastern Aleppo and what more the EU can do to achieve a full ceasefire in order to pursue a credible political process in Syria. Ministers are expected to discuss how the EU can support the UN’s humanitarian plan for the city and will continue to call on the Syrian regime to allow aid in. Ministers will discuss the ongoing military campaign in Mosul and the continued importance of the global coalition following Daesh’s military defeat in Iraq. That includes the challenge of ensuring that Mosul is liberated in a manner that protects civilians, minimises the humanitarian impact, and limits longer-term conflict by supporting political reconciliation. Ministers are also expected to discuss the wider challenge of addressing those underlying political factors which led to the rise of Daesh in Iraq.
[HCWS342]
Youth Justice
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
This Government are determined to improve standards in youth justice so that we not only punish crime but also intervene earlier to prevent crime and reform offenders to stop further crimes being committed — protecting victims and building better lives.
Youth offending has fallen sharply over the past decade, as has the number of children and young people in custody. However, once those children and young people are in custody, the outcomes are not good enough. Levels of violence and self-harm are too great and reoffending rates are unacceptably high, with 69% of those sentenced to custody going on to commit further offences within a year of their release.
When children and young people commit crime, it is right that they face the consequences of their actions and that the justice system delivers reparation for victims. But we must also do more to reform them. The 900 young offenders now in custody represent some of the most complex and damaged children and young people within society. Broken homes, drug and alcohol misuse, generational joblessness, abusive relationships, childhoods spent in care, mental illness, gang membership and educational failure are common in the backgrounds of many offenders. Youth custody needs to be more than just containment where children are exposed to yet more violence and given little hope that things may ever change. We must make sure it is a safe and secure environment that can equip young offenders with the skills they need to lead law-abiding lives. The system should provide discipline, purpose, supervision and someone who cares—elements that have all too often been missing from these young lives.
The Prison Safety and Reform White Paper published last month outlined how we will improve adult prisons by giving greater powers to governors and boosting the safety, transparency and accountability of regimes. We will apply the same principles to the way the justice system deals with children and young people who commit crimes.
Last year, the experienced school head and child behaviour expert Charlie Taylor was commissioned by the Government to look at how this country deals overall with children and young people who break the law. Today, I am publishing the report of Charlie Taylor’s Review of the Youth Justice System and the Government’s response. The Taylor Review makes a compelling case for change and we will be implementing his key recommendations.
The Government’s response sets out how, informed by Mr Taylor’s findings, we will put in place the right framework for improvement, tackle offending by children and young people and put education at the heart of youth custody to better address the factors that increase the risk of young people committing crimes.
We will start by bringing greater clarity and accountability to the youth justice system so that at each stage we are driving to reduce reoffending and turn lives around. We want to see an effective system — both in the community and in custody with high standards of performance. To tackle violence in custody we will clarify commissioning functions and create a single head of youth custodial operations, who can keep a firm grip on the performance of the estate and ensure that we reduce violence so that the estate becomes a place of safety and reform. We will strengthen inspection arrangements and create a new mechanism for the inspectorate to trigger intervention. Where there are failing institutions the Secretary of State will be obliged to act.
Youth custody must be a safe, secure environment where children and young people can learn and turn their lives around and to ensure this we will boost the number of frontline staff by 20%. We will also introduce a new professional Youth Justice Officer role to ensure that more staff are specifically trained to reform with young people. To ensure the right level of support each young person will now have a dedicated officer responsible for challenging and supporting them to reach agreed goals. Each officer will be responsible for four children or young people, so that each person gets the level of attention they need to turn their life around.
To ensure that more children and young people make progress in maths and English we will give governors the responsibility for education and hold them to account for the progress made in these crucial subjects while young people are in custody. We will also better prepare children and young people for a life after their sentence with a youth custody apprenticeship scheme being developed, ensuring that all young people are earning or learning on release.
Alongside these improvements to the existing estate, we will go further to more comprehensively transform youth custody by developing two new secure schools in line with the approach recommended by Mr Taylor in his ground-breaking report.
Of course we need to do more and we will. Intervening early is crucial in reducing youth crime, and we will be looking at how to improve services locally and improve the court system for young people. Together with the urgent action required to transform youth custody into places of discipline and purpose, these changes will improve the outcomes for young people who end up in the criminal justice system, helping them take a better path and improving outcomes for society as a whole by reducing crime.
[HCWS341]
Transport Council
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I attended the only Transport Council under the Slovak presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Thursday 1 December.
The Council adopted a general approach to update the civil aviation safety regulatory framework of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the first on an aviation file since 2014. I welcomed the beneficial move away from prescription to proportionate risk and performance based regulation which was also widely supported by other member states. I supported efforts to encourage innovation and growth, particularly for unmanned aircraft, although shared the concerns of other member states on the need to carefully monitor developments in this sector in urban areas.
The Council adopted a general approach on the revised directive for safety rules and standards for passenger ships. I supported this approach and the objective of simplifying and clarifying the existing directive, in particular the proposal that standards for the smallest passenger ships are better suited to regulation at national level. A general approach on the amending directive on the system of inspections for ro-ro ferries and high speed passenger craft was also adopted. I welcomed this revision which clarifies and simplifies the inspection regime, providing clear guidance on carrying out inspections while maintaining the same level of safety. A progress report on the proposal to review the directive on the registration of persons sailing on-board passenger ships was also noted by the Council.
Under any other business, a range of items were discussed. At the request of Germany, the Commission gave its views on the progress of revisions to the real driving emissions regulations and called on member states for support on agreeing EURO V standards and creating a regime for EU supervision and centralised type approval. Commissioners Bulc and King gave an update on the Commission’s recent work on transport security, highlighting that aviation security in the EU was well advanced but that the Commission was considering legislative action for maritime and land transport. I welcomed co-operation and sharing best practice but, along with other member states, expressed the importance of a proportionate approach and the need to maintain accessibility for passengers.
At the request of France and Germany, the Commission provided an update on the forthcoming roads initiatives followed by a discussion of member state priorities. I expressed support for a level playing field on implementation of cabotage rules and the need to balance effective enforcement of regulations with reduced administrative burdens for small and medium sized businesses. During the discussion member states expressed concerns around the need to improve social conditions in the road haulage sector, the problem of fraudulent drivers’ hours reporting, and minimum wages for foreign drivers.
In addition, the Commission updated the Council on: global efforts to reduce transport emissions at the 39th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), at which the UK played a pivotal role and the International Maritime Organisation’s Marine Environment Protection Committee; its low emission mobility strategy; the state of play on the Galileo project, its recent work on women in transport aimed at recommending ways of attracting more women into the transport sector; the recent review of the cross-border enforcement directive; and the road safety statistics for 2016. Member states were broadly supportive of the recent work done by the Commission, and set out domestic measures to cut transport emissions and improve the gender balance in transport.
There were also a range of information points from member states under Any Other Business. The Cypriot delegation provided information on the draft EU-Turkey aviation agreement in relation to sovereignty, non-discrimination and aviation safety; the Dutch updated the Council on cooperation in the field of connected and automated driving; and the Maltese delegation set out their transport priorities for their forthcoming presidency.
Over lunch, Commissioner Bulc and the Vice President of the European Investment Bank led a discussion on the European fund for strategic investments.
[HCWS340]
Automatic Enrolment: Review
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
I am pleased to confirm both the scope of the automatic enrolment review and the proposed automatic enrolment thresholds for the next financial year.
Automatic enrolment has been a great success to date with almost 7 million people enrolled by more than 293,000 employers. It will give around 11 million people the opportunity to save into a workplace pension and we expect this to lead to around 10 million people newly saving or saving more by 2018, generating around £17 billion a year more in workplace pension saving by 2019-20.
Analysis cited in DWP’s annual automatic enrolment evaluation report today shows that nearly £82 billion was saved into workplace pensions last year by employees who were eligible for automatic enrolment.
Automatic Enrolment Review
It is important to continue to build on this success, and I am keen to ensure that there is joint consensus from across industry as we move to the next stage of this policy.
The main focus of the review will be to ensure that automatic enrolment continues to meet the needs of individual savers. In doing this we will look at the existing coverage of the policy and consider the needs of those not currently benefiting from automatic enrolment, for example employees with multiple jobs who do not meet the criteria for automatic enrolment in any of their jobs. We will also examine the automatic enrolment thresholds namely, the trigger and the qualifying earning bands required by legislation (section 14 of the Pensions Act 2008) and the age criteria for automatic enrolment. I would also like to use the review to consider how the growing group of self-employed people can be helped to save for their retirement.
The review will be an opportunity to consider whether the technical operation of the policy is working as intended. In doing this we will consider whether there may be any policies which disproportionately affect different categories of employers or could be further simplified.
The review will also include the requirements set in legislation relating to the statutory review of the alternative quality requirements for defined benefits schemes (section 23A of the Pensions Act 2008) and for the certification requirements for money purchase schemes (section 28 of Pensions Act 2008).
An examination of the level of the charge cap, which was intended to take place in 2017, will also be incorporated within this review. This will assess whether the level of the cap should be changed and whether some or all transactions costs should be covered by the cap.
In the early part of 2017 we will be engaging with stakeholders from across industry on these issues. Towards the end of 2017 we will publish a report setting out policy recommendations.
The review will be an opportunity to strengthen the evidence around appropriate future contributions into workplace pensions. It will also consider how engagement with individuals can be improved so that savers have a stronger sense of personal ownership and are better enabled to maximise savings. We do not expect to make policy decisions on these areas during 2017.
The automatic enrolment review work will be led by a DWP team and supported by an external advisory group. This group, which will be chaired by and made up of experts from within the pensions industry, and those representing member interests and employers, will provide insight and a challenge function to help shape proposals. In early 2017 we will announce membership and the terms of reference for this group.
Annual Thresholds review
The annual review of the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds has also now been completed.
It is intended to lay an order before Parliament in the new year which will include the following, for 2017-18: £45,000 for the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band; £5,876 for the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band.
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will be frozen at £10,000.
I will place a copy of the analysis (review of the automatic enrolment earnings trigger and qualifying earnings band for 2017-18: supporting analysis) supporting the proposed revised thresholds in the House Library. These papers will be available later today on www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS339]
Grand Committee
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
If a Division is called in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Cookham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, since the financial crisis, the Government have implemented a significant programme of reforms to address the problems of the past and make the financial sector safer and more stable. In addition, the Government have implemented significant reforms to address the problem of “too big to fail” and ensure that the failure of a bank can be managed in a way that protects the wider economy and financial sector without relying on taxpayer bailouts. These orders concern two key planks of the reforms: macroprudential regulation, and resolution, which is the regime for managing the failure of banks and other financial firms. I will begin with the Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2016.
The Government have reformed our financial regulation so that risks to the whole system are identified and addressed. This element of regulation was not present in the previous system of regulation. The Financial Policy Committee addresses macroprudential risks through its powers to issue recommendations and directions. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the UK housing market has gone through many cycles of boom and bust, often leading to wider economic problems when the market experiences a downturn. Mortgages are the single largest asset class held by UK banks. This makes them sensitive to the performance of the housing market. It also exposes them to direct risks when borrowers struggle to pay back their loans. Work by the Bank of England suggests that buy-to-let mortgage lending can amplify the housing cycle. As house prices go up, buy-to-let investors are incentivised to enter the market by the prospect of capital gains, and this pushes up prices for all home buyers. The Bank of England has asserted that as prices fall, buy-to-let investors are incentivised to sell their properties, which can exacerbate the downturn in the market.
The lessons of the recent financial crisis are still fresh in our memory and we know that the costs of financial instability are huge. That is why, in his Mansion House speech on 12 June 2014, the then Chancellor committed to ensuring that the FPC has,
“all the weapons it needs to guard against risks in the housing market”.
Following that statement, the FPC recommended that its powers of direction be expanded so that it could tackle effectively the systemic risks in the UK housing market. The Government agree with those recommendations and have already legislated to grant the requested powers regarding owner-occupied mortgages. The instrument we are discussing today will provide the requested powers over buy-to-let mortgages similar to those already provided with respect to owner-occupied mortgages. It will also allow the FPC to direct the financial regulators, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, to require regulated lenders to place limits on buy-to-let mortgage lending in relation to loan-to-value ratios and interest coverage ratios. Both are commonly used measures of affordability employed by lenders when considering whether to extend a buy-to-let mortgage. This instrument is another step taken by the Government to ensure that the FPC has the powers it needs to address systemic risks and that our financial system is resilient and supports the wider economy.
I turn now to the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016. The financial crisis demonstrated the need for an effective resolution regime to manage the failure of financial sector firms without relying on taxpayer bailouts. The UK’s special resolution regime provides the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Treasury with the tools to protect financial stability by effectively resolving banks. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive established a common approach across the EU to the recovery and resolution of failing banks. It drew on key aspects of the UK’s existing resolution regime for managing bank failure.
Since the transposition of the BRRD in January 2015, industry and the regulators have had time to digest the new rules. They have identified a small number of areas where the UK’s special resolution regime could be improved. As such, this order makes changes to strengthen the UK’s special resolution regime to make it work more smoothly and effectively.
The Government have consulted extensively on the draft legislation, both through public consultation and through close engagement with the Banking Liaison Panel. These changes have the support of industry. The Government will also update the special resolution regime code of practice, a guidance document which sits alongside the legislative framework, to further clarify the measures introduced by the order.
The Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016 makes changes in three key areas. First, it makes amendments to allow the Bank of England or the Treasury to activate contractual default event provisions where it would assist a resolution. This will be necessary only for a narrow range of contracts, where the activation of default event provisions supports the Bank of England’s efforts to resolve a failing firm and maintain financial stability.
Secondly, the order introduces new stand-alone early intervention powers for the PRA and FCA. These powers could be used when an institution’s position was deteriorating to try to prevent it failing and requiring resolution. The stand-alone powers, which include the power to require the removal of senior management, clarify the scope of existing powers.
Thirdly, the order provides new backstop powers for the Bank of England to resolve branches of third-country institutions operating in the UK, independently of the third-country resolution authority. The circumstances in which these independent powers would be used are exceptional. The preference of the UK authorities is for co-operation between authorities.
The order also addresses a couple of other issues. First, it introduces powers to enable the bridge bank tool to be applied through a share transfer for building societies. The bridge bank tool allows the Bank of England to transfer the critical assets and liabilities of an institution in resolution to a bridge bank until they can be safely returned to the private sector. This amendment will ensure that the tool can be applied to building societies flexibly. Secondly, it introduces powers for the Treasury and the Bank of England to recover bail-in expenses.
As I said at the beginning, these changes will strengthen the UK’s resolution regime. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two orders in the order which they appear on the Order Paper. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to our deliberations. His presence swells by 50% the number normally involved and it is good to have him with us. That puts in context the question whether this exercise is worth while, because if Her Majesty’s Opposition were to contemplate voting down the order, there would be a constitutional crisis as if a bomb had dropped on the place. Frankly, not approving the order is not a serious option. I can assure the Minister that I have no intention of opposing it; indeed, I support it—with one area of exception.
So what do we usefully do on these occasions? The orders are peculiarly complex, because one has to understand resolution and bail-in, which are not popular subjects at GCSE. I put it to the Committee that we do four things: we put the orders in a political context; we probe the meaning to reveal any weaknesses; we try to secure assurances; and we try to influence future development and guidance. Other than the fact that I shall go on constantly about the clarity and accessibility of the orders, I wish to make no political points. My efforts will focus on the last three concepts.
I count in this order four significant areas. The first I will touch on is Article 29, which gives back to the Bank of England stock powers in the case of a UK branch of a third-country institution. I have no comments on that part of the order and am content. Similarly, Articles 21 and 22 provide for a tool to create a situation in which a building society can use the bridge bank tool. That is perfectly sensible.
I move now to the two most significant areas. Articles 31 and 32 give the PRA and the FCA powers to remove and replace directors and senior managers, and to appoint temporary managers. It is difficult to overstate how significant this power is. It has been implied, or even expressed in legislation, but the lawmakers are obviously not confident that it is clear enough, and I entirely support it being clarified. However, it does effectively mean that the board, chief executive or chairman of a privately owned bank that is trading could be removed by the PRA. That is a pretty dramatic thing to do. I do not think those powers exist anywhere else in what I will call “company law”, to use a very general term. Therefore, my first question on this area is: given the serious nature of Article 31 and 32 intervention powers, what procedures has the PRA set up to ensure that they are exercised in a fair and proportionate manner? It seems to me that the powers and how they are exercised need to be clearly understood. It would be useful on this occasion if the powers, how they are exercised, how they are accountable and how they can be challenged were placed on the record.
We come now to Article 15—the centre of the order. Article 15 speaks to the whole issue of bail-in, which is about “too big to fail” but also the crucial question of who pays. In 2008, the Labour Government decided that the big banks were too big to fail. That was a perfectly proper and courageous decision. I call it courageous because it was not at all clear that anybody had the authority to do anything at the time. If you read the accounts of the chaos at the time, particularly over that weekend, you will see, as is my recollection of events, that the UK led the world in stepping in to make sure that the banks did not collapse. The US had already set a precedent, having allowed Lehman’s to fail. The downside of this courageous decision was that the public purse paid. The essence of the bail-in is to ensure that shareholders and creditors pay first. It is an elegant but complicated concept. The key issue in a bail-in is how assets are swapped for equity during the resolution process. It is sufficiently important that it is not in fact handled by the PRA at this point but is handed over to the Resolution Directorate. Article 15 is about that concept.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will address myself to the order that is 56 pages long. I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—and I thank him for sharing with me the letter of 24 November from the Minister—but unlike him I am not convinced that the order should progress as it stands. It was discussed in the Commons a week ago and there was concern there about Article 15.4, which amends Section 48Z of the Banking Act 2009. In particular there was concern about the insertion of new subsection 6(b). This subsection, as Lord Tunnicliffe has pointed out, would give wide, apparently unlimited discretion to the Bank or HMT to decide which instruments were to be bailed-in.
The 24 November letter addresses the question but does not seem to provide certainty. It simply notes:
“The exceptions in the amendment of section 48(z) will only apply to a narrow range of contracts where doing so would add to the authorities’ efforts to meet the special resolution objectives”.
The Minister repeated that earlier this afternoon. The Minister went on to say the following in his letter:
“The government will provide further guidance in Chapter 7 of the Special Resolution Regime Code of Practice on which type of contracts could include clauses that are activated by the use of a crisis prevention or management measure”.
This inevitably raises the question of why we are being asked to approve this order, or at least consider it here, without seeing the guidelines. Would not it be much more sensible to wait until we have the guidelines in front of us? They are the substance of this issue, and Parliament should have the opportunity to discuss them. Perhaps in the absence of them, the Minister can help us by characterising the type of contracts that will be affected.
Then there is the question of timing. When will the guidelines be published? If it is to be soon, why not withdraw parts of this order and re-present them with the guidelines? If it is not to be soon, does this not unnecessarily prolong market uncertainty?
There is another area in which further guidance is promised. The order provides the power for the Bank to resolve branches of third-country institutions operating in the United Kingdom independently of the third-country resolution authority. The Explanatory Memorandum to the order notes that respondents to the consultation were “broadly supportive” of this power, but some were concerned about the broad definition of the “business of the branch”. It goes on to say that further guidelines—again, guidelines—will be provided in the code on how the bank will judge whether,
“conditions for the use of these powers are satisfied for branches”.
Without these guidelines, this part of the order can only generate considerable uncertainty. Again, surely it would have been more sensible to debate the order with the guidelines. As things stand, Parliament is being asked to give the bank powers without having a clear view of how they will be exercised. The same questions of timing arise. If the guidelines are to be published soon, would not it be better to postpone discussion on parts of this order until they are published? If they are not to be published soon, does this not create unsatisfactory uncertainty in the market?
On the whole, I feel that the uncertainties generated by the absence of these two sets of guidelines make this order significantly flawed. It would be much better to withdraw it now and re-present it when we have the guidelines before us, or to withdraw Article 15 and Part 3 and re-present when the guidelines are available. I suggest that course of action to the Minister.
I have one final point. The order is very long. It is also very technical, as the Government explicitly acknowledged in the Commons. Consolidation would help Parliament to debate it more efficiently and to understand future references and amendments. In his 24 November letter, the Minister said that the Government have no plans to consolidate the legislation and points out that consolidated versions can be bought from commercial providers. The Explanatory Memorandum repeats that consolidated versions are commercially available but adds that,
“given the limited amount of Parliamentary time available, there are currently no plans to consolidate the legislation amended by this Order”.
Is there, in fact, a limited amount of parliamentary time available, in any non-trivial sense? The current schedules suggest not, at least not up until the end of March. In the interest of the sanity of current and future parliamentarians, will the Minister reconsider consolidation?
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is a complex subject and I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said about the meetings that we arranged. I certainly found that the learning curve in understanding this had a fairly steep gradient. I am also grateful for what the noble Lord said about officials at the Treasury and the Bank of England. To put the measure in context, the heavy lifting was done back in 2015 when the BRRD was transposed into legislation. Today, we are looking at relatively minor improvements to that broad structure in the light of a review that has taken place over the last two years. As I think I said, there has been broad approval for the proposals that we have in mind. I will go through the particular issues that the noble Lord raised, starting with the powers to suspend the board of directors. The position at the moment, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is as follows:
“The Order also gives stand-alone powers to the PRA and the FCA to require the removal and replacement of directors and senior managers in accordance with Article 28 of the BRRD, and to appoint temporary managers in accordance with Article 29”.
So the regulators already have the power to undertake these early intervention measures. The stand-alone powers we are discussing this afternoon provide greater clarity on the scope of those powers.
As the noble Lord said, these are serious powers of intervention. He raised a number of questions about whether they would be exercised in a fair and proportionate manner. The new stand-alone early intervention powers are proposed with procedural safeguards for the firms, banks and individuals affected, and the powers may be exercised only if the conditions set out in Section 71D are satisfied. The PRA is required to give notice of its intentions to the firm, the directors and the senior executives who would be affected by the proposed use of these powers, and to give them time to make representations to the PRA. If, having considered any representations made to it, the PRA still decides to exercise these powers, the firm and any directors or senior executives affected have a right to have the decision reviewed by the Upper Tribunal, which will be completely independent of the regulators. The PRA’s general governance procedures should also ensure that these powers are exercised in a fair and proportionate manner.
In non-urgent cases, which in practice means in the vast majority of circumstances, decisions will be taken by the appropriate PRA decision-making committee, made up of at least three people. In urgent cases, if it is necessary to take a decision before a recommendation can be made to the appropriate decision-making committee, the PRA will require decisions to be made by at least two persons. In that case, the decision will be taken only if the two decision-makers are unanimous. At least one of the two individuals will not have been directly involved in establishing the evidence on which that decision is based.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Sharkey, raised issues about Article 15 and asked to which categories of contracts the amendment in Article 15 would apply. As I said when I introduced this debate, the amendment in Article 15 would apply only to a narrow range of contracts. To date, the Bank of England has identified two categories of contracts for which the amendment would be likely to apply. One category, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is contractual bail-in instruments: debt instruments that qualify for the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities where the contract specifies that the instrument may be written down or converted to the extent required on the occurrence of a specified event, for example, when the bail-in tool is applied. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, accepted that that was a reasonable provision. With foreign law-governed debt instruments, it is necessary, for example, to ensure that the bail-in will take effect on a contractual basis because the application of the statutory bail-in power may not be enforceable on a cross-border basis.
The other category is certain service contracts specifying the terms on which services will continue to be provided following a resolution. These contracts therefore support operational continuity in an institution following resolution. Service contracts would also include certain contracts with financial market infrastructure, such as payment and settlement systems, where it is important to ensure that they continue to offer access to a firm after it has entered resolution.
Both noble Lords asked why Article 15 was not more specific about the categories. The answer is that resolution planning is an iterative process and banks are complex. It is possible that additional types of contracts could be identified at the advanced planning stage, where the Bank of England is preparing for the failure of a particular bank, so a broad formulation of the new power that Article 15 inserts into Section 48Z is appropriate.
Lord Young of Cookham
No, but hopefully, I will be updated very shortly on the update.
Resolution planning is a technical and iterative process and, as I said a moment ago, this may uncover further categories of contracts where the activation of default event provisions could aid the Bank of England’s efforts to resolve a firm.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, whether the Article 15 exemption could be used on a contract-by-contract or category-by-category basis. In order to have full flexibility in resolution, the Bank of England will have discretion to specify contracts or to describe categories of contracts in the resolution instrument.
I was also asked what procedures would be used and who would be responsible for the Article 15 exceptions. As the UK’s resolution authority, the Bank of England will be responsible for deciding to which contracts the exemption in Article 15 applies. Before exercising its resolution powers, the Bank is required to consult the PRA, the FCA and the Treasury. The deputy governor for financial stability and the executive director for resolution have day-to-day responsibility for resolution matters within the Bank, which has established a resolution committee and a resolution advisory committee for the purpose of decision-making in its role as the resolution authority. The most important resolution decisions are reserved for and may be escalated to the governor, who may be advised by the Bank’s deputy governors.
I was asked how those who take the decisions will be accountable. As I said, the Bank is obliged to consult the PRA, the FCA and HMT but noble Lords will know that the Bank demonstrates its accountability to Parliament through the House of Commons Treasury Committee. The Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 provides that the National Audit Office may carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Bank has used its resources in discharging its functions. Those are two important areas of accountability.
Issues were raised about whether the details of governance will be in the public domain. The Bank of England’s governance arrangements on resolution were published in the Bank of England’s memorandum of understanding with the National Audit Office. Details on its governance arrangements are likely to be covered in the Bank of England’s statement on the operational independence of its resolution function, which it is required to publish by the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016. I will endeavour to find out what dates there are for that.
Moving on to the issues raised by Jon Cunliffe’s speech—whether the market is fully informed of the products being bought and sold, and making sure that it is—the Government and the regulators have consulted extensively with stakeholders as they develop the UK’s resolution regime. For example, the Bank of England’s Approach to Resolution document sets out how it expects to carry out the resolution of a failing firm in practice, using the powers available to it as the UK resolution authority. The Treasury’s code of practice document, issued in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of the Banking Act 2009, provides further guidance on the UK’s resolution regime. The Banking Act 2009 also establishes the Banking Liaison Panel. This panel of industry bodies, law firms and regulators advises the Government on the UK’s resolution regime.
Are we planning to bring all the relevant legislation into a single document? Here we move on to more disappointing news. There are no plans to bring the different documents together. Each document serves a clear purpose. The Bank of England’s Approach to Resolution document sets out how the Bank expects to carry out the resolution of a failing firm in practice, using the powers available to it as the UK resolution authority. The Treasury’s code of practice is a statutory requirement, which provides further guidance on the legislative framework.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Bank of England’s Approach to Resolution, from October 2014, is indeed the most readable of all the documents, but it is now clearly out of date. Is the Bank of England expected to produce an update?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord raises an important point, which I will of course pass on to the Bank of England. It is an independent body, but I am sure that it would like to respond to his point about updating the guidance, which, as he said, is now a little old.
Will the legislation be consolidated? Again, I am afraid, there is disappointing news. As a former Leader of the House, I can say that there was always enormous pressure on parliamentary counsel to draft legislation—it is a scarce commodity. Given the limited amount of parliamentary time available, there are currently no plans to consolidate the legislation. Stakeholders who are directly affected by the legislation and will therefore need a more granular understanding will be able to purchase consolidated versions of the legislation from commercial providers. In addition, HM Treasury’s special resolution regime code of practice will be updated to reflect the changes made by the order.
On the issue of third countries and the independent resolution powers, the powers that we are taking are in line with the Financial Stability Board’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions”. These key attributes recognise the need for resolution authorities to have, as a fallback option, the ability to take independent action with respect to local operations of foreign banks in certain circumstances, although, as I said at the beginning, every effort will be made for resolution by co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the code of conduct. It will be published in the new year. I think that I covered the contracts under Article 15 in my introductory remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about the macroprudential issues and said that he would be happy to have a response to those in a letter, an offer that I gratefully accept. Now that the in-flight refuelling has arrived, I can say, on the macroprudential measures, that the FPC has included all previous recommendations and directions in the statements that follow its meetings. Implementation will depend on the specific direction and the regulators must consult on any rules that would implement these powers. The FPC may make recommendations regarding the timing of implementation. As I said when I introduced these instruments, we have already put on the statute book a similar regime for owner-occupiers, with whom I imagine the same sorts of issues have already arisen. Broadly, the same regime will apply for buy-to-let.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the cost. The cost reflects enhanced data collection, which is necessary for the regulators to monitor compliance with these powers and other prudential requirements.
I hope that I have covered most of the issues raised.
Lord Sharkey
When the Minister says that the guidelines on the definitions of the business of branches will be available in the new year, does he mean January or sometime in 2017? Also, I do not think that I heard him give a date for the guidelines for Article 15.
Lord Young of Cookham
At this stage I am not sure that I can take it any further than I did in my earlier remarks. However, I would like to make further inquiries and, if it is acceptable to the noble Lord, I will write to him when I have definitive information on those timelines.
Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Cookham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2016.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Cookham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Immigration Act 2016 contains provisions to require banks and building societies—henceforth referred to as firms—to carry out immigration checks on certain accounts and prevent continued access to banking for known illegal migrants. The 2016 Act also delegated to the Treasury the power to make regulations that determine the details of how the regime will work in practice.
We need to deter people from attempting to enter the UK unlawfully and to ensure that those who are here illegally are encouraged to leave or to regularise their stay. Effective immigration controls require responsibility to be shared between the public and private sectors. Recognising this shared responsibility, the Immigration Act 2014 took a series of actions to limit the services available to known illegal migrants. These included prohibiting firms opening accounts for a disqualified person—an illegal migrant liable for removal or deportation whom the Home Secretary considers should be denied access to a current account.
Disqualified persons are those who have exhausted all appeal rights. They will have had the opportunity to attempt to regularise their status in the UK, including by raising any reason why they are exceptionally vulnerable or unable to return to their home country, but they will have either failed or not attempted to do so.
Details will not be shared with banks regarding individuals who still have outstanding applications or appeals for residency, leave to remain or asylum. Before opening a new current account, firms are able to check the applicant’s immigration status with CIFAS, a specified anti-fraud organisation. Where the check identifies that the applicant is a disqualified person, the firm must refuse to open the account.
The Immigration Act 2016 builds on these measures and targets accounts that are already open. This may be because the account was opened before the 2014 Act came into force or because the account was opened legally by a person who later became disqualified because of a change in their immigration status. Firms are required to check details of their personal current account holders against the details of disqualified persons provided to them via CIFAS. They are then required to report the results of those checks to the Home Office and, if instructed by the Home Office, to take action to close accounts or prevent continued access to accounts.
The Government recognise that this is a significant undertaking for firms. Treasury officials have informally consulted the industry on both the 2016 Act and the regulations that we are discussing today. That has informed the policy decisions made in the regulations. We have acted to try to minimise the burdens where possible, while ensuring that the regulations achieve the policy intention of preventing continued access to banking services. The Government have prepared an impact assessment for these regulations, which received a positive green opinion from the Regulatory Policy Committee.
The regulations should be read alongside the Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Compliance &c) Regulations 2016, which were made on 7 November. This negative statutory instrument provides that banks must carry out immigration checks on a quarterly basis; it sets out the information which the Home Office must provide to a bank in response to notifications; and it sets out a requirement on banks to inform the Home Office of steps they have taken to comply with the duty to close accounts.
This statutory instrument covers three main areas: the types of accounts that firms must make immigration checks on; the requirement for firms to notify the Home Office of accounts they hold for disqualified persons; and provisions to enable the FCA to monitor and enforce compliance in respect of breaches of the regime. I will take each in turn.
Not all bank accounts are within scope of the requirement to make an immigration check under the 2016 Act. This instrument specifies that current accounts operated by or for individuals who are acting for the purposes of a trade, business or profession are excluded from the requirement to make an immigration check. In practice this means that firms are required to conduct checks on existing personal current accounts. Firms are not required to extend checks to all existing current accounts such as corporate or business accounts. This ensures that the checks undertaken by banks are appropriately targeted and proportionate. This reflects the Government’s ongoing view that current accounts are the gateway product to other financial services and a settled life in the UK. Such an account would be expected to provide functionality to hold deposits and make withdrawals without having to give notice. It would also typically enable the customer to receive and make payments through a number of different methods, including by cheque, direct debit, standing order, continuous payment authority or other electronic payments. Withdrawals, money transfers and other payment transactions can typically be conducted through various channels including ATMs, branch, online, mobile or telephone banking. Many current accounts also have overdraft facilities.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations so thoroughly. We have no intention of opposing this instrument, but I would like to ask the Minister for some clarity around a number of points. In the interests of expedition, I will be content to receive a letter if that is helpful. I also have no intention of making this a broader debate about immigration policy. This is neither the time nor the place because that subject will be at the heart of our political discourse in the coming years and colleagues will have appropriate opportunities to air their views.
I recognise that business accounts can be easily identified and will therefore be easy to exclude from checks, but what procedures are in place when the situation is not as clear? Can the Minister also outline what is required of firms if there is a query over the bank account status; in other words, if there is some debate over the status of bank accounts, how much of the burden of responsibility will rest with the firms to investigate?
On consultation, why was an informal consultation thought to be sufficient, rather than a more substantive discussion between the relevant stakeholders? The information that firms are required to send the Home Office seems comprehensive but I would be interested to know what differences of opinion were expressed about which data were necessary between different firms and, indeed, between firms and the Government. Finally, to give us some feel of the mechanism, I ask the Minister to outline what will happen if regular payments of £200 are found to have taken place. How will this information be shared and how will the relevant authorities liaise?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his welcoming of the measures before us. He generously said that he would accept a written reply to the issues he raised. It is an offer that I accept with open arms. A letter will be on its way as soon as practicable, and I am very happy to place a copy in the Library so that it is of broader interest. I beg to move.
Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Non-Financial Reporting) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Non-Financial Reporting) Regulations 2016.
Lord Henley (Con)
My Lords, the main purpose of these regulations is to fulfil our obligations to transpose the non-financial reporting directive. While we remain a full member of the EU, we will continue to implement EU legislation in a positive and cost-effective fashion. That is why we are here today.
The non-financial reporting directive builds on provisions in the earlier EU accounting directive which require certain business entities to disclose a range of non-financial information alongside their accounts. The accounting directive applies only to certain types of business undertaking, which have limited liability. For simplicity’s sake, I will generally refer in my remarks to companies, but the Committee should bear in mind that these remarks apply also to qualifying partnerships and groups.
I stress that the scope and requirements of the non-financial reporting directive are intended to capture companies that are likely to have the most impact on society and the environment. The requirements therefore apply to large companies that are defined as public interest entities and which have more than 500 employees. The requirements also apply to a company if it is a public interest entity and is the parent of a large group that has more than 500 employees within the group. Public interest entities are entities whose activities are of major interest to the public; they include banks, insurers and quoted companies. We estimate that the total number of UK companies that will be impacted by the regulations beyond familiarisation costs will be around 260 public interest entities. A further 15,000 subsidiaries of public interest entities will also be impacted by the need for reporting across the corporate group. The directive was strongly influenced by the United Kingdom’s existing regime for non-financial reporting. Consequently, the new framework broadly mirrors the requirements that currently apply to all the UK’s quoted companies, regardless of their size. However, the regulations cover all large public interest companies, not just those quoted on the Stock Exchange. Companies do not have to be quoted for their activities to have far-reaching consequences.
At present all companies, except those that are eligible for the small companies regime, must publish strategic reports. Within the strategic report, companies should provide an analysis of the company’s position and performance, and for large companies this includes using non-financial information. Quoted companies must also publish information about environmental, social, community and human rights issues, including information about any policies of the company in relation to those matters. The report must also include specific disclosure on gender diversity for directors, senior managers and employees. The strategic report is the narrative element of a company’s annual report. It provides colour and context for the accounts and should be forward looking to provide reassurance on the company’s direction of travel for investors and suppliers. Issues, such as cybersecurity and employee matters, can be as significant as the financial issues covered in company balance sheets.
The regulations we are discussing today require eligible companies to disclose, to the extent necessary for an understanding of the company’s position, information on environmental, employee, social and human rights. This is already required by the United Kingdom’s existing regime for some of these companies. However, the regulations also require disclosures on anti-corruption and anti-bribery matters. Companies must also describe any policies pursued by the company in relation to any of these matters and identify any principal risks. These disclosures will provide companies with an opportunity to bring discussions on these issues to the boardroom and demonstrate to shareholders and other parties that they are considering issues in their proper context and addressing potential risks.
The regulations will strengthen the current regime by requiring companies that do not have policies in these areas to provide an explanation for not doing so. I want to stress that companies are not required to make policies to have something on which to report, but they will need to consider whether they should have policies about these matters. Furthermore if they decide they should not, they will have to explain the reason for this omission. The requirements are sufficiently flexible to enable disclosures to be specific to the company. This balance, between specifying categories and allowing companies flexibility to provide relevant information, should ensure reporting is meaningful and cost effective.
A Green Paper, as noble Lords will know, has recently been published on corporate governance in the UK. I believe that the regulations will complement and support work to reform corporate governance by providing greater accountability and transparency on the position and wider impact of companies. Disclosure is important to ensure that shareholders have the information they need to hold directors to account. It is also a way of increasing investor and consumer trust in the business, providing broader confidence that it is being run well. By way of reassurance, I add that the regulations do not require the disclosure of information about impending developments if the disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the commercial interests of the company.
The Government have worked closely with the accounting sector throughout this process, from the earliest negotiations to the implementation stage. In the consultation earlier this year, stakeholders recognised the need to transpose the directive. During the consultation, stakeholders raised concerns about how the requirements would interact with the United Kingdom’s existing regime. The requirements provide that a company which reports under the EU’s framework qualifies as having complied with overlapping elements of the United Kingdom’s domestic regime. The regulations also permit voluntary compliance with the non-financial reporting directive disclosure requirements. This means that companies can avoid the complexities of moving between reporting obligations during their lifecycle as their size, in financial terms or number of staff, increases or decreases year to year.
I must briefly mention another aspect to these regulations. Regulation 3 contains a minor correction to the transposition of the accounting directive. This ensures that the parent company of a small group cannot benefit from an exemption from the requirement to produce group accounts just because a member which is a public interest entity is established under the law of an EEA state and not in the UK. If a member of the group is a public interest entity in any EEA state, the exemption should not be available.
I am aware that some businesses can struggle with regulatory change to financial reporting. Many companies in scope of the regulations will have to adapt their reporting only slightly. Although the changes are not substantial, they will add value to company reporting in the United Kingdom. I could not discuss an EU directive without mentioning the implications of the result of the EU referendum. The Government have considered this carefully in our work and implemented the minimum requirements of the directive. There is no gold-plating.
The United Kingdom’s company reporting regime is well regarded. It is very important to maintain the United Kingdom’s reputation as a hub of global transparency. However, as our future relationship with the EU becomes clearer, this may lead the Government to examine whether certain aspects of company law are cost effective. In the meantime, building on the reputation of UK governance and the reliability of annual reports can contribute to making the UK an attractive place to invest. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, which as he said catches public interest entities; that is, companies whose activities likely to have a significant impact on the economy and society, including companies such as banks and insurers and extending to partnerships and other groups. The issue at hand is how companies assess non-financial risks and opportunities and how they incorporate them into their business strategies and models. The areas of main concern are environmental policies, policies about employees, respect for human rights, anti-bribery and corruption policies and diversity policies.
The Explanatory Memorandum explains, and the Minister also mentioned, that the underlying problem is really one of information asymmetry between the users of non-financial information and the directors of the company—a matter that in some senses transcends any temporary concern one might have about EU legitimacy in this area. It highlights that while UK companies are pretty good at reporting on environmental, employer and diversity policies, they are pretty poor at dealing with human rights and bribery and corruption issues. If there are asymmetries, they can lead to sub-optimal investment and trading decisions as well as misalignment of managers’ incentives away from delivering best performance in the company.
While the primary policy is to increase the transparency of PIEs including increasing relevance, quantity, consistency and comparability of the non-financial information currently disclosed by strengthening and clarifying the existing requirements, there are two quite important secondary objectives. The first is to encourage companies to better assess the risks relating to such matters as bribery and corruption and the other matters listed, and to incorporate these into their business strategies and models. The second is to increase diversity in corporate boards and the staff of companies and to enhance transparency concerning their diversity policies in order to help facilitate more effective oversight of management and governance in the company. We support those aims.
I have a few questions for the Minister, but I hope he will understand that we are not objecting to the regulations as they stand. If it would be more convenient for him to write to me, I am happy for him to do so. However, first I will make one observation, which I tend to have to do when I am dealing with orders from the department from which the Minister has emerged. Regulations are supposed to come into force on the seventh day after the regulations are made. In other words, these do not comply with the long-standing convention, which I had thought informed much of the work done by the department, that regulations which affect business, and these clearly do, should be introduced on one of the common commencement dates, which are 1 October and 5 April. Why is that? Has the department sought special exemption which can exceptionally permit other commencement dates, and if so, will the Minister explain what arguments of necessity and urgency were used?
Secondly, the regulations implement aspects of directive 2014/95/EU on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information and also directive 2013/34/EU relating to an exceptional group account about which we have no comments. The main problem facing the Government is that the UK does not currently recognise the group of organisations known as public interest entities and a large proportion of the Explanatory Memorandum is taken up with trying to show how all public interest entities based and operating in the UK are in fact caught by the regulations. In particular, the directive sets out four limbs within which it characterises the PIEs it wants to be in scope. I enjoyed the tour d’horizon of our legislative framework in paragraphs 4.7 to 4.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which almost convinces the reader that all the right companies are due to be in scope of this SI—or are they? In practice, as paragraph 4.10 makes clear, without recourse to the European Communities Act 1972, there are no statutory mechanisms for designating a small but presumably important group of bodies. Can the Minister say whether any companies or organisations have slipped through the net, and if so, why no recourse to the ECA 1972 has been proposed?
Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum discusses the outcome of the consultation. I noticed one rather interesting area of controversy, to the effect that some stakeholders were,
“in favour of applying the Directive to all listed companies as well as the small amount of private companies that are in scope”.
The argument is that this would remove the small differences between the EU and domestic regimes, which I think the Minister referred to. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the principal reason for not gold-plating on this occasion was that it,
“would go beyond the minimum requirements of the Directive”.
Given that there was support among the consultees for going further than the minimum and that only a very small number of extra companies would have been captured, can the Minister tell us why this opportunity was not taken? It would have made more sense for external users of the information. It is a matter of regret that the information is not there. I understand that there is a voluntary procedure, but that is not what the consultees were asking for.
Finally, in paragraph 12.2 the Explanatory Memorandum explains that it is not necessary to make arrangements for a formal review of these regulations on what I think are rather specious grounds—that the regulations are amending,
“provision that is contained in primary legislation”.
However, paragraph 12.3 goes on to say that,
“the Department will keep the effect of the non-financial reporting requirements under review”.
The reason we are making PIEs disclose anti-corruption and bribery measures, as well as the others, is partly because of the EU directive but also because the Government accept—and they are right to do so—that it is necessary to encourage transparency and that a requirement to make this information available is in the best interests of the country because it will encourage “responsible corporate behaviour” as well as assist,
“the interests of other stakeholders such as creditors, investors and regulators”.
The Minister made that point. Can he explain this apparent reluctance to build a formal review mechanism into these new regulations and confirm that, as the department will in fact be reviewing them as if the requirement was in place, the review will be published?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very kind offer to someone such as myself, who is new to these matters, to write to him. I will certainly take him up on that. He might want me to take him up on that even after I try to answer some of his questions.
The noble Lord’s first question was about whether it would be possible to have a common commencement date. He said that it might be easier for companies if we stuck to 1 October or 5 April. The directive means that we can implement as close to the date as possible so as to avoid gold-plating. I understand that that means that the common commencement date does not apply. However, I certainly take his question on board and will come back to him if there is a better answer.
The noble Lord also asked whether there was a mechanism for a formal review. I can assure him that we always keep all these matters under review. The review process will certainly look in due course at whether all EU and domestic non-financial reporting regimes have led to unnecessary complexity for business. Obviously, that is something which will have to be kept in mind by the department.
PIEs were not recognised in the United Kingdom designation, as I understand it from the noble Lord’s question. There is no designation under the European Communities Act. He asked whether any companies have slipped through the net through this implementation. I can say that there is a legal definition of a public interest entity. The accounting directive defines what it is and we have used PIEs in the Companies Act when transposing the audit directive and the audit regulation because there are certain duties which only PIEs have—mandatory rotation and retendering of auditors, for example. The regulations further provide a list of entities to which the requirements apply, which is drawn from the accounting directive’s definition of a PIE. We believe that no companies have slipped through the net because we do not have our own definition; we are requiring what the accounting directive sets out.
I thank the noble Lord for his valuable comments. I can probably give him an assurance that there will be a letter in due course. I hope that, with luck, it might even arrive before Christmas. If it does not, it will be something for him to look forward to in the new year. I believe that his comments have been valuable, and that it is important to remember that the annual report can be used to present a very fair and balanced impression of a company, which goes beyond items on the balance sheet. These regulations strike the right balance between offering flexibility for companies to report on these issues of risk as they relate to their activities and providing a structure that makes the disclosures meaningful. The regulations should help to increase the transparency of how our companies behave and better equip shareholders to be active stewards of the companies they own. I beg to move.
Coasting Schools (England) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year Parliament debated and approved what is now the Education and Adoption Act. This gave the Secretary of State the power to identify, support and take action in coasting schools for the first time. It also required the Secretary of State to set out in regulations what “coasting” means in relation to a school. These draft regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 20 October, fulfil this requirement.
The Government are dedicated to making Britain a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few, and that means providing a good school place for every child—a place that offers them the opportunity to fulfil their potential and be taken as far as their talents will let them go. Over the past six years, thanks to our reforms and the hard work of school leaders and teachers, nearly 1.8 million more children are in schools rated good or outstanding than in 2010, but a good school place is still out of reach for too many children, so there is more to do.
Last month we announced a new £140 million strategic school improvement fund for academies and maintained schools, aimed at ensuring that resources are targeted at the schools most in need of support to drive up standards and deliver more good school places. Our coasting schools policy will help us to target some of this investment. It will identify those schools, whether maintained schools or academies, that are not doing enough to help pupils fulfil their potential. Where these schools need extra support, the strategic school improvement fund will ensure that this can be put in place, so that the school can improve and every child can have access to a good education.
We have developed a coasting definition set out in these draft regulations which is clear, transparent and data-based so that schools can be certain whether they have fallen within the definition. It puts focus on the progress that pupils make in a school, recognising differences in intake by looking at the starting point of pupils rather than just their attainment. It considers performance over three years, so that we can identify and support schools that have struggled to stretch their pupils sufficiently over a number of years. We believe that this definition will identify those schools that are not ensuring pupils reach their potential, and allow the right support to be put in place so that schools can improve and give pupils the excellent education they deserve.
These regulations mean a primary school will fall within the definition if, in 2014 and 2015, less than 85% of pupils achieved level 4 or above in reading, writing and maths, and less than the national median percentage of pupils achieved expected progress in reading, writing and maths, and, in 2016, less than 85% of pupils met the new expected standard in reading, writing and maths and the school’s progress scores were below minus 2.5 in reading, minus 3.5 in writing or minus 2.5 in maths. A secondary school will fall within the definition if, in 2014 and 2015, less than 60% of pupils achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE, including in English and mathematics, and less than the national median percentage of pupils achieved expected progress in English and maths, and, in 2016, the school’s Progress 8 score was below minus 0.25. A school must be below the coasting thresholds in all three years—2014, 2015 and 2016—to fall within the overall coasting definition.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords I welcome these regulations; this is a very constructive approach to picking up on schools that are not doing as well as they should be. I am pretty happy with key stage 2. At the end of it, we have a criteria-referenced examination; we have set the bar at 85%, which is none too high and, as a result, I think we are going to pick up a number of schools that need help that we might otherwise have missed. I hope, though, that the Government will make some further progress on key stage 4.
First, we still have the problem that the GCSE has become a norm-referenced exam involving the use of comparable outcomes. It is assumed to be impossible for the secondary school system to produce improved outcomes year on year above the level of the increase, if any, in key stage 2 results. That really says that all we expect of secondary education is that it does just as well as it has ever done, and that there is no inherent improvement taking place. I know the Government are experimenting—or perhaps still thinking of experimenting—with national reference tests, but I would be very grateful if my noble friend told me where we are getting with those. Otherwise, we face a serious difficulty, because key stage 4 is still producing examinations that pupils need to carry on into life afterwards. If we are effectively limiting the percentage of pupils who can achieve a pass grade in these exams, we are doing our people a great disservice over the longer term; it may be all right for now, but it is certainly not all right for the future.
Secondly, I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to set the bar so low for selective schools. There are coasting selective schools, but at the level the bar is set, I really do not see that we are going to catch them. I very much hope that the Government will keep this matter under review, and that when enough time has passed and we have seen the first year of this system in operation, having looked at it and made judgments on it as a whole, the Government will find some way of reporting to us or to the public on how it has gone, enabling us to have a conversation about how it could go better.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and talking us through some of the mechanics involved.
A year ago, during your Lordships’ consideration of what is now the Education and Adoption Act 2016, the Department for Education undertook public consultation on the proposed definition of coasting schools. It received more than 300 responses. The department claimed,
“wide support for the use of progress measures as the basis of the coasting definition”.
I noted what the Minister said about the consultation, and I understand why he said it, but it is a fact that only 25% agreed that the principles underlying the definition of coasting were correct. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was fairly clear in its criticism of that spin, asserting that,
“the claim made in Explanatory Memorandum of ‘wide support’, does not accurately represent the views put to the Department”.
That, to some significant extent, highlights the rather flimsy foundations on which these regulations sit. I shall have more to say about the committee’s report in due course.
Identifying and supporting coasting schools was not an initiative of this Government, nor indeed of the previous one; it was of course a Labour government policy, introduced in 2007. At that time, it was based on a school’s performance in tests and examinations but it also involved a professional assessment by Ofsted and discussions with the identifying schools about improving performance. By contrast, the present Government’s “coasting school” concept is based solely on a calculating-machine approach to school improvement and does not use professional judgments.
Perhaps the major difficulty in identifying coasting schools using performance data alone is that not all pupils make the same rate of progress as judged against the former national curriculum levels. Those from lower starting points, who are often from disadvantaged backgrounds, tend to make slower progress than those from higher starting points, who are often from more advantaged backgrounds. Rates of progress in schools with a higher proportion of lower-achieving pupils tend to be lower for all pupils in that school, which can lead to a wrong designation of “coasting” for some schools, while those with highly advantaged intakes—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just mentioned, grammar schools—can escape the coasting designation.
Last month the department published Coasting Schools: Provisional Data, which includes a breakdown of where the schools are geographically and their type. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Ministers know precisely which schools have been identified from this exercise. The provisional estimate includes 479 schools at key stage 2 and 327 at key stage 4. Among primaries, a high proportion of academy schools meet the coasting criterion compared with local authority maintained schools, while at secondary level the proportion is the other way round. It appears that the schools most likely to fall within the scope of the coasting schools regulations are those already converted into academies as a result of government intervention.
No school will be formally identified as coasting until the 2016 key stage 2 results are finalised and published in three days’ time, although we will not receive the results for key stage 4 for a further month. For that reason, I ask the Minister why we are being asked to consider the draft regulations now. We believe that parliamentary scrutiny should have been delayed until both sets of results had been published with time allowed for them to be assessed. That would have permitted judgments to have been made, for example, as to whether this data-only approach to coasting schools, without professional Ofsted advice, was identifying good and outstanding schools in areas of significant deprivation.
On 15 December, nearly 400 local authority maintained primary schools will be labelled publicly as coasting. Can the Minister say whether regional schools commissioners have notified these schools, the relevant local authorities and Ofsted in advance? In how many of these schools is intervention already taking place? I say in passing to the Minister that I have quite a few questions to put to him and I shall be more than happy if he cares to write to me in due course, to use a familiar phrase.
Decisions about what happens to a school will be taken by regional schools commissioners assisted by their head teacher boards. There is some concern that those bodies are neither widely accepted nor operate with a great deal of transparency. This issue has been raised before and I do not intend to pursue it today, but it is an issue. That concern was stated unambiguously earlier this year by the Education Select Committee in another place in its report on regional schools commissioners, concluding that their role remained unclear. That point is now thrown into sharp focus by the fact that these regulations give extended powers to the commissioners to intervene when schools are designated as coasting. Yet one of the Government’s key performance indicators for the commissioners is not schools standards but how many schools they are able to convert into academies. There is a clear conflict of interest there and, as stated by the shadow Schools Minister, Mike Kane, when these regulations were considered last week in another place:
“That prompts the question whether the RSCs are independent arbiters in terms of judging whether our schools are failing, successful or coasting”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/16; col. 7.]
It certainly does, and I hope that the Minister will seize this opportunity to answer that question.
That leads us to another question: what will happen to maintained schools once these regulations come into force? The ministerial Statement on primary education issued on 19 October stated that regional schools commissioners should work with local authorities to determine actions for coasting schools. However, additional information provided in the DfE memorandum of 26 October to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that even though the legislation allows local authorities to take action in a coasting school that they maintain, this is expected to have little impact on the public sector as the regional schools commissioners will predominantly take action when maintained schools are regarded as coasting. It goes on to say:
“We do not, therefore, expect the additional power to be burdensome for local authorities”.
Lord Nash
My Lords, first, I will take back the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas about key stage 4 and discuss it with my colleague Nick Gibb MP, who is the Minister for this area. On the bar for selective schools, we will keep that under review. Of course, the coasting definition applies equally to all schools and we will certainly keep it under review.
I am afraid that I will not be able to answer all of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, but perhaps I may respond to some of them and write to him on the others. I take his point about different pupils making different levels of progress from the starting point, but I think we have come up with a definition that is generally acknowledged to be fair and easily understood. Obviously, trying to work out exactly which pupils make what progress is very complicated, but the general definition we have come up with, which is based on measures that are already understood by schools, is the fairest and simplest way to proceed.
As for the noble Lord’s point about regional schools commissioners taking into account the wider context, they will, as is clearly set out in our procedures. That wider context includes Ofsted and the particular circumstances of the school, such as whether it is in a location that has intergenerational unemployment. We all know that, sadly, that is an issue in certain areas with a heavily white working-class population, for example. All this will be taken into account. The regional schools commissioners will work closely with local authorities. It is acknowledged now—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said it himself—that school-to-school support is the best way to improve schools. They will be working closely with local authorities to help identify the help available, whether from other schools nearby, which may be local authority maintained schools or academies, or NLEs that can help them. They will also be able to access the school improvement fund, which I mentioned earlier.
All schools will know exactly where they are in terms of the results of the past two years, and will now have an estimate of their figures for this year. These will be published shortly. Of course, the regional schools commissioners will be working with some of these schools anyway—they may have asked for help—but they will all know exactly where they stand.
As for the resources available to regional schools—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
Although the Minister was not talking specifically about this, will he address my question on whether the schools that are going to be named publicly on Thursday have already been told by the regional schools commissioner that that is about to happen, and whether the local authorities have been told?
Lord Nash
They are not going to be named publicly but the schools will be able to work out from their results whether they are coasting.
As for the resources available to the regional schools commissioners, they started with very small offices of around six or eight people, but they have all now been substantially strengthened to an average of more than 40 people. We are satisfied that they have the resources in place. One thing that they are working on closely, as the noble Lord mentioned, is ensuring that we have enough capacity in the system and enough MATs to sponsor any failing schools where required.
I will write to the noble Lord in some detail on the other matters to which he referred. I am sure that all noble Lords support our ambition to ensure that all pupils, whatever their background and wherever they live, have the opportunity to go to a good school. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support our proposals and these regulations.
The Earl of Listowel
On the issue of the context of the schools, will the level of English spoken in families also be looked at? I imagine that that may have an impact on a child’s learning and it might be helpful when it comes to the read-across with Louise Casey’s work on integration.
Lord Nash
The noble Earl makes a very good point. That is something we are looking at, and certainly increasingly seeing in some schools. The definition of EAL is sometimes a little loose, because there are plenty of people who speak fluent English but would be defined as EAL because it is their second or third language. However, in parts of the country an increasing number of schools are having to cater for a sudden influx in different year groups of pupils who do not speak any English at all. Certainly, the regional schools commissioners will take this into account.
Childcare (Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Extended Entitlement) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the Childcare Act 2016 delegates power to Ministers to create these regulations. It gives the Secretary of State a duty to secure 30 hours of childcare to three and four year-olds of working parents. The regulations provide for the additional 15 hours of childcare for children of working parents. I thank noble Lords who are members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their views on and support for the regulations. I hope that my department has provided reassurance around the questions raised.
This Government are committed to giving working parents of three and four year-olds 30 hours of childcare from September next year. This policy provides significant support with the cost of childcare, worth around £5,000 per year, to working parents who take up the full 30 hours. We debated the eligibility criteria and the detail of the policy extensively during the passage of the Childcare Bill last year. These draft regulations provide more detail on the design and delivery of the additional 15 hours.
The draft regulations set out the eligibility criteria for the 30 hours entitlement. The main income-related requirement is that all parents within a household will need to be earning the equivalent of working 16 hours a week at the national minimum wage or national living wage, and less than £100,000 per year. We are also enabling certain “non-working” households to be eligible for the 30 hours; for example, where parents are not working because they are on maternity or paternity leave or where one parent is working and the other is not because they are disabled or have caring responsibilities.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked how the application process would work. Parents will apply online via GOV.UK, providing some basic information which HMRC will verify against a range of government data. The system is being trialled with a variety of parents across the country, and I want to offer reassurance that a phone line will be provided for digitally excluded parents.
Over the summer, the department consulted on how the 30 hours would be delivered and published its response in November. On flexibility, we have carefully balanced the needs of working parents with the need to maintain quality for the child. As a result, and in the interests of the child, the maximum session length of 10 hours per day will remain. However, we are extending the hours in which providers can deliver the entitlement to allow parents who work shifts to use the offer as early as 6 am or until 8 pm where they need to do so. To support the market in delivering the entitlement flexibly, we set out in our response to the funding consultation that local authorities are permitted to include in their local funding formulae a supplement for “flexibility”.
To ensure simplicity and clarity for parents and providers, and fair, consistent arrangements for children and families, we have committed to a national grace period for children whose parents lose their jobs. Further informal consultation will be carried out with stakeholders on the length of the grace period before we set out final decisions in statutory guidance in the new year. My department continues to undertake extensive informal consultation with key stakeholders, including childcare providers, local authorities and national childcare provider organisations, and I am grateful for their constructive engagement.
I want to restate that children accessing the additional hours will benefit from the same stringent quality standards that we apply to the existing childcare entitlements. Providers delivering any part of the 30-hour entitlement will need to follow the requirements of the early years foundation stage and must be registered on the Ofsted early years register. We have also committed to developing a workforce strategy to help employers attract, retain and develop staff to deliver high-quality provision. The strategy is a priority and we will publish it as soon as possible.
The department has now responded to its consultation on introducing a new, fairer funding system. We have introduced a minimum funding rate so that no local authority is paid less than £4.30 an hour for the delivery of the entitlements for three and four year-olds, bringing the average total hourly rate up to £4.94 per child. This, along with the requirement that local authorities pass through 95% of the funding they receive from my department, means that the great majority of providers will see an increase in the level of funding they receive. Alongside this, we have also extended the £55 million per year supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools until the end of the Parliament. This reaffirms our commitment to high quality early education in disadvantaged areas and to social mobility. We are committed to consulting on longer term plans for maintained nursery schools.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in what the Minister has said. He may well recall the graph of disadvantage, where an intelligent boy or girl from a low income family will start high on the graph but over a period of time will decline and a less intelligent and less able middle-class child will rise past that child. As the Minister so eloquently put it, “High quality early years childcare and education can make a huge difference and promote the social mobility of such young people”. So I welcome the extension of the funding.
As the Minister is aware, I am concerned that future costs, such as the new cost of the minimum wage—a welcome addition, but challenging for childcare providers—is something that the Government need to take into account in future funding arrangements. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he and his colleagues will be monitoring this very closely and I recognise that this is the most that any Government have invested in high quality early years childcare.
I have two questions for the Minister. One relates to the penalties part of these regulations. I do not know how they will work in detail and there may not be grounds for concern, but I am thinking again of homeless families. I thank the Minister for ensuring that the piloting of these arrangements has ensured that homeless families are given attention and reached out to. I am concerned that with their movement, they can be hard to communicate with, that they might miss letters, and I would not wish to see them penalised because they missed some correspondence that they should have responded to—the Minister might like to write to me on that particular point.
The second point is in regard to foster children. I am sure that we discussed this at length during the course of the Bill, but I cannot recall why it is that foster children are excluded from this; perhaps the Minister could remind me of that. Since we discussed the Bill, we have had a report from the Family and Childcare Trust highlighting that 14% fewer looked-after children access high quality early years care than the general population. I think that emphasises how more needs to be done to ensure that they do access it. It may be that their access needs to be kept under review. I have nothing more to add and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It goes without saying that we welcome the extension of free childcare to 30 weeks from next September and it is helpful to have these regulations as the route map to delivering that—or at least in theory. I suspect that the practice will be more challenging and that the Government will, I fear, face real difficulty in meeting the demand unless greater resources are committed to that end.
My fears on that score stem from the current difficulty in ensuring uniform delivery of 15 hours a week and from what we hear of the plans for the future. Indeed, the Government have been accused in some quarters of “raiding the budgets” set aside by local authorities to help disadvantaged children in order to fund the doubling of free childcare for working families, some of them relatively well-off families. Local authorities currently receive government funds for 15 hours of free childcare for three and four year-olds. Under the present system, local authorities have been able to pay extra cash to schools with nurseries from that budget because they employ qualified teachers and are used disproportionately by poorer families. They have also been able to set aside extra funds to ensure that children from the most disadvantaged families get more than 15 free hours. However, local authorities will now no longer be able to offer additional funding above a set hourly rate per child. Instead there will be a requirement to pass on 95% of centrally provided funds directly to childcare providers.
The new offer of 30 hours of free childcare is of course available only to working families, so any child from an unemployed family currently getting more than 15 hours will lose that extra support. About 80% of three year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas currently attend childcare with a qualified teacher or early years professional. By preventing local authorities from continuing to offer what are known as “quality supplements”, it is likely that schools will need either to reallocate funds from the main school budget, which is already stretched to breaking point in many council areas, or reduce the status of their school nursery. This policy threatens to take cash away from disadvantaged children to pay for the childcare costs of better-off families. I am confident that the Minister will use this opportunity to deny that that was the Government’s intention, and I am not suggesting it was, but if that is the outcome then will he commit to finding a way of ensuring that children from disadvantaged households do not become the victims of unintended consequences that could seriously hamper their development?
The significance of this issue cannot be overstated. We know that the Government are struggling to find the resources to finance 30 hours of free childcare, but targeting non-working families or those who are disadvantaged should be off the agenda. This is because investing in early years is not just about quality childcare for working parents. It is also critical to closing the education inequality gap, which can already be very wide before children arrive at school. I suspect that the Minister will respond by saying that local authorities are able to offer additional cash to childcare providers from their wider budget, but the reality is that few local authorities have the flexibility to do that, and even where they do, it may not be on a sustainable basis.
At the beginning of this month the Early Years Minister, Caroline Dinenage, announced that councils will receive a minimum rate of £4.30 an hour in the new early years funding formula. This came in response to the consultation which was carried out over the summer and the DfE has now found an extra £30 million in its budget to support the introduction of this rate. While any extension of the supplement is welcome, the Government’s funding plans still fall well short across the sector of what is needed to deliver on their promise of 30 hours of free childcare. It has to be said that their record is one of closed Sure Start centres, rising childcare costs and parents waiting for much-needed support. The Government have also announced an extra £50 million for councils to build nursery schools, which is of course an important part of the whole process, but last week the shadow Early Years Minister, Tulip Siddiq, released figures that show a huge black hole in the Government’s nursery building programme which is needed to provide for the new demand. With only one-third of councils having submitted their bids, the total asked for has already exceeded £55 million, which suggests that there could be a shortfall of around £100 million if all local authorities are to have their needs met.
It is all very well promising free childcare, but we need assurances on the infrastructure and resources to back it up. Even if the Government dispute the figure of the shortfall, there will be one, so where do they intend to make it up because surely they did not intend that local authorities which apply for this funding should be turned away empty handed? If they are unable to get the funding, that will underline the evidence that the Government’s funding plans fall short across the sector of what is needed to deliver on their promise of 30 hours free childcare a week from September next year. At the same time, the childcare profession faces a recruitment crisis, with the nursery sector struggling to pay staff even the national minimum wage.
Caroline Dinenage announced that the increased rate in the early years funding formula will be made up of a base rate, plus an uplift for additional needs, based on measures for free school meals, disability living allowance and, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned, English as an additional language. The Minister also said that the disability access fund would provide £615 a year for every eligible child. That, together with the recognition in paragraph 9.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations, is welcome. Currently, children with special educational needs or a disability are not adequately supported, and it is hoped that this additional funding will, to some extent, address that.
The response from providers and sector organisations still suggests that the latest offer from the Government is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the requirements set out in the regulations and to deliver the policy more broadly. When these regulations were considered in another place last week, my colleague Tulip Siddiq asked the Minister whether such concerns over the latest funding announcement were well founded. She did not receive a response, so perhaps the Minister will be able to oblige today. I heard his opening remarks but, given the concern in the sector, I think that that point needs to be reinforced.
The doubts about sufficient resources remain. Sir Michael Wilshaw’s annual report notes that the current increase in early years places has not kept pace with the increase in the early years population. So, again, I invite the Minister to assure us that he is confident that there is sufficient capacity to meet demand.
I thought that last week the Early Years Minister sounded somewhat complacent, saying that she did not expect the 30 hours of free childcare offer to double the demand for childcare places, because many parents already access more than the 15 hours a week and pay for the additional hours. That may well be the case but surely, human nature being what it is, these parents will now cease paying for it themselves as they will be entitled to have it covered by government—within earning limits, of course. Therefore, why the demand is unlikely to double is at best unclear.
I have one final point of clarification to put to the Minister. A new organisation called Childcare Works is to be established. It is intended to be a conduit between the DfE and local authorities to ensure that there will be sufficient 30-hours places from September next year. I wish it, and the local authorities involved, well, but the DfE website describes the new organisation as a consortium consisting of two companies of consultants and a charity. I am happy for this to be done in writing but can the Minister outline some details of the kind of assistance—I assume it will not be handing out cash—that Childcare Works will provide to local authorities to meet the demand for 30-hours places?
I hope that the Minister will accept that I have no interest in scoring points at his expense—at least, not on this issue. Naturally, I wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of 30 hours of free childcare, but I repeat that it will be meaningless for many parents if it is not fully funded.
Lord Nash
In relation to the noble Earl’s points about future costs, as he knows—we have discussed this—we have thought about this carefully through our review. In answer to that point and the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about capacity, it is true that the system has responded remarkably well to the substantial increase in provision that we have brought in over the last six years, including the funding for disadvantaged two year-olds. I think it is fair to say that the childcare system is in very good shape, but we will monitor it closely.
I will look carefully at the issue of homeless families and the point that the noble Earl made about penalties. I am sure he will also be interested to hear that in Swindon 30 hours of free childcare is being piloted in a refuge for women who have suffered domestic violence. This includes providing childcare at the refuge and using the space to provide training for the women living there.
At the moment, foster children are excluded from these arrangements but we have been listening carefully to concerns raised on this point. As we all know, foster carers play a vital role in supporting some of our most vulnerable children, and we recognise the importance of effective support for their recruitment and retention. However, we also need to consider whether it is possible for children in foster care to take up the additional hours in a way that promotes their best interests. We will consider whether the blanket exclusion of all children in foster care from the 30-hours policy is the right way to balance this and will clarify our eligibility criteria in relation to this group in advance of September next year.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the Minister for what he said about examining the case of looked-after children in early years provision. I have a couple of supplementary questions, on which he might write to me. The report, Starting Out Right: Early Education and Looked After Children, has four recommendations, and I mention two. One was improving national data on the attendance in pre-school of looked-after children. It would be helpful to have those data kept in future. Another recommendation was for a pupil premium plus for looked-after children in pre-school care just as there is in primary and secondary education. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about those two things.
Representation of the People (Electronic Communications and Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Electronic Communications and Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 November 2016 now be considered. This statutory instrument amends the existing legislative framework for elections in Northern Ireland to allow for people there to register online. The regulations make a number of other amendments to existing electoral law, but I will focus here on the most substantive provisions.
Increasingly, we are all used to banking, shopping and accessing a range of public services online. In Great Britain, people have been able to use the online Register to Vote system since 2014. The online digital service offers a quick and easy alternative to the more traditional option of paper application forms. It is clearly right that people in Northern Ireland should be offered that same choice, and I make it clear at the outset that it is a choice. There is no suggestion that the move to introduce online registration will replace the existing paper registration system. Applying to register on a paper application form will remain an option for any individual who does not want to register online. But for those individuals in Northern Ireland who want to take advantage of this new service, the draft regulations allow the extension of the already successful digital service operating in Great Britain to cover Northern Ireland.
We know that the online Register to Vote service has been very successful in the rest of the UK. Figures suggest that around 90% of those registering in Great Britain this year outside the canvass period did so using the online service. Customer satisfaction with the service consistently measures more than 90%. I am sure that we all want to see increased political participation in politics among young people, including in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to report that since the introduction of online registration in Great Britain, a record 4.2 million applications to register have been made by people aged 16 to 24.
The application pages developed for Northern Ireland have been user-tested throughout their development to ensure that the system provides an excellent standard of service. Under these draft provisions, a Northern Ireland online application will work in essentially the same way as for the rest of the UK. It will require the same personal data as for the existing paper form. I have had a demonstration of the system and can confirm that the service is excellent. Northern Ireland Members from the other place have also been offered a demonstration of the system; I am happy to extend that offer to noble Lords.
The system is quick and easy, taking no more than five minutes to complete. It will not allow anyone inadvertently to miss out information, which might delay their application at a later stage. This will mean more complete applications, less follow-up correspondence from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and more people being placed faster on the register. In designing this system, our primary concern has been to ensure that we retain the confidence of users that the electoral system remains secure. In Northern Ireland, the usual requirement for those applying to register is to provide a handwritten signature. In an online application through the digital service, the act of submitting the application form along with the declaration at the end of the application will constitute an electronic signature.
Your Lordships will also be aware that there are strict rules on absent voting in Northern Ireland, which will continue to be enforced. Every successful digital registrant in Northern Ireland will be issued with a digital registration number, which will fulfil the same function as a signature for digital registrants if they wish to apply for a postal or proxy vote. It will ensure that postal vote applications can continue to be scrutinised appropriately. The number will be unique to the individual, last for their lifetime and remain unaltered no matter how many times the individual moves or changes their name. We have consulted the Electoral Commission. It agrees that the provision of an identifier to replace the signature check in the postal vote process is necessary. It raised the possibility of some individuals losing their numbers. To address this possibility, we have put in place a system allowing for numbers to be reissued quickly where they have been lost.
Officials will work closely with the chief electoral officer to monitor the successful operation of the digital registration number procedures. We have also changed the wording of the declaration at the end of the registration form for all applicants, both digital and paper. Applicants will be required to declare that they are the person named in the application and that the information they have provided is true.
There will also be special provision for people with a disability. The declaration makes it clear that the application and declaration can be submitted on behalf of someone unable due to disability to do so themselves, as long as it is done in their presence. The draft regulations also make comprehensive provisions for the exchange of data. This exchange is necessary to facilitate digital registration and allow applications to be verified against the DWP database. I assure your Lordships that these data-sharing provisions are necessary and include all the appropriate safeguards. The provisions have been modelled on the existing provisions in place for Great Britain and have been scrutinised and approved by the Information Commissioner for Northern Ireland.
These regulations do not yet cover the digital registration of overseas electors wishing to register in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to implementing votes for life, so it makes sense to await the implementation of this wider electoral provision for overseas electors before designing the online system for overseas electors registering in Northern Ireland.
In addition to digital registration provisions, the draft regulations make a number of other more minor or technical amendments. These make improvements and ensure, where appropriate, consistency of administrative approach with the rest of the UK. For example, the regulations bring Northern Ireland into line with the data protections in place in Great Britain for individuals on the list of applicants to be placed on the register. Those wishing to inspect an entry on the list will still be able to see the name, address and nationality of the applicant, but not the other personal details contained in the application. The regulations also provide for removal of overseas attestation to bring Northern Ireland requirements into line with the rest of the UK. Further, they remove the outdated requirement for Crown servants and British Council employees to have their forms submitted by their employer.
The implementation of digital registration is fully supported and welcomed by the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, and the regulations have been approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office for Northern Ireland. If your Lordships approve these regulations, the precise timing of the introduction of digital registration will be determined by the successful testing of the electoral office computer system. I hope that all the necessary checks will be passed by the end of February. The regulations will be signed when the digital platform is ready to be launched and will come into force the following day.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the introduction of digital electoral registration is a major step towards modernising the delivery of elections in Northern Ireland. It is an excellent service that will offer people in Northern Ireland the level of choice and service that we all expect in these modern times. We hope that this change will lead to an increase in political participation among a range of groups, particularly young people. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations and I for one hope to take up the offer of seeing a demonstration, which I understand will take place on Wednesday this week. First, I do not see this as a case of Northern Ireland catching up with the rest of the UK because our electoral registration participation rates are already very good. In fact, in respect of young people they are better than those in the rest of Great Britain. The last figures I saw showed that around 83% of young people were registered, but there is a reason for that.
There is a fundamental conflict in the Government’s position on this. If you were arguing that online registration is an attempt to encourage young people to register, which it might in some cases, another part of the Government’s policy with regard to electoral office matters is going in the opposite direction; namely, the closure of a number of electoral offices in Northern Ireland. That issue is in conflict with the Government’s stated policies. The local offices have a policy of direct engagement with schools, and that is why they have been able to raise the level of participation by young people. Simply making online registration available is no use unless people are motivated to participate. We already have a system that is working well and achieving very acceptable results.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his speech and the clear explanation of the draft regulations. We are happy to support these changes. Voters in Great Britain have been able to access online registration since 2014 and the Electoral Commission recommended last year that this should be extended to Northern Ireland. Online registration is a quick, easy and, so far, popular alternative to the paper form. We welcome that this choice will now be open to voters across the whole of the UK. This is particularly welcome with regards to encouraging young people to vote, as we know that online registration in Great Britain has been widely taken up by younger voters.
The Minister is of course aware of the specific concerns relating to electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. We have been assured that the plans are brought forward with the support of the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. What kind of monitoring and evaluation will be done following these changes to ensure that the system works as intended? I ask that specifically with the provisions for the introduction of digital registration numbers in mind, to ensure that the absent voting system is not left vulnerable to electoral fraud. With assurance that the right safeguards are in place, we are content to support the regulations.
The Minister will be aware of concerns over the closure of electoral offices in Northern Ireland and the effect that this will have on jobs and on people’s ability to access local services where they do not have access to the internet. I know that the Government are consulting on the future of electoral services in Northern Ireland, and will not ask the Minister to pre-empt the consultation. But can he assure the Committee that for those voters who wish to use a traditional paper form to register to vote, that excellent service will still be available alongside the welcome access to online registration? I repeat that we are happy to lend our support to the regulations, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Dunlop
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and their support for the fundamental measure that we are proposing, which is extending digital registration to Northern Ireland. I will take the points raised by my noble friend Lord Empey in order. I note that these regulations are about digital registration, and many of his comments related to other aspects of policy.
First, on access to broadband, one can register online without having broadband. A standard internet connection will be enough and one can even register using a mobile phone or tablet if it is internet enabled. The reality is that there are rural areas across the UK that do not yet have the internet service that we would like and Northern Ireland is not unique in that regard, but that is not a reason to delay the introduction of this service.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, both asked about overall staffing of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. Staffing and the administrative implementation of digital registration are an operational matter for the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. On wider matters, there is an ongoing consultation into the future structure of delivery of electoral services in Northern Ireland, and I hope that all interested parties will take the opportunity to contribute. In particular, the consultation seeks views on an enhanced role for district councils, which, as we indicate in the consultation paper, could pave the way for an increase in the provision of local services. However, we will consider very carefully consultation responses before reaching any final decision.
In terms of a digital system being more open to electoral fraud, clearly we believe that we have put in place a robust system. Details of an applicant’s name, date of birth and national insurance number will be checked against the national DWP database to ensure state-of-the-art identity verification. Once the identity check has been conducted, the electoral office will still run further data matching to verify addresses. That is not an automatic system. Once the computerised checks are completed, it will be for the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland’s staff to determine whether an individual is placed on the register. If there are concerns, they can contact the individual for more information. The other safeguard is that the certificate of registration will be sent by post to the registered address as a final identity check.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, the cost of extending the digital service to Northern Ireland is £250,000, which will be met by the Cabinet Office. Finally, I assure the noble Lord, as I did in my opening remarks, that this is to provide people in Northern Ireland with a choice, and the paper-based system will continue to be available for those who wish to use it.
To go back to another point that my noble friend Lord Empey made, engagement with schools is, again, an operational matter for the chief electoral officer, but no doubt this will continue to be of high importance in the future.
As I said, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. I think that in this modern day it is right to give people the option of digital registration, and it brings Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain, while reflecting the differences in electoral law between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We are designing the system in such a way as to retain voters’ confidence in its security. As I said at the outset, I hope that this will play an important part in increasing political participation in Northern Ireland.
Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding Amendments) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding Amendments) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations may look rather complex but I hope that the Committee will agree that the principle behind them is straightforward.
Before I launch into the detail, it may help noble Lords if I briefly describe the scenario that has led to these draft regulations being brought forward. Most compulsory purchase orders are made under the procedures in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Amendments were made to that Act in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Corresponding amendments therefore need to be made to Acts which contain compulsory purchase powers that do not rely on the Acquisition of Land Act. That is the purpose of these regulations.
Now for the detail. Schedule 15 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to require an acquiring authority to include additional information within the notice of confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. This notice is issued under that Act to those with an interest in the relevant land. The acquiring authority must provide information about the effects of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. They must also invite any person who would be entitled to claim compensation, if a general vesting declaration were executed, to give the authority information about the person’s name, address and interest in land.
These amendments were required because the preliminary notice to a general vesting declaration, which previously contained this information, will be abolished by the repeal of Section 3 of the vesting declarations Act by paragraph 5 of Schedule 15 to the 2016 Act. The reason for abolishing the preliminary notice is that it did not commit the acquiring authority to execute a general vesting declaration, so it was of little use as a warning. The notice period for entry has been increased to three months, as has the notice of entry, which follows a notice to treat—the other means of entry and taking possession.
The changes introduced by Schedule 15 will apply to the vast majority of compulsory purchase orders, as they are made using the procedure in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. There are, however, a number of enabling Acts—the ones listed in the schedule to the draft regulations—where the procedure for obtaining compulsory purchase powers is not governed by the Acquisition of Land Act. This means that we must amend those Acts accordingly; otherwise owners and occupiers of land in orders made under those Acts will be denied the information about the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act that others would receive. This is what these draft regulations do.
If any Member of the Committee is concerned that corresponding amendments regulations are a rather unusual way of proceeding, I hope that they will be reassured that this procedure is precedented. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 also amended the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, so corresponding amendments were then made in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007.
Members of the Committee may ask themselves why these amendments were not included in the Bill. These types of amendments take some time to research and prepare. They also could not be finalised until the lead changes in Schedule 15 had been definitely settled. Instead of rushing technical drafting late in the Bill’s stages, we decided that it would be better to draft the amendments separately with a view to bringing the regulations into force at the same time as the substantive provisions. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for outlining the regulations before us. At the outset, I should say that we are supportive of the changes to the compulsory purchase brought in by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. We welcome the consolidation of notice periods for general vesting declarations. This is a complicated area of law and the simplification of regulations is very much welcomed. It would be helpful if the Minister explained carefully to the Grand Committee why these changes are being introduced through secondary legislation procedures rather than through primary legislation, when we considered the Housing and Planning Bill earlier this year. It appears to me that the department was very unprepared when we considered that legislation and that is the real reason for the changes being made in regulations rather than in primary legislation, where they should have been.
It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether I am correct that the regulations are concerned with the general vesting declaration procedure and, specifically, the preliminary notice period before making a general vesting declaration. They seek to ensure that Acts of Parliament that contain compulsory purchase powers are not subject to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act, but are still made subject to that Act. My understanding is that the regulations make provision for the amendments made by Schedule 15 to the 2016 Act as well, so that they also apply to the earlier Act.
Further, I welcome the standardising of the minimum notice period for entry to three months, rather than the confusing 14 or 28 days that existed before, and that the regulations state that clear information must be set out in the confirmation notice for a CPO issued under Section 15 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act. These are fairly technical amendments and these changes will bring greater clarity, which is to be welcomed.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his general support for the regulations. I can confirm that they indeed consolidate notice periods and standardise entry periods. As he correctly said, they also relate to the general vesting declaration procedure.
I repeat that we have brought these technical amendments forward in secondary legislation at this stage because, first, although it is a technical issue, it is non-controversial, as the noble Lord has just indicated, and, secondly, we did not have the certainty of knowing what the provision would be in general terms in relation to the Acquisition of Land Act until the Housing and Planning Act had passed. They relate to things such as the Pipe-lines Act 1962, the Harbours Act 1964 and the Forestry Act 1967. It is not that they are not important but they are, as it were, minority provisions in relation to the great bulk of compulsory purchase legislation. That is why it has been done in this way and, as I said, there was a precedent for this under the previous Government in 2007. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Prior
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, earlier today. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
European Union: Environmental Policy
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their current priorities concerning United Kingdom participation in the development and implementation of European Union environmental policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU environmental legislation. We aim to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. Whatever the new relationship, we will work closely with countries and institutions in the EU and beyond to achieve our shared environmental goals.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, a European Union environment policy promoting improved air and water quality and higher standards generally has been a positive area of European action and one where the UK has often been proactive. Will the Minister give us more clues about whether the Government will continue with this action post Brexit? Will he tell us when his own department’s environment framework will be published as it is already overdue? How does he propose to ensure continued British influence and involvement in an area of policy so important to our citizens?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. This country has been at the forefront of global environmental initiatives—indeed, that was the case before we became members of the EU—and many of the challenges do not respect national borders, so co-operation with our friends within the EU and globally will remain of utmost importance. The UK is a party to about 30 multilateral environment agreements in its own right. The environment framework will, I hope, be published shortly, and will give an opportunity in the consultation process for everyone to play their part. Whether we are talking about invasive species, biosecurity, air quality or marine conservation, we want to work with our partners very closely.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that, in fact, our very costly carbon reduction targets are actually ahead of those of the rest of the EU, contrary to the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008, which said we should take account of these things. Is it too much to hope that Brexit might provide an opportunity for us at least to be more in line with the European Union carbon targets rather than above them or, even better, that we should devise our own in a less costly way than the present very heavy burden on industry and poor families?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there will be differing opinions on this. We have a very strong record on the carbon budgets, whatever one’s view. The issues of climate change are real, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said in the Times this morning. So it is very important that we take these matters seriously, and when we leave they will continue to be important for us.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the key ways that we meet our European environmental standards is by investment from the European Investment Bank, which has already invested £50 billion in wastewater, clean technology for energy, flooding and waste. How are we going to replace that vital funding stream in two years’ time?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord mentioned flooding. That is why we have record sums of capital investment: £2.5 billion in flooding investment, as well as a record £1 billion investment in maintenance. That is an example of the UK Government investing strongly in our defences.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, given that a number of rather nasty tree diseases in Europe are just awaiting their opportunity to get into this country, will the Minister use the opportunity that Brexit provides to strengthen our import controls to make sure those diseases do not get in?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I should declare an interest: as Minister for Biosecurity I take these matters very seriously. Our preparations are much advanced. I have been working with the Chief Plant Health Officer and we are in a much better position. Of course we should use the opportunity to see what works in the national interest, and I shall be looking at this very carefully.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that European environmental standards will all be transferred to UK law when the so-called great reform Act comes through; that none of them can then be disposed of without an order going through both this House and the other place; and that therefore we will have an opportunity to stop any unnecessary rollback?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the great repeal Bill will provide an opportunity to ensure that there will be no gaps, to provide certainty for businesses, stakeholders and everyone. It is precisely the case that those standards will be coming back to this country and if there is any requirement for alteration, it would come before Parliament in the normal manner of scrutiny by both Houses.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, health and flooding have been mentioned, but is it not true that without EU environmental laws on air pollution and clean water, we would have had an even worse situation on air pollution, particularly in London, and would not now be building a supersewer to stop the discharge of raw sewage into the Thames, which is still happening in 2016?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what the noble Baroness said about the Thames Tideway project is extremely important: raw sewage is going into the Thames; we must reduce it and work on it. That is why it is a very important investment. However, when I looked into the matter, much of what the noble Baroness mentioned is domestic legislation which even predates our membership of the EU. We will be continuing with our environmental course so that we have a better environment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, once the UK has left the EU, in the absence of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, what bodies will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with present EU environmental standards, even taking legal action against the Government when it fails to do so?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As the Government intend that we will leave the environment in a better condition, I very much hope that will not be the case, but the point is that the Government are accountable to the UK Parliament and the electorate, and there are the domestic courts as well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if we are to leave our environment in a better condition, is it not essential that we maintain one of the things that the country can be most proud of: namely, our green belt policy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in my view, the green belt has been one of the great successes, ensuring that we do not get urban sprawl. It is very important that it remains. I think my notes will tell me, if I can find them, that a considerable proportion—it is 13%—of the land area in England is covered by green belt. It is very important to ensure that it remains.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, what action are the Government going to take to help the solar industry and the insulation industry, which have been so badly damaged by government policy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, with reference to what my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, it is important that we have a mix of energy, and that people do not pay more for their energy than is strictly necessary. Those things are an important feature, but we need to be mindful of costs. That is why the Government took the action that they did.
Brexit: Consumer Rights Policy
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with representatives of consumer bodies about the continued protection of consumer rights following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
Ministers and officials frequently meet representatives from a range of consumer bodies to discuss issues of the day, including EU exit, and we will continue to do so. Details of ministerial meetings are published quarterly on the GOV.UK website. The Government see no reason why the UK’s departure from the EU should have significant adverse effects on consumer rights in this country.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we read at the weekend that consumers are already worried about what this will mean for their prices—but there are other rights at risk, such as consumer redress being possible in this country for goods made abroad, victims of accidents in another member state being able to use our courts to pursue insurance claims, air passengers getting compensation for delays and cancellations, and also the many others we have because we are part of a consumer alert system for faulty or dangerous goods. So may I ask the Minister to agree to undertake an audit of EU consumer protections that are at risk after Brexit, and also to meet relevant consumer organisations to see how to reduce the risk of losing those protections?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, next week the Secretary of State for BEIS is chairing a round table with representatives from a range of consumer bodies and charities, and academics, to discuss, among other things, the impact of EU exit on consumers. These are exactly the sorts of issues that he will want to look at. Of course, the great repeal Bill, which has already been mentioned, will convert EU consumer law into UK law wherever practical, and we will want to ensure that cross-border enforcement is effective, and that our ADR landscape is preserved. These are important aspects of a consumer framework which is very strong: we should be proud of it in this country.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, if we leave the single market, will not some of the real problems for consumers be over online and mail order purchases? When consumers no longer have the right to bring actions here against EU suppliers post-Brexit, what is the Government’s cunning plan? Is it for consumers to run around with small claims in all the other EU member states?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We will want to work to ensure that enforcement is effective across borders. There is, of course, a mutuality of interest here, because online goes both ways, and there are issues online, such as cyber and counterfeits, which need to be addressed. We are continuing to develop the digital single market in our ongoing work in the Competitiveness Council, and our enforcement regimes are well respected. The noble Lord is right to highlight this area, but I am optimistic that we can find a way forward and that there will be opportunities to do things better, from the studies that we shall be doing and the work that we shall be taking forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that EU consumer law would be converted into domestic law where it is practical. Could she give the House an example of where the Government consider it will not be practical to do so?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That is a difficult question to answer—I am always straight. What I would say is that, as I mentioned earlier, we have planned a series of engagements with consumer bodies. That applies right across Whitehall, so that, for example, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has been talking to consumer groups—because, of course, financial services are very important—and there have been talks between MoJ and the Legal Services Consumer Panel. It is clear to me that we will be able to highlight, well before March, the particular pinch points, so that in our negotiations we will know which are the important areas that we need to preserve. This is an important piece of work, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, we do not need to wait for Europe to part company with us—there are already problems. Ryanair has already given an indication of its intention that claims against it by passengers should be made in Irish courts. If I may say so, there is a lot to be done now with consumer rights that is not happening. My personal recent experience was that the telegraph and postal system refused to give a cash refund for faulty goods that it supplied until I suggested that we went to court. It has now said that it will pay. This is happening on a wide scale to those who are making online purchases from companies which are doing rather less than they should.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
In general, consumers enjoy strong protections in this country, and we want to seek to preserve those. But where markets fail—the noble Lord has given an example—and competition is not as strong as it needs to be, they may not get a good deal, and the Government will not hesitate to take steps where we need to. We are bringing forward a Green Paper in the spring of next year that will closely examine markets that are not working fairly for consumers. It will look at both specific markets and cross-cutting items, and I look forward to hearing more on those sorts of issues so we can ensure that they are properly looked at as part of that process.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, British holiday- makers have a history of being ripped off by mobile phone companies while on holiday abroad through communication and data charges. Europe has thankfully sorted this out over the past couple of years, and the charges will be the same. Will the Government insist that British communications and mobile telephone companies keep to that agreement in future so that the rip-off stops and the service remains equitable for British consumers?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned roaming, because it is one of the key advances that general EU effort has achieved in recent times. When you go to Europe now, depending on your provider, you can sometimes get your calls within your contract, which I have been fortunate enough to experience. In general, consumer regulations in the area of telecoms will not be affected by EU exit—and, of course, as I have said, the market is changing. However, I assure the noble Lord that roaming, and the benefits of that, will be an important ingredient in influencing our thinking in our exit negotiations.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, given that we have agreed to participate in the Unified Patent Court, does my noble friend agree that this is an indication of how we can participate in various European organisations, even post-Brexit, to the benefit of consumers?
Human Rights: Kashmir
Lord Hussain
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the United Nations investigation into human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of reports of human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir. Any allegation of human rights abuse in any country is a matter of concern and should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. As a United Nations member, we support all United Nations bodies and their ability to fulfil their mandates.
Lord Hussain (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. In response to my recent Written Question, the Government confirmed that the Prime Minister discussed Kashmir with Prime Minister Modi when recently in India. Could the Minister tell the House whether human rights abuses in Indian-held Kashmir were raised, and will the Government ask the United Nations Security Council to expand the remit of the UN observers in Kashmir to include in their duties the monitoring and investigation of any human rights abuses?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord. I have indicated that we are aware of human rights abuses—or reports, at least, of those abuses—in Kashmir, including in relation to the recent unrest. The UK abides by its commitments under international law, and expects all countries to comply with their international legal obligations. Any allegation of human rights abuse is a matter of concern, which, as I said, would have to be thoroughly, promptly and transparently investigated. In the recent visit to India in November, the Prime Minister discussed a variety of issues with Prime Minister Modi, including Kashmir.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Should the United Kingdom Government not be extremely cautious about getting too deeply involved in Kashmir? After all, it has been a challenge since 1948 and we do not now have a really active involvement there. Would it not be more sensible to concentrate on the areas where we can have considerably more influence?
Baroness Goldie
Both India and Pakistan are important international partners of the United Kingdom. Our long-standing position is that it is for those countries to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Picking up the Minister’s last point, it is extremely worrying that free speech is being severely curtailed in Kashmir at the moment, so it will be extremely difficult to understand the wishes of the people there. What steps have the Government taken to raise with the Indian Government the suppression of free speech and a free press in Kashmir?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his important question. Prime Minister Modi has underlined the importance of fundamental rights and these are enshrined in the Indian constitution. These include freedom of faith and speech and equality of all citizens. We will continue to work collaboratively with Prime Minister Modi’s Government on a range of issues, including the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of religious expression.
Baroness Northover (LD)
In September, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that he believed:
“An independent, impartial and international mission is now needed … and that it should be given free and complete access to establish an objective assessment of the claims made by the two sides”.
Does the Minister agree? If so, what action will the UK Government take?
Baroness Goldie
I revert to my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, in which I made clear that the United Kingdom Government believe that any allegation of human rights abuse is a matter of concern and should be investigated very robustly. As a member of the United Nations, we support all its bodies and their ability to fulfil their mandates.
Lord Loomba (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that terrorism—and the support of terrorists—is the worst form of human rights abuse?
Baroness Goldie
We obviously deplore terrorism wherever it occurs. In so far as there has been terrorist activity in Kashmir, the UK has regularly highlighted, at the highest level, the importance of taking effective action against all terrorist groups. We will continue to advance that argument consistently and robustly.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will remember that we had a referendum in this country a few months ago. Could she tell us how much our Government are encouraging the Governments of India and Pakistan to uphold the promise to the people of Kashmir of a referendum to determine their own future? If that is not acceptable, why is it not being raised at the United Nations by our representatives?
Baroness Goldie
I respectfully observe that there is a distinction to be drawn between a referendum we choose to have in the United Kingdom and the affairs of two independent sovereign countries, in the form of Pakistan and India. The United Kingdom Government have made clear that we believe it is for these two countries and their Governments to determine how to resolve the situation in Kashmir. It must be left to them to take whatever decisions they think appropriate and to move at a pace they consider fitting.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, is there any merit, as part of our trade agreements with India and Pakistan, in putting human rights at the top of the agenda so that this can be part of negotiations?
Baroness Goldie
I reassure the noble Baroness that, in our diplomatic advocacy, we always insist that human rights are at the top of the agenda. We articulate that position regularly to both Pakistan and India.
Islam: Tenet of Abrogation
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their strategy against Islamic terrorism, they will encourage United Kingdom Muslim leaders to re-examine the Muslim tenet of abrogation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
My Lords, freedom of speech and religion are core values that make our country great. Britain is home to diverse communities, which are free to practise their religion in accordance with the law. The Government’s strategy for tackling Islamist terrorism is firmly based on strengthening our partnership with communities, civil society groups and faith organisations across the United Kingdom.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which was helpful as far as it went. I should explain that Islamic abrogation holds that the Koran’s later, violent verses, of which there are many, take precedence over the earlier, peaceful verses, and so it lends support to the jihadists. Have the Government noticed that we can say what we like about any other religion, but we get into all manner of trouble if we try to discuss Islam? If they have noticed, what can they do to encourage civilised national debate about Islam, in the hope that that will encourage our peaceful Muslim friends—who are, of course, in the vast majority—to do more to stand up to their violent co-religionists?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have to say that I think that the first part of the noble Lord’s statement is factually incorrect. We work with communities to make them resilient and we certainly support the discussion of religion, as we are doing now, as we speak. This is a country that prides itself on freedom of speech—unless people are actually inciting others to intolerance or hatred—and that is something of which I am very proud.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Muslim scholar, whom I consulted today, told me that there is no unanimity in the Islamic world about which verses of the Koran are abrogated by later verses? It is completely wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to ascribe the views of some hard-line Wahhabis and Salafists as though they were the views of mainstream Sunni, Sufi and Shia Muslims. That is not the case, and all that the noble Lord does by repeating this—as he has done before—is to undermine the position of moderate Muslims in this country.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I could not have put it better than my noble friend; that is absolutely right. The vast majority of Muslims in this country share our values and share most of the things that we would aspire to for our children and our communities. We should not make blanket statements about a very small minority.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, whenever the question of religion is raised in this House, there seems to be an air of embarrassment, as if it were something private that should not be discussed. The reality is that it is very much the concern of us all. The suffering in Syria and the weekend outrages in Cairo and Istanbul show that a force, religion, which has a potential for good, is being used these days as a force for evil. Does the Minister agree with the findings of the Louise Casey report that the interfaith industry has done very little to combat this, and we need an actual discussion of the concerns that people feel, rather than being superficially nice to each other?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that religion should be a force for good. It is a particularly pertinent point at Christmas time to consider what religion is a force for. Christmas is a time for giving and doing good to your fellow man or woman. Dame Louise Casey produced an independent report which the Government will consider in due course and comment on in the new year. She addressed what the noble Lord is talking about—namely, that we should not be frightened of saying things.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way to tackle extremism in a religious setting is not for this Government, or any Government, to start identifying particular religious doctrines that they would like to see changed, but rather to concentrate on that building of partnerships? Would she agree with me in commending the approach taken by my colleague the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in building those sorts of relationships of trust and friendship, which are creating a platform on which these issues can be honestly faced and discussed as we try to find a way forward on them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I completely concur with the right reverend Prelate. I thought that he was going to talk about his noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, because he does similar work. It is in talking to people through the partnerships that we form that we can form a more cohesive society. I commend the work of the Church of England in this area.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, while associating myself with the comments of the right reverend Prelate, can I ask the Minister whether she thinks it appropriate for a Question to be put down on the Order Paper of this House which refers to “Islamic terrorism”? She quite rightly referred to “Islamist terrorism”. It is inappropriate to lump in 2.5 million British Muslims in this country as somehow being associated with terrorism. Does she think that this Question being brought constantly to this House by a Member of this House is in fact helping those who want to see division in this society and who want to associate peace-loving Muslims in this country with terrorism? Will she answer that please, and will she also say—
Baroness Hussein-Ece
Will she also say whether she thinks that is appropriate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did not hear the last bit of that question because there was a bit of a noise from the House. This House prides itself on the wide range of Questions that can be tabled. We do not police too heavily whether those Questions are always necessarily accurate or reflect the situation. I cannot remember the noble Baroness’s second point. I will leave it there.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is there not a real danger of highlighting parts of the Koran, when you could equally make the same points about the Bible? Is it not important that we do not take either of those texts as literal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have seen with all religions how people can interpret parts of them to their own ends. I was talking just this morning about my own Church and how some things in the past have been interpreted not for evil ends but wrongly. It happens with all texts. It is a question of how we as a civilised society deal with that in the round.
Southern Rail
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Southern Rail to try to avert the strike action due to start tomorrow.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Rail Minister are meeting frequently with GTR to be updated on the latest position and how the operator will provide services on days of industrial action. It is also important to note that this is a dispute between the operator and the unions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also written to union leaders in an attempt to bring this dispute to an end.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Rather than taking sides, should not the Government be trying to put pressure on both sides in this dispute, given the six months of intolerable disruption for consumers in the southern region, and force the parties, through the media, to come to terms through ACAS in the next few days ahead of Christmas?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord. That is exactly what my right honourable friend did: he wrote to both unions and asked them to meet with Southern at ACAS. That was supposed to take place yesterday. That meeting did not take place because the unions had not responded to the invitation from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is not about taking sides—I agree with the noble on that—but about getting this long-standing dispute resolved.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Under the terms of the franchise agreement, the Government receive the fare revenue from GTR, with GTR receiving a subsidy. The Government have accepted that poor performance by GTR has led to a loss of revenue and that, of the GTR estimate of £38 million lost this year from unofficial and official industrial action and poor performance, just £8.4 million has been lost to date due to official industrial action. How much will GTR have to pay back to the Government for fare revenue being less than expected due to its poor performance, which no doubt also reflects through to poor human relations performance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is aware that there are certain aspects of that contract which are confidential. There is a letter in that respect coming through to the noble Lord, which I signed off this morning. The Government have also committed to extensive compensation and Delay Repay 15 has been launched for long-suffering commuters. But let us be absolutely clear: this is a long-standing dispute and, yes, it involves challenges with the contract itself and with Network Rail, but it also involves challenges with the continued action by the unions. The Secretary of State has been very clear. He has written to the trade unions inviting them to meet with Southern at ACAS and they have not taken up that offer. We need to ensure that we can head off further disputes of this kind and further interruptions to the service because, frankly speaking, over half a million people are going to suffer from further strike action.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
Can I ask my noble friend to be very persistent with the Secretary of State? This is just no good. Today, the first two trains this morning were delayed, but we heard no excuse, such as “Sorry, there are no guards” or “no drivers” or whatever. When people then get into the carriages and look at the tabloids that are available today, they see that most of the tabloids have full-page ads from Southern saying, “Oh, we are sorry”, but they hear nothing about it. Why can we not get the board of Southern to go and stand on the cold, wet platforms at 6.15 am and get into London at least an hour late?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I know that my noble friend has raised this issue both in your Lordships’ House and also with me bilaterally. Let me assure her that I do not miss an opportunity to ensure that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the strong sentiments in your Lordships’ House. However, let me also assure her that the Government have set up a scheme by which compensation will be guaranteed to those long-suffering commuters. Regarding her suggestion, I am sure that the board of Southern is listening very carefully. Equally, it did appear at ACAS yesterday and the unions did not. Let us also contextualise this: the dispute with the unions is over driver-only operation of trains, but 99% of the people impacted have signed the new contract. It is about time they got back to work so that the other issues, which are to do with Network Rail and GTR, can be resolved. The dispute is not helping to resolve the issues on the line and it is not helping long-suffering commuters.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, given that on non-strike days there is continuous disruption on this line—and those of us who travel on it daily have had to suffer the farce that has been going on for longer than six months—can the Minister tell the House what discussions the Government have had with the company regarding the management of its sickness and absence policy? It is precious little comfort to those of us who are trying to get on a train, or waiting for trains, to be told time and time again that there is “a temporary shortage of train crew”. What is the company doing about that? It is all very well to go on about how the union is not doing what you want it to do, but over the last nine to 12 months the company has been coming out of this argument looking shabby indeed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Baroness knows, I have acknowledged the fact that the company’s communications have been ineffective and that it has to take responsibility. I have never stood at the Dispatch Box and said that this problem comes from the unions alone. It is a challenge; there are challenges between the company and Network Rail. In that regard, as the noble Baroness will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has appointed Chris Gibb to look specifically at the continuing issues: not at strike days—which, as she rightly highlighted, arise—but at ensuring that the issues on the line can be resolved. A new alliance board has also been established, which includes passenger representatives, and its report will be with the Secretary of State by the end of this month.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a resident of Sussex who attempts occasionally to use this line. I thank the noble Lord for his role in supporting Peers who are interested in this subject. How much worse will this transport crisis have to get in the south-east of England before the Government intervene directly to take control of the situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As my noble friend knows, the Government have been taking serious regard of all the concerns that have been raised. My honourable friend the Rail Minister meets with GTR weekly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has appointed Chris Gibb to look at the issues which arise between Network Rail and GTR, and his report will come through at the end of this year—at the end of this month. As I said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now written directly to both RMT and ASLEF, asking them to meet with Southern at ACAS, where we hope this issue can be resolved. I agree with my noble friend and with all noble Lords; many in this House and beyond have rightly raised this issue because they are exasperated. That is probably a reflection of the sentiment the Government feel. We are taking major steps to resolve this issue, and I implore all parties, particularly those involved with the dispute, to come forward so that we can tackle the dispute and then the long-standing issues which impact negatively on this line and on many people in the south-east of England.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, will the Minister consider whether the operators of this service are still fit persons to operate it at all, and will that be taken into account when the franchise comes up for renewal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises the specific issue of the contract. I assure him that when we have directly raised issues about the failures of this line, as noble Lords will be aware, GTR has raised the issue of force majeure. We have now gone further and are looking at each case of force majeure, which impacts on 10,000 separate train lines, and which it raised between April and June of this year, to see whether they stack up. The DfT is currently looking at that report to ensure that, every time that is claimed on that contract, it is looked at extensively and we can respond accordingly. Until we have completed that exercise, we cannot hold GTR in breach, because we have to establish whether the basis for it claiming force majeure is valid.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister consider that there is a case for people being summoned to ACAS, not asked whether they would care to come along? The unions are inflicting awful, personal damage on people. A decent industrial relations strategy would let ACAS issue a summons, not an invitation, and it would then have the power to act as an arbitrator in those cases and give a pendulum arbitration decision that would be binding on both sides.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, industrial relations in this country to a large extent have been dictated by the fact that many people—and rightly so—come willingly to ensure that disputes can be resolved. I hope that all parties concerned in this dispute reflect carefully on their position to ensure that they are acting in people’s true interests. What marks our country’s industrial relations is that, whether you are a union representative, a company representative or an arbiter like ACAS, we come together to resolve disputes amicably and in the best interests of commuters. I hope that that happens in this case.
Wales Bill
Baroness Mobarik
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clauses 5 to 16, Clauses 18 and 19, Clauses 21 to 51, Schedule 5, Clauses 52 to 60, Clause 17, Clause 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 20, Schedule 4, Schedule 6, Clause 61, Schedule 7, Clauses 62 and 63, Title.
Policing and Crime Bill
Monday 12th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-III(a) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (9 Dec 2016)
19:05 - Division on Amendment 187 - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 187 disagreed.
19:40 - Division on Amendment 187A - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 149 - Amendment 187A agreed.
20:25 - Division on Amendment 188 - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 130 - Amendment 188 agreed.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I often feel when I have the first amendment after Questions that I should explain to Members of the House that it may not be the showstopper that they will be expecting later in the afternoon. Also in this group are government Amendments 180 and 181, which also relate to the requirement to state nationality. I thank the Government for their amendments. I will leave the Minister to decide whether I am insufficiently grateful or was simply asleep on the job when we debated this previously.
Amendment 179A deals with the new section to the UK Borders Act introduced by Clause 144. The requirement to state nationality is not a casual inquiry. It will be a criminal offence not to give nationality in the circumstances set out and it will carry sanctions of a fine and imprisonment. We propose in this amendment that the requirement should be made only if the immigration officer or police officer concerned reasonably suspects the individual not to be British. Amendment 179B contains a similar amendment to the requirement to produce a nationality document. We regard this as appropriate if one is to have these provisions at all and believe they should reflect the Immigration Act of earlier this year in which provisions about searching a person or premises for a driving licence require,
“reasonable grounds for believing that a person … is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom”.
Inserting a requirement of reasonableness seems entirely appropriate.
Government Amendment 180, which responds to an amendment proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, seems a little narrower than that proposal, which referred to,
“alternative documents sufficient that such a document would normally be issued by the relevant authorities”.
Our Amendment 180A takes what amounts to documents that enable the establishment of nationality a little further than what would normally be sufficient to establish it. It occurred to us, for instance, that when a person’s country is in a state of conflict it may not be possible to follow through to the establishment in the way that the government amendment requires. In other words, it would not be possible to fulfil the requirement.
Amendment 181 with regard to pilot schemes is welcome. Can the Minister tell the House where the pilots will take place, how long they will last and, especially, what is “effectiveness”, which is referred to in the amendment? The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has commented on this amendment, which it calls “a sub-delegation of power”—which is one for the real aficionados of constitutional niceties—and said that it,
“would expect to be given a compelling justification for any such power of sub-delegation, why it is needed and how it is intended to be exercised”.
It very delicately made the point, about which I will not be so delicate:
“The scope … is potentially significant and could … allow the obligations … to be targeted on different classes of persons”.
As the Minister will be aware, we are concerned about the possibility of discrimination in the application of the provision.
The DPRRC went on to say that,
“‘piloting’ generally means that powers are being conferred to apply new statutory provisions unevenly and temporarily on an experimental basis. For this reason, we usually expect certain standards to be met in relation to pilot schemes”,
which it sets out as:
“the intended purpose of the pilot regulations”;
use of the affirmative procedure; a requirement on the Secretary of State to “consult interested parties”; to,
“provide on the face of the Bill for the maximum duration of any pilot regulations”;
and to require the Secretary of State to report on their “outcome and effectiveness” and lay the report before Parliament. The committee makes recommendations to that effect. The Minister will obviously be aware of the DPRRC’s report. I hope she will respond to each of those items.
Amendment 181A reflects our concern that it will be only too easy for the clauses to allow for racial and ethnic discrimination. It would not be the first time that assumptions have been made by law enforcement officers. The Home Office under the previous Home Secretary was particularly aware of the importance of stop-and-search powers not being applied in a discriminatory fashion and disproportionately. Our amendment would require an assessment in this regard. Amendment 181B would require a report on that assessment—not just on possible discrimination, but on effectiveness.
Amendment 181BA is on the same theme. We were concerned—I was going to say on these Benches, but it was not only on these Benches—during the passage of the Immigration Bill about what I have heard badged as the “offence of driving while black”: in other words, somebody subject to discrimination who is required to produce a driving licence or documents to prove he is entitled to drive. We suggest in this amendment, admittedly in deliberately quite short order, that the review should focus on the application of the provisions in the relevant clauses in this Bill and the sections in the Immigration Act, the effects of which focus in particular on ethnicity and nationality.
The Minister may regret putting the pilot scheme into the Bill rather than just announcing it, having all these questions asked of her, but we welcome the careful approach she has signified. We are keen to follow it through, as I hope our amendments and my remarks indicate. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, on looking at Amendment 179A and Amendment 179B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, your Lordships might think that they are not necessary. They insert only the word “reasonably” in both cases. I would not agree with that. They are very important additions in the context of this part of the Bill, which concerns the circumstances whereby an individual may be required by an immigration officer or a police officer to state their nationality.
The words “reasonably” or “reasonable” are often used in a legal context. Your Lordships can find the word “reasonable” in this part of the Bill. I refer noble Lords to page 163, where at line 28 we have “without reasonable excuse”, at line 31 “not a reasonable excuse”, and at line 35 “reasonable cause”.
These uses of “reasonable” place obligations on the person being arrested for an offence. It is right that in the same part of the Bill the same obligation to act reasonably should be placed on the immigration officer or police officer when requiring someone who has been arrested to state their nationality. They must have some reasonable suspicion that the individual may not be a British citizen. Acting in the way that any prudent person in a similar situation would act is a proper duty to be placed on officers when in that situation.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the provisions in Clauses 144 and 145, which confer powers on police and immigration officers to require a suspected foreign national to state their nationality after arrest and to produce nationality documents where required. Following the debate in Committee, government Amendments 180, 181 and 194A seek to address concerns raised then by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The noble Baroness has tabled a number of amendments of her own, designed to push the Government a little further, but before I respond to these I shall explain the government amendments.
Amendment 180 concerns the situation where a UK national does not possess a passport and is otherwise suspected to be a foreign national. As recommended by the JCHR, this amendment clarifies that officers are able to take into account alternative documentary evidence which would establish an arrested person’s entitlement to a British passport. Supplementary guidance will also be provided to make it clear to officers what specific evidence would normally be sufficient to establish nationality and can therefore be taken into account in that assessment. Given this, I do not believe that Amendment 180A, which seeks a similar end, is necessary.
Amendment 181 will enable us to pilot these provisions on a limited basis to ensure that police processes are robust and that there are no adverse consequences for black and ethnic minority British nationals. Following the pilot and in advance of the rollout of these provisions, we will lay a report before Parliament on the outcome and effectiveness of the pilot. Among other things, the report will include a full equality impact assessment. Given this undertaking, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that Amendments 181A and 181B are also unnecessary. The noble Baroness wanted to know where the pilots will take place. Subject to agreement with the police, one pilot will take place in Hampshire and the other has yet to be agreed.
Amendments 179A and 179B seek to make it clear that an officer may impose the requirements in Clauses 144 and 145 only when it is reasonable to do so. However, it is already the case that officers may only ever act on reasonable grounds when exercising their powers. Accordingly, I put it to the noble Baroness that there is no need to write this into the Bill. Moreover, in respect of the offences in these clauses there is, in each case, a reasonable excuse defence.
Finally, Amendment 181BA seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of not just the provisions in Clauses 144 and 145 but also the powers conferred by the Immigration Act 2016 to search for and seize driving licences held by an illegal migrant. There is an established procedure for post-legislative review of all legislation, which takes place three to five years following Royal Assent. Consequently we do not need to make express statutory provision for this.
While this is not the occasion to reopen the debates on last Session’s Immigration Bill, I shall just make a couple of observations about the new powers in relation to driving licences. During the debates last Session on these powers, my noble friend Lord Bates made a number of commitments addressing the concerns then raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, including a commitment to pilot the power to search for a driving licence in one or two police areas. The pilot will test the operational details so that any impacts can be identified by the pilot scheme and addressed. My noble friend also committed to issuing guidance to police and immigration officers on the operation of these powers and to a public consultation on that draft guidance before implementation. The consultation will raise awareness of these powers and provide an important gateway through which communities will be able to consider and comment on, among other things, appropriate safeguards.
It is also unnecessary to set up an ad hoc independent review every time we wish to scrutinise police forces’ use of specific powers; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary exists for this purpose. The inspectorate independently assesses police forces and policing activity in the public interest. The PEEL inspection programme —an annual, all-force inspection which assess forces’ efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy—considers both the extent to which forces use their powers effectively and the extent to which forces treat the people they serve with fairness and respect. In addition, the Home Secretary has the power to commission HMIC to inspect and report on any particular issue if she feels that it requires greater scrutiny than it has received in the course of rolling inspection programmes.
HMIC has a strong track record in shining a light on police use of intrusive powers and has not pulled any punches in its reports on stop and search. It is largely due to HMIC’s findings that the previous Home Secretary announced increased scrutiny of road traffic stops through their incorporation into the best use of the stop and search scheme. We are therefore confident that the necessary systems to provide effective scrutiny of these powers are already in place. The clear statutory safeguards against the misuse of this power, the commitment to a pilot and a public consultation and the role of HMIC mean that this amendment is unnecessary.
The noble Baroness also asked about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation. As this is essentially a commencement power, we are not persuaded that the regulation should be subject to a parliamentary procedure. However, I assure the House that we will set out in the regulations the duration of any pilot, and I have already undertaken to lay a report before Parliament on the outcome and effectiveness of the pilot before we commence these provisions more widely.
I trust that this rather lengthy explanation of the government amendments will provide the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that she will therefore be content to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down, will she address the point I made earlier about page 163 where “reasonable” is used a number of times in respect of suspects but not of police officers. Why is that distinction there? If the Minister would like to write to me, that is fine, but I think it is odd that there is that distinction.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. When the noble Baroness writes, perhaps she can also explain this about what the Government did in the Immigration Act 2016. For this purpose, I simply refer to Section 43, which introduces a new paragraph in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act providing for power to be exercised only if the authorised officer has “reasonable grounds” for believing that, in this case, the driving licence is on the premises. The very fact that that terminology is used in legislation which we passed a mere few months ago must raise the question of why it is not included in the comparable clause in this Bill. I know that the noble Baroness cannot answer this at the moment, but I hope that as well as writing, she might be able to discuss this with officials. It is an intrinsically important point, but also a technical one, as to why it should not be included in this Bill. Perhaps we can come back to this at Third Reading. I am not of course expecting her to do anything other than nod sympathetically, as she is doing.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will no doubt consider the Government’s response, but I note that on the question of the affirmative procedure, the Minister said that she did not think that these regulations should be subject to parliamentary procedure. The committee also suggested, or would require, that the Secretary of State should consult interested parties before making the regulations. I am not sure—I might have missed it—whether she referred to the maximum duration of pilots. I accept that there will be post-legislative reviews, and that everything has to be kept under review, but it is the importance of the subject matter which led us to raise the point about requiring an ad hoc review.
I do not know whether the Minister has any information as to whether the pilots and guidance under the Immigration Act are going to be introduced in tandem with, and in the same areas as and so on, the pilots under this Bill. Does she have any information about that?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I think that is still under discussion at the moment with various authorities.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we will see, but I am glad to note the Home Office’s acceptance of the importance of the issue, which I never had in doubt. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Pilot schemes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for any provision of sections 144 and 145 to come into force for a period of time to be specified in or under the regulations for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the provision.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different purposes or different areas.(3) More than one set of regulations may be made under subsection (1).(4) Provision included in regulations under subsection (1) does not affect the provision that may be included in relation to sections 144 and 145 in regulations under section 160 (commencement).”
Lord Lexden
“( ) Except in relation to service disciplinary proceedings, this section applies only in relation to persons convicted or cautioned in England and Wales.”
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The support of my noble friend the Minister signifies that these amendments have been accepted by the Government, and I thank her for all that she and her officials have done to bring about their acceptance. I am indebted to my noble friend for her constant understanding and kindness.
I am also delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, a strong and constant ally in helping to secure the benefits that gay people in Northern Ireland will obtain as a result of our amendments. His work has been widely noted and appreciated by those who campaigned tenaciously to achieve in the Province all the rights that gay people enjoy elsewhere in our country. The need for equality throughout the United Kingdom on this issue of human rights was strongly supported in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, from the Opposition Front Bench, and I thank him most warmly.
This Bill now incorporates amendments proposed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and accepted by your Lordships’ House. They will have the effect of making available in England and Wales pardons to those who were cautioned or convicted under cruel and discriminatory laws, now repealed, that bore so heavily and so unfairly for so long on homosexual and bisexual men. They will make reparation, to the extent that it is possible and practicable, to those still living and remove a terrible stain from the reputations of those who are no longer alive, for the comfort of their families.
Naturally, gay people in Northern Ireland felt that their part of our country should not be excluded from such an important measure of belated justice. I was glad to act as their representative and spokesman in Committee by bringing forward amendments designed to extend to Northern Ireland what has now been agreed for England and Wales. I had the great good fortune to be able to draw on the wide legal knowledge and accomplished drafting skills of Professor Paul Johnson of York University, who produced the amendments discussed in Committee. It is his work, refined and extended by leading officials of the Home Office, that will now confer on gay people in Northern Ireland the equal rights arising from this major reform, which they want and deserve.
Laws are not now normally enacted at Westminster, in this and many other areas of policy that have been devolved to Northern Ireland, without the approval of its Assembly, expressed through the adoption of a legislative consent Motion. In Committee, I referred to the strong hope that such a Motion would be passed by the Assembly, and it was duly passed on 28 November. Its smooth passage, preceded by the rapid and successful completion of discussions in the Northern Ireland Executive, owes much to the new, young Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, Claire Sugden.
My gay friends in Northern Ireland detect a more relaxed, modern and progressive mood among young people in particular. The Minister gave expression to it at Stormont last week when she said that,
“giving permission for Westminster to pass these provisions for Northern Ireland offers an immediate opportunity for the criminal justice system … to right the wrongs of the past”.
She went on to stress the need to,
“ensure that the criminal law in Northern Ireland offers equality of treatment for gay and bisexual men in Northern Ireland, as it would do in England and Wales”.
These are most encouraging and heartening words.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, paved the way for the granting of pardons for offences that should never have defaced the statute book in England and Wales by securing the creation, in 2012, of what is known as a disregard scheme, under which application can be made to have such offences wiped from the record. These amendments will authorise the introduction of such a disregard scheme in Northern Ireland. Individuals will be able to apply to the Justice Department to have their convictions for discredited former offences disregarded on criminal records. All successful applications will be followed automatically by the granting of pardons. Automatic pardons will also be given in posthumous cases.
Very importantly, the amendments confer power on the Northern Ireland Justice Department to add further discredited offences to the disregard scheme by means of regulations. Similar provision is to be made for England and Wales under amendments in this group to be moved by my ally, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.
The arrangements to be introduced in Northern Ireland under these amendments will differ from those in England and Wales, at least initially, in one respect: disregards and pardons will be available for past offences committed by those who were at the time at least 17 years of age, not 16 as in England and Wales. This is because until recently Northern Ireland had 17 as its age of consent. Claire Sugden made plain that she is very open to further discussion of this point in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have one further matter to raise relating to Clause 148(4), which provides that posthumous pardons will be made available to those convicted of certain abolished offences under service law. As it stands, however, Clause 148(4) makes posthumous pardons available only to those convicted as far back as the Naval Discipline Act 1866. This is inadequate because, like the equivalent civil law provisions that extend back nearly five centuries to the Henrician statute of 1533, service law criminalised consensual same-sex sexual acts between members of the Armed Forces long before 1866. Between now and Third Reading the Government may wish to consider incorporating these earlier provisions, and equivalent ones in respect of the Army, into Clause 148(4) to ensure that those convicted of service disciplinary offences prior to 1866 are eligible to receive a posthumous pardon in the same way as those convicted after that date. This point has been brought to our attention by the omniscient Professor Johnson.
I conclude with the words of Councillor Jeffrey Dudgeon, whose case at the European Court of Human Rights in 1981 led to the decriminalising of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. He has said that these amendments,
“will right a wrong for a small but very significant group of living people, and also bring satisfaction and comfort to a greater number of relatives and friends of those who died with their reputations scarred by cruel convictions”.
I beg to move.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to speak to the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to which I have proudly added my name, and to the other amendments in this group in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
My ally, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has put the case eloquently and exhaustively for these measures of pardon and disregards to be extended to Northern Ireland, ensuring that the wrongs so often visited upon gay and bisexual men can now be righted, atoned for and, indeed, corrected. He is right to quote Councillor Jeffrey Dudgeon, who, along with so many others, has shown courage and leadership in fighting for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as indeed has the noble Lord. I congratulate him on the work that he has carried out exhaustively and with fortitude. I, too, record my thanks to Professor Paul Johnson of York University, who has been invaluable in shaping our approach, and who, with Paul Twocock at Stonewall, has guided me with patience and great wisdom.
I hope noble Lords will allow me a short moment of reflection. When I campaigned against Section 28 of the Local Government Act in 1988 and subsequently co-founded and chaired Stonewall from 1989, I never imagined that we would achieve equality for LGBT people in my lifetime, nor that I would be in your Lordships’ House to bring together arguably the last pieces of the legislative jigsaw of legal equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I know that we still have much more to do for the trans community, and we will. Yet I remind myself that what we achieve now is not achieved by us but was made possible by a thousand generations of LGBT people and our heterosexual allies who stood up and fought for equality, often giving up their livelihoods, their freedom and, in some instances, their lives. Moments like these make me feel truly humbled as I recognise their sacrifices over hundreds of years.
In Committee, I moved an amendment to include an offence that was missed from the disregard scheme set up to allow gay and bisexual men who were unjustly convicted under old sexual offences laws to have that crime wiped from their criminal record. The offence, Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, titled “Solicitation by men”, also referred to importuning for immoral purposes and was used right up until repeal in 2003 to arrest men for the simple act of chatting one another up in the street or suggesting that they should return to their home. Arrests were often made in police stings, where plain-clothes police officers encouraged gay or bisexual men to approach them. It was a key tool used by the police and the criminal justice system to create the climate of fear that hung over gay and bisexual men trying to meet each other right up to the early 1990s.
Currently, men convicted under this Section 32 offence cannot have their offence deleted, so they still face having it registered whenever they have a criminal records check made for employment, volunteering or other purposes. When I spoke to this in Committee, the Minister responded to my proposal in an open and positive way, and I am pleased to say that through discussion with her and officials we have developed an holistic approach that not only ensures that safeguarding can be watertight but gives us an opportunity to include other offences that may have been used imaginatively and perniciously in the past to unjustly prosecute gay and bisexual men.
My amendment gives the Home Secretary the ability to lay down regulations, subject to affirmative action, to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to add in additional offences to the disregard scheme where it is shown that they were used in a persecutory way to regulate the lives and activities of gay and bisexual men in the past. We are taking this approach for two very good reasons.
First, Home Office officials will now need more time to do due diligence on the case law related to the Section 32 “Solicitation by men” offence to ensure that when it is included in the scheme convictions under the offence that would still be illegal today it cannot be open to being deleted from the record. Although there is plenty of evidence and case law demonstrating how Section 32 was used unjustly against gay men in particular, it had a wider scope and it is important that we ensure that anything that remains illegal today is excluded from the disregard scheme.
Secondly, there is also evidence that other more general offences were used to catch and prosecute gay and bisexual men, such as meeting up, kissing in public and other activities that would be totally legal today. The approach in the amendment will give Home Office officials the scope to investigate these other offences, and as evidence of unfair prosecutions arise the Home Secretary can extend the scope of the disregard scheme to ensure that every gay and bisexual man unjustly convicted in the past can have their criminal record deleted.
My amendment will also ensure that any regulation that provides for people still alive to have their offence deleted will also extend the pardon to people who are no longer alive. I am extremely pleased that the Minister is co-sponsoring this important amendment and consequential amendments. Although people who are still alive will still need to make an application to have their offence disregarded so that it can be checked against the conditions and then physically removed from the criminal record, the effect of a disregard is much more powerful than a pardon. In supporting the amendment I believe that the Government have the opportunity to send a message to the LGBT community in particular that the disregard scheme and the automatic pardon for people who have since died are all about atoning for the actions of past Governments. It is in effect an apology and a sincere attempt to right the wrongs of the past.
It also gives us the very important opportunity to raise awareness of the disregard scheme with people who could benefit from applying to have their old conviction or caution deleted from the record. I hope the Government will work with the LGBT media, Stonewall and other organisations to send the message out about who can benefit from applying and to make sure that the process is as straightforward as possible.
Taking the lead from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, I wish to thank others who have contributed so valiantly to these amendments and to the cause of equality: the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, other noble Lords, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy for his comments in Committee. More importantly, a lesson I learned at a very early age is the importance of saying thank you where it matters most. I want to close by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, personally for the work that she and her officials have put into the amendment. This is an opportunity to do that which is just, right and necessary; and I am proud that we are so doing.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, for introducing the amendments, and the noble Baroness for supporting them, and ask that she consider the matters still outstanding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred, concerning the Armed Forces. I am very grateful that the Government are also considering other offences mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, as a consequence of his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I very much support all the amendments in this group. We have made tremendous progress in recent years in seeking to redress the effects of homophobic legislation. Terrible injustices were suffered, and previous changes to the law and the amendments are intended to go some way to correct that and make amends. They have my full support and that of my party.
Of course, we need to go further in Northern Ireland, but this is an important step. I want to see the day when LGBT people living in Northern Ireland have exactly the same rights, protections and freedoms as LGBT people living in England, Scotland and Wales. We are a United Kingdom, albeit with devolved institutions, but LGBT people should have the right to get married in Northern Ireland; that must be urgently addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the ministerial team led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Stormont. It is wrong to keep using the petition of concern procedure to block progress in this matter. The UK Government must play their role in championing the rights of LGBT people in Northern Ireland by raising this issue at ministerial and official level. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is a matter for the devolved institution.
During Committee on the Bill on 9 November, I made clear my support for a range of amendments proposed by several Lords. I was clear that welcome progress was being made, but that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman were in my view the best ones before your Lordships’ House. They were not accepted by the Government, but discussions have taken place outside the Chamber, and the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, are very welcome. I thank the noble Baroness very much for listening and working with my noble friend on them.
I pay warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman. We have been friends for many years. It is his tireless campaigning with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that has got us to this point today, and we should be very grateful to them all.
Although it is not on the subject of the amendments, I will make one final point on equality in Northern Ireland in respect of women’s equality. The Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers, led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the political parties must get together to deliver equality for women living in Northern Ireland, so that they enjoy the same rights as women living in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, the UK Government have to play their role by raising that at ministerial level. Although that is a matter for another day, it is an important issue to which we must return. In conclusion, I confirm my full support for the amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am so pleased to be able warmly to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend, Lord Lexden. I also acknowledge the spirit of very positive co-operation that has led to the amendments. I recognise that they will continue to strengthen the efforts made by this Government to tackle the historical wrongs suffered by gay and bisexual men in England and Wales—and now Northern Ireland—who were criminalised over a long period for something that something that society today regards as normal sexual activity.
I shall deal first with Amendments 181D, 181E and 181F, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. As he explained, they will enable the Secretary of State to extend, by regulations, the list of offences eligible for a disregard under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The regulation-making power enables the necessary modifications to be made to Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act, and provides for corresponding provision for pardons to that contained in Clauses 148 and 149 of the Bill.
In Committee the noble Lord made the case for other offences being included in the disregard process, in particular the offence of solicitation by men which is in Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. As I indicated at that time, the Government are broadly sympathetic to this, but we need more time to work through the implications of adding offences to the disregard scheme, and in particular the conditions that need to be satisfied before a conviction could be disregarded. In recognition of the fact that we should not rush that consideration, Amendment 181D enables the Home Secretary to add other abolished offences to the disregard scheme by regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. It is important that, in taking this forward, we are able to distinguish between activities that are now no longer illegal and those that are still illegal. This amendment also gives us scope to consider what other offences may be appropriate for inclusion, so it is to be welcomed as a signal of our continued commitment to address these historical wrongs.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden explained, the amendments in his name introduce a comparable disregard scheme in Northern Ireland to match that already in operation in England and Wales. They also introduce the same approach to statutory pardons as that contained in Clauses 148 to 150 of the Bill.
As I indicated in Committee, as these provisions relate to transferred matters in Northern Ireland, it is right that this House should respect the usual convention that the UK Parliament legislates in respect of such matters only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am pleased to say that the Assembly adopted the necessary legislative consent Motion on 28 November.
My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out the important difference in the Northern Ireland disregard scheme; I thank him for explaining it to the House so that I shall not have to go through it again. I am pleased that we have been able to work fruitfully with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and with my noble friend, and I commend their amendments to the House.
My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out an apparent contrast in the approach taken in Clause 148 as between civilian and service offences. That clause confers posthumous pardons for convictions for buggery and certain other abolished offences tried in the civilian courts, which date back to the Henry VIII statute of 1533—whereas posthumous pardons for convictions for the equivalent offences under service law reach back only to 1866. My noble friend said that it was in fact the Navy Act 1661 which first criminalised buggery in the Armed Forces. While the intention behind Clause 148(4) is to capture only relevant service offences that could have been prosecuted in either civilian or service courts, my noble friend may have alighted on a very valid point. I therefore undertake to consider this matter further with a view to bringing back a suitable amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I must express most grateful thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Those who will benefit from these measures in Northern Ireland will derive great satisfaction from this part of our proceedings today. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, emphasised, more to be done—but these measures will, I think, assist the new pattern of more tolerant, inclusive and peaceful life that is evolving in this important part of our country.
Lord Cashman
“Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: England and Wales
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend section 92 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions) so as to add further offences to the list of offences specified in subsection (1) of that section.(2) An offence may be added to that list only if—(a) it was an offence under the law of England and Wales,(b) it has been repealed or, in the case of an offence at common law, abolished, and(c) either—(i) the offence expressly regulated homosexual activity, or(ii) although the offence did not expressly regulate homosexual activity, it appears to the Secretary of State that those responsible for investigating occurrences of the offence targeted occurrences involving, or connected with, homosexual activity.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) adding an offence may also amend section 92 so as to provide that, in relation to the offence, condition A is that it appears to the Secretary of State that matters specified in the amendment apply (in substitution for the matters specified in subsection (3)(a) and (b) of that section). (4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make consequential amendments of Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act.(5) Regulations under subsection (1) adding an offence must also provide for any person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, the offence to be pardoned where—(a) the person has died before the regulations come into force or the person dies during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which they come into force, and(b) the conditions specified in the regulations are met.(6) Those conditions must correspond to the matters that are specified in condition A in section 92 of the 2012 Act as it applies in relation to the offence (that is, the matters which must appear to the Secretary of State to apply in order for condition A to be met).(7) Subsection (5)(a) does not apply in relation to a person who dies during the period of 6 months if, before the person’s death, the person’s conviction of, or caution for, the offence becomes a disregarded conviction or caution under Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act (and, accordingly, the person is pardoned for the offence before death under section 149(3) of this Act).(8) The regulations must make provision which has a comparable effect in relation to the pardons provided for by the regulations and the offences to which those pardons relate as section 148(4) to (6) of this Act has in relation to the pardons provided for by section 148(1) to (3) and the offences to which they relate.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(10) In this section, “caution”, “conviction”, “disregarded caution” and “disregarded conviction” have the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act (see section 101 of that Act).”
Lord Cashman
Lord Lexden
“Disregarding certain convictions etc for abolished offences: Northern Ireland
(1) After Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (disregarding certain convictions for buggery etc) insert—“CHAPTER 5DISREGARDING CERTAIN CONVICTIONS FOR BUGGERY ETC: NORTHERN IRELANDGeneral101A Power of Department of Justice to disregard certain convictions or cautions (1) A person who has in Northern Ireland been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under—(a) Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13)) (buggery),(b) Article 7 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1536 (N.I. 19)) (procuring others to commit homosexual acts),(c) section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (buggery), or(d) section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (indecent acts between men),may apply to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland for the conviction or caution to become a disregarded conviction or caution.(2) A conviction or caution becomes a disregarded conviction or caution when conditions A and B are met.(3) In relation to an offence under Article 7 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, Condition A is that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland decides that it appears that—(a) the conduct procured was conduct involving persons who consented to it and were aged 17 or over (whether or not that conduct occurred), and(b) the conduct procured would not now be an offence under Article 75 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (sexual activity in a public lavatory).(4) In relation to any other offence mentioned in subsection (1), Condition A is that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland decides that it appears that—(a) the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence consented to it and was aged 17 or over, and(b) any such conduct now would not be an offence under Article 75 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)).(5) Condition B is that—(a) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland has given notice of the decision to the applicant under section 101C(4)(b), and(b) the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given has ended.(6) Sections 101D to 101G explain the effect of a conviction or caution becoming a disregarded conviction or caution.101B Applications to the Department of Justice(1) An application under section 101A must be in writing.(2) It must state—(a) the name, address and date of birth of the applicant,(b) the name and address of the applicant at the time of the conviction or caution,(c) so far as known to the applicant, the time when and the place where the conviction was made or the caution given and, for a conviction, the case number, and(d) such other information as the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may require.(3) It may include representations by the applicant or written evidence about the matters mentioned in condition A in section 101A.101C Procedure for decisions by the Department of Justice(1) In considering whether to make a decision of the kind mentioned in condition A in section 101A, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland must, in particular, consider— (a) any representations or evidence included in the application, and(b) any available record of the investigation of the offence and of any proceedings relating to it that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland considers to be relevant.(2) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may not hold an oral hearing for the purpose of deciding whether to make a decision of the kind mentioned in condition A in section 101A.(3) Subsection (4) applies if the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland—(a) decides that it appears as mentioned in condition A in section 101A, or(b) makes a different decision in relation to the matters mentioned in that condition.(4) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland must—(a) record the decision in writing, and(b) give notice of it to the applicant.Effect of disregard101D Effect of disregard on police and other records(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland must by notice direct the relevant data controller to delete details, contained in relevant official records, of a disregarded conviction or caution.(2) A notice under subsection (1) may be given at any time after condition A in section 101A is met but no deletion may have effect before condition B in that section is met.(3) Subject to that, the relevant data controller must delete the details as soon as reasonably practicable.(4) Having done so, the relevant data controller must give notice to the person who has the disregarded conviction or caution that the details of it have been deleted.(5) In this section—“delete”, in relation to such relevant official records as may be prescribed, means record with the details of the conviction or caution concerned—(a) the fact that it is a disregarded conviction or caution, and(b) the effect of it being such a conviction or caution,“the general names database” means the names database held by the Secretary of State for the use of constables,“the Northern Ireland names database” means the names database maintained by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland for the purpose of recording convictions and cautions,“official records” means records containing information about persons convicted of, or cautioned for, offences and kept by any court, police force, government department or local or other public authority in Northern Ireland for the purposes of its functions,“prescribed” means prescribed by order of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland,“relevant data controller” means—(a) in relation to the general names database or the Northern Ireland names database, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,(b) in relation to other relevant official records, such persons as may be prescribed,“relevant official records” means—(a) the general names database,(b) the Northern Ireland names database, and(c) such other official records as may be prescribed. (6) An order under this section may make different provision for different purposes.(7) Any power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(8) A statutory rule containing an order under this section is subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I))).101E Effect of disregard for disclosure and other purposes(1) A person who has a disregarded conviction or caution is to be treated for all purposes in law as if the person has not—(a) committed the offence,(b) been charged with, or prosecuted for, the offence,(c) been convicted of the offence,(d) been sentenced for the offence, or(e) been cautioned for the offence.(2) In particular—(a) no evidence is to be admissible in any proceedings before a judicial authority exercising its jurisdiction or functions in Northern Ireland to prove that the person has done, or undergone, anything within subsection (1)(a) to (e), and(b) the person is not, in any such proceedings, to be asked (and, if asked, is not to be required to answer) any question relating to the person’s past which cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to the conviction or caution or any circumstances ancillary to it.(3) Where a question is put to a person, other than in such proceedings, seeking information with respect to the previous convictions, cautions, offences, conduct or circumstances of any person—(a) the question is to be treated as not relating to any disregarded conviction or caution, or any circumstances ancillary to it (and the answer to the question may be framed accordingly), and(b) the person questioned is not to be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose that conviction or caution or any circumstances ancillary to it in answering the question.(4) Any obligation imposed on any person by any enactment or rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement to disclose any matters to any other person is not to extend to requiring the disclosure of a disregarded conviction or caution or any circumstances ancillary to it.(5) A disregarded conviction or caution, or any circumstances ancillary to it, is not a proper ground for—(a) dismissing or excluding a person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or(b) prejudicing the person in any way in any office, profession, occupation or employment.(6) This section is subject to section 101F but otherwise applies despite any enactment or rule of law to the contrary.(7) See also section 101G (meaning of “proceedings before a judicial authority” and “circumstances ancillary to a conviction or caution”).101F Saving for Royal pardons etcNothing in section 101E affects any right of Her Majesty, by virtue of Her Royal prerogative or otherwise, to grant a free pardon, to quash any conviction or sentence, or to commute any sentence. 101G Section 101E: supplementary(1) In section 101E, “proceedings before a judicial authority” includes (in addition to proceedings before any of the ordinary courts of law) proceedings before any tribunal, body or person having power—(a) by virtue of any enactment, law, custom or practice,(b) under the rules governing any association, institution, profession, occupation or employment, or(c) under any provision of an agreement providing for arbitration with respect to questions arising under that agreement,to determine any question affecting the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities of any person, or to receive evidence affecting the determination of any such question.(2) For the purposes of section 101E, circumstances ancillary to a conviction are any circumstances of—(a) the offence which was the subject of the conviction;(b) the conduct constituting the offence;(c) any process or proceedings preliminary to the conviction;(d) any sentence imposed in respect of the conviction;(e) any proceedings (whether by appeal or otherwise) for reviewing the conviction or any such sentence;(f) anything done in pursuance of, or undergone in compliance with, any such sentence.(3) For the purposes of section 101E, circumstances ancillary to a caution are any circumstances of—(a) the offence which was the subject of the caution;(b) the conduct constituting the offence;(c) any process preliminary to the caution (including consideration by any person of how to deal with the offence and the procedure for giving the caution);(d) any proceedings for the offence which take place before the caution is given;(e) anything which happens after the caution is given for the purposes of bringing any such proceedings to an end;(f) any judicial review proceedings relating to the caution.Appeals and other supplementary provision101H Appeal against refusal to disregard convictions or caution(1) The applicant may appeal to the High Court in Northern Ireland if—(a) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland makes a decision of the kind mentioned in section 101C(3)(b), and(b) the High Court gives permission for an appeal against the decision.(2) On such an appeal, the High Court must make its decision only on the basis of the evidence that was available to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(3) If the High Court decides that it appears as mentioned in condition A in section 101A, it must make an order to that effect.(4) Otherwise, it must dismiss the appeal.(5) A conviction or caution to which an order under subsection (3) relates becomes a disregarded conviction or caution when the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the order was made has ended.(6) There is no appeal from a decision of the High Court under this section.101I Advisers(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may appoint persons to advise whether, in any case referred to them by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland should decide as mentioned in condition A in section 101A.(2) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may disclose to a person so appointed such information (including anything within section 101C(1)(a) or (b)) as the Department of Justice considers relevant to the provision of such advice.(3) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may pay expenses and allowances to a person so appointed.101J Interpretation: Chapter 5(1) In this Chapter—“caution” means a caution or a warning given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution or warning is given, that person has admitted,“conviction” includes—(a) a conviction in respect of which an order has been made discharging the person concerned absolutely or conditionally, and(b) a finding in any criminal proceedings (including a finding linked with a finding of insanity) that a person has committed an offence or done the act or made the omission charged,“disregarded caution” is a caution which has become a disregarded caution by virtue of this Chapter,“disregarded conviction” is a conviction which has become a disregarded conviction by virtue of this Chapter,“document” includes information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its provision or production include providing or producing a copy of the information in legible form,“information” includes documents,“notice” means notice in writing,“official records” has the meaning given by section 101D(5).(2) Paragraph (a) of the definition of “conviction” applies despite Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) (which deems a conviction of a person discharged not to be a conviction).(3) In this Chapter, a reference to an offence includes—(a) a reference to an attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence, and(b) a reference to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence.(4) In the case of an attempt, conspiracy or incitement, the references in this Chapter to the conduct constituting the offence are references to the conduct to which the attempt, conspiracy or incitement related (whether or not that conduct occurred).(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) an attempt to commit an offence includes conduct which—(a) consisted of frequenting with intent to commit the offence any river, canal, street, highway, place of public resort or other location mentioned in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (as it then had effect) in connection with frequenting by suspected persons or reputed thiefs, and(b) was itself an offence under that section.”(2) In Article 2 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27) (interpretation), after paragraph (3) insert— “(3A) This Order does not apply to any disregarded conviction or caution within the meaning of Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.(3B) Accordingly, references in this Order to a conviction or caution do not include references to any such disregarded conviction or caution.”(3) In the heading of Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, at the end insert “: England and Wales”.(4) In section 92 of that Act, after subsection (5) insert—“(6) Except in relation to service disciplinary proceedings, this section applies only in relation to persons convicted or cautioned in England and Wales.””
“Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland
(1) A person who has in Northern Ireland been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence specified in subsection (2) and who has died before this section comes into force is pardoned for the offence if the conditions that apply under this section in relation to the offence are met.(2) The offences to which subsection (1) applies are—(a) an offence under Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13)) (buggery);(b) an offence under Article 7 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/ 1536 (N.I. 19)) (procuring others to commit homosexual acts);(c) an offence under any of the following earlier provisions—(i) 10 Chas. 1 sess. 2 c. 20 (1634) (an Act for the punishment of the vice of buggery);(ii) section 18 of 10 Geo. 4 c. 34 (1829) (an Act for consolidating and amending the statutes in Ireland relating to offences against the person)(buggery);(iii) section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (buggery);(iv) section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (gross indecency between men).(3) In relation to an offence under Article 7 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the conditions that apply are that—(a) the conduct procured was conduct involving persons who consented to it and were aged 17 or over (whether or not that conduct occurred), and(b) the conduct procured would not now be an offence under Article 75 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/ 1769 (N.I. 2)) (sexual activity in a public lavatory).(4) In relation to any other offence mentioned in subsection (2), the conditions that apply are that—(a) the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence consented to it and was aged 17 or over, and(b) any such conduct at the time this section comes into force would not be an offence under Article 75 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (sexual activity in a public lavatory).(5) The following provisions of section 101J of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply for the purposes of this section and section (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary)(1) (so far as relating to this section) as they apply for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 5 of that Act— (a) in subsection (1), the definitions of “caution” and “conviction”;(b) subsections (2) to (5).”
“Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland
(1) This section applies to a person who has in Northern Ireland been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence mentioned in section 101A(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and who is living at the time this section comes into force.(2) If, at any time after this section comes into force, the person’s conviction or caution becomes a disregarded conviction or caution under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the person is also pardoned for the offence at that time.(3) Expressions used in this section or section (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary)(1) (so far as relating to this section) and in Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have the same meaning in this section or (as the case may be) section (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary)(1) as in that Chapter (see section 101J of that Act).”
“Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland
(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations amend section 101A of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (power of Department of Justice to disregard convictions or cautions) so as to add further offences to the list of offences specified in subsection (1) of that section.(2) An offence may be added to that list only if—(a) it was an offence under the law of Northern Ireland (or, in the case of an offence that applied before Northern Ireland became a separate legal jurisdiction, an offence under the law of Ireland),(b) it has been repealed or, in the case of an offence at common law, abolished, and(c) either—(i) the offence expressly regulated homosexual activity, or(ii) although the offence did not expressly regulate homosexual activity, it appears to the Department of Justice that those responsible for investigating occurrences of the offence targeted occurrences involving, or connected with, homosexual activity.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) adding an offence may also amend section 101A so as to provide that, in relation to the offence, condition A is that it appears to the Department of Justice that matters specified in the amendment apply (in substitution for the matters specified in subsection (4)(a) and (b) of that section).(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make consequential amendments of Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act.(5) Regulations under subsection (1) adding an offence must also provide for any person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, the offence to be pardoned where—(a) the person has died before the regulations come into force or the person dies during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which they come into force, and (b) the conditions specified in the regulations are met.(6) Those conditions must correspond to the matters that are specified in condition A in section 101A of the 2012 Act as it applies in relation to the offence (that is, the matters which must appear to the Department of Justice to apply in order for condition A to be met).(7) Subsection (5)(a) does not apply in relation to a person who dies during the period of 6 months if, before the person’s death, the person’s conviction of, or caution for, the offence becomes a disregarded conviction or caution under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act (and, accordingly, the person is pardoned for the offence before death under section (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland)(2) of this Act).(8) The regulations must make provision which has a comparable effect in relation to the pardons provided for by the regulations and the offences to which those pardons relate as section (Pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland)(5) of this Act has in relation to the pardons provided for by section (Pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland)(1) to (4) and the offences to which they relate.(9) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/ 1573)(N.I. 12)).(10) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.(11) In this section, “caution”, “conviction”, “disregarded caution” and “disregarded conviction” have the same meaning as in Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act (see section 101J of that Act).”
“Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary
(1) A pardon under section (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) or (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), or under regulations under section (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland), does not—(a) affect any conviction, caution or sentence, or(b) give rise to any right, entitlement or liability.(2) Nothing in this section or in sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland) or regulations under section (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland) affects the prerogative of mercy.”
Lord Paddick
“Vagrancy Act 1824
In section 8 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (abolition of offence of loitering etc with intent) at end insert—“(2) A person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under those provisions is pardoned for the offence. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is irrelevant whether the person has died before subsection (2) comes into force.(4) A pardon under this section does not give rise to any right, entitlement or liability.””
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 181M is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I tried to make it clear in Committee that the specific offence of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an indictable and later an arrestable offence under that specific part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and how it was used against the black community is seen by the black community—and by many others, myself included—as as much of a clear historical wrong as the offences that we have just debated.
In Committee, the Minister suggested that, without looking at the facts of individual cases, it is impossible to know whether the conduct in question would still be an offence today. In Committee, I described exactly how, in circumstances where a person behaved in a way that would have amounted to an offence today, they would have been charged with a substantive offence—for example, attempted theft of or from a motor vehicle, or attempted burglary. I suggested that it was only when behaviour did not amount to an offence under other legislation that individuals would have been charged with an offence of being a suspected person under Section 4.
These offences are important and symbolic to the black community and how they have in the past been, and continue to be, discriminated against in the criminal justice system. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was debated in Committee. It is fair to say that it did not get a warm welcome from the Minister in responding to the debate. I was surprised to learn that the Government had no data at all on the number of people affected by the law before it was abolished. Clearly, the amendment is not going to be accepted by the Government tonight, but the noble Lord is right to keep raising the issue and I hope that it will keep being raised. It is only by doing so that we can explore what options are available to us, what happened in the past and whether it was right and whether, with hindsight, the offence should have been removed from the statute books many years before it actually was, as it was used in a way that discriminated against black people.
I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short debate, she can focus particularly on the amendment. In her response in Committee, the focus was as much on the previous debate, so I hope that it can focus particularly on the points voiced before us here today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for explaining the amendment, which was of course also tabled in Committee, seeking to confer a pardon on persons, living and deceased, who were convicted under that part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which was repealed by Section 8 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was originally a wide-ranging provision, and some of it is still in force today. The part with which the noble Lord’s amendment is concerned is the offence of being a suspected person, frequenting, in effect, any public place,
“with intent to commit felony”,
or, as it became, an arrestable offence. The noble Lord has illustrated from his own experience, and the Home Affairs Select Committee identified in 1980, that this so-called “sus” offence was used in a discriminatory and unfair way, particularly in relation to young black men. However, as the noble Lord has also acknowledged, not every conviction under this provision, certainly not going all the way back to 1824, was wrong or unfair. In fact, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded:
“The most powerful argument against ‘sus’ is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle”.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister, who perhaps lulled me into a false sense of hope and optimism by saying that the Government are not “currently” minded to agree to this. We clearly do not want to go back more than 200 years—I think the law was aimed at dealing with soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars and begging in the streets—but where it is a question of discrimination against the black community perhaps we can do some work and target any future consideration more accurately. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his support, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“Anonymity before charge
(1) Section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer before charge) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Where a person is accused of an offence but has not yet been charged, or has been released without charge (with or without bail), no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the person who has been arrested for an offence shall be published or otherwise disclosed in England and Wales, except where subsection (12) applies.(12) This subsection applies where a magistrates’ court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to publish or disclose information of the kind described in subsection (11), and the court makes an order to that effect.””
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 182 on anonymity before charge, I refer to an earlier amendment which I moved in Committee on 2 November. It proposed substituting “lack of evidence” for “insufficient evidence” when police communicate a decision not to charge. Eight noble Lords spoke in support and I have now had the Minister’s letter of 1 December saying that the Government agree to replace the phrase “insufficient evidence” with revised wording which will be incorporated in fresh guidance, to take effect by next spring. However I am afraid that their suggestion of the words,
“the case failed to reach the evidential test”,
does not quite hit the spot. Frankly, “no case to answer”, would be better but that is probably a discussion for another day.
I am glad that the Government listened to the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for using her influence on the Home Office. I hope she will do so again, after this debate. The matter is really very simple. There have, particularly in recent years, been a number of instances when the police have released the names of suspects or publicly identified them at a very early stage in their investigations into allegations and complaints, particularly of sexual impropriety. A most notorious example was on 14 August 2014 when the Yorkshire police arranged for the BBC to film and broadcast their entry into the house of the pop star Sir Cliff Richard. Sir Cliff must have gone through hell before it was eventually accepted that he had no case to answer.
There are many other examples. We may remember the wholly inappropriate way in which, on 3 August 2015, a superintendent of the Wiltshire police posed for television cameras in front of Sir Edward Heath’s final residence in Salisbury, encouraging people to claim that the former Prime Minister had misbehaved with children. The superintendent was launching an investigation on which the Wiltshire police have now spent over £700,000 of taxpayers’ money, with the chief constable of Wiltshire apparently determined to continue his fishing expedition indefinitely.
The method of fishing adopted by Wiltshire police seems to vary between the utterly naive and the patently absurd. I have been told by a former member of the Downing Street staff that they were contacted by one of the investigating officers, who asked, first, whether they had noticed any untoward incidents at any time in the behaviour of the then Prime Minister and secondly, whether they had noticed any young men slipping in and out of No. 10 Downing Street. Surely the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner has a role in pointing out the opportunity-cost of this farce and guiding the chief constable on priorities in the use of limited police resources.
In Committee a number of noble Lords raised this issue of the police being free to name suspects and the Minister is on record as saying that,
“it is absolutely right and proper for the police to have operational independence in deciding whether to name a suspect”.—[Official Report, 16/11/16; col. 1466.]
My response to that is simple. Searching a house is an operational matter, on which the police must make a judgment. However, to search a house they have to obtain a magistrate’s warrant before they do so. Indeed, the centuries-old requirement for a search warrant forms part of the fundamental protection of our liberties, under both statute and convention, which has its roots in Magna Carta.
The impact of modern social media means that naming suspects is a powerful weapon; indeed, sometimes even a lethal one. I am not saying that it is never sensible for suspects to be named, sometimes even at a very early stage in an investigation. In sexual cases, or cases of fraud, for example, it may be necessary for there to be publicity that will encourage other victims of the alleged offenders to come forward. Indeed, the media have always had an important role in exposing allegations in the pursuit of justice. However, the media have to follow court directions restricting reporting—and they do so.
Hitherto it has been left to the police to make a judgment on whether to name a suspect. However, it has now been shown that all too often the police cannot be relied on to make the right judgment. In their recent decisions on naming suspects they have aroused much public resentment and indignation. This has resulted not only in often irreparable damage to the reputation of innocent persons but undermined confidence in, and therefore support for, the police.
History teaches us the need for vigilance in the defence of liberty. In September 1793, at the height of the reign of terror during the French Revolution, the so-called Committee of Public Safety passed the Law of Suspects, which meant that suspects, once named, could be put under the guillotine without any trial. This continued until July 1794, when Robespierre himself was guillotined. We are a million miles from that. But the road is the same and we must not take a single step along it. It is to halt and, indeed, remedy an unacceptable situation that I am advocating the urgent need for a check on the exercise of unsupervised police powers to publish the names of suspects. That is why in Amendment 182 I propose that the police should be required to obtain a magistrates’ warrant before publishing the name of a suspect who has not been charged. I realise that my amendment as drafted may not be the full answer, but I am anxious that the Government should address what has become a serious problem. I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords and, of course, of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, we have Amendment 187 in this group but, before I address that amendment, I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 182. In Committee, some noble Lords asked why sexual offences should be a special case when it comes to pre-charge anonymity. Amendment 182 addresses that question by including all offences. However, there are three reasons why we cannot support this amendment. As I will set out shortly, not only do we believe that sexual offences are a special case, but the law acknowledges that they are a special case in which the normal principles of free speech and open justice are restricted. We believe that these are important principles that should be restricted only in those cases where there are specific reasons for doing so. In sexual offences cases alone, the identity of the complainant or victim is protected. For similar reasons, we believe that the identity of the accused should be protected up until the point of charge.
Secondly, in Committee, we also heard compelling reasons why the accused should be able to lift the ban on publicising his identity, if he wishes. The accused may wish to complain at the injustice of his case or appeal for alibi witnesses to come forward, for example. Amendment 182, as drafted, would not allow that.
The third reason is that we do not believe the magistrates’ court is the right place for such a decision to be made. We believe that such an important decision should be considered by a judge of a higher court.
Amendment 187 is substantially different from the amendment we moved in Committee in a number of respects. First, it is as close as possible to the wording of the legislation that currently protects complainants or victims in sexual offences cases. Secondly, it allows the accused to lift pre-charge anonymity at any stage if he wishes to do so. Thirdly, as well as specifying the minimum rank of police officer who can make an application, and the Crown Court as the appropriate court for hearing an initial application from the police for the ban to be lifted, it would specifically require the judge to have particular regard to the possibility that further witnesses might volunteer evidence relating to sexual offences committed by the accused. We believe that such cases will be rare and such applications will be exceptional, as I will explain.
We had a long debate on this issue in Committee, and I do not want to make my case again as it is a matter of record. However, I want to address the remarks made by other noble Lords in that debate, having had an opportunity to reflect on what they said. I will address head on, and at an early stage, the shocking picture that is emerging of allegations of historic child abuse at football clubs. Most of the initial allegations that attracted so much publicity, and gave rise to the unprecedented number of further allegations being made across the length and breadth of the country, involved the former football coach Barry Bennell. Bennell was convicted of sexual abuse offences in the United States in 1994, and convicted of further sexual offences in the United Kingdom in 1998, and again in 2015, for which he served terms of imprisonment. These are not cases where pre-charge anonymity would have had any adverse effect. Indeed, I suggest that these cases point to a change in culture where victims of sexual abuse are more willing to come forward. Therefore, they undermine to some extent an argument against pre-charge anonymity on the grounds that victims need to be given confidence to name people who have been accused but not yet charged.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made this point in Committee—that publicity can lead others to come forward with supporting evidence that helps to make the case against a person who is rightly accused. But what if somebody is not rightly accused? What if somebody like Nick comes forward and makes highly damaging and groundless allegations against individuals? Is it right that these allegations and the identity of the accused are put into the public domain? How do we safeguard against others coming forward with similarly damaging and groundless allegations, particularly when the details of the allegations are made public? There is a view that the law on similar fact evidence has gone too far and that this can result in convictions based on multiple uncorroborated allegations, all of which could be false. I am not legally qualified to comment, but surely a balance needs to be struck between shoring up uncorroborated allegations by trawling for others and protecting the reputation of the accused.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 187. I do so with very great hesitation. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for speaking before him. I feel great reticence, speaking on this as a non-lawyer. That may be key: I have got in early to speak before I can be corrected by all the lawyers. I have not entirely made up my mind. I am speaking to the amendment; I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says.
The reason I am speaking in the debate at all is because I feel I owe it to the memory of my friend Lord Brittan. He was also the friend of my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Deben. I saw a lot of Lord Brittan in the final weeks of his life. I saw the tremendous suffering caused to him by being wrongly accused of a rape offence. The Henriques report concluded that the proceedings against Lord Brittan should have been ended much earlier. It catalogued a whole series of mistakes, in this case and in others. There was a total of some 43 errors.
It is the case of Lord Brittan that prompted me to intervene, but the last thing that I would argue, or that he would have wanted argued, is that this is about important people or public people. This is about everybody who might find themselves in this sort of situation.
I acknowledge, too, the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to some extent refuted about why there should be an exception only for cases of a sexual nature. Personally, I would toy with the idea of going much wider than just offences of a sexual nature, as I believe Commissioner Hogan-Howe would also argue.
I have seen the letter sent by the End Violence Against Women coalition to Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini. It talks about the amendment proposing defendant anonymity. It is not. A defendant is a person who has been charged. Up to that point they are accused. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the ambiguity of the word “accused”. I was glad he did, because I wondered whether I was the only person who felt this as a lay man. It is not very clear to me but, as I understand it, “accused” might include interviewed under caution or arrested under bail. Is it really right that a person’s name should be released to the public and the press simply because they have been interviewed under caution when no further action is taken?
I remember particularly vividly a case which, while not a sexual case, made a big impact on me. It was the case of the teacher, Mr Jefferies, who lived in Bristol in a flat next to a poor girl who had been murdered. I do not know whether it was the police who released it or how his name came to be in the public domain, but I cannot imagine the suffering. I think Members of this House have had letters from Mr Jefferies about what he suffered and the damage to his reputation. People just assume that the damage to someone’s reputation will go away because charges do not follow but that is not reality. That is not what happens; there is always an element of the public who think, “No smoke without fire”, and there is permanent damage to an individual’s reputation, which can be absolutely life shattering.
Naming people before charging undermines the presumption of innocence at the heart of our system of justice. Usually, when people’s names are released it is seriously damaging to their reputation, even if they were not charged but just held for a period or their home was searched. The public are not always very rigorous in observing, in their own discussions or in what is written, the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
I also wonder, as a non-lawyer, about the effect on the trial itself. It is one thing to talk about the effect on the individual, but what about the effect on the trial of releasing someone’s name before it? How quickly will a jury be able to forget the evidence that has been put forward?
The argument that is made for pre-charge publicity is that it will bring forward further possible victims and allegations that can be followed up. Therefore, crimes can be pursued, but does that really have to be pre-charge? Such further evidence can also come forward after a person has been charged. We know that such situations can lead to false claims being made. I am not suggesting for one minute that false allegations of rape are common—they are not; I know that—but some of the evidence we have seen of historical sexual abuse has indicated that there have been cases where some people have come forward with allegation that are completely false. They may have seen the names of people on television and somehow convinced themselves. Sometimes it is people who are not very well who make these allegations.
It seems to me that the rights of the innocent are extremely important. I hope that, whatever arguments the Minister puts forward, she will not use the phrase “It is a question of finding the right balance” too much. The rights of the innocent are extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quoted the old maxim, which I was going to quote myself, “Better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent person be convicted”. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I will listen to the Minister and then make up my mind, but regardless of whether I vote or do not vote for the amendment, I absolutely want to be convinced that something will be done about this situation. Nothing has been done about it and I cannot imagine that we will be happy if the amendment is rejected and nothing further is done. I remain convinced that there has been a lot of suffering and a lot of injustice done in the present situation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is a very difficult issue. The speeches that your Lordships have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Paddick and Lord Lamont, make a very powerful case. I cannot agree with it and I shall briefly attempt to explain why. The starting point is that we must all, of course, have enormous sympathy for Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor, the late Lord Brittan—and, of course, Lady Brittan—and the many others who have been wrongly accused of sex offences. They have been subjected to what is, on any view, an outrageously unfair procedure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that they have been caused irreparable harm by a combination of the absence of any credible evidence for the allegations, the length of time it has taken the police to investigate these matters and the contempt of the police and the public for the presumption of innocence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, averted. In a famous 1935 case, Lord Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, called the presumption of innocence the “golden thread” that runs through our criminal law. It is very regrettable that so many of us, and our newspapers, proceed on the opposite principle that there is no smoke without fire, even when the smoke is no more than the hot air blown out by deluded fantasists. On that, I entirely agree. There is simply no dispute about that.
The question is whether either of these amendments is a sensible way forward, and in my view they are not for three reasons. First, in the context of alleged sex offences, publicity can lead, and has led, to witnesses coming forward with supporting evidence that helps to convict a person who is rightly accused and—this is the way the world works—it may be that only on hearing that an allegation against a named person is being taken seriously by the authorities do potential witnesses who say that they suffered the same problems and attacks in the past have the confidence to come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out that these people can come forward after a charge is brought, but the problem is that if supporting witnesses do not come forward at an earlier stage, a charge may never be brought. The prosecution authorities may not proceed. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly said, some of those who come forward will not be telling the truth. That is undoubtedly correct, but the legal process addresses that issue in a trial. It is not sufficient that these amendments would allow a judge to give permission to publicise the identity of the person who has been accused. I do not see how a judge will be able, in any particular case, to assess the likelihood of unknown witnesses coming forward.
The second reason why I am troubled by these amendments is that there is, sadly, still great reluctance by victims to report allegations of rape and sexual offences. There is no ban on publicising the names of persons suspected of other serious offences, such as murder or terrorism, and—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made this point in Committee—there is real concern that to give a special privilege to those accused of sexual offences could exacerbate the concern of many alleged victims that the law does not take sexual offences as seriously as it should, so making it even less likely that they will report the allegations. I do not think it is an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to point out that the law grants anonymity to the alleged victim in sexual offences cases. The alleged victim is granted anonymity because of concern that publicity would deter complainants from bringing forward their allegations, which is an entirely distinct argument.
The third reason is the one given in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I am pleased to see in his place. It is that under these amendments it would be unlawful to tell the public that a person suspected of a serious crime has been arrested and so has lost their liberty, albeit for a short period. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, misunderstood this point, which was not that a person could be held incommunicado.
Prohibiting publication of who is accused and of what in this context would be wrong in principle. It would deflect attention away from the true mischief, which is the lack of respect for the presumption of innocence. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said from the Front Bench in opposing a similar amendment in Committee, at col. 1466, to enact an amendment of this sort conferring anonymity would serve only to undermine the presumption of innocence of those who are accused of sexual offences.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 182 and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for moving it. Having spent over 50 years as a criminal lawyer, interspersed with ministerial office, I hope I have some knowledge of how the criminal law operates and of how the police operate too. I fully understand the concern that my Front Bench may express that it is important to send a strong message to potential and current victims. Of course that is important, but it is also important that a strong message goes from this House that we are concerned that justice is seen to be done to all, which is equally important. That was always a guiding light when, as attorney, I had to take decisions of this kind. The presumption was that every person is innocent until he is proved guilty. I venture to suggest that my experience in this field may not be unhelpful, as a prosecuting and defending practitioner, as a Crown Court recorder for more than 20 years and as Attorney-General, when I had to take personal decisions to prosecute and to ensure the balance was right and give appropriate instructions to those who actually prosecuted.
We have heard the expression this afternoon, “No smoke without fire”. It is an old adage. Cases in recent years have been totally unacceptable. The picture of the police superintendent standing outside the house of Sir Edward Heath and inviting persons to come forward reminded me of what might have happened in Nazi Germany. Leon Brittan did not know at all, and his family did not know until he was dead, that he had been exonerated. Lord Bramall, in very difficult circumstances, had every part of his house searched; Sir Cliff Richard, likewise. I would like to know in detail exactly the operational reasons for disclosure. Should they not be spelled out and should they not be supervised by someone? Why should they be the decision of any police officer who would like to disclose a name rather than having this supervised by a court?
Frequently we hear reports in the press that a white or black, middle-aged man has been arrested in south London, and in the usual kind of case that is more than adequate. I remember when Denis Healey, my former boss, was breathalysed on the way out of this House after attending a dinner. It was in every newspaper the following morning. Why was that? Did any money change hands for the disclosure of that suspected offence? Of course it took two or three weeks for him to be fully exonerated. This is what happens in real life, and I have often wondered, as a practitioner, why it is the same kind of solicitors that turn up at a particular station when somebody important or in the public eye is arrested. I wonder why. It needs investigation, clarification and supervision. I have tried to get the Law Commission to consider this problem. We should have all the arguments on both sides looked at properly, and those of us who are anxious would know what is the better solution. Because there is controversy in this House, its attitude and the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government is that they will not investigate. The problem will not go away. It offends my sense of justice to have anyone in the public eye given all this publicity when eventually it turns out that there is nothing in it. Any one of us might be put in this position, and people would come out of the woodwork to make allegations, as they tend to do.
Of course, if it is of help that a name is published, let us have it supervised by a judge. That is the basic control that is required. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, indicated earlier, if people are to be encouraged to come forward, why do they not come forward after a charge has been made? After a charge, everyone would know that a particular person is going to go before a court. Why should it be at the moment of arrest, when the evidence is only one-10th complete at that stage in many cases? I support the amendment.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but it seemed to me that he undermined his case right at the beginning when he said that there were allegations that were ridiculous and had no basis at all, yet the police announced these allegations to the world. I happen to know about this because, as I was seen at the funeral of my late friend and colleague, Leon Brittan, I was for some time followed by certain people claiming that they had evidence of his wickedness. They were silly enough to state that evidence, which was total nonsense. It was without any foundation. It could not have been true.
However, I do not want to talk about my friend. I want to talk about somebody whom I do not know at all, although I have met him: Lord Bramall. The allegation against Lord Bramall could have been proved to have been entirely wrong merely by looking at the date on which it was claimed, because at that point he was in a public place, at which it could not have been as alleged. The issue is not that we wish to restrict the opportunities of giving to others the chance to come forward. It is simply, narrowly, to say that somebody other than the police has to be involved before such an announcement is made in public.
There are too many examples of the police giving information to others in all sorts of circumstances. A relation of mine was in precisely such circumstances. What the police told the press was entirely proper and complimentary, but she did not want that to be given out. But the police did—they were clearly paid for it—and it resulted in a long and extremely congratulatory article. The issue was that the police decided that they would make that decision, when there was no reason for it. That was a happy example, but there are some terrible examples. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we cannot live in a society in which there is no guard against those who give out such information before a charge has been laid.
All we are saying—the two amendments have different ways of doing this and it may be that neither is satisfactory—is that it should not be up to an individual policeman or an individual police force to make this kind of allegation before there is any charge. It should go to someone else. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, this someone else may not be able to judge whether allowing this will bring forward more witnesses, but what he or she is able to judge is whether it is a load of old rubbish. At least he or she can assess whether what is proposed as the basis for investigation has some foundation. That is why it is perfectly proper to say that a judge or a magistrate might take this role.
I therefore beg my friend—I can call him that because the noble Lord and I are usually on the same side—to recognise that it is too dangerous an insult to the British legal system for people to be seen as guilty when they are innocent on the say-so of an individual policeman. All I am asking is that it should be on the say-so, in the quietness and care of a proper circumstance, of someone whose future does not depend on the publicity, who can look at the evidence and say, “Really, officer, I don’t think there looks like being anything in that because of x, y and z. Perhaps you might find out more about it before you move in this way”. That is what we ask.
Lord Pannick
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he think it is in the interests of the potential defendant for a judge to determine that there really is something in the allegations, and therefore to authorise that publicity is appropriate? Is that not seriously damaging to the presumption of innocence?
Lord Deben
Not at all. The fact is that what the judge would be deciding is whether that name should be put forward at that point, and in most cases he would probably say no. I can think of very few cases when publishing the name in connection with an allegation would reduce the number of people coming forward if that name were later published at the point of an actual charge. It would therefore affect a limited number; in fact I do not believe there are any in this group. But if there were, I would want someone to be able to say, “In this particular case, it is so important that I will allow it to be done”.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I was not intending to take part in this debate. However, with his great skill as an advocate, he has persuaded me to support my noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment. I want to try to explain why. The main reason is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his usual brilliant, destructive analytical skill, has explained objections to the amendments but has not answered the fundamental question from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont: what safeguards does he propose to put in place of either or both these amendments? I am sure we will hear that from the Minister in her reply.
As a lifelong friend of Leon Brittan and his wife, during that one year while he was dying I witnessed the destruction of both of them through the callous misconduct of the police service, to which there was and is no effective remedy. The United States, which takes due process very seriously under its written constitution, has not abolished the grand jury. When the grand jury is investigating a federal crime, the one thing that is absolutely clear is that there must be no publicity for any of the evidence that it is investigating before deciding whether to recommend that the prosecution should be brought. The reason for that is the same reason that noble Lords have expressed today about the unsatisfactory nature of our legal system at present—it is the need to protect the innocent before the presumption of innocence has been applied at a trial.
Whether either of these amendments is acceptable or not, I believe that some kind of safeguard is needed—not just through guidance or a code of practice, but a binding legal rule that will protect people in the position of Lord and Lady Brittan from the kind of scurrilous allegations that were made, and the misconduct of the police in failing even to tell them before he died that they were satisfied there was no evidence against him. They allowed him to die not knowing that. There needs to be a prophylactic rule. If the Minister is against these amendments, I ask her to indicate in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, what the Government propose instead.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions over the years, most recently in Committee on this Bill. I start where I left off on the last occasion, when I quoted the case of a woman who rifles through the dustbin of a reputable consultant, finds a used condom, smears the contents on herself and makes a false allegation of rape. As the accused has no right to anonymity, he is suspended as a consultant psychiatrist, hauled before the GMC, shunned by his friends, attacked on the internet, loses £100,000 that was part of his income, and is totally discredited in his own community. A life destroyed as indeed was the case made by Cliff Richard when he recently attended a meeting in the House.
I do not want to do a rerun of the speech I gave on a previous occasion. Suffice to say that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on that occasion and on this occasion, as a former serving police officer, in my view—and I say to others to read what he said in Committee—made the case completely. My contribution on that occasion was a modest add-on, as indeed it will be today. It will be about the political background to this matter.
Over the years, the resistance has essentially been in the Commons, but the Commons membership has now changed. Anyone who knows procedure in the Commons will know the position there is very different from in here. One can table an amendment in here and have it heard; in the Commons that is not the case. It has to go through two obstacles. First, it might not be selected by Mr Speaker, because there is a selection of amendments in the Commons. Secondly, it might not be heard because of the procedural changes that were made at the beginning of this decade in the use of the guillotine and timetabling in the House of Commons. I am arguing tonight that we please give the Commons the opportunity to consider again this matter, which it has not been able to consider for some years.
What support do we have for the change? The fifth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2003 unanimously said, in the Commons, that,
“we believe that sex crimes do fall ‘within an entirely different order’ to most other crimes. In our view, the stigma that attaches to sexual offences … is enormous and the accusation alone can be devastating. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by an acquittal”.
This all-party Select Committee in the House of Commons in 2003 went on to recommend unanimously,
“that the anonymity of the accused be protected only for a limited period between allegation and charge”.
Then in 2003 an amendment was moved by Lord Ackner, whom some Members may recall. I understand that he was a prominent Silk, much called on nationally for his services, and a judge. I want to read the wording of his amendment in 2003 on “Anonymity of defendant in rape etc. cases”:
“The defendant in rape etc. cases shall enjoy the same right to anonymity as is enjoyed by the complainant”.
In other words, he was arguing for anonymity not just at charge nor even to conviction but beyond, in the event that a person was not found guilty. I have the Division list here. When that matter was brought before this House, all those on the Conservative Benches—who I am told are being whipped today; I hope that is not the case—voted in favour of the Ackner amendment for anonymity through the whole process, which would mean that, if someone was not convicted, they would retain their anonymity and would be identified only in the event of a successful conviction.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer argued during the same Bill that pre-charge and accused persons should not be named. He supported ACPO guidance. That is one of the problems: the guidance does not work. That is why we are standing here today. If the current guidance worked, there would be no need for an amendment. It does not work. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is unfortunately—
Lord Campbell-Savours
Oh, she is here. What my noble friend said is very interesting, because she is one of the great lawyers on our side specialising in human rights. Perhaps I may draw attention to her view at the time on anonymity right through to conviction. She said:
“I strongly urge that this House does not consider allowing anonymity for anyone who is charged with rape. But the Government might look sensitively at the issue of whether someone should be covered with anonymity until the point of being charged … The reason that women will come forward when they see that a man has been charged with rape is because they are confident that they will not be so readily disbelieved if he is clearly doing it to other women”.—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1085-6.]
It is quite clear that, at that time, my noble friend at least had some sympathy for the principle behind today’s amendment.
The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, told Parliament that he believed that,
“there was a case for saying that between arrest and charge there was a case for anonymity”.
“I think”, he went on to say,
“this does represent a good way forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/10; col. 428.]
My right honourable friend Caroline Flint, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, said,
“the serial nature of the crime that we are talking about is important, because when a crime is reported and people hear the name of the person who has been charged, they feel confident to come forward and stand by the victims”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 150.]
Even there, from a spokesman from the Labour Front Bench in the Commons, is an admission that, post-charge, people do come forward. I am not claiming that she would support me on this amendment, but I ask the House to judge her view on the basis of the record to which I just referred.
The Home Affairs Select Committee report in 2014 stated:
“We recommend that the … right to anonymity should also apply to the person accused of the crime, unless and until they are charged with an offence”.
In other words, for the second time the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, only two years ago, made the same recommendation—again unanimous.
We then have Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, a practitioner in the field dealing with these matters. He too says he supports pre-charge anonymity.
Finally, there is the letter of 24 March last year from Theresa May, who is now the Prime Minister, to Keith Vaz, which says:
“The Government accepts the committee’s conclusion”—
that is, the report I just referred to, supporting pre-charge anonymity—
“that there should, in general, be a right to anonymity before the point of charge, but there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named”.
All these assurances are diluted by the guidance being given to police officers, because that guidance does not work. It is about time that we stood up in Parliament, recognised the deficiency in the way the law is operating and put on the statute book something that requires police officers to operate in a particular way. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests in his amendment, they should at least be required to apply to a judge for permission to release a name.
The product of all this law as it currently exists, and the present arrangements, is that reputations are undermined, families are discredited—as I said in my contribution in Committee—there are suicides, public lives and reputations are destroyed, and individuals are sacked from their employment. I have a desk full of letters written over the last 15 years by men all over the country—many of them in prisons; we do not know what happened in those particular cases—objecting to the way the law works.
I implore the House: please give the House of Commons the opportunity to reconsider this matter. If I lose in the Commons, fair enough—but at least give the Commons the opportunity. It is in our hands. If we vote for the amendment tonight, the Commons will reconsider the matter.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Paddick. I apologise for not having been here right at the beginning of the debate. Reflecting something said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I should state that although this issue affects a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, it affects multiples of ordinary people who are not Members of your Lordships’ House, who have been affected by regional publicity in such cases.
I am almost as dyed in the wool—indeed, dyed in the Welsh wool—a criminal lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and I recall two criminal trials in which I appeared that particularly disturb me. In one, which I prosecuted, the defendant was, to my enormous surprise, convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, and had to wait a number of months before the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on very good grounds. In the second, a case in which I defended, my client was convicted of a number of offences and subsequently, after I had been sacked as his counsel, deservedly won his appeal. Those are just examples of the many cases up and down the country in which local and regional publicity has been a powerful driver.
I want to make two points—they are of quality—which were not covered by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, either in his speech this afternoon or in the article he wrote on this subject, which I read a little time ago. The first relates to the quality of non-recent sexual offences. In relation to most offences on the criminal calendar, there is no doubt that a crime has been committed and the investigation is as to who committed that crime and whether that person interviewed was involved in that crime. In the case of non-recent sexual offences, it does not need me to persuade your Lordships’ House that there have been numerous allegations of offences which never occurred. The damage that can be done—wherein I move to my second point—when the police work on the assumption that the complainant, often called the victim, is telling the truth means that those cases are quite different. I am not making this up.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord ended his remarks by saying that a grave injustice is caused to those when you have publicity of the kind identified, and I entirely agree. It has been very well illustrated by what my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Deben said about Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan. I was Lord Brittan’s PPS in the other place and I know how deeply distressing the allegations were. That also applies to Harvey Proctor; the allegations against him were wholly grotesque and must be immensely damaging. So there really is an underlying mischief of a very serious kind. My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, are much to be congratulated on bringing forward these amendments.
If I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, my former pair for a short period of time in the other place, he is absolutely right—the problem will not go away. That means that we have an opportunity to address it. It is a continuing problem for this reason: usually the information is disclosed by a police officer, usually for money. That is not going to go away unless we intervene by statute. The truth always is that, if you give power to officials or opportunities to officials, on occasion they will abuse it. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, rightly asked about the safeguards. Although I look forward very much to my noble friend’s contribution from the Front Bench, I do not think for one moment that there are effective safeguards outside statute.
I turn briefly to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, Amendment 182. I agree with one part of it very robustly. His is much more far-reaching than is the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, because it applies to all offences—and I think that he is right about that. Allegations of fraud can achieve very high publicity and be immensely damaging, so I have a great deal of sympathy with the scope of Amendment 182. Where I have greater doubt is with two other parts of the amendment. With respect to the accused person, there is no provision for him or her to consent to publicity as there is in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. Secondly, I am uncomfortable about the concept of the magistrates’ court being the court in which representations as to public interest are to be determined. I am in favour very much of what the noble Lord says with regard to the judge of the Crown Court.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is a much more distinguished lawyer than I am ever going to be, but there are two points that I would make. First, he says that there may be occasions when an accused person will not be charged because witnesses will not come forward, absent publicity. There is truth in that, but then you have to look at the proportionality of the whole. Yes, there may be one or two such cases, but for an awful lot of cases great injustice will be done to people against whom allegations are made that are wholly unfounded. Finally, the noble Lord suggests that the judges in chambers will not be able to assess and determine the relevant arguments and whether there is a public interest in disclosure. There may be some force in that, but I think not much at the end of the day, because judges in chambers and Crown Court judges are pretty experienced about this sort of thing. They will have to consider quite frequently public interest immunity certificates which have very broad quality concerns attached to them. So in applying the principle of proportionality, the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is wrong in that respect. I make one rider: I hope that the rules of the court which will doubtless be introduced if the amendment is passed will make provision for the person against whom the allegations are made to have the opportunity to make representations to the Crown Court judge.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I shall not support his amendment, should he seek your Lordships’ opinion—but, unless my noble friend Lady Williams surprises me with her argumentation, I shall support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad I arrived in time to hear my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours praying me in aid of this amendment, because I do indeed support it. That may surprise many people, because I am ardently an exponent of justice for women and keen to see that the system is alert to the ways in which women often are failed by it. I have written about this for all my professional life of 40 years in the courts. I take this position and I have not changed, my noble friend will be happy to know.
At the time, back in 2003, the point that I was making in opposing Lord Ackner’s amendment was that Lord Ackner was taking issue with the fact that women got anonymity so why should not poor men charged with rape get anonymity? He suggested having equality. It was an argument that was, I am afraid, familiar to me from old judges: “You want equality, Ms Kennedy, we will give you equality”. It did not take account of the fact that the lives of women in society are so often different from those of men. With rape, particularly, women often just could not face coming before the courts to testify against the person who had raped and violated them. I do not have to rehearse in this House the whole baggage around rape: we know why women have been handicapped in coming forward and why the statistics are so low. We know the difficulty of dealing with things that happen in private, but we also know the ways in which women’s whole lives would be affected by the sense of dishonour attached to rape, and for many women this is still the case. Many more women are becoming brave and saying they do not need anonymity but it was given to women in the 1970s to try to redress the balance of law’s historical failure. It recognised something that I want to say very slowly to this House: treating as equal those who are not equal does not create equality.
We do justice by looking beyond the courtroom doors and knowing what really goes on in society. For that reason, we introduced anonymity into the system when that flew in the face of principle. We do not want anonymity in our courts. We want people to stand there and accuse, to face their accuser and to hear what the evidence is. We want justice to be open and for the public to hear it. But the decision was made to give anonymity to women to encourage them to come forward when these terrible events had happened to them. Lord Ackner advocated—and he found some friends in the House—that we had equality in 2003 and should treat everybody equally. But if we had equality, we would not still be hearing women arguing for equal pay and about domestic violence and violence towards women.
You cannot give total anonymity to an accused all the way through a trial because we know that there are cases where people come forward at the right point and say, “This happened to me, too”. If the Savile case and others have taught us anything it is precisely that. However, you do not solve one injustice by visiting another injustice on people. That is why I feel very strongly that the police should not disclose names until the point of charging. We have here a rather unpleasant alchemy of the police and media coming together. I have worked on many cases where a tip-off was given by police to the press who were then standing outside the police station to photograph people as they exited. It never comes to a charge, but the accusation has already been made. Why does that happen, you may ask yourself? In the old days it used to be because the police officer had been promised a drink or a case of whisky would be sent round at Christmas from the local newspaper or a more major national one. I am afraid it could take even more unpleasant forms than the drink at Christmas.
I remind the House that not long ago a woman called Rebekah Brooks—then Rebekah Wade—gave evidence to a Select Committee about the amount of money paid by her newspaper to police officers for precisely the kind of information we have been talking about, which blights people’s lives. From Cliff Richard to Paul Gambaccini, a whole set of people have suffered the consequences of this kind of publicity. The strength of this amendment is that it is not saying that the door is closed. Many women are assisted by the fact that other women will ultimately come forward because they hear that a charge has at last been brought against somebody. They are not standing alone and then they have courage. However, you also have to prevent other injustices. That is why you protect people by giving them the cover of anonymity until the point of charging. Then, and only then, should a name be put into the public domain.
How do we deal with police misbehaviour? I know there are noble Lords who do not think the police ever misbehave: they do. Happily, it does not happen as often as many people think but it is too often and police misbehaviour is behind most of this kind of publicity. If the standing order is not working and the principles are not being adhered to, how can you give teeth to preventing police officers doing this? The only way is if they face sacking or prosecution if they are discovered to have interfered with due process. We must have stronger responses to police misbehaviour of this kind.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the issues raised by these amendments are extremely difficult. First, in view of all that has been said, it is difficult to distinguish, from this aspect, between sexual offences and other offences. There is much to be said for the view that if pre-charge publicity is to be outlawed, it should be so for all offences.
My second point relates to the safeguard, embodied in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, of application to a magistrates’ court for an order. I think I am right in saying that in respect of both Lord Bramall and Sir Cliff Richard there must have been a warrant to search their homes. A warrant of that kind must have been based on some sort of evidence that was accepted by, I assume, a magistrate. There is, therefore, a question about whether it is a sufficient safeguard for a magistrate to give the order. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, if a judge has said that there is enough to go forward, there is a slight difficulty in the clear way to a trial because a judge has already come to some point of view. However, that point of view is not that the accused is guilty; it is that there is sufficient difficulty in the evidence that in that judge’s judgment it would be right, in the interest of justice to all parties, for publicity to be allowed. There is a lot to be said for the view that publicity, up to the moment of charge, should not generally be allowed for sexual offences or others.
I have not found it easy to come to a conclusion about this and I have thought about it a fair amount. I have come to the conclusion that Amendment 182 is better but I would like to see a possible modification, in the light of what I have said, of the responsibility for allowing the matter. As I said, I think there were magistrates’ warrants for search in the two cases I mentioned: they turned out not to be particularly satisfactory.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I have been quoted on both sides, so I want to say something for myself. The most shocking aspect, to me, of the issues we are discussing was the BBC helicopter flying overhead while Sir Cliff Richard’s home was searched. There are many different aspects. Many of your Lordships have spoken today of your concerns about individuals you have known or individuals about whom you have known, who have been, in effect, traduced and brought low by publicity in the way in which we have been discussing. I do not support any such publicity, but I respectfully wonder whether we are addressing the wrong remedy in the wrong Act. For example, what is there to prevent a simple Act of Parliament that makes it a criminal offence for a police officer to disclose the name of any individual who is suspected of a crime, before he has been arrested? It should not be too difficult.
I do not want to repeat what I said last time, but the problem I invite noble Lords to consider is this. An arrest has to be justified. An arrest that is not based on reasonable grounds for suspicion is unlawful. Notice that I pick the moment of arrest—I am not talking about the allegation or the police officer telephoning the local press to say, “We are about to arrest the local schoolmaster”, or whatever it may be; nor am I addressing the issue in the context of sexual offences. The same story should apply to all offences.
An arrest must be lawful. Please can we bear in mind what the consequences of a lawful arrest are? You are detained. You are removed from your home, if that is where you are on arrest, or the street, the town or the city, or your office, or even when you are out having a drink with your friends. You are removed and you are not a volunteer: you have to go. If you resist arrest, you are committing an offence, and down to the police station you go, if that is where they take you. But you are completely in the hands of the arresting officer, and you go through a process. You remain detained, either while further investigations are made or until such time as further evidence emerges or it is decided that, after all, you can be allowed to go, for now, on bail. This is a process that nobody goes into voluntarily. Please can we remember that it is the first stage in the operation of the criminal justice process—and often, of course, culminates in a trial, conviction and sentence.
My concern about both these amendments is that they fail to address the problem that arrest is part of the criminal justice process. If they are adopted or if either one is adopted, we end up not with a situation that is incommunicado, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We end up with a veil being drawn against any reporting of the fact that one of our fellow citizens has been arrested. I find that troublesome.
The idea of criminal justice being secret is abhorrent to all of us in this country; we do not want formal trials to be conducted in secret. This part of the process, I suggest, should not be seen as a private matter. The exercise of the power to arrest and the consequences of it are public matters. There are many hard cases we have heard about and there has been much abuse of the process, but these issues should be addressed in a different form of legislation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have been listening with a great deal of care to all that has been said. I have no doubt that Amendment 182 does not go quite far enough, in the sense that if there is to be the intervention of legal process before a court, it needs to be by a judge and not a magistrate. I am in the extremely unusual position of not knowing which way I am likely to vote. I find it very difficult. I am very attracted by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, says: that prior to charge, no one who is being investigated should have the information disclosed. But I do think that one has to point out—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other noble Lords pointed out—that sexual offences, particularly with celebrities, are a special case that sells newspapers. In one of the magistrates’ courts where I used to prosecute and defend as a very young barrister, the custody officer told me that it was £25 for the information to be provided. So one knows about it, and the police have, indeed, been criticised.
I happen to know someone prominent in a particular career—I will not say which—who is about to be charged with an offence committed at the age of 13 against a girl of seven. Everybody locally knows about it. For him, that is quite as awful as it would have been for Lord Bramall or Lord Brittan, save for the fact that this man is not likely to be dying. But this very personal thing—it may or may not be true—of someone in their forties or fifties accused of what he did at the age of 13, which has suddenly come out in relation to a girl of seven, is a shock.
The question that I pose to the Minister is this. If we do not do anything by way of legislation, what can we do to protect those who are innocent and have been vilified, and those who may be innocent, and the presumption of innocence, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has rightly pointed out, is there but is totally ignored by the media, and consequently largely ignored by the public? The approach that “there is no smoke without fire” is attractive, and if the press say something—well, it may be true. If we do not do anything, how do we stop an injustice? With huge hesitation, therefore, I am likely to support the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, rather than my very close friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I was the Home Secretary back in 2003 when, as has been referred to this afternoon, many of these issues were debated, and I was responsible for the justice system at that time. We struggled with it then and we struggle with it today. I commend the debate and the very substantial arguments that have been made on both sides. I am struggling to know which way to vote on Amendment 182. My instincts are to vote with the Government but to require an answer to the question that the noble Baroness has just put. It is made more difficult now, in 2016 and going into 2017, than it was 14 years ago. The reason for that is social media.
I take the point very strongly that the arrest is part of the process. Arrest prior to charge is extraordinarily difficult to deal with, if someone’s name is out on social media but they then cannot make statements that can be reported in the mainstream press, to actually indicate at least some side of the story that they are intent on putting. With the best intentions, we may take the wrong decision—as usual, for the right reasons—and end up with people who we seek to protect not being able, in the present era of social media, to protect themselves. I look forward to the Minister pulling together the very difficult arguments at the end of this debate.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long, either. We have rightly concentrated on the rights of the innocent; they are fundamental to our system. But I will address your Lordships very briefly on the position of victims. Victims’ groups complain, not without justification, that in the past they have not always been taken seriously by the police or prosecuting authorities. Victims need to be encouraged to come forward. We should not underestimate the courage it takes to report offences of the sort we are concerned with to the police. You may not be believed. You may have to face—so you think—the ordeal of being cross-examined by men in wigs who suggest that you have lied. You may feel very alone, particularly if you have been abused by someone in authority.
Noble Lords will have seen the footballers coming forward many years after the event, and the courage that it took and the incredible upset that it caused them in a macho culture to admit what had happened so many years ago. I take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of someone in a care home. They come to the police many years later. Their evidence is the first of any sort of being abused in a care home by somebody who runs the care home. After they have given their account, the man who is running the care home denies vociferously that he abused this character. There is a suggestion that he may have come forward for financial motive. But what if others come forward? The first complainant may feel that he cannot go through with the matter at all unless some of the other people, whom he knows very well have been abused, do so.
In Committee, I raised the point with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that I was concerned that his amendment might result in the police charging rather earlier than they would otherwise have done because they want to flush out potential corroborative witnesses; and that that might be inappropriate. I did not suggest there was any lack of bona fides on the part of the police; this is a very difficult decision to make. However, I suggest that there is that real risk, even with CPS involvement. It is most important that people are encouraged to come forward to give evidence in appropriate cases.
Of course, safeguards have been mentioned, whether in the magistrates’ court or the High Court, but this is a police operational matter. Despite judges’ ability to deal with many difficult things, it is not the right case for them to consider. I suggest that if there is a need for a tightening of the guidelines or for further offences that deal with police behaviour, so be it. But, focusing on the victim, I am for the moment not satisfied that there needs to be a change in the law.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will address a couple of points briefly. First, I will address the difference between Amendments 182 and 187 on the central question of whether it is right to extend pre-charge anonymity to all offences or to sexual offences only. I completely appreciate the logic of the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn between sexual offences on the one hand and other offences on the other.
I believe that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was right about this. It seems to me that a particular stigma attaches to accusations of sexual offences, which is generally more difficult to rebut where such accusations are made than where an accusation is made of another offence against the person or of offences against property. It is often far more difficult in sexual offence cases to clear conclusively and for ever the name of a suspect who is not charged than it is in the case of other offences. As the noble and learned Baroness pointed out, there is also the interest of the press in sexual offence cases. I suggest that that is why so much publicity has been given to sexual offences, particularly historical offences, in this debate and in your Lordships’ House generally.
A further point is that the nature of the evidence in sexual offences tends to be historical and tends to involve pitting the word of the claimant against the word of the victim. In those circumstances, the no smoke without fire rubric gains currency. I see this as a question of balance in which the balance in the all-offences case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, comes down against pre-charge anonymity, whereas it comes down in favour of it in respect of sexual offences. It is a case of the robustness and security that we as a society allow to the presumption of innocence.
The second question I wish to address is that of the stage at which anonymity should cease. I entirely take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that the arrest is part of the criminal process and therefore that there is, generally speaking, a public right to know because the liberty of the subject is being taken away at that early stage. However, I cannot get away from the central point that arrest can be effected by a police officer on reasonable suspicion only. That reasonable suspicion frequently arises when the suspect has been given no chance to offer a full explanation which, if he were offered that opportunity, might dispel the suspicion altogether—whereas, to justify a charge, it has to be shown that there is evidence which would, if it were accepted at a trial, lead to a conviction by a court of law. I believe that that distinction is important, and that again the balance is against lifting anonymity at arrest and keeping it therefore at charge.
I then come to the question of witnesses coming forward. I completely appreciate the concern that exists around the House and outside it that witnesses should not be deterred from coming forward. But I also agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that in most cases, if evidence from further witnesses is available, it will come forward after charge, so that forbidding pre-charge publicity will delay further evidence rather than prevent it coming to light altogether. There is nevertheless a concern, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Pannick, about the possibility of pre-charge anonymity preventing genuine witnesses—notably other victims—coming forward with allegations that might lead to a suspect being charged when he would otherwise escape justice altogether. That is why the detail of the proviso inserted in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Paddick addresses this point precisely, and it is very different from the amendment that was presented in Committee.
Under this amendment a judge is entitled to say that he is,
“satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to remove or vary a restriction provided for”,
and to,
“direct that the restriction shall be lifted or shall be limited to such extent and on such terms as the judge considers the interests of justice require”.
The amendment further states:
“In considering an application … the judge shall have particular regard to the possibility that further witnesses might volunteer evidence relating to sexual offences allegedly committed by the person”.
I believe that that is the best we can do in striking a balance between encouraging witnesses to come forward and enabling them to know about allegations in appropriate cases, and protecting suspects from unjust publicity that causes the dreadful consequences of which we have all heard.
It is all a question of balance and I appreciate that it is a very difficult balance to strike. But I suggest to your Lordships’ House that the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Paddick strikes that balance accurately and should be supported.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, concluded his comments by saying that it is a matter of balance. I would concur with that view, but the balance concerned depends on which side of the fence you feel you might fall. I do not intend to detain the House for too long, since we have already had a number of Members expressing a desire to hear from the Minister. Nevertheless, I do intend to set out our position.
We do not support either of these amendments. Amendment 182 provides for pre-charge anonymity in all cases, including sexual offences, except where a magistrates’ court decides otherwise. Amendment 187 provides for pre-charge anonymity where a person has been accused of committing a sexual offence unless a judge decides otherwise. I am not a lawyer, and it may well be that my lack of knowledge of the law will be displayed in what I have got to say. But at present, as I understand it, there is an assumption of anonymity before the point of charge, except where the police decide to use their discretion in cases where they believe that disclosure of the identity of the person suspected but not charged is likely, for example, to lead to further evidence coming forward which will enable a stronger case to be made, which will enhance the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
We had a lengthy debate in Committee on the issue of pre-charge anonymity. We on this side acknowledged that a case could be made for going down this road. However, we also referred to the reality that there is evidence—for example, in sexual offence cases, where disclosing the name of the person alleged to have committed such offences has led to other victims coming forward and to a stronger case being able to be made against the accused to secure a successful prosecution. We have evidence that victims of sexual offences are often reluctant to come forward because of feelings that they will not be believed if it is their word alone against that of the alleged perpetrator. This is particularly so where that individual is a well-known and respected—at least, respected at that time—figure. We know too that there are sometimes feelings of shame about such offences, or feelings that such offences have to be tolerated, and a desire not to talk about it. These are feelings that are being expressed now with respect to the rapidly emerging scandal of sexual offences against young people in the football world—people are coming forward now that they know they are not alone.
We know too that the reporting of and convictions for sexual abuse cases are very low. Perhaps we should be spending some time considering why that is the case. We also need to take into account the fact that victims of sexual abuse—innocent people in spades—have had their lives darkened, including when the sexual offences were committed by well-known public figures. Of course, the victims themselves are rarely well-known public figures. During the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, one reason we gave for not changing the law was precisely to avoid giving the impression that there is a presumption of doubt about the credibility of the complainant in sexual offence cases. I am afraid I do not wholeheartedly agree with what I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was saying. Frankly, granting anonymity specifically for those suspected of sexual offences could imply that a person making a complaint in respect of such an offence was not to be believed in the same way as someone making a complaint involving another individual in relation to any other kind of serious offence, such as murder, fraud or, yes, child cruelty.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not a lawyer. When the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, say this is a very difficult issue, I know that this is a very difficult issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for retabling the amendment on pre-charge anonymity for those accused of sexual offences and to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for his amendment, which proposes pre-charge anonymity for a person accused of any crime. I know this is a subject which we have debated frequently and in which noble Lords have a great deal of interest, and we have the legal experts of the land here to assist us.
Like other noble Lords have said, I will not repeat all the points I gave in my responses to the amendment in Committee, save to say that the Government fully understand the anguish felt by those who have had their reputation questioned and tarnished following unfounded allegations made against them. My noble friend Lord Lamont very articulately outlined the names of some of them, although I will not go into individual cases. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, indicated in our earlier debate, such anguish will arise whether the unfounded allegation was in relation to allegations of sexual offences, which is the premise of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or with regard to other offences, which is the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment.
However, I reiterate that the notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says, is absolutely central to our justice system and the rule of law. There must never be an assumption that being charged or arrested for any offence indicates that a person is guilty of a crime, so the Government have every sympathy for the underlying aims behind both of these amendments. As noble Lords will know, the Government also start from the position that there should, in general, be a presumption of anonymity before the point of charge and believe that there is also a general acceptance that there will none the less be exceptional circumstances in which the public interest means a suspect should be named. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, articulated that. The Government’s position remains that we are not persuaded that legislation is the right way forward at this time.
As with any offence, it is absolutely right and proper for the police to have operational independence in deciding whether to name a suspect, and the Government firmly believe that non-statutory guidance, rather than primary legislation, is the appropriate vehicle for guiding the police in these operational decisions. It is absolutely vital that the police are able to exercise their own judgment and act swiftly in circumstances where releasing the name of a suspect may, for example, prevent further harm. The introduction of a statutory scheme would hamper the police’s ability to act in this way. We know that such identification can help other victims to recognise that they are not the only ones who have suffered, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said. This is particularly the case with regard to sexual abuse allegations, where the ability of the police to name an individual accused of such an offence might give encouragement to other victims to overcome their reluctance to come forward—and many of them are very reluctant. Victims must feel that they can report the abuse to the police as well as get the support they need.
We have seen recently the significant effect of increased willingness by victims to report what happened to them in the shocking scale and nature of allegations of non-recent child sexual abuse in football. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery that some ex-footballers have shown in coming forward publicly after so much time in what must have been terribly difficult personal circumstances. Their courage has clearly given confidence to many others to come forward. But had the legislation put forward by these amendments been in place today, the media in this country could have been prevented from reporting the claims of some of these alleged victims. Of course, as with any allegation, it is now for the police to take forward and investigate in order to establish the facts and, where appropriate, to bring prosecutions.
A question was asked—I cannot remember by which noble Lord—about whether the police should believe all victims. The police should always focus on the credibility of the allegation rather than on the credibility of the witness. As I have just outlined in the case of allegations in football, I cannot emphasise strongly enough that we must not undermine victims’—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I do not quite understand how the shocking cohort of football cases relates to the issue in these amendments. These football cases have not followed a specific arrest or arrests. Indeed, the three convictions of Barry Bennell in 1994, 1998 and, I think, 2002, did not produce a cohort of reporting; media publicity of the issue, not of an arrest, produced it. So what does it have to do with this issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am trying to illustrate that alleged victims’ willingness to come forward is now more common because they feel that they can come forward and they are more likely to be believed. There are not huge numbers of convictions in sexual abuse trials, and to go back to the position where anonymity was granted would be a retrograde step.
Lord Paddick
Can the Minister clarify that? I think she just said that there is a low conviction rate in trials involving sexual offences. That is not accurate. In rape cases, for example, the conviction rate at trial is more or less over 50% and more or less in line with the conviction rate in other offences.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Many cases do not come to trial. I was trying to illustrate the reluctance of people to come forward. People are still reluctant to do so, and the Government do not want to create an environment in which we go back to the practices of times gone by, which is why we have so many allegations of historic sex offences.
Noble Lords asked about safeguards, and of course, as my noble friend Lord Faulks said, we have the magistrates’ court and the High Court. We have College of Policing guidance, which states that the police should not routinely release information about suspects before charge. However, it also makes clear that there are limited circumstances in which the release of such information can be justified.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister address the issue that was raised by most of the speakers, on the position of people who commit suicide, whose families break up, whose reputations are destroyed or whose careers end, or who are destroyed in their communities, only because the Government of the day—of both major parties—have insisted on pursuing this arrangement, which is clearly not in the public interest? Will the noble Baroness address the agony of the people involved? The fact that some of them are prominent is not so important. Hundreds—there may well be thousands; we do not know—of people out there suffer similarly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I addressed that right at the beginning of my speech, when I said that the Government completely acknowledge the pain that some people have gone through in the course of the last few years—and in the course of history—due to being wrongly accused of crimes which they did not commit. I absolutely acknowledge that point. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that it is an incredibly difficult issue, and I recognise that.
I was going to say something else. The College of Policing is currently developing—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The Minister acknowledges that there is a problem and that there have been cases of monstrous injustice to individuals. Several of us have asked whether the Government will go forward, not backwards, with some alternative to either of these amendments. Can she tell us precisely what she proposes to do, with revised guidance, codes of practice or anything else, so that we can be satisfied that the Government will solve the problem?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I was just about to say—I do not know whether the noble Lord will be satisfied by it—that the College of Policing is currently developing authorised professional practice on media relations, and its guidance makes it clear that decisions should be made only on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the releasing of names. I am not sure that I have satisfied noble Lords but I have tried to explain how we have tried to achieve balance in the protection of anonymity for persons who are accused pre-charge.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I wonder whether the Minister is going to deal with this difficult issue with its complicated argument by referring it to the Law Commission so we can have an independent view that may not be forthcoming from the College of Policing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that I have explained that the Government feel that we currently have the balance right and that we should preserve that presumption of anonymity—so I will not be doing what the noble and learned Lord suggests. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will not press his.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, there are two differences between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests that a judge should arbitrate on the question of anonymity. The second is that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, restricts his anonymity to sexual offences of various sorts. I give way at once on the question of who should deal with the anonymity. It is probably too complicated and difficult to be done by a magistrate and the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern about warrants probably not being justified in two of the cases we mentioned is a good one. On that I would certainly be ready to change my amendment.
On the question of whether it should apply widely or merely narrowly to sexual offences, I will give three examples of why it should apply widely. First, I was struck by the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, on the benefit of it being wider. Secondly, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was attracted by that. So, too, were my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will just give three examples of why that should be the case.
My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the case of Mr Jefferies of Bristol, whose whole life was traduced and ruined. It was nothing to do with sex; it was to do with a case of murder. If ever there was an example of somebody who should not have been named in the way that he was, it would be him. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned care homes. Abuse in care homes, even in children’s homes, can be of a non-sexual nature. It can be malicious or psychopathic. There have been many cases also of accusations of abuse of the elderly in care homes. So I do not see the justification for saying that anonymity—whether or not we have it—should be confined only to sexual offences. If there is to be anonymity, it should be for all offences—but clearly the procedures and rules are inadequate at present and should be modified and considered.
I am afraid that I would not regard the College of Policing as the obvious candidate to rewrite this book. I would have much preferred something more serious. But I would be happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis that the Minister will come back with something rather more substantial on the need for reform—something not to be put forward in detail but to be expressed as an intention at Third Reading. I would not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, merely because I think it is quite wrong to limit it to only sexual affairs. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Disclosure of private sexual photographs and films without consent
(1) The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In section 33 (disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress)—(a) in subsection (1), after “disclose” insert “or threaten to disclose”;(b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after “distress” insert “or recklessness as to such distress being caused”;(c) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) It is also an offence to promote, solicit or profit from a private and sexual photograph or film that has been disclosed without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, knowing or believing that the same has been disclosed without such consent and with the intent to cause that individual distress, or recklessness as to such distress being caused.”;(d) omit subsection (8).(3) In section 35, omit subsections (4) and (5).”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 184 in this group. I will also mention the fact that my noble friend Lord Paddick will be dividing the House on Amendment 187—that would happen after the debate on Amendments 183 and 184.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I will not move Amendments 183 and 184.
Lord Wigley
“Victims and witnesses: disclosure
(1) A police force, police officer or Crown Prosecutor may not disclose the name of a victim or witness of a serious sexual assault or violent offence to the person accused of the offence if— (a) the parties are strangers to one another,(b) non-disclosure would not impact on the completion of a fair trial, and(c) it is reasonable to assume that such a disclosure would put the victim or witness at risk of further harm.(2) This section applies whether or not the person accused of the offence has been charged with the offence.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I realise that the House wants to move to a vote on the very important and significant debate we have just had. I do not know whether there is a mechanism whereby I could come back to Amendment 185 at Third Reading so that we do not lose this debate because this, also, is a very important question with regard to the anonymity or otherwise of people involved in rape cases. I would be grateful for some guidance on this matter.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am afraid that if the noble Lord wants to press this amendment he has to press it now. We cannot go back to it again because we have to go in order.
Lord Wigley
I will speak as rapidly as I can and I am sorry that this is going to detain the House. Amendment 185 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe of Idlicote, Lady Brinton and Lady Cohen of Pimlico. I thank them for their support.
I do not apologise in the slightest for returning to a matter that I raised in Committee, since most of the countercase put by the Government in Committee triggered dismay and incredulity among those involved in cases such as those I highlighted then. To the extent that there was any validity in the Government’s countercase, I have adjusted the wording of the amendment to respond constructively. The impact of this new clause would be to prohibit the police in England and Wales from disclosing the name of the victim of rape or attempted rape to the alleged perpetrator—
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, I would be grateful if noble Lords could be quiet because I cannot hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is saying. It is important for proceedings that I can hear and understand what he says.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful. I have rarely had that trouble in the past. As I was saying, it is the question of disclosing the name of a victim of rape or attempted rape to the alleged perpetrator where both are strangers to each other and where disclosure could potentially put the victim at further risk of harm from the accused. This is necessary because in this day and age any individual with basic IT skills, armed with the name and location of the victim, could easily obtain the full address. It is difficult to imagine circumstances where the victim would not be either at risk or feel, understandably, at risk. I remind the House that it is estimated that 10% of all rapes and attempted rapes are committed by strangers. This means that there are some 9,000 reported attacks each year. In other words, 9,000 women are being put at risk each year if their names are disclosed. There will be thousands more who never report it because of fear, shame or lack of confidence in the police and judicial system. The feelings of a victim were courageously described only last Thursday by Michelle Thomson MP in another place.
The amendment was tabled following the harrowing experiences of Victim M, to which I referred in Committee and shall now summarise briefly. I am grateful to Voice 4 Victims for providing this information. I pay tribute to them for the support they give such victims and for their determined campaigning on this and associated issues.
Victim M was followed by a stranger, attacked, suffered an attempted rape and was told to stop screaming or she would be killed. Two off-duty police officers heard her screams and arrested the man. Subsequently, M learned that the police had, in fact, given her full name to the man. This has had a devastating impact on M. She is terrified that he will find her and attack her again. He is expected to be released from serving half his seven-year sentence in July next year. M has changed her name, moved flat twice and removed herself from the electoral register to prevent him finding her.
The amendment moved in Committee was later withdrawn. Since then, Voice 4 Victims has consulted a range of experts. The clause has been redrafted to take on board those comments, especially those emanating from the police. The police have been very supportive. They themselves believe that clarification of the law is needed. From these comments it is generally agreed that a name should never be given if three conditions are met: the parties are strangers; disclosure might conceivably put the victim at risk; and non-disclosure would not undermine the completion of a fair trial, a point raised by the Minister in Committee.
After disclosure in her case, M contacted a number of police forces. Their policies on disclosure were totally inconsistent. The responses varied greatly, with no fewer than five distinct approaches followed by the police: the name being given during the interview on arrest; at the point of charge; if the case goes to court; disclosed in a statement given to the alleged perpetrator’s defence team; or not given until the case is in court, where it is a matter for the judge to decide.
M is to be commended for the comprehensive manner in which she followed up to discover such a wide and inconsistent pattern of behaviour by the police. She received a letter from Commander Jones of the Metropolitan Police, who said:
“There is no specific policy or legislation which covers the issue of providing the name of a victim of rape to the suspect. Instead it is an operational decision taken by the officer in the case on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a stranger rape, it would be very rare for the suspect to be informed at the point of arrest. For a domestic or acquaintance case, this would be more common”.
This view was reinforced by Neil Smith of the Metropolitan Police’s sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse command in the Guardian newspaper on 27 October this year.
M made contact with other victims. They have similar experiences. Victim A said, “Once he had my name he found me and messaged me on Facebook. He lives maybe a couple of hours away, so when I next moved and changed jobs I also changed my name by deed poll”. Victim B said, “I was 23. He was about 50. If he googled my name, I couldn’t think of every website it might bring up. I could kind of imagine what he might do”. Victim C said, “He was arrested a couple of days later and at that point would have been told my full name. I did not realise he was told my name then. The fact he knows my name and details is something I have always hated and part of what makes me regret ever going to the police”. I ask the House, in particular the Minister and her advisers, to note that last sentence and to ponder its far-reaching implications on whether this situation leads to people not going to the police when there has been a rape or an attempted rape. This theme is repeated by Victim D, who responded to M by saying, “Your message sums up the reasons I felt I didn’t want to go to the police. I didn’t want my life ruined by my name being released and people finding out. I suffered severe depression and was suicidal for years. Thank you for working to fix this problem”.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for all the reasons he has explained so eloquently, even though pushed to deliver them very quickly. I shall be much briefer.
If someone has been sexually assaulted by a complete stranger and has then reported the details to the police, it is clearly important that when the police then interview potential suspects they do not under any circumstances, whether the potential offender has been charged or not, disclose the identity of the victim to such suspects. In the past, perhaps, this would not have been so vital, but today if the attack has been carried out by a sexual predator, the availability of the internet, Facebook and all the other many ways of identifying where a victim lives will inevitably mean that the attacker can continue to harass their victim via all or any of these means. Indeed, I am sure noble Lords will have read many harrowing stories of just such instances—we have heard one or two of them already—where the named victim has ultimately been forced to leave the area and resettle in a completely different, new part of the country, changing their names too.
The noble Lord’s amendment is vital. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in its entirety.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I am conscious that your Lordships want to vote on Amendment 187, so I shall be brief, but I have to say that this proposal is, to my way of thinking, one of the most unjust that I have heard in your Lordships’ House for some time. It is worth identifying what it says. I shall come to the proviso in a moment, but what it says that somebody who is accused of rape is not to know the name of the accuser—the complainant. For that matter, somebody who is accused of actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm is not to know the name of the accuser or of the witnesses. I ask rhetorically: how on earth can a defendant or his representatives prepare his case for trial without knowing the name of the accuser or the witnesses? After all, they may not have been there. They may be notorious liars. There may be lots of other reasons to distrust their integrity.
The substantive clause here precludes the police from giving the name of the victim or the witnesses to the accused person. That is curiously reminiscent of the procedure underlying lettres de cachet in pre-revolutionary France, as described in A Tale of Two Cities. Let us look at the proviso, because it needs a bit of probing. The proviso in subsection 1(b) of the proposed new clause is so far as,
“non-disclosure would not impact on … a new trial”.
Who is to judge whether it impacts on a fair trial? I can tell noble Lords from the language of the proposed new clause that it is to be the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. So the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, who are party to the procedure, who are making the allegations, will judge whether it is fair to disclose the identity of the victim or the witness. How can that possibly be fair? What procedure is there in the proposed new clause for the accused person to challenge that determination? There is none at all.
We are told, “Ah, the judge will let it in”, but the judge cannot when there is an absolute prohibition. There is no procedure here whereby the decision of the police officer or the Crown Prosecution Service can be challenged. Probing a little further, what about police statements? I am sure my noble friend knows full well that police statements have to be served on the defendant prior to trial so that they can prepare and understand their case. If the identity of the witness or the victim has to be redacted out of the statements, what possible purpose is there in serving the statements at all? One merely has to identify these things to see that this would be struck down, certainly by the courts. It is a clear contravention of the provisions in the convention now in domestic law in favour of a fair trial.
Incidentally, on proposed new subsection 1(c), regarding the protection of people, bail conditions can do that. There may be a case for strengthening bail conditions but there is absolutely no case for introducing a measure that will do a profound injustice in our courts. I hope my noble friend the Minister will give a robust response to this.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Before the noble Viscount sits down, is the point not that the complainant may say that the person who allegedly assaulted him or her is a stranger but may have an oblique motive for so saying? How is the defendant therefore able to defend himself or herself without being able to know who the accuser is? It is a palpable injustice which was not covered, I regret, by the passionate speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which omitted that crucial point.
Viscount Hailsham
I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I agree with him as I agreed with him on the previous debate. We are dealing here with the possibility of profound injustice and we should guard against it.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, my name is also attached to this amendment, but I would not normally have spoken given that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, were such distinguished proponents of it. At the moment there is a choice of injustices. Perhaps we should have provided—and I should be glad to provide at Third Reading—a clause saying that a judge may decide whether the name should be disclosed. This is, however, also a modern offence. In the old days it might not have mattered very much if you disclosed only the name of the accuser. These days, the perpetrator has no trouble at all, because of the spread of social media, and these cases are more frequent.
One reads of cases all the time and I want to disentangle this from the issue of rape. It is not entirely about rape. It is about being knifed in the street or pushed under a Tube train by a perfect stranger, as I am sure we have all read about, and being terrified thereafter in case he or she comes and does it again. Therefore, I would be very grateful if the Minister would understand the strength of feeling and the injustice being done. If we can put in a clause at Third Reading offering the possibility of review by a judge if necessary, I would be glad to do so.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has explained, this amendment is designed to strengthen the protection for the victims and witnesses of a sexual or violent assault by a stranger. I sympathise with this objective but, as I indicated in Committee, there are difficulties. I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking on board the points I made in response to his earlier amendment on this issue. He has now come forward with a substantially revised amendment. I fear, however, that this serves only to highlight again the challenges of legislating in this area.
It is vital that the criminal justice system supports and protects victims and witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences, who are especially vulnerable. As I stated in Committee, there are already a number of means whereby those at risk of further harm, or who are deemed to be intimidated, can be safeguarded. I shall not repeat these measures now, other than to say that there is a wide range of options available for their protection. To intimidate a witness is a very serious criminal offence.
Of course, the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has rightly acknowledged this in the revised amendment before us today. However, to say that the identity of a victim or a witness may be withheld from the defendant except where to do so would compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial is almost always a contradiction in terms. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, fundamental to a fair trial is the right of the accused to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The accused cannot be expected to prepare a proper defence if he does not know who is accusing him of the alleged crime, and without that there can be no fair trial.
In exceptional circumstances, there is already provision for anonymity of victims or witnesses from the accused, through a witness anonymity order. A number of conditions must be met for this to apply, including that it would protect the safety of the witness or another person, that it is in the interests of justice for the witness to testify and the witness would not testify if the order were not made, and that it would be consistent with the defendant receiving a fair trial. It is an exceptional measure of last resort. This means that in the minority of cases where those accused of violent or sexual assault are strangers, the court can decide to grant victim or witness anonymity, provided these other conditions are met.
Lord Wigley
On that very point, if the court determines at that stage whether or not to release information, surely there is every case to get consistency prior to that. I quoted five cases, I think it was, of different responses by the police in different parts of London. The absence of any consistent approach to this underlines that there is a serious problem. If the Government were willing to review how the mechanism of referring to the courts, which the Minister mentioned, can be brought in in a way that avoids the variety of ad hoc responses by the police, that might be one way forward. I would be very grateful if the Minister would consider that.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The problem is that, as I said earlier, it is an exceptional measure of last resort. This means that, in the minority of cases where those accused of violent or sexual assault are strangers, the court can decide to grant victims and witnesses anonymity, provided that the conditions are met.
While I cannot for these reasons support the noble Lord’s amendment, he has raised an important point about the consistency of practice both across and within police forces about the disclosure of the address and telephone number of a victim. Crown Prosecution Service policy on prosecuting cases of rape clearly states that addresses of victims and witnesses should not be disclosed to the defendant during court proceedings. The same is true of victims’ or witnesses’ telephone numbers or email addresses. However, we do not know how aware the police are of this policy, so we will explore with the College of Policing whether it would be appropriate for additional guidance to be given to police forces to ensure that this practice is universally followed.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
Before the Minister sits down, I say that in the case with which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I are most familiar, the police disclosed the victim’s name quite automatically to the perpetrator about 20 minutes after they had arrested him on the evidence of two policemen. It is all very well to say that you can wait to have a court make a decision, but a policeman made a decision at the earliest possible stage, and that is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I are attempting to address.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot go into individual cases. CPS policy on prosecuting cases of rape clearly states that witnesses’ addresses should not be disclosed to the defendant unless already known. The CPS does not disclose the addresses, email addresses or phone numbers of victims or witnesses in any case unless already known. That is why we are looking at ways to ensure that this approach is similarly applied by police forces.
While the amendment is well intentioned, for the reasons I have given, I do not consider that it will help advance the noble Lord’s cause. He has alighted upon an important issue regarding the consistency of practice adopted by criminal justice agencies in relation to the disclosure of a vulnerable victim’s address or other contact details, and I am ready to explore further how this might best be addressed. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful. I realise that the House wants to move forward rapidly. I was grateful for the contributions made by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to the contra argument with regard to the rights of the defendant. Of course I recognise that they are important. The question seems to revolve around the inconsistency of the police response, which the Minister has accepted needs to be looked into, and whether, while it was reasonable to withhold addresses and telephone numbers in the past, it might now be necessary to withhold the name because of the ease of getting addresses from information available on computer-based systems these days. If the Government are prepared to review those aspects of the question, we will feel that we have made some progress on this issue. If the Minister can indicate that the Government are willing to look at those aspects, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
We realise that certain aspects need to be addressed, which is why I said that I am ready to explore further how this might best be addressed.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the Minister. On the basis of that assurance that there will be an investigation into those aspects of the question, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Berridge
“Forced marriage: financial protection for victims
In Part 10 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (forced marriage), after section 122A (inserted by section 151 of this Act) insert—(1) Where subsection (4) applies to a person, that person shall be treated as if he or she has been married, or is married, for the purposes of any provision or enactment, whether in statute or common law, relating to—(a) immigration;(b) pensions; or(c) financial provision or remedies, including for the purposes of Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (financial relief for parties to marriage and children of family).(2) In circumstances where a person who has been married and a person who is married would be treated differently, the person to whom subsection (4) applies may decide which marital status applies to them.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the person to whom subsection (4) applies may decide that a different marital status applies to them in different circumstances.(4) This subsection applies where— (a) the court has granted a forced marriage protection order under Part IVA of the Family Law Act 1996 in respect of a person, or(b) an offence under section 120, 121 or 122 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 has been committed against a person.””
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am mindful that the House wishes to move on this evening, and I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances dealing with the matters that I raised in my speech. I previously indicated to the Clerk of the Parliaments that I would speak to the amendment, but I will not move it this evening.
Amendment 187
Lord Paddick
“Pre-charge anonymity
(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1 insert—“1A Anonymity of suspects prior to charge(1) Where an allegation has been made that an offence to which this Act applies has been committed by a person but the person has not been charged with that offence, neither the name nor address, and no still or moving picture of that person, nor any other matter shall (without that person's consent) during that person’s lifetime—(a) be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or(b) be included in a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales,if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person by whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.(2) Subsection (1) is subject to any direction given under section 3.”(3) In section 3—(a) in subsection (1) for “to which this Act applies” substitute “to which section 1 of this Act applies”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A police officer of the rank of inspector or above may apply to a judge of the Crown Court for a direction under this subsection and if the judge is satified that it is in the interests of justice to remove or vary a restriction provided for in section 1A, the judge shall direct that the restriction shall be lifted or shall be limited to such extent and on such terms as the judge considers the interests of justice require.(4B) In considering an application under subsection (1), the judge shall have particular regard to the possibility that further witnesses might volunteer evidence relating to sexual offences allegedly committed by the person.”(4) In section 5—(a) in subsection (1) after “section 1” insert “or section 1A”;(b) in subsection (2) after “committed” insert “or the person by whom an offence is alleged to have been committed and to whom section 1A applies”.”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in the absence of any credible alternative, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Sentencing for stalking offences
(1) In section 4A(5)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), for the words “five years” substitute “ten years”.(2) At the end of section 32(4)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated harassment etc) insert “save in the case of an offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in which case the person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.””
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 187A, I declare an interest as a trustee of Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service. It is four years since a stalking law was introduced, following an amendment that I tabled in this House which was the culmination of terrific work by the independent parliamentary inquiry, whose adviser was the excellent Laura Richards and which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Howe of Idlicote. It was strongly supported by colleagues in the House of Commons, notably Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy. I pay tribute to the Government for the progress made since 2012, the introduction of the offence of coercive control and last week’s announcement of stalking orders.
Stalking destroys lives. Some 40% of the victims of domestic homicide have been stalked, including Jane Clough and Holli Gazzard, and the punishment must fit the crime. When I tabled the original amendment, it was always the intention that the maximum sentence be 10 years. However, due to the two tiers in the Protection from Harassment Act, the higher test mirrored Section 4 harassment and became five years by default. Experience now tells us that this is not enough.
My amendment mirrors a 10-minute rule Bill introduced by Alex Chalk, the Conservative MP for Cheltenham, and supported by MPs from all parties, including Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, whose constituent, Dr Eleanor Aston, was stalked for eight years by a former patient, Raymond Knight. When he was sentenced to five years—the maximum sentence—the judge stated that he would like to have given Knight a longer sentence as he was a serious risk to Dr Aston. This case is not unique; I could cite numerous other examples, including Kristine Carlson and Katie Price. Extending the maximum penalty would set the tone, allow for greater flexibility and make it clear that stalking is a serious offence. An increased maximum sentence is necessary for the most serious cases, particularly where there is repeat offending. At present a defendant who pleads guilty to this most serious offence, even if it is a repeat offence against the same victim, will serve a maximum of 20 months. This is insufficient to protect the victim.
Sadly, too few cases still result in a stalking charge, and, when they do, the sentencing does not reflect the serious nature of the crime. This was highlighted as a cause for concern when we were meeting Home Office lawyers to discuss the drafting of the stalking legislation in 2012 and given the proposed maximum sentence of five years. Training is important. So, too, are sentencing guidelines. The maximum penalty should reflect the serious impact that this psychological crime has on the victim.
Stalking is a long-term pattern of behaviour. It is persistent and intrusive, and it engenders fear, alarm or distress. It results in long-term psychological harm and can escalate to violence and murder. Stalking is about fixation and obsession. It is clear that when people fixate and stalk, they are psychologically unstable. A significant minority are psychotic, and some may suffer from undiagnosed personality disorders. Currently, stalkers are not routinely assessed, and they should be. More robust sentences would allow for a robust mental health assessment which informs diagnosis, treatment and management.
The Minster may well say that the Sentencing Council is undertaking a review and that it would be precipitate to pre-empt that review. The Sentencing Council reviews sentences within the framework set by Parliament, so it is for us to act and then for the Sentencing Council to build its guideline around the maximum tariff.
Of course, it is true that, alongside the stalking, there may be other offences—for example, assault or arson—that can be charged. But in a significant number of cases, stalking is the only offence, a very grave offence, which can lead to the victim being a prisoner in their own home, developing post-traumatic stress disorder, losing their job, losing their relationship, losing their mental health and ultimately losing their life. It is a serious offence and must be treated as such.
Paladin’s research shows that victims feel unsafe due to short sentences. Preventive orders do not lead victims to feel safe because it is the very nature of the stalking offence that means such boundaries are prone to being breached. In the most serious cases, the only time a victim truly receives any respite is when his or her stalker is behind bars. Victims continue to live in fear and are terrorised and terrified when the stalker comes out. It is clear that short sentences do not allow for any form of diagnosis, treatment or management, so the behaviour continues in a revolving-door fashion. This is costly to victims and to the criminal justice system.
It is important to highlight the fact that stalking occurs over an extended period of time. Often, stalkers are prosecuted only for breaching restraining orders. The maximum sentence for criminal damage, burglary and offence against property is 10 years. These offences are acute and one-offs. Allowing judges greater flexibility on sentences will acknowledge the repetitive nature of stalking, which can span multiple years, offences and breaches.
Some victims have felt helpless due to the long-term, insidious and persistent nature of this crime—as in the case of Helen Pearson, who was almost killed by Joe Willis and attempted suicide twice. The escalation to murder should be clearly understood. These cases are called “murders in slow motion” for a reason, and we have an opportunity to intervene earlier and prevent them. It is one of the few crimes where early intervention can prevent serious psychological damage, violence and murder. That is precisely why we need to increase the maximum sentence.
My amendment would give judges the greater flexibility they require in sentencing to allow the sentence to fit the crime and thus better protect the victim whose life is being torn apart. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I very much hope that your Lordships do not support this amendment. My reasons are both general and particular. As to my general reason, I am very cautious about any inflation in sentencing. Our prisons are already grossly overcrowded. When I was Prisons Minister at the back end of the 1980s, we had a prison population of some 44,000. We now have a prison population of just short of 85,000, and that makes for gross overcrowding. Until very recently, I was on the monitoring board of a local prison. As a member of the Bar, I go to prisons, and the facilities in prisons are overstretched almost beyond imagining. In this respect, the POA is right. I am very anxious that we should not do anything that tends to make courts increase the overall level of sentences. In the past five years, the average sentence has increased from 12.3 months to 16.4 months, and conditions in prisons are dire.
That takes me to the second point, and I shall be very brief. Five years—the existing maximum—is a long sentence, even when one takes into account the fact that the offender will not serve the whole of it. Being shut up in custodial circumstances in most of our prisons is a deeply unpleasant experience. If the offender is rational, then five years is a perfectly good deterrent. If the offender is not rational, then increasing the sentence will make no difference whatever to his conduct. All we are doing is to drive up the overall level of sentences, and that is thoroughly undesirable.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I recognise the point that the noble Viscount has made about the general increase in the level of sentencing, which has caused me considerable concern for quite some time. However, there is force in the point that the noble Baroness made about repeat offences. The people who commit this kind of offence tend to be victims of an obsession. There must be a risk that a number of these perpetrators will do it again, and if the first sentence is ineffective as a deterrent a judge is really inhibited in visiting the appropriate penalty on a repeat offender, particularly if it is even a further repetition, if he is restricted to the levels that presently exist. For that reason, among the others that the noble Baroness mentioned, I would be inclined to support her amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. While I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about overcrowding, we need to differentiate between many offences that do not deserve a custodial sentence, and in fact would be more effectively dealt with by a non-custodial sentence, and those that really need long custodial sentences, for the very reasons that the noble and learned Lord has just articulated. These are offences where, particularly in the case of repeat offences, a longer custodial sentence is needed. That is why we will support the noble Baroness should she decide to divide the House.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has indicated on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, if, having heard the Government’s reply, my noble friend Lady Royall decides to test the opinion of the House, we too shall be supporting her amendment in the Division Lobby.
I will not go through all her points but my noble friend has referred, as have others, to the issue of repeat offences. She referred to why the maximum sentence is five years at present. She referred to the level of cross-party support that there has been on this issue, and to the relationship of the maximum sentence for this offence with other offences that have a maximum of 10 years. She also made reference to the stalking orders and the Government’s announcement there, which was welcome, but of course it does not address the issue of what the appropriate maximum length of the sentence is. My noble friend also stressed that stalking costs lives in certain circumstances, and causes psychological harm. I think she has made an extremely powerful case. As I said, if she decides, having heard the Government’s response, to test the opinion of the House, we shall be with her in the Division Lobby.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, carries out as a trustee of Paladin to support and give a voice to victims of stalking.
Obviously it would be wrong of me as a Minister to comment on individual cases, particularly on sentences imposed in those cases. However, I want to express my sympathy for the victims of these crimes, which can have significant effects on their lives. It is important to consider the evidence of how sentencers are using the range of penalties available to them today. It is very rare that sentences are given that are near to the current maximum. In 2015 only three people received sentences of over three years for the Section 4A offence, and the average custodial sentence was 14.1 months. The evidence therefore suggests that judges are finding their current sentencing powers for this offence sufficient.
We must also bear in mind that, in addition to this specific stalking offence, this type of offending can be charged under other offences such as assault, criminal damage and grievous bodily harm with intent. When an offender is convicted for one of those offences, they will face a maximum penalty of 10 years for criminal damage or life imprisonment for GBH with intent.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking steps to ensure that stalking is dealt with seriously. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, last Wednesday we announced plans to introduce a new stalking protection order aimed at ensuring that pre-charge options are available to the police to protect victims of stranger-stalking to the same level as victims of domestic violence and abuse. Breaches of these orders will be a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
Alongside the work of government, the independent Sentencing Council is currently considering sentencing guidelines for intimidatory offences, including the stalking offence covered by the noble Baroness’s amendment. The council aims for its definitive guidelines to come into force in early 2018, following a consultation on the draft guidelines early next year. I encourage the noble Baroness and others to respond to the consultation.
We are also looking at the wider picture of how stalking offences are dealt with and prosecuted. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate are currently carrying out a joint inspection on the effectiveness of the police and CPS response to cases involving stalking and harassment, and to examine the service received by victims.
In setting maximum penalties, we must also consider the penalties available for other, related offences. These include the other offences under Sections 2 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act, which can cover similar offending behaviour. We should consider carefully the potential impacts of creating such a large difference between the maximum penalties for the Section 4 and 4A offences, as the amendment proposes. Other relevant offences include assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, for which the statutory maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. To increase the maximum penalty for stalking offences causing fear of violence would mean that the penalty for causing fear of violence would be higher than that for causing the violence itself.
We recognise that it is often the case that raising the maximum penalty appears to be a straightforward solution to a problem. I do not think it is a straightforward solution in this case. It may be necessary in due course but, before moving to raise the maximum, we should give careful consideration to the implications for other related offences and avoid creating anomalies in the criminal law.
However, I recognise the strength of feeling about this issue and the harm that can be caused by the most serious stalking cases. The Government will therefore review the operation of the Section 4A stalking offence and related offences. We will consider the maximum custodial sentences available to the court and, in addition, consider mental health sentences to consider how best to identify and address the underlying issues that are present in the most serious cases. The review will supplement the work being done by the Home Office to prevent stalking by looking at the ultimate sanctions available for those who continue to commit offences. I hope this review will also provide further material for the Sentencing Council to draw on as it produces sentencing guidelines for stalking and related offences. Given this commitment to review the operation of Section 4A, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful for that response from the Minister and for the contributions from other noble Lords. Of course I hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says. I too loathe prisons; I recognise that they are overflowing and that the conditions inside many of them are abhorrent. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that many people who are sentenced to prison should not be there, but that does not mean to say that the people who in my view should be in prison should not be there. So I do not agree with the noble Viscount.
It is true that other crimes can be taken into account but I am referring to one specific crime, stalking, and I think we should take that specific crime seriously. It should not always have to be taken into account along with other crimes.
The Minister pointed out the potential differences between sentences; as she says, actual bodily harm has a maximum of five years. However, I believe that is because the harm that is caused does not have to be really serious; typically, it is bruising. What we are talking about here is something that blights people’s lives and those of their families year after year.
I am grateful for the offer from the Minister for a review but, as I mentioned in my speech, this is something that I and many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, cared about four years ago when we argued that the maximum sentence should be 10 years. The last four years have shown us that a five-year maximum is not enough, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Evidence about complainant’s sexual history
(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report on the operation of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (restriction on evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history).(2) The report shall, in particular, include information regarding—(a) the number of applications made for leave in accordance with subsection 41(2) of the Act;(b) the number of such applications granted;(c) the number of such applications refused;(d) the number of prosecutions not proceeded with because of the victim’s concerns as to an application for leave;and to the extent numerical information is not available, as full information as possible regarding such matters.(3) The report may include proposals for the amendment or repeal of section 41 of the Act.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee. We debated an exactly similar amendment in Committee. It arises from the Ched Evans case and concerns the restriction on the admission in cross-examination of evidence about a complainant’s sexual history in sexual offences cases. The amendment arose from our concern to ensure that the restriction on the admissibility of such evidence in cross-examination was as strong as we had always believed it to be under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
At the end of that debate, the Minister said that the Government had carefully considered the concerns that had been raised about the provision; that they would determine how best to look at how it was working in practice before deciding whether any further action needed to be taken; and that they would do that as soon as possible. A trenchant question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, elicited the answer that that was indeed a promise of a review, which is what we had been seeking.
The reason for tabling the amendment again on Report is to ask the Minister to elaborate further on the review that she has in mind. We are interested to ask what timescale is proposed for the review; who will carry it out, and how; what the terms of reference will be; and how evidence for the review will be collated. I hope that she will be able to respond on those questions at this stage and I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I have no objection to my noble friend answering the questions posed by the noble Lord; it is obviously right that she should. My objection lies to proposed new subsection (3), because I do not think that the existing law needs any change. If one looks at the primary legislation, one sees that the ability of defence counsel to ask questions or call evidence is hedged about by judicial restriction and can be exercised only relatively rarely. I have been in court many times when this has happened, and there is no sense that the legislation is being abused, that evidence is being adduced unnecessarily or that cross-examination is being done wrongly.
At the end of the day, I believe that the law is right as it stands. Although I have no objection to a review and no objection to the questions put by the noble Lord, I do not think we need to change the law—and I am therefore bound to say that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause poses problems as far as I am concerned.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I will add just a footnote to what the noble Viscount said. Some years ago, there was a challenge to Section 41 of the 1999 Act on the ground that it was incompatible with the convention right to a fair trial. I sat upstairs in a committee room as a Law Lord with the Appellate Committee. We were very careful to restrict the ability of counsel to explore these matters, as far as we possibly could consistent with the right to a fair trial. I am glad to hear that, from the noble Viscount’s experience, the system is working very well. On the other hand, when we were framing our restrictive view as to how the section should be applied, we were looking to the future; we did not have the benefit of experience. Like the noble Viscount, I have no objection to a review, which I suppose might serve some useful purpose by informing everyone as to whether the system is really working as the Law Lords expected it should.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, raises the important issue of the protection of complainants of rape and sexual offences from being questioned about their sexual history. As I previously made clear, it is vital that victims have the confidence to report crimes as terrible as rape, and that they have confidence that the criminal justice process will bring offenders to justice. Our message to those who are willing but currently worried about reporting such offences is that they should feel confident about doing so.
When we first debated the issue, I assured noble Lords that we would look at how Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was working in practice. As the noble Lord asked, perhaps I may provide a bit more detail. The Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General have advised me that this will include examining the original policy intent of Section 41, its implementation and how it is operating in practice.
I can confirm that this work will be led by officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General’s Office. They will consider carefully the concerns that have been raised and seek views from the judiciary, practitioners and victims’ groups. This work will be completed in the first half of next year.
We have already made clear our commitment to carry out this work and, in our view, there is no benefit in making it a statutory requirement. In the light of the detail that I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the further detail that she has given on the review. I quite accept her position that there is no need for a statutory requirement for it, so I propose to withdraw my amendment. However, in response to the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I make clear to the House, for those who may not be familiar with it, that concerns have arisen in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Ched Evans case, in which the admission of such evidence in cross-examination was permitted in a case in which many thought that it would be excluded. It is for that reason that this has become a matter of additional concern, and for that reason that we are extremely grateful that the review is to be carried out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, undertake a consultation with regard to senior coroners’ duties to conduct inquests into the death of persons deprived of liberty under section 4A(3) or (5) or 4B of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, proposed an amendment which is now in the Bill as Clause 155. Our amendment is not to challenge the clause but to ask for clarification. I have two questions. It became clear after the clause was agreed that the issue is more contentious than I had appreciated. It is about ending the automatic requirement for an inquest for those detained in the circumstances that are the subject of the provision. It is not about there being no right to an inquest; the noble Baroness made that entirely clear.
However, there seems to be a wider issue about the application and impact of deprivation of liberty safeguards—DoLS is the acronym. I was asked, as other noble Lords no doubt were, by Liberty to table an amendment to remove the clause. I said: “No: that is not only inappropriate but our procedures would not allow it”—but it seems right to ask two questions.
The Government are aware of the first question. The Liberty briefing suggested that cost saving was at the heart of the amendment to the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, described the emotional stress for families, and I do not think she came anywhere close to cost savings. I would be grateful if the Government could tell us what cost saving is likely to be achieved by the change, or otherwise allay that fear. The second question, as is obvious from the amendment, is: what consultation did the Government undertake before the amendment that they supported on the previous occasion? I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Lady Hamwee, for speaking to me beforehand; we have had some discussion. I would like to go straight to answering both those questions, from my perspective, as I was the person who tabled the original amendment. I must declare my interest, as I now chair the National Mental Capacity Forum. I took over and started to do that in September of last year.
In terms of consultation, when I was listening to the voice of the person who had been on the receiving end of the Mental Capacity Act it was very evident very quickly that the automatic requirement for an inquest was causing an enormous amount of distress to families. It was also through that process that Ann Coffey MP consulted widely in her constituency and further afield—and coroners have been asked. So this was not brought forward lightly.
There was also consultation with the adviser to the Care Quality Commission, who feels strongly that DoLS are a useful process for safeguarding people who are particularly vulnerable. He was very supportive of the process following the judgment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, which clearly laid out the acid tests under which DoLS should be applied.
As for cost savings, I see there being absolutely none. Actually, there is a possibility that costs might go up. Although unnecessary inquests will not, I hope, happen, so coroners will not be taken away from inquests that really do need to happen by the bureaucratic process of the unnecessary inquests, of which there were almost 7,000 last year, that find that death was due to natural causes, it is possible—indeed, I hope that this will happen—that more people will be inclined to make a deprivation of liberty safeguards application if there is a doubt about whether somebody is being deprived of liberty, because the deterrent of knowing how much distress would be caused to people, including families, will be removed.
Care home, clinical and hospital staff find it very distressing to say, “We’re going to go through this process of applying for a deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisation—and, secondarily, by the way, that means that there will automatically be a coroner’s inquest”. For those who culturally need a burial very rapidly after somebody has died, that causes profound upset—as it does to other families. As one coroner’s officer said, to me, “Sadly, sometimes the first time the families realise there has to be an inquest is when I have to pick up the phone to tell them, and they are deeply distressed”.
I suggest that by putting this measure in place we are removing a barrier to the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which are a way of protecting the rights of the most vulnerable person, because there is an inspection process. It must be necessary, proportionate and in the person’s best interests, and the person has a power to appeal to the Court of Protection against a deprivation of liberty safeguard. So people have far greater rights than somebody who ought to have a deprivation of liberty safeguard authorisation in place but where no application is being made. So I hope that this will increase the rights of the most vulnerable as well.
The process of scrutiny is that the Care Quality Commission has to be notified when a standard DoLS is in place. It will know whether a place has unusually many or unusually few DoLS applications, and will look in depth at the quality, the atmosphere and the culture around the way that care is given there. With all due respect to coroners, I think that the CQC is far more likely to detect where things are going wrong than a coroner’s inquest on a single case. But I reiterate that if a family have any concerns whatever, irrespective of whether there was a DoLS in place, they can ask for a coroner to look at a case when somebody has died. If they are suspicious, they can ask the question.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this important issue. The Government take seriously their responsibilities to the very vulnerable group of people in society whom this amendment concerns. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her deep knowledge of this issue, and for the words that she has spoken this evening.
Coroners in England and Wales play a critical role in investigating the deaths of persons where there is a suspicion that death may have resulted from violence or unnatural causes, or indeed where the cause of death is unknown. Coroners will continue to have this duty with regard to persons who have been deprived of their liberty as authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There is no restriction on when or by whom deaths can be reported to a coroner. Indeed, the registrar of deaths has a duty to report deaths to the coroner where he or she considers that the coroner’s duty to investigate may apply.
The Government recognise that there is a need to improve the scrutiny of deaths that are not investigated by a coroner. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 contains provisions to introduce medical examiners who will contact the deceased’s family and those involved in the deceased person’s care to identify any concerns as part of a reformed death certification process.
We consulted on our proposals earlier this year and aim to publish our response to the consultation in the new year. This will of course be particularly relevant to vulnerable people in hospitals and care homes, regardless of whether they are being deprived of their liberty. Medical examiners will not just be responsible for scrutinising individual deaths not investigated by the coroner but will have a role in analysing data on deaths across their area. They will identify patterns and contribute to lessons that will reduce avoidable deaths. They will also have a duty to report to coroners deaths for which a coroner’s investigation may be required.
The effect of Clause 155 will be that the death of anyone subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisation, or an appropriate Court of Protection order, will no longer trigger an automatic coroner’s investigation. We supported this change in the law in the light of views expressed by the then chief coroner, his honour Peter Thornton QC, in his 2015-16 annual report. He called for immediate action to remove deprivation of liberty safeguards cases from the definition of “in state detention”—a point that, just prior to his recent retirement, he reiterated to the Minister for Victims, Youth and Family Justice.
The issue here is not simply one of the resources needed to undertake these inquests. The then chief coroner had addressed this to some extent through his 2014 guidance, revised in 2016, which set out a streamlined process. But, as he has said, these inquests “serve no good purpose”. It cannot be right that more than 20% of inquests undertaken each year are unnecessary, with all that that implies in terms of added anguish for bereaved families.
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the profile of this important issue, but I hope that she will accept that the Government’s recently completed consultation on reforming the death certification process will, when its proposals are implemented, complement and support the work of our coroners who investigate suspicious deaths.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked who we consulted in the consultation. The Ministry of Justice consulted the former and current chief coroner. Having said that, we consider that this removes any further need for further consultation on the coroner’s statutory duties, and I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
I thank the Minister, but I cannot restrain myself from observing that her answer has been that there has been a consultation and that the Government will publish their response to it next year. I say that as nicely as I can, because clearly a lot of work has gone on with regard to this—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, as well, for filling out the information that she gave pretty comprehensibly to the House on the last occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Police observance of the Victims’ Code: enforcement
(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is amended as follows.(2) In section 5(1B) omit from “by” to “sections 35”.(3) After section 5(1B) insert—“(1BA) Subsection (1C) applies if a written complaint is made to the Commissioner by a member of the public who claims that—(a) a police officer;(b) a police service employee other than a police officer; or(c) another person determined under section (1BC);has failed to perform a Code duty owed by him to the member of the public. (1BB) For the purposes of subsection (1BA) a Code duty is a duty imposed by a code of practice issued under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (code of practice for victims).(1BC) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the categories of person identified in subsection (1BA) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”(4) In section 5(4A), after “(1A)” insert “or (1BA)”.(5) In section 6(3), at beginning insert “Except as provided in subsection (3A)”.(6) After section 6(3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (3) shall apply in relation to a complaint under section 5(1BA) as if for “a member of the House of Commons” there were substituted “the Commissioner”.”(7) In section 7(1A), after “5(1A)” insert “or 5(1BA)”.(8) In section 8(1A), after “5(1A)” insert “or 5(1BA)”.(9) After section 10(2A) insert—“(2B) In any case where the Commissioner conducts an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, he shall send a report of the results of the investigation to—(a) the person to whom the complaint relates,(b) the principal officer of the department or authority concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the relevant complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of, and(c) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses appointed under section 48 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (commissioner for victims and witnesses).”(10) After section 10(3B) insert—“(3C) If, after conducting an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, it appears to the Commissioner that—(a) the person to whom the complaint relates has failed to perform a Code duty owed by him to the person aggrieved, and(b) the failure has not been, or will not be, remedied, the Commissioner shall lay before each House of Parliament a special report upon the case.(3D) If the Commissioner lays a special report before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3C) the Commissioner may also send a copy of the report to any person as the Commissioner thinks appropriate.(3E) For the purposes of subsection (3C) “Code duty” has the meaning given by section 5(1BB) of this Act.”(11) In section 10(5)(d), for “or (2A)” substitute “, (2A) or (2B)”.(12) In section 12(1), after paragraph (b) of the definition of “person aggrieved”, insert—“(c) in relation to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, means the person to whom the duty referred to in section 5 (1BA) of this Act is or is alleged to be owed;”.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister for meeting me and others to discuss this group of amendments about support for victims. I was pleased that she said that the Government would bring proposals forward to strengthen victims’ rights; I was slightly less pleased that it was “in due course”. We have heard an awful lot tonight about an awful lot of reviews in future, and I am mindful of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, after which we were also told that there would be future reviews on stalking law. Much of the difficulty that faces victims navigating the criminal justice system is because nobody is taking hold of the evidence that we have about what is and is not working.
There has been a substantial amount of legislation over the last few years, with the victim personal statement scheme in 2001, witness care units, the code of practice for victims of crime from April 2006, the victims’ fund, victim support, restorative justice, and of course the creation of the Victims’ Commissioner. In January 2015, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said in her first Victims’ Commissioner report:
“I raised concerns about the process, the process was almost worse than the actual journey of being a victim”.
Her report noted that justice agencies failed to demonstrate “compassion, empathy and patience” when handling complaints from victims. She said that,
“victims feel ignored, unimportant and confused when raising concerns about their treatment”.
The report took into account the experiences of over 200 victims and assessed the performance of all criminal justice agencies listed in the victims’ code, and the review found that inadequate attention was paid to the “personal touch” that was needed.
The Government responded thereafter, and there has sadly been very little progress—and the Public Accounts Committee published earlier this year a report that noted that the,
“system is bedevilled by long standing poor performance including delays and inefficiencies, and costs are being shunted from one part of the system to another … The criminal justice system is not good enough at supporting victims and witnesses …Timely access to justice is too dependent on where victims and witnesses live … The Ministry has been too slow to recognise where the system is under stress, and to take action to deal with it … There is insufficient focus on victims, who face a postcode lottery in their access to justice due to the significant variations in performance in different areas of the country”.
So “due course” is just not good enough; we need to move forward and need it urgently. The core of the problem is that victims’ rights are currently not covered by entitlements in the victims’ code, originally designed in 2015 to make the system more responsive and easier to navigate. It is just not legally enforceable and places discretionary accountability on to the agencies, and victim feedback strongly suggests that agencies often fail to apply the code. Agencies that should be guided by the code are aware that a failure to provide the service does not make the service provider liable to any legal proceedings.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief, but my name is attached to most of the amendments which we are now addressing. A victims’ rights Bill was introduced in the other place last year by the then shadow Home Office Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and it had all-party support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said, victims’ rights are largely covered by entitlements in the victims’ code and affected by various other initiatives in recent years. However, the key thing is that the code is not legally enforceable and feedback from victims suggests that it is not applied by the relevant agencies. Maybe that is because they are aware that a failure to provide the service does not make a service provider liable to any legal proceedings. Lack of information and support to victims are the major areas of concern, with victims prioritising the right to information, protection, treatment and support as the highest priorities. These amendments place victims’ rights in a statutory framework and place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy to provide training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims. In essence, these amendments lay down what support should be offered to victims, how that support is managed, what training is necessary to put it into place and how complaints can be pursued. These amendments have our support.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will understand that, given the further business to which the House has to attend tonight, I will confine myself to saying that we on these Benches enthusiastically support her amendments.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for meeting with me, and for tabling these amendments again so that this House has a further opportunity to debate the important issue of victims’ rights.
Some of the amendments seek to place aspects of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime on a statutory basis. This is a statutory code, provided for by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, and as such all criminal justice agencies are required to provide the services victims are entitled to under it. Many of the entitlements for victims included in the proposed amendments are already in the code. Some are for all victims of crime, while others are enhanced entitlements for the most vulnerable victims of crimes such as stalking and domestic and sexual abuse. Placing them on a statutory footing separately will not ensure compliance, nor guarantee that those entitlements are delivered effectively. The effect would merely be symbolic, and make amendment and updating of entitlements more difficult.
As I said before, we recognise the importance of training for professionals who work with victims. Under the police educational framework and national curriculum, police officers and staff receive training on the code throughout their careers. Officers and staff can receive training on the code at various stages of their careers. This training is supported by a new online package launched by the College of Policing. All Crown Prosecution Service staff who attend court have been given face-to-face training on the new Speaking to Witnesses at Court guidance and on how to interact with victims and witnesses at court without undermining the fairness of the trial. This is supported by a comprehensive package of e-learning, which barristers who appear for the CPS in court are expected to complete.
We also appreciate that more can be done in relation to certain categories of crime. That is why, for example, the College of Policing, as part of reviewing its guidance on stalking and harassment investigations, is looking at whether police officers fully understand the offences and are receiving appropriate training. It is also why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate are carrying out a joint inspection to assess the effectiveness of police forces and the CPS in dealing with cases involving stalking and harassment, and to examine the service received by victims. The CPS is developing a training package for its prosecutors to improve the quality of charging and review decisions in stalking and harassment cases.
There has also been a concerted effort to improve the response of the police in domestic abuse cases. In its most recent national thematic inspection of the police response to domestic abuse, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found improvements in police attitudes towards victims and front-line officers’ understanding of the importance of dealing with victims in a supportive way. Since 2014, every police force has published a domestic abuse improvement plan, new guidance has been published by the College of Policing, new training has been successfully piloted and for the first time, police are now collecting data against a national standard on all domestic abuse recorded crimes. A joint police and CPS witness care review is looking to identify clear performance measures which would include timeliness of communication of information to witnesses as set out in the code. In addition, Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service is undergoing an audit by the Government Internal Audit Agency on the effectiveness of arrangements in place for victims and witnesses, against requirements in the victims’ code and the witness charter. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2017.
In order to determine what is required to strengthen further the rights of victims of crime, we are looking at available information about compliance with the victims’ code, and considering how it might be improved and monitored. We are also looking carefully at the range of proposals that have been made by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and others. We are focused on making sure we get this work right, and ensuring that any future reform proposals are evidence-based, and an effective and proportionate approach.
Finally, in relation to Amendment 188, which seeks to provide a direct route of complaint for victims to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I should add that on 5 December the Cabinet Office published a draft public service ombudsman Bill. The Bill will improve access to the ombudsman’s services by allowing for all complaints to be made with or without the help of a representative and in a variety of formats to meet the digital age. When the Bill is brought before your Lordships’ House, it will provide a further opportunity for noble Lords to test whether the measures I have set out are delivering the improvements to the experience of victims in their interaction with the criminal justice system that we all want to see.
I hope that, having further debated these issues and received greater detail of the work that is being undertaken both by the Government and by the criminal justice agencies, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I thank the Minister for her response, but sadly, many of the concerns I have raised were not particularly well articulated. There is no doubt that there is an entitlement to victims to have support. The fundamental problem is that there is no duty on the agencies to deliver it. The Minister said that police receive training when they first start their careers, and they can receive training later on. The problem is that, in practice, it does not happen consistently. The experience of victims, as outlined both tonight and at earlier stages of the Bill, demonstrates that it is still woefully inadequate in some parts of the country. The College of Policing clearly has an important role, but there are real concerns that there is a focus on the domestic abuse improvement plan without understanding that stalking and coercive control are key issues as well.
I accept the points the Minister has made about the draft public services ombudsman Bill, but there is more in Amendment 188 than is covered in that draft Bill. I believe that I have noble Lords’ support, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Brinton
“Police etc. provision for victims’ entitlement: framework
(1) The Victims’ Code provided for under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (code of practice for victims) shall include, but not be limited to, the entitlement of victims of crime to receive accurate and timely information from—(a) the police; and (b) such other agencies of the criminal justice system concerned with the detection and prosecution of the relevant crime and with the support of victims of crime as the Secretary of State deems fit.(2) The police must ensure provision to victims of—(a) adequate notice of all relevant court and other legal proceedings,(b) information about decisions by and discussions between the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system relating to the person convicted of the crime concerned (“the perpetrator”),(c) information about any prison sentence previously served by the perpetrator,(d) information about relevant changes to the perpetrator’s circumstances whilst on parole or in custody,(e) information about any crimes committed by the perpetrator outside the United Kingdom where the victim of the crime concerned is a British national,(f) access, where required, to adequate interpretation and translation services, and(g) information about the direct contact details of the criminal justice agencies and individuals involved in the court or other legal proceedings concerned.(3) During criminal justice proceedings, the police and other relevant agencies and authorities of the criminal justice system must ensure that victims of crime—(a) are not subjected to unnecessary delay by any other party to the proceedings;(b) are treated with dignity and respect by all parties involved; and(c) do not experience discriminatory behaviour from any other party to the proceedings.(4) Children and vulnerable adults must be able to give evidence to a court from a secure location away from that court or from behind a protective screen.(5) The investigating police force concerned must ensure the safety and protection of victims of crime during proceedings, including but not restricted to—(a) a presumption that victims of crime may remain domiciled at their home with adequate police protection if required; and(b) ensuring that the victim and those accompanying them are provided with access to a discrete waiting area during the relevant court proceedings.(6) All victims of crime shall have access to an appropriate person to liaise with relevant agencies on their behalf and to inform them about and explain the progress, outcomes and impact of their case.(7) Witnesses under the age of 18 shall have access to a trained communications expert, to be known as a Registered Intermediary, to help them understand as necessary what is happening in the criminal proceedings.(8) Victims of crime shall have access to transcripts of any relevant legal proceedings at no cost to themselves.(9) Victims of crime shall have the right to attend and make representations to a pre-court hearing to determine the nature of the court proceedings.(10) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that victims of crime—(a) have access to financial compensation from public funds for any detriment arising from the criminal case concerned;(b) are given the right to approve or refuse the payment of any compensation order made by a court against a person convicted of a crime against them; (c) have reimbursed to them, from public funds, any expenses incurred by them in attending in court and in any related legal process, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas;(d) have available to them legal advice where considered necessary by a judge in court proceedings; and(e) are not required to disclose personal data in legal proceedings which puts their safety at risk unless specifically ordered to do so by a judge.”
“Police etc. training on treatment of victims: strategy
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish and implement a strategy for providing training on the impact of crime on victims and victims’ rights for staff of the following organisations—(a) the police,(b) the Crown Prosecution Service, and(c) any other public agency or authority that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State shall also by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for judges, barristers and solicitors involved in criminal cases involving stalking, coercive control or sexual and domestic violence to undertake specialist training.(3) The Secretary of State shall publish an agreed timetable for the delivery and completion of the training required by this section.”
“Training on treatment of victims: duty to report
(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to collect, codify and publish data in respect of—(a) the training of the police and Crown Prosecutors on the subjects of stalking, coercive control and the victims’ code, and(b) instances of non-compliance with the victims’ code by all statutory agencies, and the effectiveness of all complaints procedures involving allegations of a failure to comply with the victims’ code.(2) The Secretary of State shall publish the data in an annual report which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within a year of the day on which this section comes into force.”
“Statutory duty on elected local policing bodies
(1) An elected local policing body must assess—(a) the needs of victims in each elected local policing body’s police area, and(b) the adequacy and effectiveness of the available victims’ services in that area.(2) An elected local policing body must—(a) prepare and consult upon an Area Victims’ Plan for its police area,(b) having taken account of any responses to its consultation and any Quality Standard, publish the plan in such a manner as sets out clearly how the identified victim needs will be met by the available victims’ services, and(c) submit its Area Victims’ Plan to the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on an annual basis.(3) In this section—“elected local policing body” and “police area” have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, “Quality Standard” means the standard published under section 49(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.”
“Duties of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses
(1) Section 49 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (general functions of Commissioner) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) assess the adequacy of each elected local policing body’s Area Victims’ Plans submitted to the Commissioner under section (Statutory duty on elected local policing bodies) of the Policing and Crime Act 2016;(e) make to elected local policing bodies such recommendations about submitted Area Victims’ Plans as the Commissioner considers necessary and appropriate;(f) prepare a statement of standards (the “Quality Standard”) in relation to the provision of victims’ services;(g) publish the Quality Standard in such manner as the Commissioner considers appropriate;(h) review the Quality Standard at intervals of not more than five years;(i) in preparing or reviewing the Quality Standard, consult the public, and for that purpose, publish drafts of the standard if he deems it necessary to do so;(j) assess the steps taken to support victims and witnesses in giving evidence;(k) make such recommendations in relation to that assessment as he considers necessary and appropriate;(l) issue guidance and standards for the establishment and conduct of homicide reviews under section (establishment and conduct of homicide reviews) of the Policing and Crime Act 2016.”.”
“Establishment and conduct of homicide reviews
(1) In this section “homicide review” means a review of the circumstances in which a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, died as the result of a homicide where—(a) no one has been charged with the homicide, or(b) the person or persons charged have been acquitted.(2) The Secretary of State may in a particular case direct a police force or other specified person or body or a person or body within subsection (5) to establish, or to participate in, a homicide review.(3) It is the duty of any person or body within subsection (5) establishing or participating in a homicide review (whether or not held pursuant to a direction under subsection (2)) to have regard to any guidance and standards issued by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as to the establishment and conduct of such reviews.(4) Any reference in subsection (2) to the Secretary of State shall, in relation to persons and bodies within subsection (5)(b), be construed as a reference to the Police Service of Northern Ireland or Department of Justice in Northern Ireland as may be appropriate.(5) The persons and bodies within this subsection are—(a) in relation to England and Wales—(i) chief officers of police for police areas in England and Wales;(ii) local authorities;(iii) the National Health Service Commissioning Board; (iv) clinical commissioning groups established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006;(v) providers of probation services;(vi) Local Health Boards established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(vii) NHS trusts established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland—(i) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;(ii) the Probation Board for Northern Ireland;(iii) Health and Social Services Boards established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (SI 1972/1265 (NI 14));(iv) Health and Social Services trusts established under Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (SI 1991/194 (NI 1)).(6) In subsection (5)(a) “local authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the council of a district, county or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough.”
“( ) section (Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime as member of local authority);”
“( ) sections 82(2) to (5), 84 to 90 and 93;( ) sections 94(2) to (7), 96 to 102 and 104;”
“(1A) Chapter 6A of Part 4 comes into force on such day as the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland appoints by order, and the power conferred by this subsection is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573) (N.I.12)).”
“(2A) Sections (Disregarding convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), and (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary) come into force on such day as the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland appoints by order, and the power conferred by this subsection is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573)(N.I. 12)).”
Lord Paddick
“( ) section (Inquiry into complaints alleging corrupt relationships between police and newspaper organisations);”
“(7A) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by order make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as it considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision of Chapter 6A of Part 4, and the power conferred by this subsection is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/ 1573) (N.I.12)).”
“(8A) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by order make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of sections (Disregarding convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland), and (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: Northern Ireland) to (Power to provide for disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences: Northern Ireland): supplementary).”
21st Century Fox Takeover Bid for Sky
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
With your Lordships’ leave, I will repeat as a Statement an Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend Matthew Hancock. The Statement is as follows:
“As honourable Members know, Sky plc announced on Friday 9 December that it had received an approach from 21st Century Fox to acquire the 61% share in Sky plc which it does not already own. The announcement made clear that the independent directors of Sky plc and 21st Century Fox have reached agreement on price. However, the offer is subject to further discussion, and Sky has advised that there is no certainty at this stage that an offer will be made. The terms of any deal will obviously need to be agreed by the non-21st Century Fox shareholders of Sky plc. The announcement also said that under the takeover code, 21st Century Fox is required to set out its intentions by 6 January 2017. The Government have had no prior information from either of the parties, and there has been no contact with either Sky plc or 21st Century Fox about the possibility of the bid.
The Secretary of State has power to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out under the Enterprise Act 2002. Government guidance on the operation of the public interest merger provisions under that Act gives an indication of how the intervention regime will operate in practice and the approach the Secretary of State is likely to adopt in considering cases. However, the important point is that each transaction will be looked at on its merits, on a case-by-case basis. The guidance makes clear that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene on public interest grounds within 10 working days of notification of the merger to the relevant competition authority or the transaction being brought to her attention, whichever is later.
The role of the Secretary of State here is a quasi-judicial one, and it is important that she acts independently and is not subject to improper influence. It would be inappropriate for me or the Secretary of State to comment further on this proposed bid. In the light of Friday’s Statement, and given the role of the Secretary of State is a quasi-judicial one, the department is putting into place procedures to ensure that the Secretary of State’s decision-making process is scrupulously fair and impartial. These will include guidance for other Ministers, special advisers and officials on dealing with the parties to the bid or any other interested parties to ensure representations are made only through proper channels, the designation of named officials who will support the Secretary of State in her decision-making process and guidance on how they should conduct themselves, ensuring no one who has a potential conflict of interest is involved in the process.
We are, of course, aware of the wide interest from Parliament given the issues raised by the 2010 bid by News Corp for Sky and the advice DCMS received from Ofcom in December 2011. However, if a formal bid is made by 21st Century Fox and accepted by the Sky plc shareholders, then the bid will need to be considered on its merits and in accordance with the legislation. At this stage we cannot comment further”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question in another place. I think a lot of people were concerned to hear last Friday that 21st Century Fox had struck a deal for the total takeover of Sky. Five years ago, a similar bid was abandoned after the Murdoch family and their friends and News Corporation were engulfed in the eye of the phone-hacking storm.
The concerns of 2011 were not just about the serious wrongdoing that was being uncovered by the phone-hacking scandal. They were also about the concentration of media power in fewer and fewer hands. I note that the noble and learned Lord has confirmed that the Secretary of State has power to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, and we look forward to having further details about that. I further note that the guidance makes clear, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene on public interest grounds within 10 working days of formal notification of a merger to the relevant authorities and such formal notification has yet to be received. We will see how this matter transpires.
There is also the question of whether James and Rupert Murdoch—if they are to acquire the balance of Sky—are fit and proper persons to be licence holders of a regulated television service such as Sky. This is a matter for Ofcom. Last time round, had the bid not been withdrawn, I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree that it is highly unlikely James or Rupert Murdoch would have passed this test. A lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge since then, including confirmation of illegal activity, illegal payments and phone hacking in organisations controlled by them. Will the Minster confirm that this fit and proper person test is urgent and that Ofcom needs to attend to it forthwith?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, we too want to see public interest and fit and proper investigations before any merger is given the go-ahead. We certainly do not want to see an American-style Fox News in the UK. We also need to know what the Government are up to to ensure that they are—as the Minister said they intend to be—scrupulously fair. I have one simple question. Given the numerous meetings that have taken place between government Ministers and Murdoch executives and the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch, do the Government now agree that they should implement Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations 83 and 84 immediately so that minutes are kept of such meetings and the content of the matters discussed made public?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on the fit and proper person test. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, Ofcom needs to be satisfied that a holder of a broadcasting licence is a fit and proper person. That is entirely a matter for Ofcom. On a change of control, Ofcom may consider the issue but will do so only once the transaction has been completed.
With respect to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, of course the process of dealing with this transaction will be fair and will be carried out, as I indicated before, by the Secretary of State discharging a quasi-judicial function. There is no present intention to deal with the matters in Leveson that the noble Lord refers to. As regards his suggestion of a recent meeting between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch, I point out that the only recent meeting was in September, when the Prime Minister was attending a meeting with certain journalists and correspondents from the Wall Street Journal and Mr Murdoch arrived unannounced, as it were, at that meeting. I can advise the noble Lord that there was no discussion at that time of the present transaction.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
On the Ofcom adjudication on the fit and proper person, will my noble and learned friend the Minister confirm that the Government will make no recommendation of their views either for or against?
Lord Keen of Elie
As I indicated before, the matter of determining fitness to hold a broadcasting licence is entirely a matter for Ofcom.
Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill
Monday 12th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 View all Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 November 2016 - (15 Nov 2016)
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill is a short Bill—just nine clauses—and a technical Bill, but it is not unimportant. Indeed, contained within it are positive and pragmatic changes intended to simplify and improve the operation of both the gift aid small donations scheme and the tax-free childcare scheme.
The charity sector is one of this nation’s great assets. Many noble Lords will have experience of working for charities or serving as trustees and patrons. They will therefore be familiar with the important work charities do, as well as the challenges and pressures they face. Of course, noble Lords serving on the Select Committee on Charities are currently gathering evidence on charity governance and the challenges of sustaining the charity sector.
The Government recognise the importance of the charity sector and it is for that reason that they provide support to charities and donors through a generous package of tax relief worth more than £5 billion last year. This is up from £4.7 billion in 2014-15 and £4.4 billion in 2013-14. One of the most valuable tax reliefs available to charities is gift aid, which was worth around £1.3 billion last year. Gift aid allows charities to reclaim from HMRC the basic rate of tax paid by individuals on their donations.
To claim gift aid, a charity must obtain a declaration from the donor confirming their status as a UK taxpayer. This process works well, particularly for large donations, and I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear that gift aid repayments to charities continue to grow. But the Government recognise that there are circumstances where it is just not practical or feasible for fundraisers to stop donors and obtain a gift aid declaration, leading to a gap in the amount of gift aid claimed. The gift aid small donations scheme is intended to help address this gap by allowing charities to claim a gift-aid-style top-up payment on small cash donations.
Noble Lords present may recall that, during the passage of the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012, the Government committed to a full review of the gift aid small donations scheme after three years of operation. The Bill is the result of that review and the Government have listened to the charity sector. Indeed, the vast majority of the provisions within the Bill were originally put forward by the charity sector itself.
The Bill will make the gift aid small donations scheme simpler and more flexible so that it can benefit a greater number of charities and donations. I pay tribute to the hundreds of charities, representative bodies and others that took the time to engage with HMRC during the course of the review. I am pleased to report that the reforms in the Bill are forecast to benefit charities by up to £15 million per year. The new rules will particularly benefit the up to 9,000 new charities that apply for recognition by HMRC each year.
The Bill is intended to make life easier for charities. It will therefore substantially simplify the eligibility criteria of the gift aid small donations scheme, making it much easier for smaller and newer charities to access top-up payments. Charities will no longer need to wait for two years before making their initial claim, nor will they need to have claimed gift aid in at least two out of the previous four tax years, as they do currently.
Removing these rules will leave just one remaining condition that charities must meet to access payments: the gift aid matching rule. This rule requires charities to claim gift aid of £1 for every £10 claimed under the gift aid small donations scheme. It is necessary to retain this rule to maintain a link between the small donations scheme and the full gift aid scheme. A link to the main scheme is important, both as a means of incentivising charities to engage with gift aid and to allow HMRC to ensure that charities comply with the rules. It is the Government’s view that these changes strike the right balance between simplifying the scheme—making life easier for charities—and maintaining an effective deterrent against the dishonest minority who would seek to exploit the rules.
The Bill also relaxes and clarifies the operation of the community buildings rules. These rules are intended to deliver fairness and broad parity of treatment for charities structured in different ways. Without these rules some charities would be able to claim vastly more than others for no reason other than differences in the way the charities are structured. For many charities, the community buildings rules work very well. For example, many local churches have been able to benefit from the rules. Indeed, the Archbishops’ Council recently commented:
“Parishes were able to claim record levels of Gift Aid, with a significant part of this increase arising from the use of the Gift Aid Small Donations scheme”.
This is to be welcomed and we of course want churches to continue to benefit from the valuable extra income provided by the gift aid small donations scheme.
However, it has also become clear that other charities have been less able to fully utilise their community buildings allowances, most notably Scouts and other uniformed groups which, although based in community buildings, undertake most of their collections outside the building. The Bill therefore relaxes the community buildings rules to allow charities to include donations collected outside the building but within the local area under their community buildings allowance. This change could benefit any local charity that regularly meets in a community building, such as a village hall or community centre. There is no requirement for the charity to own the building outright.
The Bill will also future-proof the gift aid small donations scheme. The scheme is intended to allow charities to claim a gift-aid-style payment on small, fleeting donations, such as those placed into a collection tin or church offering. However, noble Lords will be aware that cash transactions are declining as electronic payments become ever more prevalent. The Government have already worked with the charity sector to put processes in place for claiming gift aid on most forms of electronic donations, such as SMS and online.
During the review of the scheme, charity representatives demonstrated examples of the innovative new contactless collection technology being developed. The Government accept that in many ways these donations are analogous to the small cash donations made on the spur of the moment by passing individuals. The transactions are small, almost instant, and there is very little time to stop the donor to solicit a gift aid declaration. The Bill will therefore ensure that the gift aid small donations scheme remains relevant for years to come by opening it up to donations received using contactless collection terminals.
As I have explained, the Government are taking action to simplify the gift aid small donations scheme so that more charities are able to benefit. Last year 21,300 charities claimed a total of £26 million in top-up payments, a not insignificant amount, but we accept that it is lower than forecast. HMRC will therefore undertake a targeted communications exercise to promote greater awareness of the gift aid small donations scheme.
I shall now address the tax-free childcare provisions contained in one clause of the Bill. This clause is concise and technical but it nevertheless effects important changes and reflects the elements of the tax-free childcare scheme which make it innovative and cutting-edge. The Government brought the foundation stone of this ambitious scheme, the Childcare Payments Act, before noble Lords in 2014. Secondary legislation followed soon after and now, in 2016, the Government are testing tax-free childcare with parents and preparing to launch it in early 2017. Tax-free childcare will be rolled out gradually and responsibly, with parents of the youngest children being invited to join the scheme first until it is available to all eligible parents by the end of 2017.
Around 2 million families will be eligible for tax-free childcare in the first year and may access up to £2,000 of government support with childcare costs per child per year or £4,000 for disabled children. Parents will apply through a straightforward online process and open a childcare account for each child. They may then pay money into their accounts, and for every £8 a parent pays in, the Government will pay in an additional £2. The balance may then be spent on registered childcare needed to allow parents to work.
I now turn to the substance of the clause. The first change relates to the mechanism by which parents retain access to the scheme by reconfirming each quarter that they remain eligible to receive tax-free childcare. A successful reconfirmation ensures access to government support for the coming entitlement period. Entitlement periods standardly last for three months, but HMRC may vary them when new accounts are opened or to ensure alignment of dates—for instance, when a further child is added or when a new household is formed. The Bill will allow greater flexibility over how entitlement period dates can be amended. This will ensure that parents’ childcare account dates will align so that the number of times they need to reconfirm their eligibility for tax-free childcare can be minimised.
The other changes affect how parents who are dissatisfied with HMRC decisions can ask for them to be reviewed. They will establish standard, online forms that parents can use if they want to query a decision. This will make the process a lot more straightforward and convenient and makes for a truly digital scheme. However, we will still make sure that everyone is able to ask for a review. Those who, for any reason, are unable to use the online form will still be able to raise their queries using the non-digital channels that they used in applying for the scheme.
The Bill will make the gift aid small donations scheme more flexible and generous so that it can benefit a greater number of charities and donations. It will also make it easier for parents to interact with tax-free childcare. This Bill is good news for charities and for working parents, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, this is a money Bill, so the horse is off down the road before we even have sight of the stable door, let alone a chance to bolt it. Nevertheless, it is a good Bill and certainly has my support. I shall focus my remarks on the charitable section. It is a good Bill for the charitable sector for two reasons. First, it simplifies the 2012 Act. Those of us who had the pleasure of seeing that pass through your Lordships’ House—as I recall it, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was the coalition Minister in charge of it—drew attention to some of the complexities, which the Government are now addressing. It is important to place on record one’s thanks to the Government for having honoured their commitment to have a three-year review and coming forward with the result we have before us tonight.
Sometimes calling it the gift aid small donations scheme can confuse people because it is not gift aid. Gift aid is related to the donor’s ability to pay tax; this is a pure top-up. You just get additional money from the Government for raising a certain amount of money. That is an important distinction which sometimes gets lost in translation.
There are a handful of points I would like to make. First, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the simplification of the means for being registered for this and on the fact that you no longer have to be in existence for two years or to have claimed gift aid in at least two of the previous four years. This is self-evidently of huge importance to new charities struggling to get going. It is a very welcome step forward. However, the 25% or thereabouts take-up remains disappointing. It is hard to know exactly why this is happening. Partially, it may be the complexity and partially it may be ignorance of the scheme among smaller charities; I will come back to that in a moment, but this is a welcome development.
Less welcome is the continuation of the 1:10 ratio—the need for £1 of gift aid to access £10 of top-up—which obviously involves a lower level of record-keeping or no record-keeping. One of the challenges to charities, particularly small charities, is the moving ratio. You have to keep your eye on how much you have in each of these two pots in order to be able to claim the top-up. One does wonder whether it would not have been simpler to have a fixed amount. Under the present regulations, the maximum you can claim I think is £8,000, so you have to find gift aid of £800 to justify it. Do we really need to keep that ratio constant throughout, or would it be easier to have a fixed amount, say £250 or £300—I do not know what number, but some smaller amount—that you have to reach and then you are free to claim the full amount or any amount up to the full amount without further ado, further inquiry and further record-keeping? I suspect that what the Revenue is really concerned about is being able to convince itself that the claimant—in this case the charity—is a proper operation. Therefore, so long as a reasonably substantial sum of gift aid is being claimed—one could discuss what that would be—the Revenue should not be concerned about the amount, particularly given that there is a cap on it in any case. It would be able to see that there was a bona fide charity making the claim.
Thirdly, also disappointingly, a matter much discussed in Committee in the other place was the type of donations that qualify. I am sure my noble friend will put me right if I am wrong, but as I understand it, cash and contactless payments qualify, while cheques and text donations do not. I find this quite a hard distinction to justify. Arguments that a cheque writer can be contacted to fill in a gift aid form show, in my view, a touching faith in our fellow human beings. People will just not bother, and perhaps I can give the House an example.
One of the reasons that charities do not merge is the problems with standing orders. When a charity disappears, the standing orders in its name have to be re-signed in the name of the new entity. The banks will not accept standing orders to the old charity, even though it can be proved that it had merged perfectly satisfactorily and that everything was above board, blessed by the Charity Commission and so on. It has to be re-signed and readdressed. The failure rate of re-signing is about 85%, since you write to people, they do not bother to write back and gradually the whole thing falls away. I strongly suspect that in this case, where you are having to write to people and say, “Thank you for your cheque; we are very grateful, can you please sign this additional gift aid form?”, nothing will happen at all, or it will happen only in a small minority of cases. If this is the case with cheques, for which there is a certain degree of effort in terms of finding a stamp, finding an envelope and writing the cheque, for a text donation, which you do on impulse—you are sitting watching a programme, you are moved by what you see and you think, “This is a terrible thing and I am going to text a donation”—the idea that you can be followed through to get the gift aid is slightly fanciful. In particular, there is an £8,000 limit, so the danger of this thing running away with the Revenue is quite small. I hope that the Government will think about that aspect and some of the weaknesses in the present approach.
My noble friend made an important point on the issue of low take-up. Clearly, ignorance and lack of knowledge and sophistication among smaller charities mean that quite a lot of them do not know about the availability of the scheme. Those of us here who are involved in the National Citizens Service Bill were mildly—I will put it no higher—surprised at the emergence of the Revenue as a recruiting sergeant for the National Citizen Service. There is nothing wrong with that, but as various Members of your Lordships’ House said, a brown paper envelope from the Revenue usually has bad news rather than something that is likely to encourage you to participate. But if we are going to use the NCS model again, and if the Revenue is going to be open-minded and even-handed about it and publicise the scheme through its network to those small charities that they are aware of, that is a very welcome development, and the Government ought to be congratulated on it.
To conclude, this is a good Bill, and the Government should be congratulated. Your Lordships’ House can do nothing about it anyway, but I hope that the Government will think carefully about the possible changes and improvements that I and no doubt other noble Lords will wish to suggest. Perhaps we can persuade my noble friend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and promise us a review three years from now, in which case I look forward to seeing Members of your Lordships’ House again in 2019.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome this Bill, particularly its emphasis on flexibility and simplicity, as already outlined by my noble friend the Minister. I will confine my remarks to small charitable donations and, in particular, the ways in which the Bill could benefit smaller charities. I am acutely aware that many of the charities I had the privilege of working for before I entered your Lordships’ House—such as Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and the Royal British Legion—are household names. They have to work hard to raise funds, but perhaps not as hard as smaller, community-based charities. There are more than 163,000 charities in the UK, 92% of the public believe that charities play an essential or very important role in society, and two-thirds of us have donated to a charity in the past year—yet when it comes to donations received to fund the vital work of charities, the picture is mixed.
Overall, charitable donations have remained consistent over the past decade. This is proof that the public continue to be generous in their support for the causes that they care about. Indeed, Britain is ranked as the most generous country in Europe. That is the good news. But this also hides a worrying trend: smaller charities are receiving a lower proportion of charitable donations than they did only six years ago. According to the Lloyds Bank Foundation and NCVO’s Navigating Change report, donation income had fallen across the board for small charities by 10% for those with an income under £100,000. It is therefore very important that we look at ways in which smaller charities in particular might be helped in their fundraising efforts.
The gift aid small donations scheme, brought in by the coalition Government, is undoubtedly very welcome and very well intended—and, as noble Lords have already heard, it is making a difference. Indeed, it is the sort of scheme that should bring significant benefit to smaller charities—those that need it most. It has been widely praised and supported by charities, and I know that the sector commends the Government for introducing it. But the sector also believes that the scheme has yet to fulfil its potential.
The fact is that it is not working as well as it could. In particular, smaller charities are struggling to access the scheme. Only one-quarter—21,300—of the 84,000 charities that the Government originally forecast would be using the scheme by now are actually doing so. I appreciate that this is acknowledged in the intention behind the Bill being debated today, which looks to simplify and extend the scheme. I also know that it is welcomed by the sector, yet it would like the Bill to go further.
Those in the sector tell me that there remain significant obstacles to smaller charities accessing the scheme, particularly around what has already been mentioned as the matching rule or requirement. We know that the matching rule is a serious obstacle to smaller charities accessing the scheme because, when they were surveyed by charity bodies including the Institute of Fundraising, the NCVO, the Small Charities Coalition, the Association of Independent Museums and the Charities Finance Group, 50% of the smallest charities that responded wanted to see the matching requirement reduced or removed. These organisations make up the majority of the charity sector and should be the focus of our support. If the smallest charities are struggling to access the scheme because of this requirement, surely that runs counter to a key and welcome objective of the changes to the scheme that we are debating today: to ensure that the scheme operates as effectively and flexibly for the greatest number of charities.
I understand from the previous stages of the Bill that the main objection to removing the matching rule altogether is that it is considered a safeguard against the potential fraudulent use of the scheme because it provides an audit trail, and because the matching requirement is important to act as an incentive to induce charities that currently are not using gift aid to start doing so. However, removing the matching rule would still mean that charities go through the process of registering with HMRC to use the scheme and to register with gift aid. By this, I mean that a charity would still register with the Government’s Charities Online website; it would still register with the gift aid online registration process; and it would still make claims under the gift aid small donations scheme through the same government website. So why does HMRC appear to believe that such assurances are insufficient to monitor those claiming and to deter potential fraudulent activity? What evidence has been put forward by HMRC of the ineffectiveness of these measures from a fraud perspective? If the scheme is significantly undershooting its proposed targets, could we not be looking pragmatically at how to ensure that the scheme achieves its full potential?
This Friday marks the Government’s Local Charities Day initiative, when we all celebrate the wonderful contribution that smaller local charities play in our communities and our country. The Bill that we are discussing today is very welcome because it is intended partly to benefit those very organisations by simplifying the gift aid small donations scheme. What a wonderful further cause for celebration it would be if the Government could commit to considering new ways to improve this important scheme, including by amending the matching requirement.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare a non-pecuniary interest, in that I am an unpaid adviser to a company called Charity Checkout, which exists to assist small charities in particular to increase their ability to accept digital donations.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. He was indeed here almost four years ago exactly when we discussed this measure in the original Bill. I also echo some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. Back in 2012, noble Lords welcomed that Bill—as we do with this Bill today—and the Government’s intention to assist small charities.
However, as we did then, we have to regret that when HMRC comes into contact with the charitable sector things seem to go horrible wrong. Tomorrow we are going to talk about the digital economy and all sorts of ways in which the country will move to a new, bright digital economic future. As a user of HMRC services, I am constantly being told that everything will move online, but somehow when the charitable sector and HMRC come together, we are back to something that is maybe not quite “The Flintstones” but is Heath Robinson-like in its complexity. And so it has proved to be. The projections for this scheme were that it would raise in excess of £100 million and that it would involve all the charities, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said. But it has not, and that is principally because of the complexity of doing so. I just do not ever get the impression that people within HMRC understand how difficult it is for small charities to deal with some of the forms and so on that they put out.
That said, there is much in the Bill to welcome. There are a quite a number of important improvements. The change in the upper limit to £8,000 will definitely make a great difference to those charities that can handle the complexity of this. I am very glad that we have got rid of the bizarre rules about where activities take place and which buildings would be considered to be within the scheme and which would not.
I share the warm greetings of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the fact that organisations will no longer have to have claimed gift aid in the preceding two years. I know that the Government consulted on whether a charity should have to wait two years until it could register for the scheme. The Government listened to the sector and agreed that the charity did not need to wait at all. Actually, I would have made a different decision. I would have insisted that charities had to have existed for a year, because they should be able to provide an annual report and an annual account that proves that they are a bona fide organisation. I would have done that rather than some of the other things, and I would have perhaps taken a different view particularly on things like the linking scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have made that decision—wrongly in my view, as I think charities should be more accountable.
The main point I want to follow up on, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is the extent to which this linking mechanism is really working. The Minister in another place, Rob Wilson, cited the main reason for keeping it as deterring fraud by creating an audit trail. He went on to cite examples of frauds perpetrated by charities over the past year. From the totals that he prayed in aid in evidence to the House of Commons, that must have been gift aid frauds—they seem to have been big and systematic frauds. They do not seem to be fraudulent use of the small donations scheme. I would like to hear what evidence there is that the linking of the two schemes has managed to limit fraud.
I end with two points. I asked the Minister some Written Questions about the cost of administering gift aid and the gift aid small donations scheme. They are not separated out, so it is impossible to give a breakdown. When we talk about a review—as we inevitably will; this machine breaks down and needs to be repaired every couple of years—could we have a full analysis of the cost and cost-effectiveness of doing it this way? We are the only country in the world that runs a scheme like this, and I rather suspect that it is not the most cost-effective way for the Treasury to support charities. I suspect that we may move to a system whereby the initial registration for gift aid changes, has to be digitised and can be one where a donor can give permission for multiple donations to be made, particularly if it is done via an intermediary.
We also need to look at whether we should have a standard rate for gift aid and some kind of cap. That could be much more simply administered and might well end up being a lot more beneficial for the charitable sector than this clunky, although well-meaning, scheme.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of two small charities, neither of which I think benefit from gift aid or the SDS. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and all the speakers. Like others who have spoken, we broadly support the Bill and want to move it through as quickly as we can within the circumstances of this money Bill arrangement.
The Bill is aimed at simplifying the small donation scheme so that it benefits the greatest number of charities and increases access for smaller and newer charities. However, I feel that the Bill as drafted will not meet that objective, and I do not think that the Government have been listening to the small charities which have been complaining about the current scheme, because they have certainly been talking to us, and they do not tell the same story.
We all agree that smaller charities are facing significant financial and capacity challenges, which makes schemes such as the SDS, which support development of new income sources, all the more important. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, these charities face the greatest challenges accessing the scheme due to its restrictive requirements. In support of that view, we have been told that uptake is much lower than forecast, with only a quarter of the 80,000 charities that the Government forecast would be using the scheme by now actually using it. Surely we all want to make that change for the benefit of smaller charities.
However, as we have been reminded, this is a money Bill, so there is nothing further we can do about it in this House. We can rant and rage, but it will not have much effect on the words in the Bill. That is a pity, because there are clear ways in which the scheme could be reformed further to improve its accessibility. I suggest that the Minister and his officials take careful note of these points, and we hope that there will be opportunities to address them in later Finance Bills, either piecemeal or as a whole, because I think they will make a difference.
The main evidence that we have received seems to be about changing the matching requirement. All noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned that the matching requirement requires charities to make a certain volume of gift aid claims through the traditional system in order to access the SDS. In practice, this is £1 of gift aid for £10 via the donation scheme. A priori, it is more difficult for small charities to comply with this, as in their earlier years they often raise small amounts of gift aid or lack the capacity, as they are operating with volunteer staff, to process the gift aid donations. The suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of a fixed annual amount has some merit, and I would support that, if it were brought forward.
When the Minister introduced the Bill, he said it was vital that schemes such as the SDS have appropriate and effective measures in place to prevent fraud and ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent. Obviously that is true. However, in order to use the SDS, charities have to register not only with the Charity Commission, their own effective and efficient regulator, but with HMRC, under the normal gift aid scheme. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I am sceptical about whether there is really any evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the matching requirement is a necessary mechanism to prevent fraud and error, how effective it is and whether the matching ratio of one to 10 is necessary to stop fraud. I would be grateful for any evidence that could be provided, perhaps by letter.
The Government have stated that the small proportion of organisations affected by the matching rule means it does not need to be changed. Surely this is disingenuous. It is also ironic: because the claims from the groups concerned are small, organisations affected by the rule are more likely to be the smaller organisations that the Government wish to help with the scheme.
I have two further points. We do not believe that restricting the scheme to cash or contactless payments does enough to help charities or encourages them to use gift aid. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made some points about that, and I agree with him. The Government could significantly expand the support available to small charities by expanding the types of donations used in the scheme and ensuring that charities which rely on texts, cheques or one-off online donations are not penalised. Will the Minister give consideration to that?
Finally, despite the community buildings requirement, local civic groups—the scouts and girl guides have been mentioned—are restricted in their ability to use the main SDS allowance as it is currently designed, as they are treated as being one organisation, so they can have only one joint claim for gift aid. This is despite these groups having to fundraise for their own activities locally, and often not being financially dependent on each other. We recommend that HMRC end this interpretation when it can be demonstrated that local groups not only raise their own funds but are not financially dependent on each other. Again, will the Minister agree to take this idea back?
Having said that, we support the Bill, including its formulations about childcare, and we wish it well.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate for their contributions and for their broad support for the objectives of the Bill. I have noted, and will touch on, some of the very helpful suggestions that have been made.
One of the questions was when there would be an opportunity to have another look at the scheme. All tax policy remains under constant review, and the scheme we are discussing is no exception. In addition, HMRC publishes a national statistics package every year, providing a wealth of data, including the total amounts claimed under the gift aid and small donations schemes. This transparent approach allows interested parties to monitor the take-up and effectiveness of charitable tax reliefs constantly. But all suggestions made during the debate will of course be looked at by the Ministers and officials who have responsibility for taking this important policy forward.
Quite a lot of the comments were focused on the link between the small donations scheme and gift aid. There are a number of arguments for nudging people towards gift aid wherever possible. First, the gift aid scheme is not cash limited, whereas the small donations scheme is, so the more people can put on the gift aid side, the more people will be outside the cap. Also, with gift aid the charity gets a list of the donors who support it, which obviously does not happen with the small donations scheme. There is also the issue of safeguards against fraud, which I shall come to in a moment.
On the issue of publicity for the scheme, a number of noble Lords commented on the fact that the take-up has not been as high as we, or they, would have wished. As I said, we will publish the scheme, and I take note of the comment by my noble friend Lord Hodgson that publicity should not come in brown envelopes marked “HMRC”, which strike terror into the hearts of most citizens. We should find a more user-friendly way of publicising details of the scheme.
A number of noble Lords suggested that the matching requirement might be dropped. This was raised during the review that the Government undertook. The matching rule was not identified as an issue in the vast majority of responses. Even the charity finance groups and the NCVO’s own call for evidence response acknowledged that only 5% of the charities that they surveyed claimed no gift aid, which does not wholly support the assertion that the matching rule is a significant barrier for most charities. The argument was also put forward that it was excessive and that one way around this would be to have a fixed amount. HMRC requires a regular pattern of gift aid claims to be able to ensure that a charity is and continues to be compliant with the main gift aid scheme. It is a sort of proxy for compliance, having the link between the small donations scheme and gift aid. The organisations continuing compliance with gift aid and HMRC’s ability to check a number of claims is the closest proxy to help to assure compliance under the new scheme. Requiring a number of gift aid claims to be made, which includes the provision of donor declarations alongside claims for top-up payments, increases the protection against fraud and abuse, which I shall come on to in a moment.
The scheme is at risk from fraud. The Government believe that a matching requirement is an important anti-fraud element of the scheme. Even if a charity appears to be compliant for the first few years or with the first claim, changes in charity personnel can affect an organisation’s attitude to compliance, so HMRC will continue to need some evidence on which to base its assessment of the risk that the charity poses in relation to the scheme. There are some unfortunate examples of individuals exploiting charitable status for criminal purposes. In May this year three individuals were jailed for a total of 22 years for defrauding HMRC of £5 million in fictitious gift aid claims; in April three individuals were jailed for a total of 11 years for submitting fraudulent gift aid claims totalling £340,000; and in January two individuals were jailed for a total of five years for attempting to fraudulently claim £500,000 in gift aid from HMRC. This demonstrates that there is some risk of abuse in the scheme.
I was pressed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson to extend the gift aid small donations scheme to include other forms of payment—direct debits, cheques and credit card payments. The aim of the scheme is to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style payment on cash donations received in circumstances where it is difficult or impractical to collect donors’ details. Giving by cheque means that the donor is giving their details to the charity, and the extra amount of information needed to make a gift aid declaration is relatively small. If it is practical for a donor to write a cheque, it seems reasonable to assume that it is practical for the donor to make a gift aid declaration at the same time. When a charity has an ongoing relationship with a donor, you should use gift aid if at all possible.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My noble friend is doing a splendid job with a brief that is not entirely his. The Revenue always produces these stupendous figures—£5 million here and £5 million there—but we are talking about an £8,000 maximum per charity, so there is a limit to the extent to which bad boys can run away with the ball. I am not asking for a response—just to place on the record that the Revenue is being unfair to my noble friend by talking about £5 million being cheated out of charities when we are talking about a very limited scheme. It was an unfair speaking note that it gave my noble friend.
Lord Young of Cookham
I take full responsibility for any speaking notes that I deliver. If one looks at some possible structures, you can have a charity with a number of community buildings and each one could claim £8,000—so it is not necessarily capped at £8,000. Depending on the structure of the charity, it would be possible to claim a much larger figure. I take on board the point that my noble friend has made.
Progress is being made on making SMS slightly more user-friendly. SMS text giving is an easy way for donors to give to charity; donors simply send a short code to a six-digit number to donate a set amount via their phone bill. There is an established process for donors to gift aid SMS donations. Following the initial message, a reply is sent to the donor, thanking them for their donation and asking for their name, house number, post code and confirmation that they are a UK taxpayer. If the donor replies with this information, gift aid is added to the donation. HMRC is working closely with the sector and we are introducing new legislation in April 2017 to simplify the process for claiming gift aid on donations made through digital intermediaries.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
The Minister is saying that there will be a legislative initiative in the forthcoming year, reflecting on the text side of things. A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether that clause would be applied. I take the point that a text message contains some metadata which would be useful if you wanted to pursue gift aid. I still do not get the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about why, if you are going to accept that for gift aid, we cannot see it applied to the SDS scheme as well. It is a way of transferring cash but, unless you have very agile, slim and slender thumbs, it is not easy to do all the stuff that you are asking for. It would fit perfectly into the idea of being additional cash.
Lord Young of Cookham
None the less, there is an advantage in getting it scored as gift aid rather than as a small donation, because there is a cap on small donations but not on gift aid. It is in the charity’s interest to try and nudge donations, wherever possible, down the gift aid route rather than the small donations one. The noble Lord asked about the take-up of the scheme and said that it might be too restrictive and complex. Some 21,300 charities took advantage of the gift aid small donations scheme in 2015-16, claiming a total of £26 million. Take-up of the scheme continues to grow year on year, but I take the point that it has come in below the forecast. That is why we are removing a number of eligibility requirements and relaxing the community buildings rules, which will make it simpler and easier to claim, particularly for smaller charities, and make it possible to score donations that are not collected in community buildings but in the local area. I hope this will help a number of charities which do not claim at the moment to do so.
I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson about fraud. Although the headline maximum payment of £2,000 is modest, fraudsters can hijack or set up multiple charities and claim multiple amounts. The community buildings rule enables some charities to claim significant amounts of top-up payments in their own right, so it can potentially add up. In any event, we have a duty to ensure that public money is spent properly. Any amount of taxpayers’ money going to fraudsters is a significant issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested that we should abolish gift aid and—if I have understood her correctly—give charities a top-up on all donations received. This would be a radical reform, but it would not be welcomed by many in the charity sector. In fact, in 2010, charity representatives on HMRC’s gift aid forum considered whether gift aid should be reformed, including removing the link to individual tax contributions. However, they concluded that gift aid should remain as a tax relief. We are open to representations on how we can improve gift aid but are not currently considering reforms along those lines.
Finally, the Government are anxious to continue general support for charities. Some 73% of adults give money to charity in the average month. We are the most generous nation in Europe, so there is much to celebrate. We are offering incentives to encourage giving: we provide a generous package of tax reliefs for charities and donors which was worth £5 billion last year. The Government are proud to support the Grow Your Tenner fundraising campaign, which starts today. We have contributed £245,000 to match donations from the public through the campaign to local charities and community groups. We funded the small charities fundraising training programme to help small charities build the skills needed to fund-raise effectively and later this year we are going to hold a local charities day to celebrate and promote engagement with local charities and community groups.
If I have not touched on all the points made—and I am conscious that I have not—I will write to noble Lords dealing with the issues they raised. In the meantime, I thank them for their suggestions. Even if I was totally persuaded by their arguments, this is a money Bill so, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, implied, there is nothing we can do about it. I hope, on that basis, we can make progress with the Bill. I beg to move.