House of Commons

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

Monday 5 February 2018

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps she is taking to ensure support for former Carillion employees whose pensions will not be covered by the Pension Protection Fund.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

Where all sponsoring employers of a defined-benefit pension scheme have declared insolvency, they will enter a Pension Protection Fund assessment period. The Pension Protection Fund will actively work with the scheme administrator to assess whether it is able to buy out the pensions at a higher level than the PPF benefits. Where a scheme cannot do this, PPF will provide compensation. Defined-contribution schemes do not need PPF help, because they do not promise a level of pension—the member keeps the pot they have built up.

[Mrs Ellman]

The Government have presided over a regulatory scheme where a deficit of about £1 billion has been allowed to build up in the pension fund at the same time as shareholders were receiving dividends. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that all former Carillion employees will receive in full their due pension?

[Ms McVey]

What the Government did successfully back in 2004 was set up the Pension Protection Fund, which is there to compensate people should their businesses become insolvent. This is what the fund will be doing: affording protection at 100% for those who have a pension. Those not yet on a pension will be getting 90%. The Government are ensuring that businesses are responsible to their employees and their pensions. We will be bringing in stronger corporate governance rules to make sure that boards, trustees, shareholders and stakeholders hold company executives to account.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Financial directors must not cause detriment to any private sector pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the rules and regulations regarding the investigation of this sort of practice are toughened up, because we cannot allow this to happen in future?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are seeking to ensure that the regulator will—our new Bill will come out later in the year—have more rights to fine, follow criminal procedures and look into mandatory clearance. Those of us who have studied corporate governance realise that the rules changed in 1991—the Cadbury report and the OECD corporate governance rules—and were strengthened in 2002. I believe that now, under this Conservative Government, we will be strengthening the corporate governance rules again.[Official Report, 8 February 2018, Vol. 635, c. 8MC.]

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My constituents who have paid into pension funds deserve to have those moneys protected. Will the Secretary of State be a bit more specific? What specific changes to corporate governance does she want to see to ensure that high risk behaviour towards pension funds does not happen again?

[Ms McVey]

We are getting feedback from various businesses on how they think we can best enable and support them. Any knee-jerk reaction might result in unintended consequences. Shining a spotlight on one area could close down loopholes, only for others to open up. This has to be looked at in the round, but, as I said, stakeholders, shareholders and the executive team should be held to account. We will make sure that that happens.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the UK’s pension protection system has responded effectively to the Carillion situation?

[Ms McVey]

I can indeed reassure my hon. Friend that what it is doing, and the avenues it is pursuing, are correct and thorough. I met the regulator last week. It is making sure that it investigates these key matters and provides the necessary pension support. Where we need to strengthen in future, we will do so. Equally, I would like to make Members aware of what the pension regulator has done in the past. With regards to the British Home Stores fiasco, which is totally different from this situation, it employed an anti-avoidance measure and got Philip Green to pay his pensioners £363 million. Further prosecutions are coming forward for Chappell, who bought that company for a pound. That is the kind of good work the pension regulator is doing.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

As the Government have responsibility for the pensions regulatory framework, how would the Secretary of State describe a regulatory framework that allows the administrator of a pensions scheme to help to bring about the downfall of the company and the employees it represents, and to profit from that downfall?

[Ms McVey]

When I hear some of the hon. Lady’s comments, particularly those that are out of context, I think about the letter that she has received in the past two days from the UK Statistics Authority, which states that many things she has said are not accurate. The letter said that her remarks—whether about children waking up in poverty at Christmas or linking universal credit with poverty—were not supported, that they were not true statistics and that the sources could not be relied upon. If you will allow me to ask this, Mr Speaker, will the hon. Lady make a statement straightaway about the letter from the UK Statistics Authority?

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the rhetorical significance of the Secretary of State’s point, but I must exhort the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) to stick to her last. That is to say, this is not the occasion upon which she is invited to expatiate on the matter. She may find other opportunities if she is so inclined, but she should stick to the line of questioning that is relevant to the questioning of a Government Minister.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will indeed do just that, Mr Speaker, especially as there was absolutely no answer to my original question. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people including my constituent, Philip Wild, have lost half their retirement income because of the Government’s failure to tackle pensions governance—from Carillion to Capita, and BHS to the British Steel Pension Scheme. How many more pensions scandals does the Secretary of State need to see before she introduces the robust regulatory oversight needed to protect people’s pensions for the future?

[Ms McVey]

Obviously, in the light of the letter from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority to the hon. Lady, it needs to be put on the record that the vast majority of defined-benefit pension schemes are working very well indeed. When we do see instances of abuse or illegal goings-on, they are investigated and the people responsible are brought to account. We have a strong Pension Protection Fund, supported by other businesses that are looking after pensioners across the country.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

2. What steps the Government are taking to promote the delivery of effective consumer financial advice and assistance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

We are committed to ensuring that consumers across the United Kingdom have access to high quality, impartial and free pensions and money guidance services. That is why we are setting up the new single financial guidance body, which is presently in Bill Committee in this House. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservative Government’s commitment is to a debt respite scheme and a breathing space specifically to address debt.

[Gillian Keegan]

In a recent poll conducted by Populus and The Guardian, 32% of British workers were found to have less than £500 in savings. What are the Government doing to promote long-term savings and to support employers such as the 1,340 in Chichester that have auto-enrolled their employees, currently benefiting 13,000 people?

[Guy Opperman]

When the debt respite scheme and the breathing space are put into law, the provisions will make a manifest difference to how people are dealt with in respect of debt, as will the single financial guidance body. I would be failing in my duty not to pay tribute to the 1,340 employers in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Chichester that are doing a brilliant job in ensuring that there are more people in auto-enrolment, adding to the 9.1 million people across the country who are now auto-enrolled in a private pension—something that we should be very proud of.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Some 11 million people a year use price comparison sites to gain information on insurers and other products. The Financial Conduct Authority found in 2014 that such sites were not delivering fair and consistent practices. The Competition and Markets Authority has now said the sites should be using the CARE model; that is, they should be clear, accurate, responsible and easy to use. What can the Government do to ensure that these sites are straightforward and easy to use?

[Guy Opperman]

The simple answer is that I will take that matter up with my colleagues at the Treasury who are handling that point, particularly in relation to the FCA. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am in a Bill Committee with the exact same Minister and will probably have an opportunity tomorrow—with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey)—to have a discussion about this point.

[Mr Speaker]

Very reassuring.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

A Port Talbot shift supervisor was badly advised by a pensions predator preying on him who made him take the wrong choice. “I will never forgive myself”, he said, “because all 20 on my shift followed my lead.” In an otherwise welcome Bill, in the words of Baroness Altmann,

“the Government seems to have bowed to industry pressure and proposes to weaken consumer protection for pension customers. By removing a clause introduced in the House of Lords…more people are at risk of losing their hard-earned savings in scams, frauds and unwise pension withdrawals.”

She is absolutely right. Will the Government think again?

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to replay the same debate that we had in the Bill Committee last Thursday. I will give the same answer, which is that, with no disrespect to Baroness Altmann, she is incorrect on this point. The Government are addressing pensions guidance. We have introduced very stringent new laws. We have improved on the point raised by the Work and Pensions Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who sits on that Committee, agreed in the Bill Committee last Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for his replay.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effect on employment and support allowance claimants’ income of changes to support for mortgage interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

All claimants will be offered a support for mortgage interest loan paid at the same rate that is currently available as part of their benefit entitlement. There will therefore be no impact on their income. Claimants will pay back the loan only on the sale or transfer of the property, when the loan will be recovered from any available equity.

[Nic Dakin]

My constituent, who is registered blind yet has paid into the system all his working life, asks how it can be fair that tenants continue, quite rightly, to get support now, but 100,000 or more people like himself are losing that interest support with their mortgages. It is not good enough to say that they will get it back at the end. This is affecting people now. People are worried about their futures and worried about their incomes now. It is not good enough.

[Kit Malthouse]

Mortgage support is being offered at exactly the same rate as currently. The only difference is that it is now being deferred as a loan recoverable against any equity available in the house should it be sold in the future. Current participants in the scheme should see absolutely no difference unless and until they sell or transfer the house, at which point the taxpayer will recover the support offered.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

21. This change to support for mortgage interest will hit very hard thousands of low-income households, half of whom are pensioners. Does the Minister acknowledge that this change has not been well publicised and that, at the very least, the Government should pause and communicate what it will actually mean for people financially?

[Kit Malthouse]

We have to recognise that we are dealing with support for people who are accumulating what is often a very significant capital asset, and it seems only right that when equity becomes available the taxpayer is able to recover some or all of the support. There has been significant communication on the scheme with the people who are participating in it, and that is continuing. There will be between four and six written communications, and people will be invited to call a telephone number where they can obtain information from a third-party adviser before we get to April, when the scheme comes into play. I am confident that the people who are participating in the scheme at the moment will have enough information. Certainly, large numbers are making a decision either way at the moment.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I have been contacted by a number of constituents about this issue, including a Mr Milne, a veteran who is surviving just now on a meagre state pension. He fears that this change will force him to sell his house or to have it repossessed. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this change, particularly on pensioners?

[Kit Malthouse]

There is absolutely no reason for anybody to fear forced sale or repossession of a house, not least because the scheme is specifically designed to avoid exactly that. If Members have specific cases where constituents have concerns about the operation of the scheme, I will be more than happy to take them up. If the hon. Lady writes to me about that case, I will provide a response.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to ensure the continuation of funding for supported housing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

We have recently completed consultations on the funding models for short-term supported housing and sheltered housing, and will provide a response in due course. We will come forward with our proposals for long-term supported housing by 2020.

[Lucy Allan]

My hon. Friend is making some useful and valued changes. Will he assure the House that accommodation costs for short-term supported housing such as women’s refuges will continue to be funded at existing levels, with the new grant to local authorities being ring-fenced?

[Kit Malthouse]

It is typical of my hon. Friend that she has the welfare of her most vulnerable constituents at the forefront of her mind. I can confirm that the current proposal on which we have just consulted is that the section 31 grant paid to local authorities for provision of refuges and other short-term supported housing will be ring-fenced.

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

The Government’s proposals are an improvement on their initial proposals, but one element has brought criticism from virtually all providers, and that is with regard to short-term supported housing. My Select Committee has recommended that for emergency very short-term accommodation of around 12 weeks, there should be a ring-fenced grant to local authorities. The Government have changed the definition of short term from 12 weeks to two years, which all providers have condemned. Will the Government think again and bring accommodation lasting two years into the welfare system?

[Kit Malthouse]

We are in receipt of a significant number of responses to the consultation, which only closed a couple of weeks ago, and we will consider those over the months to come. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those concerns with his constituents if they wish to do so.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The Government have promised that all short-term provision currently funded by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities until 2020, but will the Minister confirm that there will be no cut in funding after that?

[Kit Malthouse]

Given that I am not a Treasury Minister, I am not in a position to confirm that, but it would certainly be our aspiration to provide the current level of support, or indeed enhanced and better performing support, which is the purpose of the changes, in the future.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of universal credit in helping people into work.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

Universal credit has had a positive impact since its start, as shown through published research and analysis. Independent research shows us that people are spending more time looking for work, applying for more jobs and even doing jobs they would not have considered doing before.

[Colin Clark]

Constituents in Gordon will face longer waiting times for payments due to the Scottish Government’s policy of fortnightly payment. What support can my right hon. Friend offer the devolved Administration in Edinburgh to help reduce those times?

[Ms McVey]

The advice would be to take the approach of England and Wales. As my hon. Friend says, the Scottish approach delays payment at the end of the assessment period, with 75% rather than 100% of money on time, due to the fortnightly payment.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The introduction of universal credit is not helping to keep 250 highly skilled HMRC staff working on tax credits in Dudley in work. They were told they would be transferring to the Secretary of State’s Department to work on universal credit. Last week, they were told that her Department has cancelled that, their office will close and they will be made redundant. Will she ensure that the transfer goes ahead as originally planned, so that my constituents can keep their jobs, and will she meet me to discuss it?

[Ms McVey]

I will indeed meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that. Back in 2016, HMRC announced that move and transfer of jobs. It now seems that as many jobs were not needed for UC. I know that it wants to retain the staff and their skills and knowledge, but I will meet him to discuss the best way forward.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that universal credit is helping all those people who are stuck in a situation where they are only paid to work 16 hours a week and that it is fairer to those employees, the other employees in those businesses and taxpayers, who end up supporting the bill?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The reason we are making this significant change from the legacy system is to ensure that every hour of work counts. We will not have a situation where people are stuck not working or paying punitive rates of income tax of 90% and above if they take work after 16 hours. This is cutting-edge technology. The UK is leading the way on flexible benefits that accompany flexible working, which nowhere else has.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State to her position? Perhaps she might think to show a little more humility when answering some of these difficult questions on universal credit. Has she considered some of the other benefits that are not included in universal credit, such as free school meals, free uniforms, free bus passes and so on? Many low-paid working families will lose out on those benefits under universal credit, which will make them worse off in work than if they were still on benefits.

[Ms McVey]

These are precisely the things that have been considered in bringing forward universal credit. What support are we giving? The extra childcare support. What is the extra support? Tailor-made career advice and support. We all need humility, but, equally, we all need to hand out and deliver the correct facts to people, not embellish them, resort to sound and fury or drama, or provide obviously incorrect information, as the UK Statistics Authority has levelled against the Labour party.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last month, I visited Grimsby jobcentre, which serves my constituency, and it is very clear that the staff are handling the changeover to universal credit very efficiently. Will the Secretary of State join me in complimenting the staff, including the work they do in motivating claimants and improving their self-confidence so that they can seek employment?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I have actually met the tremendous work coaches in his constituency. I go out to speak to work coaches all the time, and they are saying to me that the change we are delivering through universal credit is the best thing they have ever delivered. The support they can give—[Interruption.] Rather than Opposition Members laughing, they would be well advised to come and join me or others in meeting work coaches. I will tell them how we know this is working: if it were not working, we would not have an extra 3.1 million people in work.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Contrary to the “SNP bad” broken record from the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s recently introduced flexibilities for universal credit payments, and will she consider implementing Scotland’s model down here, especially as her colleague in the Scottish Parliament, Adam Tomkins, has said he is “very much in favour” of them?

[Ms McVey]

The underlying principle of how we get people into work is working right the way across the United Kingdom. It is working in Scotland, and that is correct. Equally, we agree with giving extra powers to devolved Governments, and Scotland has the right to do things in its own way. As we pointed out earlier, however, some of the changes taken on board in Scotland have actually resulted in slower payment to people who need their benefits.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

7. What recent comparative assessment she has made of rates of unemployment in the UK and other European countries.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

The UK has the joint fifth lowest unemployment rate in the EU—better than France, the Netherlands and Denmark. The UK’s unemployment rate, at 4.3%, is the lowest in 42 years. It is less than half that of the euro area, which is 8.7%, and 3 percentage points below the EU28 average of 7.3%.

[Vicky Ford]

Unemployment in my constituency of Chelmsford is now less than 1.5%, and those who are able to work are finding jobs, but will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents who need our financial support that they will continue to be supported when universal credit is rolled out later this year?

[Ms McVey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work she is doing as a new MP, and her constituents on the work they are doing to find employment, getting on in their careers and moving forward. As I have said, this Government believe in hand-up support and opportunity. The support of universal credit—a benefit that supports people in and out of work—will continue not only for her constituents, but for people right across the country.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that of those who have gone into work as a result of this Government’s policies—and that is a good thing—many are living in poverty because of low pay and the inadequacy of our benefits system?

[Ms McVey]

It is interesting how differently people measure getting into work, poverty and life chances. Children born into workless households are actually five times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. Under this Government, we have seen 3.1 million more people in work, and the number of workless households has gone down by over 600,000. We are helping people out of poverty: we are helping them get a job.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier the Secretary of State mentioned dodgy statistics from the Opposition. I have heard people say that lots of the new jobs created are on zero-hours contracts and for part-time work. Can she say what the actual figures are for the number of jobs created that are full-time, permanent jobs?

[Ms McVey]

It was not me talking about dodgy statistics, it was the chair of the UK stats authority who said that, but I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The overwhelming majority of jobs are full-time and permanent jobs, and the vast majority of those in part-time jobs have chosen to be in part-time jobs.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On job searching, has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to review the very helpful and generous offer made by Liverpool City Council to her predecessor to provide office space for closure-threatened jobcentres? There are two jobcentres in my constituency—not one, but two—that her Government wish to close, leaving my constituency with zero jobcentres. They are due to close in just a few weeks’ time. Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to review that offer, to ensure that my constituents continue to receive employment support?

[Ms McVey]

It is really important that everybody gets the support they need, and a lot of the support going forward will be outreach work, so that people do not need to go to Jobcentre Plus, thanks to further support in the community. Obviously I am pleased that in the Liverpool city area—and in the north-west area—which is my hometown, employment is now far higher than it was in 2010. The unemployment rate under the Labour party was 2.8 million in 2008, even before the banking crisis, but now it is 1.4 million, so we are supporting people and we will continue to support people, because that is what this Conservative Government do.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect of the roll-out of universal credit on the number of disabled people living in poverty.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I do not want to see anyone living in poverty, and no Conservative Member of Parliament wants people living in poverty. Disabled people are some of the biggest beneficiaries of universal credit, with around 1 million disabled households having on average around £110 a month more on universal credit than they would have had on the legacy benefits.

[Thelma Walker]

As disability charity Leonard Cheshire has pointed out, many disabled people do not have internet access, assistive technology or the necessary support to fill in the online form to apply for universal credit. Does the Minister agree that the application process needs to be more accessible, so that disabled people can easily apply for these benefits?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point about accessibility of the benefits system for everyone, which is something we all take very seriously. I am grateful for the support that the Leonard Cheshire foundation and a whole range of stakeholders give us in designing the process, to make sure that it is as accessible as possible.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is important that we are absolutely scrupulous in our presentation of the facts about universal credit? As the Secretary of State referred to earlier, I wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to query the shadow Secretary of State’s claim that

“40,000 children will wake up in poverty on Christmas Day because the Tories refuse to pause”

the roll-out of universal credit. On Friday, Sir David Norgrove told me:

“It is clearly important that statements by a political party should be fully supported by the statistics and sources on which they rely. We do not believe”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He has got the thrust of his question across, and the House doubtless will be grateful to him, but this is not a debate; it is Question Time about the policies—

[Mr Clarke]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, the hon. Gentleman has finished for today on this. This is about the policies of the Government. The Secretary of State has made the point about the Statistics Authority, which I allowed her to make, perfectly properly, but it is not now the occasion for dilation on the attitude of the Opposition. This is questions to Ministers about the policies of the Government. That is the situation. Minister, very briefly—please, do not dilate on that matter, because it is out of order.

[Sarah Newton]

It is very important that anybody who stands up in this Parliament takes their responsibilities towards the truth extremely seriously.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Some specialist employment services for people with disabilities such as drug, alcohol or mental health problems—for example, Agoriad in my constituency—are subcontracted to these small local agencies, but minus a management fee and with unsatisfactory remote control. Would not direct contact with these small local agencies provide more resources where they are needed, as well as better value for money and more people in work?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of specialist providers of employment. This is a very important sector, which the Government have a proud tradition of supporting. I meet stakeholders regularly, and we are always looking to see what more we can do to help them sustainably provide the invaluable employment opportunities that they do.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Despite the Government’s claim that no severely disabled person moved on to universal credit would be worse off, we now know that that is not the case: scrapping the disability premiums will have just that effect. Transitional protection for existing claimants can easily be lost where there is a change in circumstance, such as if someone moves into work and if that job does not last. What assessment has the Minister carried out of the impact of abolishing these disability premiums on disabled people, and does she agree that transitional protection should be retained, so that it is not lost where there is a change in circumstance?

[Sarah Newton]

Unlike the previous system, universal credit is more targeted, and support is focused on those who need it most. Transitional protection is available for people who move into universal credit from other benefits, provided their circumstances stay the same. When giving evidence to the Select Committee last week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment said that he was aware of the situation, and he is thinking carefully about this issue.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

9. What recent assessment her Department has made of trends in the average level of household debt for people on universal credit.

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

The Government have taken a number of steps to reduce the risk of problem debt, including capping payday lending costs and promoting savings.

Within universal credit, we also have interest-free advances and a system of priority deductions to help claimants who have got into arrears.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The Government’s own data shows that rising numbers on universal credit are falling into rent arrears, and many claimants in my constituency are going to food banks or approaching payday lenders. Although an advance is available, this is a loan, which is to be repaid at 40% of the standard allowance. Another 40% can be deducted to repay creditors—for example, utilities. That is a total of 80%. Can the Minister reassure me that 80% of the individual allowance cannot be deducted, and that affordability checks, like those that all payday lenders have to do, are carried out before any deductions are actioned?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that we want to make sure we help those who are in arrears. She will know that research done by the National Federation of ALMOs—arm’s length management organisations—has reported that three quarters of tenants were in rent arrears already before they moved into universal credit. She talks about deductions; the percentage is 40%. However, I am happy to meet her to discuss this matter further.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to welcome the Minister to his place and, through him, to thank his Parliamentary Private Secretary for arranging a visit for me to see universal credit working in his constituency this Friday. Further to the question, will my hon. Friend outline the steps being taken to ensure that organisations on the ground help vulnerable people access 100% of universal credit advances rather than get into debt?

[Alok Sharma]

Yes, I can confirm that work coaches and those who perform the interviews at jobcentres make people aware that they can access 100% advances, which are of course interest free, as I said. The other aspect that is available is personal budgeting support, which individuals who need it can also receive.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of employment of older workers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Since 2010, 1,272 new jobs have been created in South Basildon and East Thurrock—an increase due in no small part to my hon. Friend’s efforts. He will be aware that older worker employment levels are at a record high. In his region, 850,000 50 to 64-year-olds are in employment—an increase of over 120,000 people since 2010—and 120,000 people aged 65 and over are in employment. Again, that is another increase of 45,000 since 2010.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Does my hon. Friend agree that encouraging businesses to be flexible in how they employ older workers is one way to bridge the skills gap and keep older workers in the employment market for longer, sharing their experience and knowledge?

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is correct. The fuller working lives strategy, launched by the Department last year, is there specifically to support over-50s into employment and provide them with the skills and retraining that they need, and which businesses specifically value. There are a number of exemplar businesses. He will also be aware that individual people have created over 26,000 new businesses since 2011—that is for the over-50s.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many older workers are not necessarily there by choice. I think in particular of the WASPI women, who are having to work because of the inadequacies of their pension provision. What are the Government going to do about this?

[Guy Opperman]

The Government have no intention of revising the Pension Acts of 1995, 2007 or 2011 introduced by previous Governments and by the coalition, but I make the point very strongly that average employment among the over-50s and the over-64s has increased dramatically since 2010.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

11. What recent progress her Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

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

12. What recent progress her Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

Universal credit transforms the welfare state and the rollout is proceeding to plan, with universal credit now available in one third of all jobcentres in Great Britain.

[David Linden]

Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance is a coalition of eight independent housing associations that has been based in my constituency and operating for pretty much my entire lifetime. It has profound concerns about the rollout of universal credit in Glasgow. Given that the Government have given a lot of commitment to go and meet various people on their Benches today, will the Minister come to my constituency to meet it and listen to its concerns?

[Alok Sharma]

When we have rolled out universal credit, we have done it in a manner that makes sense and works. Right now, 9% of those who will eventually end up on universal credit are on universal credit, and it will reach 11% by June this year. I am, of course, undertaking a whole range of visits to jobcentres across the country. I will make sure that I make a visit to Scotland, and we can have a discussion about whether there is an opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman as well.

[Drew Hendry]

A terminally ill man has won the right to raise a landmark challenge to the Government after the introduction of universal credit left him significantly worse off. Having already acted unlawfully to 1.6 million PIP claimants at a cost to taxpayers of £3.7 billion, does the Minister guarantee that his Government will not be found guilty of unfairly treating the terminally ill?

[Alok Sharma]

I want to be absolutely clear: the changes that we are making in universal credit and in the benefit system are there to focus on protecting the most vulnerable. That is the underlying policy of universal credit and we will continue to do that.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education about their proposals for the eligibility of universal credit claimants to free school meals? If the current proposal were to go ahead, it would introduce a huge new benefit trap into the system, far worse than anything in the old system. Universal credit was supposed to remove such traps, not create new ones.

[Alok Sharma]

Currently, 1.1 million young people—students—receive free school meals. If the policy that has been put forward as part of the consultation goes ahead—where there is an earnings threshold of £7,400—an additional 50,000 young people will benefit from free school meals.

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

13. If she will make an estimate of the number of children who will no longer be living in poverty as a result of the roll-out of universal credit.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

15. If she will make an estimate of the number of children who will no longer be living in poverty as a result of the roll-out of universal credit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

Both hon. Ladies are right to recognise the role that welfare reform is playing in alleviating child poverty. Work is the best route out of poverty, and universal credit strengthens the incentives for parents to move into and progress in work. However, it cannot be considered in isolation: it is a key component of a broader strategy to move Britain to a higher wage, lower welfare and lower tax society.

[Diana Johnson]

Owing to policies pursued since 2010, we now have 20,700 children in poverty across Hull, and food poverty and holiday hunger are growing, including, despite what the Secretary of State says, in working families. Will restricting free school meals in universal credit create a cliff edge and make the situation even more dire in the most disadvantaged communities?

[Kit Malthouse]

Undoubtedly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, children are five times more likely to be in poverty if they are in a workless household. The Government’s entire thrust is to get as many people into work as possible, and we would never contemplate anything that would get in the way of those kinds of incentives. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment said, nobody will lose out under the current proposals on free school meals; in fact, there might well be more recipients in the future.

[Karen Lee]

Figures published last month show that 27% of children in my constituency live in low-income households—and these are families who rely on universal credit. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable that families living in poverty in Lincoln have to rely on food banks, particularly when due to problems with the roll-out of universal credit?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am sure that the hon. Lady, like me, welcomes the 43% fall in the claimant count in her constituency over the past few years—[Hon. Members: “That wasn’t the question.”] On her question, as she and many Members will know, the causes and drivers of people going to food banks are complex. [Interruption.] In my constituency, for example, the food bank was established in 2006—at the height of Labour’s conduct of the economy and welfare system—but the Department needs to think carefully about some of these issues, and we will be doing so in the future.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Does he agree that, on the important subject of children living in poverty and universal credit, it is important to have a sensible, grown-up discussion and debate, rather than bandying around unqualified figures?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and he is absolutely right. National statistics, on a number of measures, have shown child poverty falling. In particular, we have seen 200,000 children over the past few years move out of absolute poverty.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

For too long, parents have been able to hide their earnings from their child maintenance payment calculations, creating and adding to child poverty. What action are the Government taking to stop this?

[Kit Malthouse]

As my hon. Friend knows, the child maintenance system was put in place to enable greater co-operation between parents, on the basis that that often results in a much better outcome for children, but there are parents who fail to do that, and for those circumstances, we have invested significantly in the financial investigations unit of the Child Maintenance Service. We will be consulting further on what more we can do to strengthen our enforcement powers.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. When the benefit freeze was introduced in April 2016, inflation stood at 0.3%; it is now over 3%, and food prices in December were over 4% higher than a year earlier. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that one in four of Britain’s poorest households are struggling with problem debt, and new figures from the End Child Poverty coalition show that in some parts of Britain, such as Bethnal Green and Bow in London and Ladywood in Birmingham, over half of children are living in poverty. Their families are no longer just about managing. Will the Government end the social security freeze that is pushing families into poverty?

[Kit Malthouse]

I would advise the hon. Lady to be slightly careful about the statistics she is using. As we heard earlier, there are some particular problems, but in that report in particular there were enormous caveats saying that the measures were not accurate and the numbers not necessarily reliable, particularly on a constituency basis. The Government are committed to a strategy to tackle poverty that involves work, and since 2010 we have 954,000 fewer households in unemployment and moved into work. That is the best thing we can do for their futures.

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

14. What progress her Department has made on the implementation of the disability confident scheme.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

20. What progress her Department has made on the implementation of the disability confident scheme.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

There are 5,550 employers currently signed up to the disability confident scheme. The disability confident business leaders group, comprising prominent national businesses, is promoting the scheme to other employers, and all main Departments have now achieved disability confident leader status. I encourage all hon. Members to come along to a drop-in centre I have organised on Wednesday 21 February, 3 pm to 5 pm, in Portcullis House, Room Q, so that they too can become disability confident employers.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a little bit of additional information, and we are deeply obliged to the Minister.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Last year, I attended a disability confident workshop in my constituency, where unemployment now stands at an all-time low of 1%. Also present were representatives of the DWP and the local council, as well as local employers, many of whom signed up to the scheme immediately. Will my hon. Friend give further feedback on the national roll-out of a programme that encourages employers to take advantage of keen, loyal staff who are disabled?

[Sarah Newton]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his local support for the disability confident scheme. I urge all Members to become involved in these wonderful events, where we see hundreds of people signing up to the scheme. It is important for us to continue to build on the constructive and positive feedback that we receive from employers by giving them practical support, so that they can employ more disabled people.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally—and, I am sure, with admirable succinctness—Mr Marcus Jones.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I recently visited the excellent Oak Wood School in my constituency, whose leaders are working hard to get talented young people with special needs into work and work placements when they finish school. Will my hon. Friend, like me, encourage employers in my area to join the disability confident scheme, so that we can give opportunities to those young people, and not just give them hope for the future, but provide the labour market with a number of people who will be able to bring a vast amount of experience and difference to our workplaces?

[Sarah Newton]

I was very pleased to hear about the important work being done by Oak Wood School. Last year, more than 500 young people took part in supported internships, and this year the Department for Education has made available just under £10 million of additional funding, which will provide more work placements, particularly for young people with special educational needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital for us to ensure that more of those young people are given the opportunity to work.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that Members will have an opportunity to pore over her comprehensive reply by moving speedily to the Library, where copies will, I am sure, be located within minutes.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

We had a record-breaking 2017 for employment, and I am delighted to see the trend continue as we enter the new year. The proportion of people in work is at an all-time high at 75.3%—so 32.2 million people are now in work, 415,000 more than were working last year. Figures also show that there are a record 810,000 vacancies in the economy at any one time, which proves that the Government are delivering on our promise to build a strong economy.

[Bridget Phillipson]

No child in modern Britain should grow up in poverty, but figures from both the End Child Poverty coalition and the Secretary of State’s own Department reveal that we face a growing crisis. Does she seriously believe that ploughing ahead with universal credit will do anything to help the millions of children who are trapped in avoidable poverty in our country or will bring that number down?

[Ms McVey]

One thing on which both of us will agree—on which, indeed, Members in all parts of the House will agree—is that no child should be growing up in poverty. If we take action to ensure that families are working, those children will not be in poverty. We know for certain that if a child’s family are working, that child is much less likely to be in poverty when it grows up and is more likely to attain higher school qualifications. That is the action that this Conservative Government are taking.

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

T3. Ryedale citizen’s advice bureau has seen a significant drop in the number of universal credit problem cases as a result of the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend and her predecessor, but we are seeing instances of advance payments being used to clear debts. What help and advice is being given to claimants in respect of budgeting and support, so that they can clear problem debts sensibly and sustainably?

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

Through universal credit, we are providing personal budgeting support, which is available through conversations with work coaches. That is making a great difference to those who need such help.

[Mr Speaker]

Front Benchers will have to be very brief, because we are running short of time on account of the length of questions and answers. A pithy sentence, or whatever, will suffice.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

What is the Secretary of State’s response to the report from the European Committee of Social Rights that said statutory sick pay and support for those seeking work or the self-employed is “manifestly inadequate” and therefore in breach of the legally binding European social charter?

[Alok Sharma]

I am happy to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman on this point. All the policies we have put forward are based on being as fair as we can be to all recipients.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T7. We have heard a lot today about universal credit, and making it work properly will depend to a great extent on DWP staff. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff in Sittingbourne and Sheerness jobcentres, who are showing immense dedication and enthusiasm to ensure that benefit claimants in my constituency are not adversely affected by the roll-out of UC?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the staff at Sittingbourne and Sheerness jobcentres. When I have spoken to work coaches in the visits I have made, they are incredibly enthused: they tell me this is the first time they are able to do what they want to do, which is help people into work.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The behaviour of Philip Green on BHS pensions was outrageous; likewise, Carillion paying dividends and big bonuses, while running up a £900 million pensions deficit. We expect better from our universities; does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be right that they are proposing to cut the pension benefits of staff just when one vice-chancellor alone at Edinburgh university has accepted a 33% salary hike as part of a package worth £410,000?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

With respect, this is not a matter for Government to respond on. The joint negotiating committee, which is made up of trustees, employers and unions, is responsible for approving an appropriate recovery plan to ensure the scheme is adequately funded. The universities are subject to regular assessment of their overall financial sustainability management and governance, and I am sure the Pensions Regulator will therefore be watching this situation.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Developing a theme from this side of the House, I had the pleasure of visiting my local jobcentre on Friday. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the hard-working staff who are delivering record levels of employment in my constituency?

[Alok Sharma]

Absolutely: I congratulate the staff in my hon. Friend’s jobcentre, and by the end of the process of rolling out UC, we will have 5,000 extra work coaches across the country.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

T2. About 20,000 people in Liverpool have had their personal independence payments cut due to the blatantly discriminatory regulations that the Secretary of State has now accepted were unlawful. When will my constituents get their money back and their entitlement returned?

[Ms McVey]

The first decision I made was to make sure we did not appeal that question about PIP and what we on this side of the House were going to do to live up to the expectations of PIP, and I think it is a very true, honourable and correct thing that we have done. However, to make sure we deliver it correctly and give the correct amount of money to the people who need it, it will take time for us to thoroughly research what needs to be done.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The attractiveness to many of the two-weekly payments of UC are obvious, but does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that the Scottish Government’s decision to offer this to my constituents and other people across Scotland will leave those who choose it to be worse off than claimants in the rest of the UK?

[Alok Sharma]

It is absolutely the case that under the Scottish system individuals will be at a cash-flow disadvantage after a number of weeks. I would point out that, of course, alternative payments are available in England, too.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

T4. Following last December’s High Court ruling, can the Secretary of State tell me by what date all 1.6 million PIP claims will have been reviewed: will it take weeks, months or even years?

[Ms McVey]

This reviewing will be an administrative process, so we will not need to see the people, but what is most important is that the right people get the right amount of money, and that will take the time it needs.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

We had a very interesting session on assistive technology in the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recently. Will the Government commit to looking at how assistive technology can be used to help more disabled people into work?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I really welcome the work that the Select Committee is doing. I believe that the fourth industrial revolution has the most enormous potential to transform the lives of disabled people, and of course I will read that report thoroughly.

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

T5. My constituent Mrs Allinson suffers from multiple sclerosis. She has been receiving the personal independence payment for 24 months, but was recently reassessed and denied it on the ground that she can work, although only part time. Given that she is no longer getting that money, she is working full time and damaging her health. Do the Government recognise that disabled people need support to stay in work for as long as possible? Will the Minister meet me and ensure that Mrs Allinson’s case is reviewed?

[Sarah Newton]

Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case of her constituent. Let us be clear that we want to achieve the maximum amount of support for people who want to and can get into work as well as ensuring that the right support is available for those who cannot do so.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Child Support Agency was set up to pursue absent fathers who were not paying anything at all towards their children’s upkeep. Too often, the Child Maintenance Service seems to file those people under “too difficult” and just pursue people who are already paying. Can the Minister guarantee that the Child Maintenance Service will continue to go after people who are not paying anything at all towards the upkeep of their children, rather than just pursuing those who are already making a contribution?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that will indeed be the case, and we will shortly be consulting on what more we can do to enforce against those who are unwilling to support their children.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T6. One of the challenges in the design of universal credit is that it does not take into account the fluctuating incomes of people who are freelance. They can earn a low amount one month and a high amount the next, but universal credit does not manage that properly. A self-employed person who has earned £15,000 in a year will get less under universal credit than an employed person who has earned the same amount. Will the Government commit to fixing that anomaly?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, universal credit works on a monthly basis. When someone earns a large amount in a month, we apportion that over the following months. It is worth pointing out that it is entirely possible for people with those kinds of earnings to budget over the year, just as many businesses do.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The GKN takeover proposal announced last Thursday seeks to pay a £1.4 billion sweetener to shareholders, despite a £2 billion pension deficit. Does the Minister agree that the Government should act to protect the interests of GKN pension fund members?

[Ms McVey]

Of course the Government agree that we have to look after the concerns of the GKN workers. Here we have actually seen the trustees of the pension fund coming out, being bold and wanting reassurance from the other company that it can indeed pay for the pension scheme. We can look at the argument from two sides. GKN has to be strong and robust, but also Melrose should voluntarily ask the regulator to look into the implied costs in that benefit scheme to make sure that it can afford to take over the other company.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T8. On 14 December last year, I asked the Minister not to ignore the voices of the 7,000 women in my constituency who are affected by state pension inequality, because we are not going away. Is the Department now any closer to paying us what we are due?

[Guy Opperman]

The position has not changed. The Government do not intend to change the Pensions Act 1995, or the 2007 and 2011 Pensions Acts. I would point out that a £1.1 billion transitional arrangement was put forward in the 2011 statute.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Some 70% of the rise in UK employment involves higher-skilled jobs. This is true in Wiltshire, which expects more than 2,500 jobs from Dyson alone. What work is the Minister doing with other Departments to tackle the science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills gap in the UK, so that Wiltshire can benefit from those jobs?

[Alok Sharma]

I have started to have conversations with ministerial colleagues, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to work as one Government to ensure that high-skilled jobs are created across our country.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the significant rise in household debt and the fear that payday lenders will seek to take advantage of that situation, is not this the right time to seek a significant expansion of credit unions across the UK? What might the Minister do to facilitate such an expansion?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman and I have a meeting in our diaries for, I believe, a week Monday, when I hope to expand on that specific point. He will know that credit union membership has doubled in the past 10 years, and I can assure him that we are discussing these matters with the Treasury, which has ultimate control over credit unions.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am a mathematician and a mother, so I am concerned that the head of the UK Statistics Authority had to write to a shadow Minister to point out that statements that they made were not based on real sources or real statistics. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Minister should apologise?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend puts it so eloquently. It is about time that Opposition Members apologise for their scaremongering.

[Mr Speaker]

Even mothers and mathematicians have to respect the method, and the method in the House is that Members question Ministers about the Government’s policies. I do not blame the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to ram home her point with force and alacrity, but Members must understand that this is not Question Time about the policies, tactics or preferences of the Opposition; this is Question Time about the policies of the Government. Even if there is some Whip handout saying, “Ask the Minister about the behaviour of the Labour party,” that does not make it in order. It is not in order—end of subject.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T9. Thousands of women born in the 1950s are being left in serious hardship as a result of accelerated changes to the state pension age, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) said, they are crying out for justice. In the week when we celebrate the centenary of the first women gaining the right to vote, how dare this Government ignore their voices?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady will know that the policy continued for 13 years under the Labour Government, and her Government could have done something about it between 1997 and 2010, but she maintained that it was the right policy. This Government continues to maintain that it was the right policy, and if individuals require assistance, the Government give over £50 billion to the disabled on an ongoing basis.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am going back and forth, so the hon. Gentleman can have another go. In fairness to colleagues who have not asked questions, a short sentence—one, that is—will suffice.

[Michael Tomlinson]

What benefit has auto-enrolment provided for my constituents?

[Guy Opperman]

Seven thousand employees are now signed up, and 900 employers are doing the right thing and are providing auto-enrolment to my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Later, we will debate benefit uprating, which will maintain a freeze on many key working-age benefits even while the consumer price index sits at 3%. We all know that the freeze is pushing people into crisis, so will the Minister take this opportunity to lift the freeze to ease claimants’ suffering—yes or no?

[Kit Malthouse]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the freeze was enacted in primary legislation, and we would need a vote of the whole House to change it. I am afraid that it forms part of a general suite of welfare reforms that have driven an enormous number of people into work and out of poverty.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A short sentence from the voice of Delyn.

[David Hanson]

Will a Minister look at how universal credit is paid into credit unions? My local credit union is raising real concerns about the DWP’s efficiency and organisation in doing so.

[Guy Opperman]

I am happy to take representations from the right hon. Gentleman, and I will look at that point with my colleagues who handle universal credit.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Bearing in mind the Secretary of State’s call for clear statistics, will she welcome today’s Library paper, which clarifies that 113,000 children will cease to receive free school meals under the proposed changes to universal credit, withdraw the claim that 50,000 more children will benefit at one point in time and bring that to the attention of the House?

[Alok Sharma]

A consultation is taking place, and the Department for Education will respond to it. Everyone who is currently on universal credit will have that benefit protected as long as the children remain in that education setting.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am advised that we have had 23 topical questions, and we must now move on. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues who have waited. I try to extend the envelope a bit, but the time comes when we must move on.

[Debbie Abrahams]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a genuine point of order, as opposed to a point of irascibility.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Further to the comments made by the Secretary of State during oral questions, Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on how I can place my response on the record. I agree it is important for everyone to use data responsibly and to provide the sources and contexts of those data, but I will take no lessons from this Secretary of State or her cohort, who accuse us of scaremongering as a way to distract from the reality of their Government’s cuts. We know what happened last time they accused Opposition Members of scare- mongering about the impact of cuts and universal credit: the Government introduced £1.5 billion of measures. Our concerns were accurate and well founded, and the Child Poverty Action Group found that cuts to universal credit will force 1 million more children into poverty.

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State has found her own salvation. She asks me, I think rhetorically, how she can put her thoughts on the record, and she knows perfectly well that she has just done so through the device of a purported—I use the term advisedly—point of order. One day somebody will do an academic analysis. I have not done so myself, but, in my experience in the House, at least 90% of points of order are bogus. The hon. Lady has made her point.

[Philip Davies]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify whether or not that was an apology from the shadow Secretary of State? It was not entirely clear.

[Mr Speaker]

I think not. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is gesticulating at me in a mildly appealing fashion, but she has made her points with considerable force and requires no further opportunity now.

[Ms McVey]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will lay the letter from the UK Statistics Authority in the Library, so that other people can read it.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a perfectly reasonable course of action for the Secretary of State to take, but it is not a point of order. It might be called a point of information that some colleagues will find helpful.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to raise a point of order, or is he stretching his legs? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) says he is keeping himself awake.

Immigration White Paper

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

15:42

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is going on with the immigration White Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is very cheeky of the right hon. Lady, who is a very senior denizen of the House. I must ask her to read out the urgent question that was granted. I did not grant an urgent question on what is going on with the immigration White Paper; I believe I am right in saying that her urgent question is, “To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the publication of the proposed immigration White Paper.”

[Yvette Cooper]

That is indeed what I asked. Would you like me to repeat those words?

[Mr Speaker]

Blurt it out.

[Yvette Cooper]

I would like to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is happening with the immigration White Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, all right. If the right hon. Lady were sitting a written exam today, she would probably have to do a little more revision. I think she has not quite remembered the precise wording. Nevertheless, as Jack Straw would have said, I think we have got the gravamen of the matter.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I will endeavour to answer the question that was set.

It is of course a great pleasure to come to the House today to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I commend her for her brevity. In doing so, I point out that Ministers have made great efforts to keep the House informed of the state of play on the UK’s exit from the European Union, bearing in mind that we are in an ongoing negotiation and cannot give a running commentary.

Since June 2016, there have been numerous ministerial statements. This question, however, relates specifically to immigration, so I remind the House of where we have got to. Our first priority in the negotiation is to reach a deal on citizens’ rights, on the position of the 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK and, just as importantly, on the position of the 1 million UK citizens who reside in other EU member states. An agreement was successfully concluded on that last December, meaning that all those people were guaranteed continuing rights to live and work as they do now. Of course, we updated Parliament fully at the time. Our next priority is to agree the arrangements during the implementation period—the period immediately following the UK’s exit next March. Negotiations are shortly to begin with the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the UK’s broad objectives in the speech she gave in Florence last year. We will publish a White Paper in the coming months, when the time is right, and of course we will consider how we can update the House as negotiations progress.

As to the longer term, as the House will know, the Government have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the economic aspects of the UK’s exit. The MAC has been asked to report by September 2018, although it has been invited to consider whether it could also produce interim reports. Let me be clear: given that we expect to have an implementation period of about two years after we leave, there will be plenty of time to take account of the MAC’s recommendations in designing the longer-term immigration system for the UK.

We are clear that the Government will make a success of Brexit. We will end free movement and build an immigration system that works in the national interest. We will, as we have done thus far, ensure that Parliament is kept informed and up to date.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Immigration Minister to her new post, but she did not give us any information about immigration or the immigration White Paper. The Home Secretary told the House and the Select Committee in October that there would be an immigration White Paper by the end of last year and a Bill early this year. The then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), told the Committee in November that the White Paper would be produced “soon”, but now we have this. What on earth is going on? I have to say to the new Minister that this is a shambles. I understand that the MAC is not reporting until the autumn and that it will want to take advice on the labour market, but Ministers knew that timetable before Christmas, when they answered those questions. They knew that timetable because they set it when they asked for advice from the MAC. I also understand that negotiations are continuing, but, again, Ministers knew that before Christmas. In addition, this does not get around the obligation on the Home Office to tell the House, the public, EU citizens and employers what its negotiating objectives actually are.

These practical questions need answering very soon, not “in good time” or “when the time is right”. For example, what will the legal status be of the EU nationals who have not registered by the end of the grace period? The Home Secretary told the Committee that that would be in the White Paper. What will the arrangements be for European economic area citizens from Norway or Switzerland? If EU citizens arriving after March next year do not register, will they be able to work? Will employers have to check their registration documents? Will landlords have to make checks before they rent these people a property? What is the position for EU students coming this autumn? What will the arrangements for them be?

We know that the Prime Minister wants people arriving after March 2019 to be treated differently, but we have no idea how. It is just not good enough keeping Parliament in the dark in this way. The Government have said they do not want to be in the single market, but they have not told us what they want instead. They have said that they do not want to be in the customs union, but they have not told us what they want instead. Now they have said that they do not want to have free movement, but, again, they have not told us what they want instead or even what their negotiation objectives are. At best, Ministers are cutting Parliament and the public out of the crucial debate about the future of our country. At worst, they seem to be stuck in negotiations without having agreed, even among themselves, what they want to achieve out of them. May I suggest to the Immigration Minister that she asks the Home Secretary to come to this House to make a full statement, at least on the transition arrangements? The clock is ticking and when you are running out of time, you cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

[Caroline Nokes]

First, I reassure the right hon. Lady that we are not kicking the can down the road. We are making sure we get a system that is right for people. That is why I make no apology for making our priority the 3 million EU citizens living here and the 1 million UK citizens living in EU states. We want to have a system in place for them during the implementation period so that we can register those 3 million people as smoothly and seamlessly as possible. It is imperative that, when we come to the House with a White Paper and an immigration Bill, they are the right pieces of legislation.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

When are we likely to get immigration down to the tens of thousands?

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that in successive Conservative party manifestos we have made a commitment to making sure that we bring immigration down to sustainable levels.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The immigration White Paper was originally scheduled to be published last summer. Then, Ministers told the Home Affairs Committee that it would be published before Christmas. Does not this constant postponement speak to the chaos and confusion on immigration in the Department as a whole? Does the Minister accept that, as the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said, business will be “hugely frustrated” by yet another postponement? Does she appreciate that firms need time to plan for change?

Does the Minister accept that this uncertainty is particularly upsetting for the 3 million EU citizens who live here? These people are contributing to the health service, social care, universities, financial services and the hospitality industry, among many other sectors. They are many of our constituents, neighbours and work colleagues. It is wrong that they should be treated like this. Furthermore, the longer the uncertainty goes on, the less willing EU citizens will be to come here to take up employment. Does the Minister accept that the consequences for recruitment in the health service in particular are potentially very serious? Does she also accept that European students who come to study in Britain after March 2019 will want reassurance that, if they are doing a three or four-year course, they will be able to stay for more than two years without having to apply again for a residence permit?

It is all very well for the Minister to say that the White Paper will be published when the time is right. The Opposition argue that the time has been right for some time and that the Government’s postponement and delay are inexcusable.

[Caroline Nokes]

What is crucial is that, as my predecessor as Immigration Minister did, I continue to consult businesses and universities to make sure that their views are fed into the process. Likewise, the Migration Advisory Committee is consulting businesses because it is so important that their views are fed into the process and that the Government can use the response of economic experts to enable us to determine the best policy going forward.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I commend the Home Office for the careful and considered way it is dealing with this important Bill. It is listening to business and the experts and waiting for some further negotiation, before introducing a Bill that will be fit for purpose for this country for the next 10 or 20 years.

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course, what we are seeking to do is to have evidence-led policy making.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

This unnecessary and unwelcome delay in the publication of a White Paper that was originally promised last summer should perhaps not surprise us, given the Government’s chaotic and aimless approach to Brexit. Even the transition arrangements are in chaos, with the Prime Minister saying that she will push back on residency rights for EU nationals during the transition, thereby making it harder to attract key EU nationals. All that while we are already rejecting doctors and crucial staff from outside the EU because the ridiculous tier 2 cap has been breached for two months in a row.

Scottish Government economic modelling shows that, on average, every EU citizen working in Scotland contributes £34,000 in GDP. The leak of the Whitehall EU exit analysis means we now know that the UK Government are sitting on analysis that comes to precisely the same conclusions as the Scottish Government’s. That highlights yet again the positive contribution that EU citizens make to Scotland’s economy and communities. Free movement has been vital to support healthy population growth in Scotland. I urge the Minister to continue dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that immigration rules after exit do not undo that welcome progress.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is of course right to point out that EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country. That is precisely why we want to see their rights preserved and, indeed, why the Government are legislating that they should be through the withdrawal agreement. I absolutely take on board his comment about the Scottish Government. I reassure him that we will of course continue to work with our colleagues in the Scottish Government to make sure that we get the best results for the whole United Kingdom.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to leaving the single market and that that will allow the United Kingdom to have more control over EU immigration in future?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will know as well as I do that, when people voted in June 2016 to leave the EU, part of that decision for some people was based on immigration. That is why we are taking back control of our borders and will do so through the immigration Bill when it is introduced.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister seemed to suggest that there is no need to deal with this matter before the transition period because we will have the whole transition period—some two years—in which to sort out new arrangements. Does that mean that we will be retaining freedom of movement during the transition period, in which case why do we not stay in the single market?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have been very clear that, after our exit, we want a deep and special relationship with our neighbours going forward, but we also want a smooth transition. It is really important that we have an implementation period that enables us to make sure that the 3 million EU citizens who are here are allowed to register smoothly and seamlessly. The hon. Gentleman will be as aware as I am that the Prime Minister has been very clear that we are leaving the single market and we are leaving the customs union.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the referendum sent out a clear message that people want to take back more control over EU immigration, and that it is therefore crucial that we get this right and publish the report when it is fully ready?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right that, back in 2016, people sent us a very clear message. It is absolutely imperative that we have a smooth transition and that we publish the White Paper and the immigration Bill when the time is right, not before we are ready to do so.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

With the Government’s position on this topic totally unclear even to Parliament, how on earth can Ministers expect to be taken seriously in the ongoing negotiations with our EU counterparts?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am not quite sure how I can be clearer: we are leaving the single market, we are leaving the customs union, and we are seeking to implement a process that will last throughout the implementation period that allows those 3 million EU individuals living here, whose contribution we value, to register for their settled status as smoothly and as seamlessly as possible.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that she will continue the dialogue about immigration with the Scottish Government. When she is doing that, will she remember that a recent opinion poll said that almost 70% of Scots rejected the Scottish National party’s plans to devolve immigration powers from this place to Holyrood?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the trouble to point that out. Of course I will listen to voices from across Scotland.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

With this chaos and delay, is not one thing increasingly clear: the Government’s promise to give EU citizens, and their families and employers, the legal certainty that they deserve is now totally broken? When will 3 million EU citizens get more than warm words and unfinished negotiations from this Brexit Conservative Government?

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. However, I can only repeat this: we will bring forward the settled status scheme, which will be a digital scheme, that will enable our EU citizens living here, whom we value and whom we want to stay, to have a smooth and seamless transition as soon as we possibly can. We have allowed a two-year implementation period, because I am very conscious that 3 million people cannot register instantly. If they do so on a smooth basis, that will still represent 5,000 people a day. That will be a challenge, but it is one that we are determined to get right.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

What my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire want is an immigration system that provides control, but one that is also fair and that treats people equally, regardless of where they come from in the world. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that those two principles will underpin the White Paper in due course?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment; I am always pleased to hear views from Corby and east Northamptonshire. What matters is that we have an immigration system that is fair, and that we work to ensure that any proposals that come forward during the implementation period are the ones that will give the best deal for the UK and ensure that our immigration system is sustainable.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

This is a two-year Session of Parliament. Does the right hon. Lady expect the immigration Bill to complete its passage through the Houses of Parliament in that two-year period?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new position as Immigration Minister and on her response to the urgent question. Will she confirm that it was the previous Labour Government who let immigration spiral out of control from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands a year, that immigration levels are still far too high, and that once we leave the European Union those numbers will start to fall?

[Caroline Nokes]

With respect, I point out to my hon. Friend that the numbers are already beginning to fall. It is important that we note that the direction of travel is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have been very clear that we want a sustainable immigration system that sees those numbers coming down, and it is important that we deliver on that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Post March 2019, from a practical point of view, the one in five of my constituents who are EU nationals could: have permanent residency or settled status; be eligible for settled status; have future eligibility for settled status; or not be eligible at all. When they are talking to landlords, employers and the health service, how are they going differentiate which category they fall into?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to note that we will want to register those who are eligible for settled status as soon as possible so that their status can be confirmed. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there will be a period during which it will be difficult to differentiate, which is why we are going to use the two-year period to make sure we can do that as seamlessly as we possibly can.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Just in case anyone—either inside the Chamber or beyond—has inexplicably missed what my right hon. Friend has said, will she reaffirm the Government’s commitment to leaving the single market and leaving the customs union, and that this will ensure that we have control over EU immigration in the future?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We intend to leave the single market and the customs union, and to retain the control over our immigration system that our citizens told us that they wanted back in 2016.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that roughly half the immigrants who come to this country are from outside the EU and the European economic area. She talks about control, so will she tell me how many non-EEA citizens there are in the UK who have had an immigration application refused, but have not had removal or deportation proceedings initiated against them?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we work very hard to make sure that people who are in this country without permission find it a very difficult environment in which to live. The previous and current Home Secretary’s compliant environment policies have made sure that it is harder to have a bank account, harder to have a driving licence and harder to rent property. The important thing is we know that people come into this country without permission, and we should therefore be seeking to remove them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

A White Paper is a consultation document, but it seems to me that the Government are delaying consulting on what should go into a consultation document. Are we not in this situation because the extreme right wing of the Tory party, who are extreme Brexiters, have formed a tail that is wagging the Tory dog?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am not quite sure how I should respond to being called a dog. However, it is really important to note that we are working incredibly hard to make sure we have an immigration system after Brexit that works in the interests of UK citizens. There is no extreme right-wing cabal controlling the Tory party. This is actually about making sure we deliver on what the British people voted for in 2016.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm two things? First, is it not really important, when we discuss immigration, to recognise that the overwhelming majority of people who come to our country do so to work? We are grateful for the work they do and we should always welcome the contribution they make to our country. Will she also confirm that the customs union has got diddly squat to do with immigration?

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that people who come to this country to work—whether they are from the EU or outside the EU—make a valuable contribution. That is part of the reason why, through the settled status scheme, we seek to recognise that and to make sure that these 3.5 million people can register as seamlessly as possible.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that the issues around EU nationals in this country have been resolved. Is it not a fact that the European Commission made it clear that the circumstances of EU nationals married to British citizens who have chosen to come into this country using treaty rights under article 21 of the treaty of the European Union and the Surinder Singh judgment have not been resolved? Is there not a large group of people in this country married to people from other EU countries who have a level of uncertainty about their future?

[Caroline Nokes]

The agreement that the Prime Minister came to with other EU leaders on 8 December was really important, because we are seeking to make the rights of EU citizens and their dependants as clear as possible, and to make it as easy as possible for them to register so that they can have the certainty to which they are entitled.

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

The Minister keeps talking about achieving sustainable levels of immigration, which suggests that current levels are unsustainable. The reality is that another Scottish farmer reported at the weekend that food was left to rot in his fields because he did not have enough workers. The fish processing industry is struggling, the medical profession is struggling to attract EU immigrants and academics are worried about their future, so the current level of immigration is currently unsustainable for exactly the opposite reasons that the Conservative Government think it is unsustainable. Is this another part of the no-deal preparations that the Government seem to be embarking on? What will happen to immigration policy if there is no deal and no transition period?

[Caroline Nokes]

Whether deal or no deal—we are confident that there will be a deal—we will need a new immigration system that takes account of the fact that we will have left the European Union. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about different sectors of the economy. That is one of the many reasons why we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to consider what our policy should be, and that will give businesses a chance to feed in their views.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation reports that in many sectors there are already insufficient UK applicants to fill the vacancies that exist today. Business cannot carry on with this uncertainty for much longer, so may I urge the Minister to bring forward the White Paper and the immigration Bill at the very earliest opportunity for the sake of our businesses?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to consult businesses and the universities sector, and that is part of the reason why we have asked the MAC to bring forward a report for us by the autumn. It is really important to us that we get our immigration policy right, which is why we have not yet brought forward the White Paper and the Bill, but we intend to.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week, two consultants in intensive care at Addenbrooke’s Hospital wrote to me. They had been trying to recruit urgently needed staff. They found three people, but those people were turned down by the Home Office because the tier 2 visa cap had been reached for that month. How can that possibly be helpful to our country? Does the Minister agree that the system is basically broken?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course we need to ensure that we have a sustainable system, which is why it is important that the Bill and the White Paper take account of all views expressed to us by all sectors. That is what we are determined to do to get this right.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Even if the Minister cannot confirm any other great details, will she re-emphasise the point that there will be no change to the historical rights of citizens of the Irish Republic to travel to and work in Britain?

[Caroline Nokes]

I think that we have been quite clear that those from the common travel area will be able to continue to travel, as indeed they could from 1920 onwards—long before we became members of the European Union.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

In Yarl’s Wood and other such institutions, vulnerable people have been held, effectively indefinitely, when most of them have not actually committed any crime. Does the Minister agree that the Bill, when it finally comes, will provide an opportunity to review this obvious injustice?

[Caroline Nokes]

Detention will continue to form part of our immigration policy, but I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the case of Yarl’s Wood. I am going there to visit the immigration removal centre this week, and I have already been to two other removal centres. As the new Immigration Minister, it is imperative that I go and see how our policies are operating, and to seek reassurances where they are required.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Every Friday at my surgeries, I have a queue of constituents who have issues with the Home Office—everything from entrepreneur visas that have been delayed and refused, to people who cannot get their granny over for a visit. Is it not the case that the Home Office is a Department in so much chaos that there is no way whatever that it will be able to cope with an additional 3 million EU nationals?

[Caroline Nokes]

I absolutely refute the suggestion that we are a Department in chaos. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are determined to ensure that the registration of EU nationals is as simple and straightforward as possible.

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

Has the Minister had a chance to read the Health Committee’s report on nursing shortages? It clearly sets out how much the NHS relies on nurses from overseas, and how many EU nurses are really worried about their future. Will she tell us how this delay will help the overstretched NHS to plan for the future and ensure that this country has the nurses it needs?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady will be aware that nurses remain on the shortage occupation list. Nurses from the EU who are currently living and working here will of course have the same right to settled status as those in other employments.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), the Minister said that the immigration Bill would be passed in this two-year Parliament. If the consultation on the White Paper is coming in October, that will give her about four months to pass the Bill through both Houses. Will she confirm when the Bill is coming and whether she will get it through in the two-year Parliament? This is not something from “Yes, Minister”; it is about people’s lives. We need firm views from the Government on what is happening on immigration.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for comparing this to a “Yes, Minister” episode; I remember that there was a definite paucity of women in that programme. I assure him that we are absolutely clear that we will introduce the immigration Bill and the White Paper when the time is right. We appreciate that we have to get our immigration system sustainable and appropriate for a post-Brexit era, and it is really important to me that we do so.

NHS Winter Crisis

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

16:10

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the resolution of the House of 10 January on the NHS winter crisis.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Stephen Barclay)]

Winter is challenging for health services worldwide. With a high number of flu cases this year, we have seen an increase of about 35% in accident and emergency attendances for flu—triple what it was last year—with about 3,000 hospital beds occupied as a result of flu and a further 700 because of norovirus. The NHS saw 1,200 more patients at A&E compared with this time last year. The guidance issued by the national emergency pressures panel sought to free up capacity for emergencies given the high number of flu cases, including from two dominant strains of flu co-circulating this year.

It is important to remind the House that the deferment of operations referred to in that guidance applies to about 13% of hospital beds dealing with elective patients, of which about half were protected within the guidance in respect of cancer and other urgent elective treatments. The guidance was updated on 26 January to confirm that further deferment of hospital operations is no longer needed. In terms of the impact that the guidance has had on operations, we will not know that until mid-March, when that data will be published and placed in the Library for the benefit of those on both sides of the House.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I welcome the new Minister to his place. However, the Secretary of State should have been here giving an oral statement, because those were the terms of the motion endorsed by the whole House.

The reason that motion was endorsed is that this winter, in recent weeks, over 95% of hospital beds have been full, we have seen the highest-ever number of A&E diverts, 50,000 elective operations have been cancelled, and urgent operations have been cancelled too. The crisis that our NHS is now in is so deep, and the underfunding so severe, that on Friday NHS England was forced to announce that the target of seeing 95% of A&E patients within four hours is now effectively abandoned until March 2019. If the Secretary of State had come to the House last Thursday, he could have been questioned on the NHS guidance.

Last year, more than 2.5 million patients waited longer than they should have done in A&E. Does the Minister expect that number to rise or fall this year? The 18-week target has already been abandoned. Is it not unprecedented that patients will have to accept, even before the financial year starts, that the NHS will not deliver on key constitutional standards of care? The waiting time standards are legal duties contained in the NHS constitution. What legal advice have Ministers received, or will they be seeking to amend the NHS constitution?

On Saturday, thousands of us took to the streets to demand a fully-funded, universal public national health service—and by the way, we will take no lessons from Donald Trump, who wants to deny healthcare to millions with a system that checks your purse before it checks your pulse. The NHS model is not broke but it does need funding. If this Government will not give it the funding it needs, then the next Labour Government will.

[Stephen Barclay]

A party preparing for a run on the pound will be in no place to give funding to the NHS. It is the agreed convention of the House that responses to Opposition day debates are provided by the Department within 12 weeks. The Secretary of State will of course do that within that period, and there is a good reason for that. As I set out in my opening remarks, the data will not be available until mid-March, so the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is premature in asking this urgent question.

The facts are that the NHS was better prepared for winter this year. The number of 111 calls dealt with by a clinician has doubled compared with last year. Over 1 million more people have been vaccinated for the flu virus, 99% of A&Es have GP streaming and over 3,000 more beds have been made available since November, reflecting the extent of the plan.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

So everything in our NHS is fine, is it?

[Stephen Barclay]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to compare with the performance of the NHS in Wales, we will undertake a comparison. The reality is that this year, we have had pressure on the NHS as a result of flu. The difference is that in 2009, the Conservative party did not play politics with the flu pressures. This year, the hon. Member for Leicester South has done so. He should compare it with the pressure in Wales and see the excellent performance we have had in comparison.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The Minister will know that pressures in the NHS cannot be viewed in isolation from pressures in the community. It is great to see that he is now part of a Department of Health and Social Care. Will he say what is being done about making beds available in the community, to free up pressures in the NHS?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Health Select Committee, makes a valid point about the need for much more integration in our approach to the NHS. That is reflected in the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) as the Minister for Care, to look at that exact point.

Part of it is also looking at how we address other areas to deliver better outcomes. For example, 43% of bed occupancy at present is from just 5% of patients—those staying over 21 days. One key issue is how we bring down the current average stay from 40 days to, say, 35 days. That alone would unlock around 5,000 beds. We are looking at a more integrated model to address the pathways that I know my hon. Friend has highlighted in the Health Committee as a key priority.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Scottish National party Members want, first and foremost, to put on record our thanks to NHS staff. A number of members of my family work for the NHS. I spent time with them at the weekend, and we got that time because they were working over the Christmas period. We know that Christmas and the winter period has been profoundly challenging due to flu, but it is important that resources follow that. That is why we have record funding support for the NHS in Scotland and NHS Scotland A&E departments are the best performing in the UK.

Last week, the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish the public sector pay cap and to look at bringing in a 3% pay increase for our public sector workers. That is action, rather than warm words. Far too often we hear warm words from this Government, but in the national health service we need to see action, particularly on the public sector pay cap. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle wage stagnation within the national health service?

[Stephen Barclay]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his more mature approach, in recognising the huge amount of work performed by NHS staff. Indeed, as I pointed out, 1,200 more people a day are being treated in A&E, which reflects how much more is being done in our NHS with more resource, more money, more doctors, more nurses and more paramedics.

In terms of the specifics on money, the Government have given £1.6 billion to support performance improvements, which will be used to treat a quarter of a million more patients in 2018-19. The NHS planning guidance also shows that it expects performance to improve in the face of growing demand. That shows how more is being done, and more needs to be done.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

All over the world, every winter sees a spike in illness and pressures on healthcare. Does the Minister agree that this Government have been proactive? In fact, for the first time ever, care home staff can receive vaccinations for free.

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of vaccinations. This year we have seen 1 million more vaccinations than last year, which is part of addressing the demand on A&E. The number of 111 calls dealt with by clinicians has more than doubled, which has mitigated much of the demand from the flu virus.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

In the light of the funding problems exposed by the winter crisis, what is the Government’s response to the recommendation of the last chief executive of the NHS, the heads of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of General Practitioners and the retiring head of the Treasury that there has to be a form of earmarked taxation to provide stable, sustainable funding?

[Stephen Barclay]

Addressing the challenge of funding was reflected in the Budget, with the additional money set aside by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. On the comments of Simon Stevens, it is important to note what he said about the connection between a strong economy and delivering the finance that the NHS needs. Simon Stevens said:

“It has been true for the 68 years of the NHS’s history that when the British economy sneezes the NHS catches a cold.”

The reality is that if we are to fund the NHS as all of us want it to be funded, we need to ensure that there is a strong economy and only one party will ensure that that happens.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

If we restore the beds to Milford-on-Sea lost under Labour, it will reduce the pressure on Southampton General, will it not?

[Stephen Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The other issue that puts pressure on beds and hospital finances is many of the legacy private finance initiative deals. We also inherited those deals from the Opposition, which they very rarely seem to want to talk about.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister tell the House why, on Friday, NHS England suspended the requirement for A&E patients to be seen within four hours until 2019, contrary to the NHS constitution, and will he amend the NHS constitution to reflect this advice?

[Stephen Barclay]

I thought the hon. Lady was going to stand up to reflect on the fact that her trust got £2.9 million of additional funding from what the Chancellor set about doing. The reality is that this Government are putting more money into the NHS and addressing the demands on the system.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I ask my hon. Friend what scope there is as we go forward for conversations between his Department, NHS England and NHS trusts about maximising staff numbers in acute settings in our hospitals during the winter months?

[Stephen Barclay]

We are in discussion with Health Education England on workforce planning and ensuring that we address concerns about retention and training, part of which is the fact that the Chancellor has lifted the 1% cap as it applies within the health service, and we are of course in active discussions with the trade unions on that point.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It has been reported to me that out of the 17 cubicles at Lewisham A&E one morning last November, five people were awaiting section with severe mental health problems. One person was there for over 72 hours, another for over 26 hours and another for over 21 hours, and all were there for over four hours. When will the Minister acknowledge that the reason why A&Es cannot cope is that the entire system—from social care and GPs through to mental health—is buckling under the enormous pressure of increasing demand, and when is the NHS going to get the funding it needs?

[Stephen Barclay]

I have already said that I recognise there is increasing demand, and set out many of the measures we are taking through the 111 service and other areas. The hon. Lady’s own trust has received an additional £3.2 million to address many of those pressures, and the key question is how that will be deployed by the trust to address many of the blockages in the pathways at the moment.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Despite the challenges this winter, does my hon. Friend not agree that we can be extremely proud in this country that we have an NHS free at the point of delivery to all of our citizens? Will he confirm that that will continue to be the policy of this Government, and does he agree with me that we should not listen to the voices from across the Atlantic saying we should adopt a different system?

[Stephen Barclay]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the NHS will remain free at the point of delivery. The reality is that for the majority of the NHS’s existence, it has been run by the Conservative party. We know the value of retaining healthcare free at the point of delivery, and the Secretary of State has repeatedly reaffirmed his absolute commitment to that.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency surgery, two sisters came to speak to me about their father, who went to hospital last month. Because the staff were so overstretched, he was placed in the wrong ward, so he did not get seen by a doctor for four days. Will the Minister reassure the sisters, and will he will pause the downgrade of Huddersfield Royal Infirmary and rethink this so that the winter crisis does not become a daily crisis in the NHS?

[Stephen Barclay]

As the hon. Lady knows, local commissioning decisions are for the clinical commissioning group and local commissioners, but again, not one Opposition Member has recognised the additional funding that has gone in. Her own trust received an additional £3.4 million—[Interruption.] Well, it never is enough for the hon. Lady. The question is, how, with the economic mismanagement under their party, Labour Members are ever going to deliver what they want? Her trust received an additional £3.4 million to address the pressures.

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

Not only are this Government increasing the funding available to the NHS; crucially, they are also training more doctors, with 1,500 more medical school places. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not only a crucial factor that will address areas such as Lincolnshire, which are under-doctored, but another reason to put a medical school in Lincolnshire?

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much note my hon. Friend’s bid for further training places, and he is absolutely right: there has been a 25% increase in the number of places. That is part of ensuring that we have more doctors, nurses and paramedics, which this Government have put in, to address the increasing demand that the NHS faces.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Given that, according to Age UK, one in three older people admitted to hospital is suffering from malnutrition, will the Minister now accept that cuts to adult social care are putting an avoidable and increasing strain on the NHS?

[Stephen Barclay]

What the hon. Lady’s question points to is how we better integrate care as between hospitals and the care sector. That is exactly the issue that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who has responsibility for care, is looking at in the Department, to ensure better outcomes from the money being put into the system.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in praising the foresight, dedication and hard work of the staff and management of Luton and Dunstable, which was the first hospital to bring in A&E streaming and now regularly and comfortably achieves the 95% target? Does he agree that we need to be better at moving best practice in the NHS around the whole system more quickly?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he points to is the variance in performance between some of the best trusts, such as Luton and Dunstable, and other trusts. One of the key challenges is how we ensure that that best practice is better socialised across the NHS, because unlike Labour we recognise that it is not just about how much money we put into the NHS; it is what we get out for that money. Luton and Dunstable illustrates that point, and more trusts need to follow suit.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

North Tees Hospital staff are doing a great job of dealing with the winter crisis, but even they have been struggling this year. The trust says it is going to record its first ever deficit, because it cannot make the £18 million cuts demanded by the Government. Is the answer really to deprive it of more money or to have it set up a wholly owned subsidiary company to cut the terms and conditions of future staff?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman’s trust has received an additional £1.6 million, so it is simply factually incorrect to say that its budget has been cut.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I thank my hon. Friend the hospitals Minister for the extra £2.6 million given to Kettering General Hospital to help it to cope with winter pressures this year; and, through him, my I congratulate the NHS on this year undertaking the most comprehensive flu vaccination programme in Europe and the largest in this country’s history?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner for his constituency, and he is absolutely right to highlight both the progress made and the importance of the prevention offered through the increased number of vaccinations. I hope many more people next year will continue to take up the vaccination, including Members of this House.

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

Does the Minister not realise that 14,000 beds have been taken out of the national health service on this Government’s watch? People are now being treated in ambulances, which is a disgrace. Is he not taking us back to the Major Government of the 1990s, when people were sleeping on trolleys?

[Stephen Barclay]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the increase in the number of doctors. There are now 14,900 more doctors and 14,200 more nurses in the system. As I alluded to earlier, it is not just the number of beds; it is also how we manage those beds. It is how we manage the fact that 5% of the patient population is occupying 43% of beds that will best address bed occupancy rates.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the extra investment in Essex and Harlow in terms of the winter crisis in the national health service, and I very much hope we get a 10-year plan, as suggested by the Secretary of State. Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that Harlow Hospital faces, in that we have among the highest A&E figures per head in England and a hospital that is literally falling down and not fit for purpose, as recognised by the Department? Will he visit the hospital to see what can be done to help us in our campaign for a brand-new hospital for Harlow?

[Stephen Barclay]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the challenge at Harlow is recognised by the Department. That is why, from memory, its outline business case has been approved and it is now going through the next phase in terms of getting the final business case approved. I am very happy, as always, to discuss the progress of Harlow with my right hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the Minister seeks to deflect my question by telling me how much extra my trust has got—his Parliamentary Private Secretary is diligently looking that up at this moment—let me tell him that I am aware of how much we received: £1.1 million. However, I can also tell him that winter cost us £11 million, so there is still a £10 million cost to our trust budget.

However, there is a double hit, because my hospital will be hit by fines as a result of missing A&E targets and handling targets for ambulances, with £120 per missed four-hour target, £1,000 per missed 12-hour target and £200 for each ambulance affected. Will the Minister make sure that those fines are not levied by clinical commissioning groups, and that that money stays where it is needed, which is in frontline care?

[Stephen Barclay]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the huge number of measures that have been put in place. As Sir Bruce Keogh himself recognised, there was much more planning this year at a much earlier stage. We have had better integration between NHS England and NHS Improvement. We have had a much more comprehensive planning cycle. We have had better access to primary care, reducing pressure on the front door. We have had stronger action on delayed discharges, addressing issues at the back door. We have had changes to the way ambulance services respond to calls, so there is better prioritisation. We have also had financial incentives focused on A&E performance, so there is a huge range of measures, in addition, as I said earlier, to 1 million more people being vaccinated against flu. Those are all part of the actions taken by this Government to prepare and plan for the pressure of the flu issue we have had to manage.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

While my constituents will welcome the £1.1 million of extra winter funding, they do not want to believe that this issue is decided purely by knockabout in the House of Commons, which is what some others wish to focus on. Will the Minister reassure me that he will look for independent clinical advice on how to deal with pressures in the NHS and then base his response on that advice?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a desire among Labour Members to avoid the reality of what is happening in Wales, where clinicians said that their best performance is often akin to the worst performance in England. However, we recognise that there needs to be much more integration in the system. That is why the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, is looking at how we have better integration in the NHS and the community in terms of domiciliary care, and at how we address some of the issues in the pipeline—the pathways—in hospitals to get a better flow, so that the discharging of patients is not delayed. Much progress has been made, but we recognise that more needs to be done.

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

We all knew this was going to be a difficult winter for the NHS, but I just wondered whether the Minister felt that his Department had helped the situation by delaying the announcement of additional funds until the November Budget, with most trusts not receiving that money until December. That meant that my trust, for example, had to make plans without knowing whether it would get additional funding and that it was taking a risk.

[Stephen Barclay]

The Labour party seems to have moved from complaining about the amount of money to complaining that it was not delivered early enough. The hon. Lady’s trust received £3.4 million of additional money, but, as Sir Bruce Keogh has made clear, the point is that preparation for winter this year began much earlier than normal and was far better advanced than has been the case before. That is what the medical director of the NHS has said about how we prepared for winter this year.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Could I reflect on the rather rosy picture that my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), painted of the NHS in Scotland? We have poor waiting times at A&Es, we are closing a paediatric ward in Paisley, and the chemotherapy unit at Station 15 in Ayr is under threat. Does the Minister think that having the highest tax base in the United Kingdom is a threat to recruitment in NHS Scotland, and that higher taxes in Scotland might play to the advantage of NHS England?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend points to a key point that I have made throughout this session. It is not just about how much money is put into the NHS, but about the outcomes that are delivered as a result. He is right to allude to the fact that in Scotland the SNP has not delivered the improvements it promised on the NHS. That is why there is so much dissatisfaction in Scotland with what is happening in the NHS there.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is not just integration that will solve the problems in the social care sector. In Trafford, social care providers are being promised £14.61 an hour from this April—well short of what we need to sustain the home care market. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is adequate funding for home care providers?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises a very valid point. It is exactly why we will have a Green Paper this summer looking at what steps need to be taken to address this issue. On both sides of the House, we recognise that more needs to be done on how we address these concerns, and that is what the Green Paper will tackle.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister did not mean to mislead the House regarding the impact of the flu epidemic on our A&Es, so will he confirm that the delays to people being treated in A&E, and the fact that people have been waiting on trollies in corridors and that ambulances have been queueing at the doors of A&E, predated the flu epidemic?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman makes quite a serious allegation of my misleading the House. What I was very clear about is that there has been a 35% increase in attendances at A&E as a result of flu this year compared with last year, and that around 3,000 beds are currently occupied by patients with flu and around 700 beds are occupied by those with norovirus. Clearly, that has resulted in significant seasonal pressures this year, which have placed strain on the system. That was recognised by the Government in the additional funding that was put in place. It was recognised by the NHS, as Sir Bruce Keogh set out in the early planning that was undertaken, and it is simply wrong for the hon. Gentleman to ignore the impact of flu this year, given the way that in 2009 the then Opposition were very responsible in recognising its impact.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that accountable care organisations, accountable care services and place-based care are being rebranded as integrated care services? Will he explain whether there is actually any difference between those terms, and will he do all he can to ensure that Members in this House are given the opportunity to scrutinise them, as I believe that they are here to act as a Trojan horse to bring in the break-up and privatisation of the national health service?

[Stephen Barclay]

We continually hear this myth about privatisation. The reality is that this Government appointed to run NHS England, first, Sir David Nicholson, who had previously been appointed by the Labour party, and then Sir Simon Stevens, who has worked for both sides of the House. Numbers show that the level of private healthcare provision has not changed this year compared with last year. I understand that the Health Committee is due to look into ACOs and integration within a matter of weeks as part of its deliberations, and I very much look forward to reading the conclusions in that Committee’s report.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The programme to reduce acute hospital services and close blue-light A&Es, like that at Charing Cross Hospital, is about to undergo its fourth change of name in five years—“Shaping a healthier future,” “sustainability and transformation,” “accountable care,” and “integrated care”. Would it not be better to reconsider that policy, which is being driven not by local clinicians, but by his Department?

[Stephen Barclay]

The impression given by the hon. Gentleman is that he always seems to oppose reconfiguration of any sort. The reality is that most clinicians will say, “We do need to reconfigure. We do need to look at how services are operated.” The evidence of that can be seen within London in terms of the reconfiguration of stroke, which from memory, he opposed—

[Andy Slaughter]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Barclay]

If the hon. Gentleman did not oppose it, I will happily correct that, but he will recognise that the reconfiguration of stroke in London to fewer sites significantly improved outcomes for patients. There is always a discussion to be had about how reconfiguration operates, but clinicians and the royal colleges recognise that the benefits of reconfiguration are better outcomes for patients as well as better outcomes for the NHS.

Grenfell Tower

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

16:39

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the implications of the withdrawal of the Building Research Establishment’s safety test results for insulation materials used on Grenfell Tower.

[The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)]

I wish to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question and the decision by the Building Research Establishment to withdraw a building cladding safety test from its website.

The BRE was contacted by the insulation manufacturer, Celotex, after it identified anomalies between the specification for a particular cladding system it had submitted for testing and the actual system tested. It was alerted to the issue last week, and we were informed by the BRE last Wednesday. As a result, the BRE has withdrawn the classification report relating to that specific test, which was carried out in 2014. That is clearly the right thing to do. The cladding system in question included a fibre cement board, rain screen and Celotex RS5000 insulation. Celotex will now schedule a retesting of that system as soon as possible, as detailed in the relevant test report. It is important to make it very clear that this was not a test of the aluminium composite material cladding system that was widely reported and understood to have been present on Grenfell Tower, and it would be wrong to conflate the two.

In the meantime, we understand that Celotex is contacting all its customers who have used this material. We have published advice for building owners on the fire safety of cladding and insulation materials, including this type of insulation, and that advice still stands. As it makes clear, building owners should take professional advice on any further action they think might be necessary, reflecting their buildings’ particular circumstances. More broadly, we continue to expect building owners to progress any necessary remedial works and, where necessary, to implement interim fire safety measures to make sure that residents and their buildings are kept safe.

[John Healey]

The Government’s fire testing system is in chaos, yet the Minister offers no fresh advice, let alone fresh action, to deal with the problems. More than seven months on from the Grenfell Tower fire, only three out of 300 high-rise blocks confirmed to have unsafe cladding have had it removed or replaced, so thousands of families across the country are still living in homes that are not safe, and other privately owned blocks with the same suspect cladding have not even sent it for testing, despite the Government’s saying they should back in August.

On Friday, the Government’s test centre, the BRE, was asked to withdraw the 2014 safety test results that approved the insulation materials on Grenfell Tower. How many other residents are living in how many other high-rise blocks with that same insulation, which now has an invalid approval? Are any other BRE tests similarly flawed? In particular, is the Government’s own testing programme sound? The industry is now saying that Government-commissioned cladding and insulation tests used different standards from those in official guidance, with cavity barriers three times more fire-resistant. Is this the case? What does the Minister say to insurers and landlords who tell residents that the Government’s tests are not sufficient to show they breach building regulations, despite what the Secretary of State has said, and that therefore they will pay no removal or replacement costs, leaving leaseholders liable to foot the full bill?

Seven months on from Grenfell, the national testing regime is in tatters. After this national disaster, people look to national leaders for action. Only Ministers can act to make sure that all high-rise buildings are tested, that all tests are sound and that all dangerous cladding or insulation is removed. When will the Government sort this out?

[Dominic Raab]

I am somewhat disappointed that from this case and the detailed specifications that need to be retested, the right hon. Gentleman has jumped to conflate a much wider range of issues relating to Grenfell. I think that he has done it deliberately, and it is not a responsible thing to do. [Interruption.] Let me now answer his questions directly—and perhaps the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) would like to listen rather than commenting without understanding the facts.

The right hon. Gentleman asks why there was no new advice. There is no new advice because the existing advice is sound. He said that there had been no action. I gave details of the very specific action that has been taken in relation to Celotex. Indeed, on first hearing of this, I ensured at director level in my Department that the managing director of Celotex was contacted. We understand how seriously the company takes the testing issue, and we understand that it will act as soon as reasonably possible to have the product retested. I know the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that that should be done in a rushed way. We want it to be done correctly, properly and responsibly, so that we understand and can give the reassurances for which he fairly asked.

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that homes were not safe. He already knows that as part of the building safety programme, inspectors have identified 284 buildings with cladding that does not comply with the requirements in the regulation, and the fire service has visited every one of those buildings. There are interim measures in place, including measures relating to car parks and ensuring that fire wardens are present, so that we can confidently say that every home is safe.

The right hon. Gentleman asks why the renovations had not been conducted more quickly. We need to engage with construction services responsibly to ensure that the renovations are carried out correctly, accurately and in a way that can reassure tenants and the wider public, and that obviously cannot be done in a hurry. We have reviewed the advice regularly, and it remains sound. We are taking every action that is necessary, both in relation to this case—which was the pretext on which the right hon. Gentleman based the urgent question —and in relation to the sensitive and important wider issue of housing and cladding as it affects local authority and housing association tower blocks and those in the private sector. That is exactly what the public would expect.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. I welcome the Minister to his post. May I ask him how many local authorities have sought financial flexibilities to help with essential fire safety work, and whether he can confirm that no requests for such flexibilities have been turned down?

[Dominic Raab]

I have had personal conversations with local authorities that have been affected. We have made it clear that carrying out the necessary remedial works is the responsibility of the building owner, whichever sector it is in, but that when they need financial support or flexibility, they can come to us. As my hon. Friend suggests, we have not declined any such request.

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

The Minister has accused the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of conflating issues relating to Grenfell. If the Government wanted to keep the House informed and if they were on top of the situation, the Minister would have made a statement rather than our having to rely on an urgent question. The Government promised to keep the House updated on all developments associated with Grenfell, and they have failed badly in that respect.

What steps have been taken to establish how many properties may be affected by the loss of a certificate for this product, and how many other products may be affected in the same way? What investigations will the Government undertake to determine how the wrong information could be supplied to BRE and how tests could have proceeded on the basis of that wrong information? How will the Government ensure in future that correct end-to-end processes—from start to finish—are followed properly and that safe materials are installed in buildings? Will the Government consider giving BRE a wider role, involving more than just carrying out fire tests? How will the fire testing regime feed into future design and product specification? There needs to be a circular procedure. Given that BRE and Celotex seem to be blaming each other, when will the Government get a grip and take a lead?

[Dominic Raab]

The reason why it is a conflation of the two issues is that the system that was tested in a way that has been found to have been flawed is not the same system that is widely understood to have been the one used in relation to Grenfell. We have no expectation or reason to believe that there is a fire safety issue as a result of this flawed testing, but the responsible thing to do is make sure it is retested as swiftly as possible; then we will know the facts and we can give advice. But if any building owner, let alone tenant, has any concern or question in relation to their property, the existing advice about how to get it tested as soon as possible and take interim measures to protect the property stands; that is the most important thing. There should be no suggestion in this House—on either side—that those living in their homes are anything other than perfectly safe if they followed that important guidance.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Residents want to know that their safety is paramount, and they want clear information on what is a complex issue, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is irresponsible for others to draw a connection between the recent coverage about Celotex and the Government’s building safety programme? Does he agree that this must not distract from the vital work of making the buildings meet the required standards in London and across the country?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. It is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about how the Celotex case happened, and in relation to the firm and BRE and the action we have taken, it is clear what needs now to be done as soon as possible to get that retesting done, to make sure those questions are answered. The leap into the wider Grenfell issue is deeply sensitive, and a wholesale programme on that is under way to make sure, first, that the interim measures are taken, so that people are safe in their homes; secondly, that the renovations are made, so that we have the proper cladding and systems in place around those buildings; and thirdly, in relation to the wider review of building regulations undertaken by Dame Judith Hackitt, that we learn the wider lessons for building regulation. That is the responsible thing to do. My hon. Friend talked about leadership; we are providing it.

[Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)]

Why is the Minister refusing to take action to make the residents in social housing tower blocks safe by backing Labour’s pledge to set aside funding to retrofit sprinkler systems, as fire chiefs have asked the Government to do? People are afraid.

[Dominic Raab]

We are taking the technical advice, we are making sure we have the interim measures in place and we are making sure that the renovations that need to be done to keep those tower blocks safe are done as soon as possible, although that takes time because that requires construction services that have to be contracted. We are making sure that all that work is done. As I have said in relation to the wider question of building regulation, the review conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt will make sure that all those lessons are learned. We have already had the interim report. We have accepted those recommendations and we look forward to the full report.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Decent people up and down the land will want to know that the Government, both centrally and locally, are doing all they can to ensure that people are safe in their homes. The Minister has set some of that out this afternoon. Does he agree that decent people up and down the land will not be expecting party political points scoring on this and people grubbing around for a vote or two?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. As I said, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about the testing system and how we get it right. It is the leap into the other sensitive issues on which a range of concerted action has been taken that is wrong.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There are leaseholders living in blocks all over the country, including One Brewery Wharf and Quay One in my constituency, who, having discovered that their homes are covered in unsafe cladding, now face the prospect of having to pay for its replacement, and they are facing difficulties in remortgaging and selling their properties. Since the Secretary of State’s urging freeholders to do the decent thing and pay is not working, what are the Government now going to do to ensure that the recladding of those blocks takes place without the cost falling on leaseholders, who are entirely blameless in this matter?

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. First, he talked about cladding that might be unsafe. He did not specify which, but any concerns can be sent to the Building Research Establishment for sampling. We can get that checked in the right way.

In relation to the issue between freeholders and leaseholders, we have been clear all along that it is for the owner of the property to conduct the required renovation and to bear the cost. On local authorities, wherever financial flexibility is required, they can come to us. We have not said no to one yet. Housing associations should go to the regulator. In relation to private sector landlords, we have made it very clear that we believe they should bear the cost. It will depend on the specific leases, and of course the legal question of whether costs are being unreasonably handed over to tenants can be determined by the first-tier tribunal. That is a legal issue and we cannot interfere in that, but morally, we know that there are plenty of freeholders in the private sector who should be doing just as local authorities and housing associations are doing, and who should not be passing on any unreasonable cost to leaseholders or tenants.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is interesting to contrast some of the comments made at the Opposition Dispatch Box today with the reactions of that individual to previous issues when he was a Minister. Will the Minister tell me what is being done to ensure that social housing tenants will be listened to in future? That is one of the big things that has come out of this. People put forward their concerns, but they were just not listened to, even by those who were supposed to be representing them.

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a broader point. We have two important streams of work under way to ensure that lessons are learned. The first relates to building regulations. We have had the interim report from the Hackitt review and we look forward to the full report. We are also conducting a series of workshops for social housing tenants across the country. We have held something like 100 events, and I have attended two of them, in Basingstoke and in relation to Grenfell. That is the right way to proceed. We must ensure that we listen to social tenants with an open mind and an open heart, and that we learn the lessons as we take forward our reform proposals.

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

The Minister has said that no local authority has been refused assistance when it has asked for help to keep its tenants safe. He will know that Birmingham City Council requires £31 million to ensure that its tenants are kept safe. It has asked the Government for £19.4 million towards that. Will the Government agree to provide it?

[Dominic Raab]

We are in conversation with that local authority, as we are with others. We are continuing to talk these issues through, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have not declined any requests for financial flexibility. We will make sure that we get it right so that the residents in his constituency are kept safe.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

When did the substantial deregulation of fire safety take place?

[Dominic Raab]

As I have said, the building regulations review is under way and we have had the interim report. We have accepted all its recommendations and, when the final report is published, we will look at it carefully and consider how to take it forward.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he is “in conversation” with a number of councils. After Grenfell, the Secretary of State said that he would leave no stone unturned and take every precaution in relation to anyone living in a building with similar cladding. On 22 June, the Prime Minister said that every resource would be made available. Why is the Minister still “in conversation”? Why is he not providing the funds? Why is it possible that there could be another Grenfell in this country tonight?

[Dominic Raab]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that using that kind of language on an issue that we are all trying to grapple with is quite irresponsible. We have offered the financial flexibility—[Interruption.] He can point his finger in a jabbing manner all he likes, but we are taking this forward as effectively as we can. Some of the technical issues cannot be addressed overnight. We need to get this right and not act in haste. We have made sure that the interim arrangements are in place so that no one sleeping in their home at night is unsafe. The wider renovations will take time to get right because this is a complex technical undertaking.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

As one who served for 31 years in the fire service, I realise the urgency following the events at Grenfell. I should like to compliment South Ayrshire Council, which retrofitted all its high-rise flats some 10 or 12 years ago. I take comfort from that. We are aware of Dame Judith Hackitt’s interim report. It is a good report; it is frank and open. Does the Minister intend to drive forward some of the recommendations that she has made, rather than waiting until the publication of the final report? Surely there are things that we can do now and I ask him to identify which ones they are.

[Dominic Raab]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local authority on being on the front foot. We encourage all local authorities to do their best to ensure that they address such issues in the same way. As for the Hackitt review, we have accepted every single one of the interim recommendations. We obviously want to consider the final report carefully, but the swift action and decisiveness that he wants are already under way.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The fire risk is obviously the single most important issue, but there are others. Local authorities such as mine are in the process of removing cladding. In one estate alone, the removal, the fire watch and the replacement will cost £6.5 million. Will the Minister assure me that the confusion over the tests will not mean that any local authority, private provider or housing association will face a delay in the decision making on the replacement of cladding? If they do, will the Government ensure that any interim costs, such as to cover waking watch or damage to buildings from water penetration when cladding is removed, will be fully met by the Government?

[Dominic Raab]

There is absolutely no reason why the testing and retesting of Celotex should have any impact on the wider re-cladding exercise that is under way. I am happy to speak again with the hon. Lady’s local authority, just as we have with others, to ensure that we get things right.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Government are guilty of inexcusable delay. Acting upon the advice of the West Midlands fire service, Birmingham City Council wants to carry out extensive works to 213 tower blocks containing 10,000 households. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the council has put specific proposals to the Government and has repeatedly asked for a reply—not one peep, not one penny. The Government are treating the city and worried tenants with utter contempt. When will there be a response so that the necessary works can start straightaway?

[Dominic Raab]

We are in constant dialogue, so the suggestion that the council has not heard a peep out of the Government is not accurate or responsible. I will chase up the hon. Gentleman’s specific question and ensure that we get a resolution as swiftly as possible. We are having detailed conversations. We often ask further questions of local authorities and they come back with the specifications. We then know how to get the issue resolved properly.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fear that the Minister has been misadvised. Government guidance in paragraph 12.7 of approved document B still permits the use of cladding with a polyethylene core, which industry experts advise is dangerously combustible. It is still being put on buildings today, including on one block in Lewisham, because Ministers have consistently ignored professional advice from the building industry. Hundreds of other buildings across the country are affected, and an average of one fire a month is already being linked to such cladding. When will the Minister issue clear advice on what action should be taken in all circumstances where limited combustibility cladding is in place? When will he order its immediate removal from every residential block where it is present, which includes Citiscape in Croydon?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that we have not taken the expert advice. We have consistently done that and have acted on it, but I am happy to look again at the material he mentioned. I have been involved in relation to the Citiscape case in Croydon and we have made it clear to the freeholder there, just as we have done everywhere else, that there is a moral case for avoiding any unreasonable costs to leaseholders or tenants. The leaseholders and tenants also of course have the option of going to the first-tier tribunal to settle an issue legally, and it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in that process.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister has constantly referred to financial flexibility for local authorities, so does that mean an additional borrowing allowance? If so, does that come from the housing revenue account or the general fund, or are the Government going to fund it?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the flexibility relates to local authorities’ borrowing. Quite how that should be done will depend on the individual circumstances of particular local authorities, but we are willing to discuss that. As I mentioned earlier, we are yet to decline a request, so the support is there.

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

The New Capital Quay development in my constituency is just one of hundreds of private freehold developments across the country where cladding has failed and where the freeholder in question—Galliard Homes in this case— has washed its hands of all responsibility for interim fire safety measures and remedial works. Does the Minister agree that it cannot be right for leaseholders to pick up the full costs in such cases? Will he urgently set up a working party to consider the matter and give proper guidance as to who is liable under the law for the costs on such developments?

[Dominic Raab]

It is not just in relation to local authorities and housing associations that the freeholder is responsible for renovations; it is also the case for private landlords. The question of the allocation of responsibility for funding and financing the renovation is partly determined by the terms of the leasehold arrangement, but my understanding is that, as a matter of general law, a freeholder cannot pass unreasonable costs over to leaseholders. There is always recourse to the tribunal and we know plenty of leaseholders have taken such action. We have been very clear that, morally, such costs should not be passed on to leaseholders.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

At the last Housing, Communities and Local Government Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and I both asked about the review of technical documents. We did not get an answer. To be clear, we are talking not about the Hackitt review, which is doing some good work on the wider issue, but about individual types of cladding and what document B says. We cannot go ahead with the replacement of cladding —we may still put up partially combustible materials on those buildings. The review of technical documents has not yet started.

[Dominic Raab]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that, I will follow it up. There is detailed dialogue with any local authority that raises such issues. If he wants me to follow it up, he should write to me and I will be very happy to do so.

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

How much have the Government spent so far on assisting local authorities and the private sector to deal with this situation? Let us have a figure, let us know how much money is available and let us stop this argument about negotiating to borrow so that local taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

[Dominic Raab]

The financial responsibility is different in all of those cases, but if the hon. Gentleman has an example of where he thinks that has been badly handled, like others, he should write to me and I will look into it personally.

Rail Update

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

17:06

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

With your consent, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on rail franchising. I apologise to the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople for the slightly late delivery of copies of the statement—the speed with which we took this afternoon’s urgent questions caught us all a bit by surprise.

I informed the House on 10 January that my Department was preparing contingency plans for running train services on the east coast main line in the event of the existing franchise failing. Despite delivering significant returns to the taxpayer and having some of the highest passenger satisfaction scores in the country, the lead operator of the franchise, Stagecoach, has been incurring significant losses. During that debate, I promised to return to the House to provide an update on the situation, and I am doing so today.

Since 2015, the franchise has met all its financial commitments to the taxpayer, returning nearly £1 billion to the public purse, but that has come at a substantial cost of nearly £200 million to Stagecoach. I have already informed the House that the franchise will, in due course, run out of money and will not last until 2020, but it has now been confirmed that the situation is much more urgent. It is now clear that the franchise will be able to continue in its current form for only a very small number of months and no more.

Last week, following detailed analysis, my Department issued the franchisee with notification that the franchise has breached a key financial covenant. It is important to make it clear to the House, and indeed to the public, that that will not affect the railway’s day-to-day operations. The business will continue to operate as usual, with no impact on services or staff on the east coast, but it does mean that in the very near future, I need to put in place a successor arrangement for operating the railway and to end the current contract.

Given the imminent financial pressure that the existing franchise is under, I am taking action now to protect passengers who depend on these train services and to ensure continued value for taxpayers’ money. Given the urgency of the situation, I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on my plans.

It is worth remembering that our franchising system, as a whole, has delivered great benefits to passengers. New private investment has totalled £6.4 billion over the past 11 years, passenger journeys on the rail network have more than doubled and the private sector is paying for new trains all around the country. There are those who want that to stop, because of a dogma that the state could run the railway better, but we see the fruits of private investment all around the network.

There has also been much misinformation about the franchise, so it is worth stressing again at the outset that, because payments to the Government have been subsidised by Stagecoach, the taxpayer has continued to profit financially from this franchise. Passenger satisfaction is high, and preparations are well under way to deliver state-of-the-art new trains on this railway.

The problem is very straightforward: Stagecoach got its numbers wrong. It overbid and it is now paying the price. Contrary to widespread speculation and rumour, no deal has been done on this railway, and I have not yet made a decision on the successor operator to run the east coast railway until the longer-term plans for the integration of track and train can begin in 2020. There is no question of anyone receiving a bail-out. Stagecoach will be held to all its contractual obligations in full. But, as the Brown review said five years ago, this is what we expect in a competitive franchise system: private businesses risk substantial amounts of their own capital, and if they fail to live up to their stretching targets, they lose out, not the taxpayer. For anyone who thinks that the nearly £200 million that Stagecoach will lose is insignificant, let me put it into context: the combined profit of every train operator in the country was only £271 million last year, and the loss equates to more than 20% of Stagecoach’s total market value. So this is a significant amount of money by any measure, and it should also act as a stark warning to any company tempted to overbid in future. Moreover, the franchising system has now been adjusted to deter further optimism when bidding.

The priority now is to ensure the continued smooth running of the east coast franchise for its passengers. I have therefore asked my officials to conduct a full appraisal of the options available to the Government to ensure continuity of service until we implement the east coast partnership on the route from 2020. My decision on which option to choose will be made in accordance with the key principles set out in the statement on how I use my rail franchising powers. These include: protecting the interests of passengers; preserving the interests of taxpayers by ensuring value for money; and supporting investment and improvement in the railway, including through the deployment of new inter-city express trains on the east coast line.

In order to inform this decision, the Department will assess the extent to which each option performs against those principles. Our value-for-money assessment will be based on a number of criteria, including which option returns most money to the taxpayer, the risks attached to each, and the value of any improvements in passenger services. I will also have regard to the effect of my decision on other franchises. The decision will be taken in a transparent way; the Department’s assessment of the option will be published and it will be properly validated.

At this stage, one of the options is to consider the possibility of Stagecoach continuing to operate services on the east coast line under a very strictly designed short-term arrangement. The current management has a strong record of customer service and to rule out its involvement now would go against the principles I have outlined. However, given the circumstances in which the Government are having to step in to protect passengers on this line, I am prepared to consider that option only on the basis that the franchise would be operated on a short-term, not-for-profit basis. The only acceptable financial reward for Stagecoach could be received at the end of the contract—and only in return for the delivery of clearly specified passenger benefits and improvements. The company cannot be allowed to continue to run this franchise and simply make a profit, given what has happened. It got its sums wrong, and it will pay the price for that, not the taxpayer.

The second alternative is for the east coast franchise to be directly operated by the Department for Transport through an operator of last resort. My Department will subject that option to the same rigorous assessment to establish whether it would deliver value for money for taxpayers and protect the interests of passengers. This option is very much on the table and will be selected if the assessment that I have set out determines that it offers a better deal for passengers and taxpayers than the alternative.

In either scenario, the east coast main line is expected to deliver substantial revenue to the taxpayer. The line will also continue to deliver premium payments to the Government once the east coast partnership is in place in 2020. So let me be clear that the east coast franchise will continue to offer and deliver a healthy operating profit for taxpayers. It has done so over the course of this franchise so far and it will do so in future.

There will be those who claim that because Stagecoach overbid, it should be excluded from bidding for future franchises. I have to be clear that the legal advice on this is clear. As the company is meeting its financial obligations to support the franchise, including with the full parent company’s support, and because it has operated services on the east coast line successfully, the Department has concluded that there are no adequate legal grounds to restrict it from bidding on current and future franchise competitions on this basis. Members will understand that it is my duty to follow legal advice, but let me be clear that we will keep its eligibility for current and future bids under close scrutiny and constant review.

It is vital that we continue to focus our attention on delivering benefits for passengers across the network and on securing the genuine benefits of privatisation, so in addition to the transparent, rigorous process for the east coast line that I have set out, I am making some additional franchising announcements that will deliver benefits to passengers on the west coast and east midlands routes. In December 2016, we set out our plans to award the west coast partnership—the franchise that will deliver the first High Speed 2 passenger services. In that announcement, we made clear our intention to agree a short direct award with the current incumbent to allow the time necessary to design the west coast partnership. The negotiations have been completed and we have agreed a direct award with the existing operator, Virgin Trains west coast.

Let me be absolutely clear that the east coast and west coast franchises should not be confused. As with the east coast franchise, the west coast operator is meeting all its financial obligations, but the west coast franchise has a completely different corporate structure, in which Virgin Trains is the majority shareholder. As was set out 14 months ago, the direct award is a sensible bridge between the existing contract and the west coast partnership. Once that partnership is ready, the direct award will cease to exist.

Virgin has transformed the west coast franchise from a poorly performing service that required a subsidy of more than £75 million a year into a franchise that has one of the highest passenger satisfaction rates, at 91%, and which returns more than £200 million per year to the taxpayer. The transformation has included: the introduction of trains every 20 minutes between London and Manchester and between London and Birmingham, and hourly services between London and Scotland; the installation of wi-fi on every train; the lengthening of the Pendolinos to 11 carriages to accommodate growing passenger numbers; and the introduction of free at-seat entertainment services.

My decision is in keeping with the three key principles that I set out earlier: protecting passengers, ensuring value for money and supporting investment. I look forward to the release of the invitation to tender for the west coast partnership in due course and am confident that we will see strong competition for this exciting new franchise, which will help to transform rail travel in this country through to and including the delivery of the first HS2 services.

In the coming years, we will also transform the east midlands franchise, with the biggest investment in the midland main line since it was completed in 1870. Passengers will benefit from more seats, new trains and dramatically reduced journey times from Nottingham and Sheffield to London. Once the work is complete, there will be almost twice as many seats into London St Pancras during the peak compared with today.

The next operator will be required to deliver many of the improvements, so I shall set out today the next step of the competition that will award the contract. Abellio, Arriva, Stagecoach—the incumbent—and a joint venture between First and Trenitalia have all been shortlisted to run the east midlands franchise that will deliver improved services. As I have said, the Government have no adequate legal grounds to restrict Stagecoach from bidding, but the completion will be run on a fair and transparent basis, with new safeguards against over-bidding. Ultimately, the winner will be the firm that offers the best service to passengers and the best value to the taxpayer.

In a competitive market, franchises will sometimes fail. When that happens, my duty is to protect passengers and taxpayers, and to ensure continued investment in the railway. Stagecoach has paid the price for failure, as stipulated in its contract. Passengers on the east coast main line can be assured that services will continue as normal. The Government will undertake a transparent appraisal of the options available to ensure that passengers and taxpayers are protected.

I know that I will hear a lot about nationalising everything. It is worth remembering that, as we have heard today, renationalising our water companies would cost £90 billion. We have heard nothing about the cost of renationalising the railways—due to not just losing the private investment that is bringing in all those new trains, but the billions that would have to be spent to bring those trains back on to the public books. We remain committed to the success of a private railway. Over the past 20 years, passenger numbers have doubled. We have one of the safest railways in Europe, passenger satisfaction is high across the network and other countries are now adopting Britain’s model for running the railways. The plans I have set out will allow the British public to continue to benefit into the future from an ever-improving railway. We have challenges to meet, but we will meet them. I commend this statement to the House.

17:18

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but as I was given it just 15 minutes before he started to speak, I am not sure that I need to be over- grateful. Given the content of his statement, I am not surprised at his reticence. Let us see whether the markets deliver the sort of share value boost that his last statement secured.

Today’s announcement is yet another monumental misjudgment to add to a growing list of miscalculations by this Secretary of State. It is increasingly clear that he does not care about taxpayers, rail passengers or the rail industry itself, but will do everything in his power to protect and support Virgin, Stagecoach and their ilk, and the failed franchise system.

Members on both sides of the House can be in no doubt: the bail-out culture at the Department for Transport is alive and well—it has never been better. Virgin-Stagecoach failed to deliver on its contract on the east coast route. No problem—the Government will step in and bail it out, kissing goodbye to the £2 billion that Virgin had previously agreed to pay. But, guess what? Let us just give both companies a new contract to run the west coast line as well.

Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. His argument that a direct award to Virgin-Stagecoach for the west coast and east coast represents a good deal is truly laughable. The idea of more profits and less risk for those companies is an insult to Members and their constituents. What makes me want to weep is that he is giving yet more gifts to Richard Branson and Brian Souter. What is more, he is using our public money to fund his failure. Let us not forget that Virgin and Stagecoach are companies that extracted hundreds of millions of pounds in rigged compensation payments from taxpayers during the upgrade of the west coast main line between 2002 and 2006—£590 million to be precise. [Interruption.] Similar tactics are now being deployed on the east coast, as the companies blame Network Rail for their failure to deliver on their contract.

Virgin Group games the system in rail and Virgin games the system in health. It has done it before, and it is doing it again: Virgin Trains is a company that shakes the system down. The Secretary of State’s failure to stand up to Virgin and Stagecoach is a disgrace. He is supposed to protect the taxpayer interest, not to sacrifice it to Branson and Souter, yet he stands by this model. Companies are not bidding for franchises, which makes a mockery of competition, and his taxpayer bail-outs make a joke of train operating companies paying premiums to the Treasury. What does this Secretary of State do instead? He just gives train operating contracts without competition. Since 2012, there have been more contracts directly awarded than franchises let after competitions. Why? Because he is ideologically opposed to running the railways in the public sector. He just will not do it. He cannot do it, even when the clear majority of the public are in favour of bringing the railways into public ownership. His solution is more taxpayer support and ever higher fares for passengers.

The Secretary of State refused to answer my questions about these contracts in a debate in this House on 10 January. He does not do long-term thinking, only crisis management. Franchise failure should mean forfeit. If a private train company cannot deliver on the contract, it does not deserve the contract. That was what the Labour Government did in 2009 with the east coast line. This Government’s failure to grasp reality is costing passengers and taxpayers dear. That is why a Labour Government will bring in a railway for the people and businesses that it is intended to serve, and put a stop to this appalling, profiteering racket.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds to the shadow Secretary of State, I must say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who, in his usual fashion, yelled, “It’s a disgrace,” from a sedentary position, that this morning I conducted my weekly Skype session with school students from the Education Centre. They were students of the Herne Bay primary school, one of whom asked me, “Mr Speaker, is there a Member who is particularly cheeky in terms of loud and repeated heckling?” I said, “Well, seeing as you ask, there is a chap called Karl Turner, who is a very agreeable fellow, but he does tend to go from nought to 60 in about five seconds.” I proceeded to educate the pupils of that primary school class in the favoured expressions of the hon. Gentleman—“Shocking” and “It’s a disgrace”—and his ritual exhortation, which fortunately I have not heard today to a Minister, to wit “be’ave”, which he makes while conspicuously failing to do so himself.

[Chris Grayling]

As we were caught short by the speed of the urgent questions, I know that the hon. Gentleman did not have as much time as he might have wished to prepare, but I am not sure that he listened to a word I was saying. He talked about a bail-out culture, gifts and standing up to people, but I have just announced that we will terminate a contract and that we may bring the operation of this railway back into the system of operator of last resort, which is, if I recall correctly, what Labour did in 2009.

I intend to ensure that I do what offers the best value for the taxpayer and the best option for the passenger at a time when exciting things are happening on this railway. New trains arriving in the coming months will transform the journey for passengers on the route, and that is long overdue. In the next control period, there will be investment in different parts of the route in order to improve performance in places where it is desperately overdue. The future is promising for the passengers on this railway, as they will have a better travel experience in the months to come.

The hon. Gentleman talked about long-term thinking, which is precisely what the east coast partnership is about. It is about unifying track and train in a way that I believe the public of this country want, and people on the railway believe that this will lead to a more efficient railway. The more that we can reunite the day-to-day operation of the track and trains right across the network, the more reliable a railway we will have.

[Andy McDonald]

Nationalise it.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, “Nationalise it” but this country has done that before. It was called British Rail and it became a national laughing stock. Whatever else we may do, I have no intention of leading our railway system back into the days of British Rail, when lines were closed, routes were axed and the system received a lack of investment year on year because it was competing with schools and hospitals for the capital available. I have no intention of recreating British Rail, although Labour may do. I have a strategy that involves bringing together track and train, a long-term vision of investment, expanding our network and new trains. That is what passengers want.

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

The west coast main line is a vital railway service for my constituency. Virgin has indeed transformed that service over the duration of its franchise. Will my right hon. Friend say a little bit more about the duration of this direct award? What additional features can my constituents expect during that time?

[Chris Grayling]

My expectation is that it will last no more than two years—possibly only one year. It is important to get the west coast partnership structure in place to go through the bidding process, and we will shortly be issuing the invitation to tender. I can only reiterate that there is a clear corporate difference between the east coast main line, which is 90% owned by Stagecoach, and the west coast main line, which performs well and is majority owned by a different company, Virgin Trains. Whether the brand is used on both is neither here nor there; it is a different corporate entity. There is no possible legal benefit or passenger benefit from somehow ripping this up for an interim period, rather than moving seamlessly into the future and the path towards HS2.

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

Despite what the Transport Secretary says, the franchising system is quite clearly not working, especially given today’s further announcement. When all these announcements are made, we keep hearing about the private investment that privatisation of the railways has brought in with the increasing passenger numbers. The reality is that all that new investment is paid for by the rail users. Sure, it might make the railways more attractive, but it is being paid for by those who use the railway. It is not magic money; it comes out of our pockets. It is quite clear that the parent company guarantee system is not working. If it were working properly, the east coast franchise would continue until the end, so there is clearly a failure in the system.

The Secretary of State did the usual bluster, but he mentioned water companies when he was talking about nationalisation. Well, I have news for him: in Scotland, the water company is a national company. It is owned by the public and operates successfully. The Scottish Government are also looking into a public sector rail bid, so these things can work. If the Transport Secretary’s defence is that Stagecoach got its sums wrong, what does that say about the Government’s due diligence on the tenders that were submitted? The fact is that the Government followed through and awarded the tender to a company that got its sums wrong. That is another reflection on his Department.

All this follows the west coast main line tender farce—the franchise deal collapsed in 2012, resulting in the direct award to Virgin, which is now going to get another direct award. There are way too many direct awards in the franchise system, and that kind of goes against the ethos of competition that a franchise is supposed to bring, which again highlights that the system is not working. What will be the duration of the next award and what impact will that have on the timescales for HS2? Will the Secretary of State give us accurate timescales for the HS2 tender process?

On the east coast and west coast awards, will the Secretary of State follow the Scottish Government’s lead? All employees on the ScotRail franchise are paid the real living wage, there are no compulsory redundancies and ScotRail is operating at a higher satisfaction level than the companies in the rest of the UK. For once, will he seriously consider the devolution of Network Rail to Scotland? That would save his Department money, take away some responsibility—given that it is a failing Department—and perhaps make up for a £600 million shortfall in maintenance monies allocated for the next control period in Scotland.

I have one final question. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] How is the Secretary of State’s new railcard system working? What funding has been put in place for it? Does the inflation-level rise he has agreed cover the new railcard?

[Mr Speaker]

I simply advise the hon. Gentleman, in all friendliness and candour, that he was only 43 seconds over his time.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It seemed longer.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know how long it seemed to the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually quite a patient fellow. Not everybody, I am afraid, is as succinct as the right hon. Gentleman, who has developed it into an art form, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) must do better.

[Chris Grayling]

We are going to hear a lot today about the public versus private argument. What SNP Members, and indeed Labour Members, have not remembered is that if the investment has to come from the public sector, it competes with money for schools, hospitals and the armed forces. That means that, as happened in the days of British Rail, our rail network is starved of investment, and we saw the consequences. By contrast, the new trains that are shortly going to be arriving in Edinburgh Waverley and going up the east coast to Aberdeen are paid for by the private sector.

[Andy McDonald]

They are paid for by the customers!

[Chris Grayling]

Of course they are paid for by the customers. The private companies make the investment and they make the return on that investment because the passengers pay for fares. That is the way that business works. Perhaps Labour Members do not understand the way that business works. Customers buy something they want to buy. I am absolutely certain that customers want to travel in brand-new trains. That is long overdue on the east coast main line, where they have regularly failed to do so. However, there are clearly lessons to learn on this. That is why we have moved much more towards a quality basis for new franchises. I want an increased quality of service delivered to be the basis for the allocation of new franchises.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked about the west coast main line direct award. As I said, it will run for between one and two years. It will finish as soon as possible. I want this up and running. We are going to issue the ITT for the west coast partnership very shortly.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of staffing. The private sector-run east coast main line is today employing more people than it did in the public sector. As somebody who believes passionately that we need more customer service staff on the railway rather than fewer, I think that is a good thing.

The hon. Gentleman asked again about the devolution of Network Rail. I simply reiterate that I think that the SNP Government have quite enough to do without going beyond the devolution recommendations that we have put in place.

As regards the travelcard, it is being issued by the industry, which is moving ahead quickly with preparations for it.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The last time the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box, I asked him about open-access rail and competing rail firms. He rightly waxed lyrical about the benefits to customers in terms of choice and value that open-access rail can produce. As he looks at the options for the east coast main line, will he consider, in addition to the two options he has laid out for the House, an open-access alternative so that we can get away from the state-led and potentially even nationalised set of alternatives that we are otherwise being pushed towards?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this. He is right about the benefits of open access. My view is that open access holds the existing operator’s feet to the customer service fire to make sure that it delivers. It would not be realistic to do this in timeframes available to me for making the change that we are going to need. However, I am very clear that the rules around the creation of the east coast partnership must and will leave room for open access.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The reason given for not providing residents of Grimsby and Cleethorpes on the east coast a direct service to London was the impact on Virgin’s profits. Will today’s announcement see any progress on a direct rail link line for my constituents, or perhaps a cut in the amount they are shelling out for their fares?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much hope and believe that we will be able to create opportunities for more direct services to east coast towns in the years ahead. There is no reason why this route cannot be used for further open access, if the Office of Rail Regulation judges that the capacity is there. It is very much down to the regulator to decide what is realistic and what is not. It is as much about whether it can be done logistically as anything to do with profitability. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) says, “Easy get-out.” There is only so much capacity available. I hope, however, that the investment going into the east coast main line during the next control period will free up additional train paths and additional capacity. Of course, when HS2 arrives it will create a complete step change for the east coast main line and allow for services to a whole range of new destinations.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

With Stagecoach remaining on the shortlist for the East Midlands franchise, which serves my constituents, will my right hon. Friend keep the bid under review and revisit the legal advice he has received over the coming months?

[Chris Grayling]

I will be immensely careful about both the legal position and what is right for the midland main line. We will take the bid that will deliver the best outcome for passengers, and we will do so in a way that fulfils the legal advice. I am not interested in a second-rate solution for passengers. We will be providing much upgraded services and new trains, and the people who operate those new trains have to be the right ones.

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

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am very disappointed he did not inform me he was attending a well-publicised meeting in the centre of Huddersfield in my constituency on Friday? He had the opportunity to talk to me and some of my constituents about the deterioration of the east coast line over recent years and the fact that not only the east coast line but the network across the north of England is a very great concern for my constituents who use it to get to work.

[Chris Grayling]

Just to reiterate, I did make sure that my office contacted the hon. Gentleman’s office on Friday morning to tell them I was going later in the day to meet Conservative councillors ahead of the council elections—an event that I would not normally invite him to. I was particularly struck by how thoughtful the Conservative team in Huddersfield is about the potential transport improvements for that area. It was a very valuable set of discussions.

[Mr Sheerman]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Not in the middle of the statement.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is it not right that Members should be told of another Member visiting their constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. The Secretary of State says that the hon. Gentleman was notified and his office was informed. I must say, I think the spirit of the requirement is not always honoured. It is quite important that a genuinely conscientious effort is made to contact the Member concerned, but, to be fair, the Secretary of State did start by saying, “I informed his office.” That may or may not be entirely satisfactory, but we will have to leave it there for now, because notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s considerable perturbation about what he regards as late notification, other hon. Members are now waiting to ask their questions and will become very perturbed if they do not have the chance to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We will start with one that I feel sure, from experience and precedent, will be very brief. I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

How good is Lord Adonis’s memory?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not a doctor, but I know that there is no record whatever of any ban on National Express continuing to bid for franchises after 2009. I am sure that the legal advice then was the legal advice I have now. Whatever one may say in public, the reality is that no legal constraint was placed on National Express from further bidding for franchises.

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

I think it is the Secretary of State who has the short memory, so I will remind him that this is the third time in 11 years that a private sector franchise on the east coast line has failed. Can he explain to the House why his Department prevented East Coast, a public company that ran the railway superbly for both passengers and the taxpayer, from bidding for this contract? Will he today commit to changing the rules so that public sector companies can bid for these franchises?

[Chris Grayling]

The key point to remember is that this is a franchise that has increased the number of services, increased the number of staff it employs, improved its passenger satisfaction rating and is providing a larger payment to the taxpayer, notwithstanding the troubles I have set out today. That, to me, suggests that it is getting something right. I want to be absolutely clear—[Interruption] Notwithstanding the sedentary comments, it is really important for me to pay tribute to the hard work of the staff who work on the east coast main line, who have done a good job in improving the quality of service for passengers. It is not their fault that their company got the financing of this wrong.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that every penny of the £165 million guarantee that was insisted on in the franchise agreement will be reclaimed by the taxpayer?

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely, and indeed, that has already happened. I am absolutely clear that Virgin-Stagecoach will fulfil this contract to the letter.

[Andy McDonald]

What about the £2 billion?

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Secretary of State has failed to understand what I keep saying, which is that this railway every year continues to generate a substantial contribution to the taxpayer, and that will continue right the way through until 2023 and beyond.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Transport Secretary for an update on station accessibility improvements? Hither Green in my constituency was due for a major upgrade in this control period, but that was kicked into the long grass by his predecessor. How much has been allocated for these improvement projects in the next control period, and will projects that were priorities last time around but lost out continue to be priorities?

[Chris Grayling]

There will be a continuation of the accessibility fund in the next control period. We have not decided exactly how much it will be, but I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that I will want to make sure that where commitments have been given in the past, we will seek to fulfil them in the next control period.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that privatisation has brought investment of £6.4 billion to our railways over the past 10 years, and that when awarding franchises both on the east coast main line and on the Cotswolds line—the GWR franchise, which is being consulted on at the moment—his guiding light will always be the quality of service provided to passengers?

[Chris Grayling]

This is now very much my approach. My view is that if the service is really good, revenues will follow. While it is absolutely essential that one seeks to achieve best value for the taxpayer in a bidding process, there is already a different balance between the amount of money bid and quality, and the balance will continue to evolve towards quality. That is what matters to passengers, and what drives revenues.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State rushed, he would just about get the 6.10 from Euston to Flint in north Wales, and it would cost him £283 for a return ticket. In the next two years of the direct award franchise for the west coast main line, does he expect prices to stabilise, or indeed fall?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman is an astute Member of the House, and I have no doubt that he would have bought an advance ticket for a fraction of the sum he mentioned. Really good value is available on the west coast main line, although for those who turn up at the last minute—as, indeed, is the case with airlines and many other forms of transport—there is a higher price to pay. I believe that since the passenger numbers on the west coast main line continue to rise and services continue to be rated good, the current operators must be doing something right.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It seems clear that Stagecoach miscalculated, overbid and is now paying a £200 million price. Can anything more be done to avoid private sector companies overbidding and setting themselves up to fail, and can those lessons be learned in time for the GWR extension, which will affect my constituents in Cheltenham?

[Chris Grayling]

It is really important that we do so. We have in fact already changed the way the franchising structure works for the most recent franchise. The south-eastern franchise, which is out to tender at the moment, has a different approach to the issue of risk sharing. We have to be careful: on the one hand, we must seek to get best value from the franchises, but on the other hand, we need to make sure that they are resilient. It is a balance, and we have to try to get this right, but we are seeking to improve the balance between the risk to quality and the revenue we receive.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

While the east coast main line was under public ownership between 2009 and 2015, passenger satisfaction, punctuality and reliability reached record high levels. Has the case not therefore been made for renationalisation based on these principles?

[Chris Grayling]

Except that since the line returned to being operated by Stagecoach, passenger satisfaction levels have risen, the number of employees has risen, the return to the taxpayer has risen and the number of services has risen. In my judgment, the day-to-day operation of this railway has proved very successful over the past two or three years, even though its finances have been disastrous.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

In my right hon. Friend’s statement, he said that the financial reward for Stagecoach at the end of its contract would be set on the basis of the achievement of “specified passenger benefits”. What does he have in mind?

[Chris Grayling]

I want continued improvements of the kinds committed to in the original franchise documents —better services, more services. If there is to be any payment at all at the end of this direct award, it has to be on the basis of an improved situation for passengers and better services. As far as I am concerned, this will be a not-for-profit award on a year-by-year basis if—if—we go down this route. Such a decision has not been taken, and I will not take it until I have seen the evidence on either side; and I will be completely transparent about it. Any payment at the end of a direct award has to be linked to a much better deal for passengers.

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

Can the Secretary of State confirm that if any Virgin or Stagecoach directors receive any bonuses in relation to the east coast project, they will have them clawed back?

[Chris Grayling]

Given that the company has lost nearly £200 million over time and has, I believe, effectively wiped out all its profits from rail operations for the past four years, I would be extremely surprised if its management wanted to pay any bonuses at all. If they do, they will not be paid for by the taxpayer, but out of the company’s reserves, but I will be gobsmacked if they are paying bonuses on this at the moment.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the general tone of the Secretary of State’s statement, in particular the emphasis on Stagecoach taking the hit rather than the taxpayer. Can he tell me what lessons will be learned for the great western railway franchise from what has happened with the east coast franchise?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very clear that when the great western franchise is let, it has got to be based to a much greater degree on quality. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are consulting on the possibility of having a separate south-western franchise. I am looking forward to hearing responses on that—I am open-minded about it—but I am clear that the next great western franchise has got to deliver better and more innovative services for people in the south-west. It is why, for example, we are now working with Great Western with a view to reintroducing a passenger service to Okehampton, which is something there is a clear opportunity for.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was very casual in dismissing the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson). People who use the west coast main line feel that it is very expensive, because there is so little competition. During this period, when he has imposed a new contract, what will he do to guarantee that there is value for money and that we will not simply see ticket prices go up, when they should be going down?

[Chris Grayling]

All I can say, again, is that this railway line is well used and has seen an increase in passenger growth and customer satisfaction—it is the highest-rated railway in the country. I never want to see fares go up, but pay rises happen each year and there are costs to meet. Therefore, I am not offering a cut in fares, but we will operate a tight regime around the franchise to make sure it is not abused.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I thank the Rail Minister for agreeing to meet the formidable Kettering rail users group this coming Wednesday in his office? They are going to bring with them constructive proposals for how the rail service to and from Kettering might be improved. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that Kettering is the most northerly junction from London between the Corby-to-St Pancras service and the midland main line itself? Thus, Kettering’s status during the next franchise should be enhanced.

[Chris Grayling]

Both my hon. Friend and the Kettering rail users group are powerful advocates for Kettering. I am sure they will be pleased by the investment going in. I was on the line the other day, and I could see all the engineering work taking place north and south of Kettering. There will be much better train links into London and, importantly, far more seats at peak times from Kettering, and we will be looking carefully at how we can ensure that passengers from Kettering have the best possible experience.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

With the collapse of this contract and the collapse of Carillion recently, is this not a moment for us to be clear with the public that we are learning the lessons of these contracting exercises? People are coming in, overbidding or undercutting —or however one likes to put it—to kill off the competition and yet cannot afford to provide these public services. We need to be really clear with people that we have learnt the lessons and understand and that this will not happen going forward.

[Chris Grayling]

Actually, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We do need to learn the lessons—that is absolutely clear. That is one reason why we have shifted much more clearly towards a different risk-based approach on current franchises and why we are moving towards a greater element of quality on current franchises. It is worth saying that the winning bid for the new south-western railway franchise was not the highest bid; it was the highest-quality bid. That is important. We can never militate against corporate failure. What has happened with Carillion has been tragic, but we took a lot of precautions on the rail network and HS2 to make sure there was not a significant impact if the worst happened, which it did; but, yes, of course lessons have to be learned.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

While privatisation has certainly resulted in more investment in the network, it is also clear that the existing franchise system needs reform. At the moment, we have competition for gaining the franchise, but very little competition in the actual provision of rail services. If we are to have improvements to services such as the direct service to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, which has already been referred to, we need to look again at the franchise system. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans for longer term reform?

[Chris Grayling]

We are looking at the way the franchise system works to try to make sure it is as effective as possible for the future. However, as I discovered, things I would like to do at a number of places on the network are constrained just by the limitations of what is there. My hon. Friend would be surprised by how often it is impossible to deliver a service improvement I would like to deliver, because, in the days of British Rail, a length of track was taken out, a station was closed or whatever. I would not want to go back to the days when services were being axed; I want to be part of a railway and a transport system that is actually expanding and growing, and that is our ambition.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

On passenger satisfaction, is the Secretary of State aware that, this morning, every service on the east coast main line from my constituency to London was either delayed or cancelled? There is no competition on the line, and this is the third time the franchise has failed. Does he not understand that passengers and staff on the line just want certainty, and that is why they are keen on having a public sector body managing the franchise?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not know for certain the cause of this morning’s incident—

[Jenny Chapman]

Signalling.

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, signalling is the responsibility of the public sector Network Rail, so there is a gentle suggestion that the hon. Lady’s proposal may not be the all-encompassing panacea. What our signalling needs is what we are giving it, which is £20 billion of investment over the next four years to renew infrastructure that is old and, in many places, worn out. We are still dealing with the years of under-investment before this Government took office.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr David Linden.

[David Linden]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You are far too kind.

The Secretary of State spoke in his statement about protecting the interests of passengers and taxpayers. When will he look at the example being taken forward in Scotland, where Scottish Government Minister Humza Yousaf has said he is minded to accept a public sector bid to run the railways? What is the Secretary of State’s objection to that? Is it ideology or just an obsession with corporate recklessness?

[Chris Grayling]

As I said earlier, my ideology is very straightforward: I want more investment in the railways, I want more trains and I want newer trains and new opportunities. Of course, the model the hon. Gentleman is articulating would mean less investment in the railways, because we would lose all the private investment in new trains, for example. I do not believe that that is what the public want.

[Sir Edward Davey]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We shall now hear from a Kingston and Surbiton knight—Sir Edward Davey.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—that was a difficult choice for you.

The Secretary of State has today acted when a franchiser overpaid, hitting its shareholders. Will he commit to the House that when a franchiser under-delivers, hitting the passengers, he will also act?

[Chris Grayling]

If a company is systematically failing to deliver, yes. However, in many cases—indeed, I suspect I know precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about—the infrastructure is the problem, rather than the train company. I cannot blame one person for another person’s failings; what I can do is try to sort out the failings that lead to these problems in the first place. If we look at the Waterloo line, for example, where the problems last autumn were caused by a technical problem around the Waterloo works, which took about two months to get rid of, that is a good example of where Network Rail problems caused the issues. That is why we need that £20 billion investment in renewing those parts of the infrastructure that are too prone to fail.

Points of Order

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

17:53

[Nick Smith]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During business questions last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House about the “eye-watering” interest rates charged by rent-to-own firms. In response, she said that the Financial Conduct Authority

“has capped the interest rates that such companies are allowed to charge”—[Official Report, 1 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1002.]

Unfortunately, no such cap has yet been placed on these interest rates. I thought that I would aid the Leader of the House by clarifying the point for the record.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective. Moreover, he may feel gratified that the Leader of the House is in her place. She is under no obligation to say anything, but she is welcome to do so if she wishes.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prior notice of his point of order. It was a genuine mistake on my part, for which I apologise to the House, and my officials will be setting the record straight.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is fulsome. We are extremely grateful to the Leader of the House.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to receive your guidance. I have been seeking meetings with Transport Ministers regarding a possible Flockton bypass and the services delivered by TransPennine trains. I secured a meeting with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) before the reshuffle, but the Department has been unable thus far to honour that commitment.

I learned that the Secretary of State was in Kirklees last Friday. I asked on a number of occasions via his office to meet him, but I was refused and told that he would meet only Conservative members and activists. Those members have since indicated on social media that they discussed the very two issues I wished to discuss with the Secretary of State. I now understand that members of the public were also present at those meetings—something for which there is photographic evidence.

I have sought to raise the issues I mentioned with the Secretary of State for months, as the MP elected by the constituency. Can you please advise whether Ministers in this House should be prepared to meet Members on issues relating to their constituencies?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice that she wished to raise this issue.

What I would say—and it is very commonplace for me to get points of order of this type—is that I understand her concern to achieve a meeting with Ministers on a matter which is of importance to her constituents. Clearly, she had that prior commitment. It is customary, but not to be guaranteed, that a commitment by a Minister will tend to be honoured by his or her successor. While I would hope that Ministers would be even-handed in their response to Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House, I have nevertheless to say to the hon. Lady that it is not for me to tell Ministers whom they should meet; it is for an incoming Minister to decide whether to continue with a meeting arranged by his or her predecessor.

If a Minister goes to an area and is principally concerned to have what would be called a political meeting with members of his or her party, that may be exceptionally irritating to a Member who is not a member of that party, but it is not, of itself, illegitimate. There is no bar on Ministers undertaking party political activity alongside their ministerial duties.

All that said, I think that this place works best when there is a basic courtesy and respect from one Member to another. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who was previously the serving Minister, has always struck me as a most courteous fellow, but, looking at the Treasury Bench, I have known the Secretary of State for at least two decades, and we have always enjoyed very cordial relations—he is a most courteous chap. As for the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), well, I think my cup runneth over—the hon. Gentleman is personable to a fault. I cannot understand why neither of them is willing to meet the hon. Lady—I would have thought that they would think it a most worthwhile enterprise.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It looks as though an explanation is in the offing, because the Secretary of State is perched like a panther ready to pounce. Let us hear from the fella.

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker, as you know, I am regularly around this House. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Lady to tap me on the shoulder and say, “Would it be possible to have a meeting? There has been a reshuffle.” I would be delighted to organise a meeting with the Department. However, what I cannot offer her is a commitment that, when I attend a meeting with Conservative councillors in a constituency, I will invite the Member from the neighbouring constituency at the same time. I am afraid that that issue is completely separate, but I am very happy to ensure that she has a meeting with Ministers.

[Mr Speaker]

If I may say so—it may not please everybody—that seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, because what the hon. Lady really wants is to meet the Secretary of State. She may be interested in what the Secretary of State has to say to her, but I think she is, in particular, extremely interested in what she has to say to him. If they get a meeting, it does not matter that it is not in Dewsbury or a neighbouring constituency; it is a meeting about the matters of substance, and that should be the source of much merriment for all concerned.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not having given you prior notice, but pursuant to the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), you will recall that I raised a similar point of order last week about the Secretary of State attending my constituency, not giving me prior notice and then meeting Conservative colleagues. If it becomes a pattern of regular behaviour that a Minister on ministerial duties seeks to meet only Conservative councillors and fails to give proper notice, how might we remedy that in the House to prevent embarrassment for the Minister should he accidentally do that in the future?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I suppose Members can keep raising tedious points of order about the matter, which may disincentivise Ministers from behaving in this way. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not defending it or saying that I think it particularly desirable, but I think this phenomenon of Ministers meeting only with members of their own party on a visit is what I would call “seasonal”. It tends to apply in the run-up to local and by-elections, so it may be that a meeting at another time of the year would be easier to arrange.

I think that we will probably have to leave it there. We seem to have excited a member of the public, who is standing in the Gallery. We normally discourage that, but I am very grateful to him. On the whole it is best not to stand in the Gallery, but nevertheless, sir, thank you for attending our proceedings. [Interruption.] Yes, maybe he was going to raise a point of order—I do not know. If we have exhausted the appetite for points of order at least for today, we shall proceed. I thank the Secretary of State and other colleagues.

Social Security

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

18:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider motion No. 2:

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

[Kit Malthouse]

With the forbearance of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for any prior confusion, I move the motion. In my view, you will pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, the provisions in both orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018 is an entirely technical matter that we attend to each year in this House and I do not imagine that we will need to spend much time on it today. The statutory instrument provides for contracted-out defined benefit occupational pension schemes to increase members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 3%.

I turn to the rates that are included in the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. The Government continue to stand by their commitment to the triple lock guarantee, which means that, this year, the basic state pension and the full rate of the new state pension will go up by the increase in prices, at 3%, as outlined in the autumn Budget on 22 November last year. We will increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by more than the growth in earnings to match the cash increase in the basic state pension, and we will increase benefits to meet additional disability needs and carer benefits by 3% in line with prices.

The Government’s continuing commitment to the triple lock for the length of this Parliament means that the basic state pension rate for a single person will increase by £3.65 to £125.95 a week from April 2018. As a result, from April 2018, the full basic state pension will be £1,450 a year higher than it was in April 2010. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.5% of average earnings—one of the highest levels relative to earnings for more than two decades.

In 2016, the Government introduced the new state pension for people reaching their state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards, with the aim of making it clearer to people at a much younger age how much they are likely to get and providing a solid base for their saving and retirement planning. We are committed to increasing the new state pension by the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. As a result, the full rate of the new state pension will increase by 3% this year, meaning that, from April 2018, the full rate of the new state pension will increase by £4.80 to £164.35 a week—around 24.2% of average earnings.

The benefits of the triple lock uprating will also be passed on to the poorest pensioners through an increase in the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit to match the cash rise in the basic state pension. That will be paid for through an increase in the savings credit threshold. To match the cash increase in the basic state pension, the standard minimum guarantee will rise by 2.29%, which exceeds growth in earnings of 2.2%. That will mean that, from April 2018, the single person threshold of this safety net benefit will rise by £3.65 a week, to £163.

On the additional state pension, this year, state earnings-related pension schemes will rise in line with prices by 3%. Protected payments in the new state pension will be increased in the same manner. Consistent Government support for pensions has seen the percentage of pensioners living in poverty fall dramatically in the past few decades; it is now standing close to the lowest rate since comparable records began.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that state pension is deducted from pension credit, leaving those pensioners no better off than if they had not contributed to qualify for a state pension. Because state pension is also taxable if other income is brought into the household, the pensioner may have both to pay tax on it and to see it deducted from their pension credit. Therefore, they could be worse off than if they had not contributed to qualify for a state pension. What are the Government doing to address that long-standing inequity?

[Kit Malthouse]

Significant measures have been taken by the Government to deal with pensions and, in particular, pensioner poverty over the last few years. We have seen that fall from something approaching 46% to around 16% in the last few years. One measure, in particular, that will have benefited many millions of pensioners is raising the personal tax threshold. That has taken millions of people out of the tax system altogether and particularly those, such as pensioners, who are on a fixed income.

I turn to disability benefits. The Government will continue to ensure that carers, those who cannot work and those who have additional needs as a result of disability get the support that they need. We continue to follow the principle in our welfare reforms that more of the money should get to the people who need it most. That results in disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment all rising by 3% in line with prices from April 2018. Disability-related and carer premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also increase by 3%, as will the employment and support allowance support group component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit.

All in all, the Government will spend an extra £4.2 billion in 2018-19 on uprating benefits and pension rates. With that spending, we are upholding our commitment to the country’s pensioners by maintaining the triple lock on their state pension, helping the poorest pensioners who count on pension credit, and providing support to disabled people and carers. I commend the orders to the House.

18:07

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I will focus initially on the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order and then move on to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order.

The uprating order provides for the annual uprating of social security entitlements excluded from the Government’s freeze to levels of social security enacted in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. As we have heard, that includes attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payment, industrial injuries disablement benefit, bereavement benefits, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. This year, the Secretary of State proposes to uprate those limited social security entitlements by inflation under the consumer prices index measure, which currently stands at 3%, together with the new state pension in accordance with the triple lock, and pension credit.

We will not delay the measures to increase the new state pension and the adequacy of the social security provision provided by the uprating of payments in the order. However, although I welcome the upratings contained in the order, this needs to be seen in the context of the support that is not being provided or has not been uprated, as well as the Government’s wider approach to social security. The uprating order does not include child benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, local housing allowance rates, child tax credit, working tax credit and the majority of comparable elements of universal credit.

The Government’s decision to limit the cap on uprating to 1% between 2013 and 2015 and the subsequent freeze on the vast majority of social security payments has seen low-income households suffer a significant deterioration in the adequacy of social security support. The freeze to payments and support is having an extremely detrimental impact upon millions of people on low incomes across the UK. Over the last year, inflation has more than doubled, hitting a five-year high of 3.1% in December 2017. It currently stands at 3%.

The payments subject to uprating were uprated by just 1% last year, with the vast majority of social security payments remaining frozen. To put that into context, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the price of essentials has risen three times faster than wages over the past 10 years. Food prices have increased by 4.1%, transport by 4.5% and clothing and footwear by 3%. People are suffering a continued increase in the cost of living, and that is being exacerbated by wage stagnation and the rise in insecure work caused by the Government’s inadequate economic policies. Last year, in-work families on the national living wage saw minimum costs rise faster than their net income because in-work payments were frozen and any rises in pay were clawed back by tax credit reductions. While millions of families are seeing their incomes fall in real terms, the wealth of the richest few continues to soar, with FTSE 250 bosses seeing their pay rise by 11% in the last two years alone.

Despite promises to tackle these burning injustices, the income gap between the richest and poorest in our society has almost doubled. Britain’s top bosses are paid, on average, 165 times more than a nurse, 140 times more than a teacher and 312 times more than a careworker. Research from the Resolution Foundation shows that the poorest families will see their incomes drop by an average of 2% by 2021, while the richest fifth of households will see their wealth increase by 5%. It is clear that the Government’s cuts to social security support are pushing more and more people into poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has called on the Government to end the freeze to social security payments, as has the Child Poverty Action Group, which states that

“the failure to uprate benefits in line with inflation is the single biggest driver behind child poverty”.

Following the 2015 summer Budget, the Government’s flagship universal credit programme saw cuts to the work allowance. That was on top of the scrapping of severe disability premiums, the imposition of the minimum income floor for the self-employed and the limiting of child tax credit support to the first two children. As a result of those cuts and the freeze, not only is universal credit failing to make work pay, but instead of reducing poverty it is actually exacerbating it.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend may also be aware of the difficulties people are having claiming the childcare element of universal credit—the bureaucratic burdens which are compounding the freezes and cuts she is talking about and which mean that families cannot get the childcare support they used to be able to fund relatively easily under the tax credit system.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are many different aspects to the Government’s still inadequate response on how they will fix universal credit. She has highlighted one, and we heard earlier in oral questions about the debacle of free school meals and how more children will be deprived of free school meals.

What is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the social security uprating cap on poverty levels? Does he accept the Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis that 1 million more children will be pushed into poverty as a direct result of the cuts to universal credit? Does he accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on the cumulative impact on disabled people, which estimates that a disabled adult will have lost on average £2,500 a year since 2010?

Despite announcing a small amount of additional investment in the autumn Budget to prop up universal credit, in reality, the Chancellor has only reintroduced £1 for every £10 cut by his predecessor. Why are the Government choosing not to uprate social security payments in a way that reflects the economic reality for those in most need? I remind hon. Members that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that cuts to universal credit will force 1 million additional children into poverty by 2020. The social security system should prevent people from getting into debt and poverty, not make things worse.

By continuing the freeze on social security payments not included in this order, the Government are subjecting 10.5 million households to an average cut of £450 a year up to 2020. The order was a chance for the Government to recognise the desperate reality for many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, but they have failed to do so. As charities across the sector have been asking, will the Minister ensure the end of the freeze on other social security payments in next month’s Budget statement?

The order allows for discretionary upratings to be made by the Minister where he deems it necessary and appropriate. I want to be clear that we welcome the Minister’s decision to include a 3% uprating to the work allowance element of universal credit in the list of discretionary upratings in these measures, but the reality of people’s lives demands more. This again raises questions about the consistency of the Government’s argument to uprate some social security payments and not others. If he believes that the work allowance element of universal credit should be uprated, as the Opposition do, will he explain why tax credits are not also being uprated by the same amount? Why the disparity?

The Government cut the work allowance element of universal credit in 2015, yet subsequently have recognised the need to uprate it through the discretionary element in the order—although not to a level that reflects the reality of the rising costs of living and previous cuts. Is that an admission that they were wrong to cut work allowances in 2015?

Moving on to the pensions element of this uprating, I welcome the uprating of the state pension via the triple lock. I am glad to see that has survived, given the Government’s indifference to it last year, but I want to put on the record concerns about the public’s levels of understanding of the new single-tier pension and the paucity of information the Government have made available. As we know, there are both winners and losers as a result of the Government’s changes and most new pensioners will not receive the full single-tier pension. Before its introduction, it was estimated that only around 22% of women and half of men reaching state pension age would be entitled to the full single-tier pension. Will the Minister update the House on that?

In addition to the numerous social security payments subject to the Government’s benefits freeze and not uprated in this order, there are some very significant further omissions. Although the state pension is being uprated, people who have frozen pensions are excluded from the uprating and will not see an increase in their state pension in line with inflation. Pensioners living abroad face very different circumstances depending on whether their country of residence has a reciprocal agreement with the UK for the uprating of state pensions. Pensioners in countries without this arrangement see their pensions frozen at their initial retirement level, which means that the value of their pension falls in real terms every single year.

More than half a million people currently have their pensions frozen, mostly in Commonwealth countries such as India, Australia, Canada, parts of the Caribbean and New Zealand, and in countries with strong family and historical links to the UK such as Pakistan and parts of Africa. The Opposition believe that their pensions should be protected in the same way that the pensions of other UK citizens living abroad are in the future, yet the Government are choosing to withhold the pension uprating in this order from 550,000 recipients living outside the UK. This is a chance for the Government to make an historic change to our pension system and support our policy to end future arbitrary discrimination against some British pensioners living overseas by uprating in line with inflation from this point. Will the Minister look again at that issue and take action to address that inequality?

Not only have the Government failed to support pensioners living abroad; they have failed to address the current injustice faced by many millions of women born in the 1950s. It is important that the Government not only recognise the real injustice that women born in the 1950s have been dealt as a result of Government changes to pensions policy, but take action to remedy this injustice.

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

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Millions of people living in this country have suffered discrimination because of the Government’s policies, particularly the women born in the early 1950s. The Government could do something about it and I can say this to them: as long as they refuse to do something about it, we will keep raising it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend speaks strongly on behalf of his constituents and women born in the 1950s, given what they are going through, and long may he continue to do so.

There can be no doubt that women have borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts over the past seven years, but that applies particularly to women born in the 1950s, who have been dealt a real injustice through the accelerated increase in their state pension age. The Government have no excuse not to bring forward retirement for women born in the 1950s and early drawdown of their pension, as it is entirely cost-neutral. Alongside our proposals for the extension of pension credit, these additional measures would mean that people affected by the Government’s chaotic mismanagement of state pension equalisation would have the option to retire earlier, and would allow for much-needed financial support. The Government are in a position to implement proposals for early drawdown immediately, but they refuse to do so. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly why that is.

Let me make it clear that the proposals are a “starter”. They do not in any way preclude further action, or even compensation, for this group of women. Will the Minister commit himself to reviewing the Government’s approach to pensions provision for women born in the 1950s, and will he release the original legal opinion contained in the “pink files”?

In the context that I have set out, a 3% uprating of some social security entitlements is unlikely to do much for those who are “just about managing”. As a matter of principle, the uprating should apply to all entitlements, not just the ones that the Government have cherry-picked. In the meantime, although we regret the limit on the groups who will benefit from the uprating, we must support the order, because otherwise those identified will lose out.

Let me now turn to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018. We support the uprating of the guaranteed minimum pension in line with inflation, but we believe that some of the issues that were raised last year about the new state pension arrangements that came into effect in April 2016 remain unresolved.

The old state pension had two main components: a basic state pension; and a state earnings-related pension. People who made national insurance contributions at the full rate built up a basic state pension, but an option created in 1978 enabled people to contract out into another pension scheme, either voluntarily or via their employer on their behalf, on the basis that the other scheme met certain criteria. Between 1978 and 1997, schemes that took on such new members were required to provide a “guaranteed minimum pension”. The guaranteed minimum pension system was discontinued by the then Government in 1997.

In 2016, the Government’s introduction of the new state pension ended contracting out by replacing the additional state pension with a single tier. Working-age people now have their existing state pension entitlement adjusted for previous periods of contracting out and transferred to the new state pension scheme. For people who have guaranteed minimum pensions rights under an old pension scheme but who reached retirement age after April 2016, the Government no longer take account of inflation increases in guaranteed minimum pensions when uprating people’s new state pensions. The changes mean that any guaranteed minimum pensions accrued between 1978 and 1988 will not be uprated, and the scheme provider will uprate guaranteed minimum pensions built up between 1988 and 1997 only to a maximum of 3% each year.

When the National Audit Office investigated the impact of the changes, it concluded that there would be some winners and some losers under the new arrangements, depending on the time for which people were contracted into a scheme. Those whose state pensions have been pushed back because of the rise in state pension age will lose out on guaranteed minimum pensions inflation-linked increases that would have been received under the old rules. However, those who lose under the new rules may be able to build up additional entitlement to the state pension. The issue here is a lack of clear information, as is too often the case with the Government.

The NAO report stated:

“Some people are likely to lose out and they have not been able to find the information they need.”

Why did the Government fail to provide information that would enable people to make informed decisions? The NAO also said that it was

“concerned that the Department has limited information about who is affected by the impact of pension reforms on Guaranteed Minimum Pensions.”

Will the Minister provide a much-needed update on the number of people who have been affected since the relevant legislation came into effect? What support is available to help people to understand the changes?

I hope that the Minister will address all the issues that I have raised in respect of both orders.

18:24

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be able to set out the Scottish National party’s position.

You will not be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am rather critical this evening, because I have been speaking about the matters covered by the social security order since my election nearly three years ago. Like the annual review of social security payments, the order covers everything from pensions to maternity allowances, but for many people, there is no annual review, because a number of social security benefits are automatically frozen, regardless of the impact on people who need that support to get by, regardless of the rise in household costs, and regardless of widespread opposition to the continuation of the freeze. Jobseeker’s allowance, child and working tax credit, local housing allowance, income support, child benefit, and the work-related activity group element of employment and support allowance have all been frozen. That means that people who are desperately seeking work, families with children, parents who are working hard but receiving poverty pay, and sick or disabled people will see their support frozen, although their household costs have risen significantly in the past year.

In December, the consumer prices index hit 3%, which means that families in and out of work who need the support of the social security system to get by will need to find extra money just to stand still. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that working families with two children will lose £315 a year as a result of the benefit freeze, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that as a result of higher CPI rates, benefit entitlements will be reduced by an average of £450 per year by 2019-20. We know that this is the worst decade for wage growth in 210 years, and that as a result people who are in work but also in receipt of social security support have had their chances cut off at both ends. As costs rise, they cannot rely on work or social security to help them to keep up.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Another issue—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come to it—is that of the third child and the so-called rape clause. Nothing has been done about that.

[Neil Gray]

I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to draw attention to one of the Government’s most iniquitous and disgraceful policies. As he has said, no action has been forthcoming to address it.

The End Child Poverty coalition has said that it is because of the four-year benefit freeze that more than 50% of children in the UK’s poorest areas are growing up in poverty. Earlier today, at Question Time, the Minister defended the freeze, saying that overturning it would require primary legislation. I say, “Bring us that legislation and let us vote on it.” The evidence clearly shows the damage that is being done, and I would challenge any Government Back Bencher to vote for its continuation in the face of such evidence. It is time to end the freeze and lift children out of poverty.

Apart from anything else, the Government do not need to continue this, even by their own reasoning. Figures obtained by the SNP from the House of Commons Library show that while the four-year benefit freeze introduced by the Tory Government in April 2016 was intended to result in £3.5 billion of cuts by 2019-20, that figure could now be £5.2 billion owing to rising inflation. The decision not to uprate the bereavement support payment in line with inflation is completely unacceptable while the cost of funerals continues to rise at an incredible rate. What is worst is that the DWP’s own statistics show that 75% of recipients of the new combined payment who have children will be worse off, and that the figure rises to 88% for those who are bereaved with children and in work. The resignation of the entire board of the Social Mobility Commission in December should have been seen as the climax of the Government-driven poverty crisis, but today we see it being driven on.

There are some welcome elements in the order. I am glad that Ministers have used their discretion to uprate statutory sick pay, statutory maternity and paternity pay, adoption pay and statutory shared parental pay, all of which will rise by 3%. They may have done so in the light of a report from the European Committee of Social Rights. I quizzed Ministers about that report earlier, but they appeared to know little about what I was talking about. It states that social security provisions for the self-employed, the sick and the unemployed in the UK are “manifestly inadequate”. The UK is now “not in conformity” with a number of legal obligations in the European social charter, which is a legally binding economic and social counterpart of the European convention on human rights.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech and I respect his position on these matters, but it is worth asking this question: since 2016, the Scottish Government have had powers to top up reserved benefits—indeed, they have a wide range of powers in relation to welfare matters—so what do the SNP Government in Scotland intend to do in relation to those benefits?

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the new Scottish social security agency Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament so that we can bring in measures that allow us to make changes to how things are done down here. He will also be aware that we have put in place hundreds of millions of pounds of mitigation spending over the past few years, including to ensure that none of his constituents have to be impacted by the iniquitous bedroom tax.

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Neil Gray]

I think we have heard enough, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to, he can make a speech later.

The order will not do much to make up for the lack of conformity that the European Committee of Social Rights has highlighted, and that Ministers seem so clueless about. Its latest report follows the High Court ruling on the UK Government’s changes to personal independence payments, which said that the system “blatantly discriminates” against people with mental health problems, and a report from the UN saying that Tory benefit cuts “violate human rights”. This Government have another new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has thankfully accepted the High Court ruling on PIP. Perhaps it is time for her to take a fresh look at all the other areas of international criticism as well.

On pensions, Ministers will not be surprised at my disappointment that another year has gone by without any action on frozen pensions or to sort out the state pension inequalities faced by women. Accompanying the order are regulations—they are brought forward annually under the negative procedure—ensuring that the state pension uprating will not apply to people entitled to the pension living in certain countries around the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) have been pressing the Government on this matter since their election in 2015. It is an injustice that some people, who have earned the right to their pension like everyone else, have their payments frozen at the rate they first received for the rest of their life abroad. It is just not right that the pensions of those who live in some countries continue to rise while those of others are frozen. Some 550,000 British pensioners are affected, who represent 4% of all recipients of the state pension and half of all those drawing their pensions abroad.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about overseas pensions. I am sure he recalls—I think this was last year or the year before—that a number of representatives from different countries came to lobby us about this situation, which has been ongoing for a number of years. I am sure that we have all received many emails on the subject.

[Neil Gray]

We have indeed, and I am sure I have been copied into the same emails that the hon. Gentleman has received. It is wrong that people still face this glaring injustice, and the new DWP team must look at it again to ensure that there is action upon it.

The DWP must also finally act to rectify another pension injustice: that suffered by women born in the 1950s. The WASPI campaign has been the clearest, most persistent and compelling of the dozens we have seen before us in the last two and a half years. It is a scandal that the UK Government continue to refuse to address this issue, which is not going away.

I turn to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018. Under the old state pension system, which was made up of the basic state pension and the state earnings-related pension scheme, people built up their basic element through national insurance contributions, but built up SERPS depending on their circumstances. Some people—doing so themselves, or because their employer did it—were contracted out of SERPS. Contracting out occurred because it allowed both parties—the individual and the employer—to pay reduced national insurance contributions. However, to ensure some standard was maintained, the employer had to guarantee that their company pension would match at least the SERPS the employee would have received if they had not been contracted out. That is the guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP.

The system ran for a number of years between the 1970s and 1990s, but was discontinued by the Labour Government, and now the new state pension works in a completely different way. Complicated rules apply to uprating, depending on when the pension was built up. We know that people will be impacted in different ways, but people who were extensively contracted out may just receive the basic state pension, and for some this might come as a shock.

Clearly this is an extremely complex matter and we know that people are struggling to understand their circumstances. Our main concern regarding the order is that the UK Government ensure that people are adequately informed of the impact of the new state pension on their own pension pots.

Not all those who were contracted out were made fully aware of the impact on their eventual pension pot. While it is good that a minimum guarantee is linked to CPI, there are adverse impacts for some people. We understand that the Government’s changes to the state pension mean that any GMPs that people have accrued between 1978 and 1988 will not be uprated, and that a maximum of 3% each year will be uprated for GMPs built up between 1988 and 1997. This applies to those who have retired after 6 April 2016. Whether or not people benefit depends on their circumstances, and some people will get less money than they expected. People who were contracted out were not necessarily aware of what that meant at the time, or did not necessarily understand its implications, and they certainly could not have anticipated that their retirement income would be impacted by such future changes as the Government have made to the state pension. For those without further savings to fall back on, like many of the WASPI women, this can mean a loss in income. The UK Government should have better communicated the impact of these changes for those who were contracted out.

All in all, what this points to is the urgent need to establish an independent pensions commission. The Government continue to ignore the needs of pensioners, as well as the looming pensions and savings crisis we may well encounter in the future. The Government need to ensure that people’s retirement savings are on a sustainable footing so that future generations can plan for their future. The SNP has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to ensure that employees’ savings are protected and that a more progressive approach to fairer savings is looked at as we move to a period in which defined benefit schemes are becoming a thing of the past and the new state pension begins to take effect. The need for that independent commission is greater than ever.

18:36

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

While I too am pleased that a number of benefits have been uprated in the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018, overall I am disappointed in it for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). In too many cases, in failing to offer any uprating at all of certain benefits it serves to embed meanness in our social security system, particularly against the backdrop of rising prices that we have heard about.

We see a number of specific instances in this order where the Government simply say the benefit rate “remains unchanged”—or, in other words, is frozen—despite the rise in prices. We see that, for example, for income support, for jobseeker’s allowance and—I was shocked to see—for the bereavement support grant. We also know from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that the consequence of the freeze and other cuts will be a very significant rise in the number of children growing up in poverty.

The consequence will be huge hardship for families. We have already seen food bank use rise tenfold over the last decade, and it will increase further. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported that the lowest income households are already struggling with personal debt and paying the bills; their situation will simply worsen as a result of these frozen benefits.

I have to say that the decision to impose this freeze for a period of four years is, frankly, wicked. In a civilised society, our social security system is here to meet need, and there is no way the Government can assure this House that it will do so if prices continue to rise over that period while benefits remain frozen.

Contrary to what the Government appear to believe, meanness—a lack of generosity in the system—does not improve its legitimacy. Conversely, one thing that does improve the legitimacy of the system is recognising contribution, so it is depressing that the order misses the opportunity to improve a number of the contributory benefits that it covers. We are in the ridiculous situation where some contributory benefits are being reduced pound for pound from the equivalent means-tested benefit. While this is not a new problem, it is exacerbated by the introduction of universal credit. For example, income-based jobseeker’s allowance in universal credit is not taxable, but contributory-based JSA is deducted from universal credit pound for pound, and it is then taxed into the bargain, leaving the claimant worse off than a claimant who has not contributed. We see a similar situation with widowed parents allowance, which is based on the deceased partner’s contribution record. Because universal credit brings together a number of benefits in one single payment, deductions of contributory benefits can be taken not just from the equivalent income-based component of universal credit but from other help in universal credit such as payments towards housing costs or towards the cost of raising children.

As I say, this problem is not new, but in some respects it is being made worse, and I hope that the House will uniformly agree that to penalise people who have made a contribution in this way is not actually moral. Disregarding at least a proportion of contributory benefit for the purpose of calculating means-tested entitlement would be a powerful recognition that people should be rewarded, not penalised, for making a contribution. That is important for building confidence in the social security system . It is also a matter of simple justice. I find these orders disappointing at best, and in some respects downright cruel, perverse and unethical. I urge the Minister to make good on these defects, and to do so as a matter of urgency.

18:41

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to respond to the social security benefits uprating order on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister knows, the Government have been obliged by law since 1992 to increase the value of certain disability benefits in line with inflation, and I am pleased to see that attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance and the personal independence payment will be going up by 3%. My colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), also noted that the Government have recognised that they made a tremendous mistake over PIP for people with mental health issues, and I am glad that it is being increased by 3%. However, over the next few months while this absolute shambles is sorted out, I doubt that the many people on PIP who have mental health issues will appreciate that increase as much as they might have done if the Government had not been so foolhardy in the first place.

I value the fact that pension credit is going up by 2.2% and that the widows pension in industrial death benefit is increasing by 3%. To be fair, I also appreciate the fact that the Government have used their discretion to increase working-age benefits for disabled people in line with inflation, particularly around the support group component. As the Minister will be aware, people who are on support group employment and support allowance often have a profundity of disability which means that they cannot work, irrespective of the support they get. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased that by 3%.

It is always good to see the state pension triple lock. The last time I was here, we were in coalition, and I am delighted to see the Government continuing to implement Lib Dem policy by introducing an increase of 3% this year. However, I also want to flag up my disappointment, as other colleagues have done, that the Government have not used this opportunity to give some succour to the many women born in the 1950s and who are part of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. This would have been a good opportunity to send a message that the Government are listening and are prepared to come up with something to salve the frustration and anger of many millions of women across the country. As I have said before in the House, I believe that all the parties are culpable in this regard. The Conservatives originally brought in the changes through the Pensions Act 1995 without telling anyone. Labour did nothing for the 13 years it was in government, and then we had the coalition. As we are all culpable, I hope that we can work together to come up with the kind of transition payment that I profoundly believe the WASPI women deserve. I am disappointed that the Minister has not mentioned this today.

I shall move on to the elements that I am unhappy with. In accordance with the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, working-age benefits will be frozen until April 2020. I will not go through the whole list of benefits, but the consequences of this freeze will be absolutely deplorable. I shall give the House an example. The Child Poverty Action Group and the Resolution Foundation have identified that, from this year onwards and for the next four years, single parents stand to lose an average of £2,380 per annum. That is an enormous amount of money for anyone to lose from their annual budget. I am on a very good salary here—we all are—and I would notice if that amount were suddenly taken out of my salary. For single parents to have to suffer that over the next four years is absolutely wrong. I am very disappointed that the Government are continuing with the freeze despite all the evidence from robust, independent and reputable organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) so eloquently said, the impact of the benefits freeze is simply cruel.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One of the consequences of this is that people have not been assisted with burials, because nobody ever looks at burial charges, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the number of pauper burials is starting to increase in this country. Surely that is quite an indictment.

[Stephen Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman might know that an additional aspect of the benefits freeze is that the bereavement support payment is frozen. That is just unacceptable, and I will also keep banging on about the cuts affecting single parents.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how particularly unfair these freezes are to single parents. It is obviously extremely difficult for them, as the sole carer of their children, to increase their family income by increasing their working hours. Does he therefore agree that special attention should be paid to their needs in the benefit system?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I heartily agree with the hon. Lady. There are more than 2 million single parent families, which must involve many millions of children, and the effect on them will be devastating if the Government do not address this matter very quickly. If they leave it for another four years, I can barely comprehend the damage that it will do to many of those children.

I am also disappointed about the employment and support allowance work-related activity group benefit—the WRAG—which is for disabled people whom the DWP recognises as having the capacity to work but who need a certain amount of support in order to get back into work as a consequence of their disability. This is an area that I have been supporting for many years before I came into politics, because I totally share the view of many others in the Chamber that work is the best way out of poverty and the best way to boost self-respect. However, after the coalition—the Liberals would never have allowed this—the Government cut the WRAG payment by 30%. I see that that has not changed. In fact, the Government are looking at removing it completely.

I ask hon. Members to imagine that they have a disability, that they have been unemployed for six or seven years, and that they want to get back into work. They will be supported by their local Jobcentre Plus and by the DWP, but because they have been away from work for a long time, they might lack confidence. They will therefore be gently directed, guided, assisted and mentored into work. I now ask them to imagine what would happen if the DWP then said, “Oh, by the way, we are going to reduce your income by 30%.” What would that do to their self-confidence, and to their determination to stay in the work-related activity group? I can tell them that because human nature is what it is, more and more disabled people will try to move into the support group as a result of this cut, and that will cost the state more. This shows the Government’s complete lack of understanding of disability and of human nature. Bad move!

Turning to the work allowance, one of the first things that George Osborne, now editor of the Evening Standard, did after the Liberals were defenestrated in 2015 was to slash £3 billion per annum from the work allowance. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee, along with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, I was so supportive of universal credit because, despite all its clunky bits, the work allowance meant that work really did pay. By removing £3 billion per annum since then, which will continue for the next four years, work no longer pays, which is completely counterproductive. The Government have kept all the worst elements of universal credit and have dumped the best element: the work allowance.

I pointed out in DWP questions earlier that universal credit is not working for the self-employed due to the minimum income floor. People who are self-employed may earn x amount of money one month and y the next—it could be less or more—but the way that universal credit is designed can mean that, at the end of 12 months, someone who is self-employed and earned £15,000 will have received less in benefits than someone who is employed and earns £15,000 or £20,000. The Conservative party, which always trumpets itself as the aspirational party, is specifically working against the self-employed, which is absolutely daft. As we know, the Government have abolished housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, and housing benefit payments in the private rented sector have been frozen since 2016.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cancelling of benefits for under-21s leads to a perverse incentive? If young people are in supported accommodation, it does not actually make any sense for them to leave and go back into ordinary rental housing, because they cannot afford it.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Lady, who makes such a good point. Again, it is a false economy, because the situation just leads to more dysfunction and challenging circumstances for families. It will prevent younger people becoming independent, and it will cost the state more money.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I want to return to the issue of single parents once again. I urge the Minister to take responsibility for his Government and to listen to these figures. There are more than 2 million single parents in this country, who will have x million children, and they stand to lose nearly £2,500 a year in benefits under the benefit freeze. Those people do not have a lot of money; they are just trying to bring up their children. The situation is unacceptable. I urge the Minister not to ignore that important issue when he responds and to say something that we can perhaps take back to those many hundreds of thousands of single parents.

18:53

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this relatively short but necessary debate. I was encouraged to see the words “social security” appear on the Order Paper for this debate today and to see them on the annunciator. Over the years, we have sadly moved away from talking about social security to talking about welfare and, latterly, to benefits. Tempting though it is, I will resist lambasting Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, for their use of words like “scroungers” or “skivers” and the divide-and-conquer mentality that we see from the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I see that I have woken them up. The title of today’s debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is chuntering from a sedentary position. Does he want to intervene? No, perhaps not. The title of today’s debate is a good reminder to us—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I am more than happy to.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am happy to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Will he give the precise constituency of the Member who used the words that he suggests were used?

[David Linden]

It was the former Chancellor, so I think that it is Tatton. He now edits the Evening Standard, but it was not so long ago that Conservative Members were charging away behind him and saying how wonderful he was. [Interruption.] I will make some progress with my speech while Conservative Members chunter away.

I rise to express my profound disappointment at the UK Government’s continued obsession with the punitive benefit freeze. As a constituency MP, I am acutely aware that a clear majority of the people I speak to in my surgeries on a Friday do not choose to be on benefits. Circumstances largely dictate that. Broadly speaking, people end up receiving state support because they are disabled, sick or out of work. Contrary to what some right-wing newspapers print, being on benefits does not constitute a life of luxury. If people outside this House or Conservative Members genuinely believe that, they ought to go and study the Trussell Trust’s annual statistics, which show that the top three reasons people use foodbanks are changes or delays in benefits, low income at work and insecure employment. The charge for all three falls squarely at the door of this Tory Government.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I am more than happy to give way.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says with great assurance that everything lies at the door of this Government. However, the Scottish Government have had powers to adjust, top up or change things or to introduce new benefits since 2016. In fact, the Scottish Government have done none of those things. The only thing that they have done is make some changes to how universal credit can be changed. The Scottish National party has the power at its disposal in the Scottish Government to change the benefits package in Scotland, so why is it not doing it?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his speech. He will perhaps want to have a glass of water after that. Scottish Conservative Members often come to the Chamber and act as Rottweilers and have a go at the Scottish Government. After a certain amount of time, Conservative Members will realise that they have been sent here from their constituencies to hold the United Kingdom Government to account. Until that happens, I am more than happy to debate with the hon. Gentleman about the powers that the Scottish Government have taken on.

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[David Linden]

No, the hon. Gentleman can sit down for a wee minute. His remarks are disappointing, because we broadly see a good cross-party consensus in the Scottish Parliament, including from the Conservative party, about moving forward. The hon. Gentleman’s rather pathetic intervention is perhaps a bit of an insult to his colleagues in the Scottish Conservative and rape clause party.

As I have said, I am acutely aware as a constituency MP that people do not choose to be on benefits. We want a Government who are willing to stand up and build a country that works for everyone, but that cannot just exist on the side of buses. During the general election campaign, the Conservatives were talking about building a country that works for everyone, but if they are serious about that, it has to work for everyone. The people whom Conservative Members denigrate and have a go at might not vote for them, but the reality is that the Government need to give them more support.

I am conscious of the time, and I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to the debate, but I first want to place on the record my concern about the lack of support for the WASPI women. One of the first things that I did as an MP was to bring together many of the women in my constituency who have been unfairly affected by this Government’s attack on women born in the 1950s. In my remaining time, however, I want to issue a plea to the Government to halt the roll-out of universal credit in Glasgow, end the benefits freeze and scrap the medieval, barbaric two-child policy.

Before I entered this House, I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)—I am glad to see her here—and she has doggedly pursued the Government over their barbaric rape clause and medieval two-child policy.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend mentions the rape clause. Conservative Members asked him earlier about MPs who had said things that we would not accept were right, but the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) said that people should have vasectomies rather than children, because vasectomies are free. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of attitude—thinking that poor people are having hundreds of children just to scrounge off the state—is completely unacceptable?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That takes me quite nicely on to my next point, and the hon. Member for Stirling takes a keen interest in such matters, so I am sure that he will be concerned about this. Government policy is meant to go through a family test, so for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) to start suggesting that poor people should have vasectomies is deeply worrying and provides a real insight into the mindset of a Tory MP.

[Stephen Kerr]

I have a simple question: does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish Government now have power over things such as tax credits? The Scottish Government have not done anything with those powers since 2016. SNP MPs stand up here and give these virtue-signalling speeches about concern and compassion, but if they think that something needs to be fixed, the Scottish Government have the power to fix it.

[David Linden]

I am entertained by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to catch your eye to make a speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but has instead decided to try to use my speech as an opportunity once again to attack the Scottish Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not even listening, so I do not know whether I should continue to address the point, but Scottish Conservatives come to this House and use the opportunity to rail against the Scottish Government as much as possible, yet he has absolutely no clue that tax credits are not being devolved to the Scottish Government. If he had spent any time reading the order in the back of this debate, he would know that that is the case.

Despite widespread condemnation from every corner of the globe, including from the United Nations, Ministers have pursued a two-child policy that would frankly make China blush. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the two-child cap, which is tantamount to social engineering, will mean that some 600,000 three-child families will lose £2,500 a year on average—that is families in Stirling losing £2,500 a year because of this Government’s policy. That is not £2,500 a year on catalogues, gambling or lavish nights out; it is £2,500 a year that should go towards hot, nutritious meals for low-income families with children in my constituency of Glasgow East.

The reality is that, under this uncaring Tory Government, we are watching child poverty go through the roof, while living standards go through the floor. The other debate that I plan to take part in this week is on free school meals, and 21st-century Britain has now arrived at a point where, due to the sheer levels of poverty in our communities, the only place that some children can get a hot, decent meal is at school. Only last week, MPs on both sides of the Chamber voted to spend billions of pounds on tarting up this royal palace so we can enjoy yet more luxury, yet tonight we are being asked by the Minister to support an order that will continue the benefit freeze for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

No, I will not give way at this point.

Continuing the benefit freeze is fundamentally wrong, and it is time to call it out. It is time for an end to the punitive benefit freeze.

19:01

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

I rise to focus on the pensions aspect of this debate. We would all agree it is the duty of the United Kingdom Government to make sure that pensioners fully understand the impact that pension changes will have on their retirement planning. This is, of course, an extremely complex matter, and we know that many people struggle to understand the impact that changes to their pensions will have on their pension pots. The movement from a basic state pension and a state earnings-related pension scheme—commonly known as SERPS—to a one-off calculation is far from straightforward, and it will have an impact on people’s ability to understand their pension pots. Indeed, some people who have been extensively contracted out will get just the basic state pension figure.

We have heard tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) that it is good that there will be a minimum guarantee linked to the consumer prices index, but there will also be some adverse impacts. We know, for example, that those who were contracted out were not necessarily aware and did not necessarily understand what it meant, and certainly could not and would not have anticipated that their future retirement income would be negatively affected by the Government’s changes to the state pension. Those without savings to fall back on, such as the WASPI women, are hit very hard. They face a significant loss of income and real hardship.

Many of us are tired of saying it, but I hope that the Minister is not tired of hearing it—he is hearing it, but he and his Government do not seem to be listening. The UK Government should have better communicated the impact of these changes on those who were contracted out. It is absolutely imperative that the UK Government make sure they adequately inform people of the impact of the new state pension on their pension pots, as they have a duty to do.

That is worth saying because, apart from Government Members, just about everyone agrees that the UK Government have completely failed in this duty with regard to WASPI women. Changes under the Pensions Act 1995 began to be made in 2010, but women were written to only from 2009. Many were simply not told, so they were completely unaware of the changes being made to their pensions. That is an appalling abdication of responsibility, and it shows complete disregard for the impact of such changes on the lives of those affected.

Many WASPI women were simply unaware of the changes, but the Government have not been listening. It is worth remembering that DWP research carried out in 2004 found that less than half the women surveyed were aware of the impact the changes would have on their state pension age, with awareness particularly low among those who would arguably be worst affected—women who were economically inactive.

In addition, the Pensions Commission said in 2005 that

“a policy of significant notice of any increase (e.g. at least 15 years) should be possible”.

In 2008, the Pensions Advisory Service also reported low levels of knowledge about the state pension and said that that “must be addressed” by the Government. The warning signs were all there, despite how much the UK Government insist that they did enough to inform women of changes to their pension age.

This whole episode has undermined the social contract that the state pension represents. If Members do not believe that, perhaps it is worth spending five minutes with a WASPI woman. With the impact of contracting out, it is extremely important that the Government tell the House what provisions are in place now, and have previously been in place, to ensure that people are fully informed of the impact on their pension pots. If some people are unable to make ends meet due to lower pension payments because of contracting out, the Government need to explain what support and advice will be made available to them.

The fact is that pensions are far too important to be kicked about by Governments of different political persuasions. Once again, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, we in the SNP are asking for an independent pensions commission, and we will continue to do so. Only then can we properly address the needs of pensioners and prepare for the looming pensions and savings crisis that many fear will come to pass. I draw the Minister’s attention to the spike in pensioner poverty, which shows that many of those in the over-60 age bracket are being failed by the Government.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that perhaps one way forward is for the parliamentary ombudsman to look at what was clearly poor-quality communication, from the 1995 Act onwards, and to make a ruling on whether the communication was good enough? We would then find out for sure what I think is true, which is that there was poor communication. We rely on the parliamentary ombudsman to give us that steer.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insight. That idea is worth pursuing, but, rather sadly, I fear that the WASPI women now feel that the only option left to them is a legal challenge in the courts. If that is where the matter finds itself, that in itself is an indictment of a Government who have let these women down. Either way, the WASPI women are not going to go away, and perhaps through the parliamentary ombudsman and perhaps through the courts, this matter is far from over.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that 300,000 more pensioners have been driven into poverty over the past four years, which is the first sustained increase in pensioner poverty for more than 20 years. That, on its own, should give us pause for thought. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but he should take it up with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is a very credible organisation.

There has been a sustained attack on pensioners, and we saw that in the Government’s election campaign with the attack on the triple lock and the threat of a dementia tax. Thankfully those threats have receded, because they cost the Government their majority, but the matter requires the Government’s full attention. The Government should reflect on the electoral consequences, as well as the moral consequences, of these attacks.

According to the European Commission’s 2015 research, the UK has a wider than average gender pensions gap. We are trailing behind the rest of Europe on how we treat our pensioners, which is a matter the Government should take seriously. After the WASPI fiasco, confidence in pensions has been undermined at a time when we are trying to encourage younger generations to plan for their future. Those two situations do not sit side by side very comfortably.

An independent pensions commission would ensure that employees’ savings are protected and that a more progressive approach to fairer savings is considered, as we move towards a period when the new state pensions take effect. An independent pensions commission is needed more than ever. It is time for the Government to consider it seriously in the long-term interest of pension security, and I urge the Minister to do so.

19:09

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

I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for covering the issues so completely. He welcomed the changes that are there to be welcomed, while making the criticisms that are due. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) succinctly covered many of the points I would normally make in a speech such as this and, as we have just heard, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) covered the pensions issues, particularly the treatment of the WASPI women, a subject dear to my heart. Given that that territory has been covered so completely, I wish to concentrate on one aspect that we face from this measure: the fact that most working-age benefits will now be frozen in cash terms from 2015-16 to 2019-20 inclusive.

That continued freeze on social security, in the light of the consumer prices index of 3%—

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I will make some progress. That situation means punishing costs for families, which are trapping thousands of them, including the children, in poverty. All they have to look forward to is the noose getting tighter every year. The fall in the pound has led to food prices rising at their fastest rate in four years, with an increase of 4%. Meat prices have risen by nearly 4% and vegetables have gone up in price by nearly 6%. Even taking refuge in a cup of tea is more unaffordable, as coffee, tea and cocoa prices soar—they are more than 8% higher. In these debates, we are talking about the effect on families at their kitchen tables—about them eating and about them making choices. When we are going through the technical nature of these debates, we would do well to reflect on that.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman used the words “all they have to look forward to” and then went on to talk about benefits. Are benefits not supposed to be temporary and about getting people into work? Are these people not looking forward to getting into work, which is what this Government are getting them into and investing in?

[Drew Hendry]

This is clearly part of the problem: the understanding of people’s real lives. We are not just talking about people who are out of work; we are talking about a range of people, including those suffering in-work poverty. This all comes at—

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I am going to make progress, but I will cover the hon. Gentleman’s points, as he has asked his question twice.

All the time, as a result of this Government, vital support remains frozen, and one in four children are growing up in poverty as a result. We already know, thanks to research from the Child Poverty Action Group, that children from well-off families outperform their low-income counterparts at age three to five, and by age five there are gaps of 10 months in problem solving development and 13 months in vocabulary. Three-year-olds in households with incomes below £10,000 are two and a half times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000. There are also strong links between the experience of child poverty and poor mental health. One study shows that children living in low-income households are nearly three times as likely to suffer mental health problems as those in better-off households. So why do this Government not accept the damage that is being done?

In Scotland, tackling child poverty is at the heart of decision making. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman at this point.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way unbidden. Let me ask him the same question. I do not dispute the sincerity or passion that SNP Members have on this issue, but since 2016 the Scottish Government have had powers to top up reserved benefits. So if SNP Members feel as passionately as they seem to, what are the SNP Government in Scotland going to do in practical terms—

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

It is happening now—

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I take the point of order, let me say that we cannot have interventions from a sedentary position upon someone who is intervening. We also cannot have such long interventions. This debate does not have much longer to go.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the course of this debate, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) has intervened on several occasions on me and my hon. Friends. Had he indicated to you that he was seeking to catch your eye to speak in the substantive debate, or is it the case that no Back Benchers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order. Any Member of this House may try to intervene on any other Member, and it is up to the Member who has the Floor whether they take the intervention or not. We will not waste time on points of order at this point.

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have now heard in painstaking detail the grandiloquence of the hon. Member for Stirling on this point, where he has spectacularly failed, not once or twice, but thrice, to make the point—

[Stephen Kerr]

Answer the question.

[Drew Hendry]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly. In Scotland, tackling child poverty is at the heart of decision making. Scotland is now the only UK nation to have child poverty targets set out in law—the Tories scrapped such targets for the whole of the UK and we now know why. In Scotland, we have initiatives to see fairness delivered: the Poverty and Inequality Commission; a new £50 million fund to tackle child poverty; our use of the limited social security powers to support young families at key stages of—

[Bill Grant]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I am going to make some progress, as this question needs answering. We are using the limited social security powers to support young families at key stages of children’s lives with the best start grant. We are providing free childcare—up to 45%. We are providing free school meals for primary 1 to 3 and expanding all early years. We are mitigating the Tory bedroom tax and maintaining council tax benefit. And we have the Scottish welfare fund.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will my hon. Friend confirm something that may be of interest to Conservative Members? Is he telling me that the Scottish Government have put in all these measures to tackle child poverty in the face of a £2.6 billion cut over 10 years?

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes that point extraordinarily well; this comes against a background of having to backfill to deal with the poverty and misery caused by UK Tory policies. Lessons could be learned, but will they be? They should be, in order to provide justice, fairness and dignity. In order to achieve that—

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No. In order to achieve that aim, the lessons must be seen to be learned. It is shameful that we have to fight policies such as the cap and freeze, given that children in Scotland and across the nations of the UK are condemned to poverty by them. The UK Government should wake up to the harm they are doing and end this policy and the dogmatic approach through austerity that is driving it.

19:16

[Kit Malthouse]

This has been a lively debate—certainly more lively than it has been in the past. Doubtless many of the arguments made—not least as much of the debate was about what is not in the order rather than what is in it—were exactly the same as those made last year. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for too long. A number of Members raised a series of detailed points, which I will try to address in writing, if I may, should I fail to address them in my speech.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised a couple of issues I want to address. First, she asked when the Government will produce a cumulative impact assessment of all welfare reforms. The Treasury published a cumulative distributional analysis alongside the Budget, in November last year, showing the impacts on household income of tax, welfare and expenditure, so I would point her to that. She also asked about the new state pension communications, as did a number of other hon. Members. She will be pleased to know that, following the National Audit Office report last year, from which she quoted, the Department for Work and Pensions launched an online “Check your State Pension” service.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Kit Malthouse]

I will carry on. The service has had 7 million views since February 2016. Notwithstanding that, there is obviously more work to do on communications.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) asked why bereavement support payments have not been uprated. A bereavement support payment is not a cost-of-living benefit and is paid in addition to means-tested benefits to protect the least well off, so it is not necessary to uprate it in line with the cost of living. Unlike bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance, bereavement support payment is paid in addition to other benefits to which the recipient is entitled, helping those on the lowest incomes the most. The hon. Gentleman will know that the up-front payment for those with children has been increased from £2,000 to £3,500.

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will not; I do not really have time and the hon. Gentleman and his friends had plenty to say during the debate.

A wider point was raised by several Members that for me distils the difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue. There seems to be on the Opposition Benches a kind of Stockholm syndrome attachment to the old benefits system, despite the fact that it is obviously a fraud perpetrated on the poor, more often than not designed to keep them poor rather than to give them the tools and ladders to climb so that they can take control of their own lives and financial control of those of their families into the future. I understand and would never seek to doubt Opposition Members’ motivation to do the best by their constituents and the rest of the country, but for some reason they seem to think that that motivation applies only to them, rather than to Government Members as well. I reassure the House that the motivation of every Conservative Member of Parliament is the betterment and welfare of our fellow citizens, which is what the order is designed for. With that, it gives me great pleasure to commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Pensions

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.—(Kit Malthouse.)

Smart Meters Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 24 October 2017 (Smart Meters Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Richard Harrington.)

Smart Meters Bill

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1

Ownership restrictions to successor licensees

“(1) The Secretary of State may impose conditions on to the future DCC successor licensee as appropriate.

(2) Conditions in subsection (1) may include restrictions to British owned companies subject to the expiry of any contrary obligations under EU or retained EU law, as defined in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to restrict future DCC successor licensees to British owned companies.

Brought up, and read the First time.

19:23

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review: Use of powers to support technical development—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the technical development of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) alternative solutions for Home Area Network connections where premises are not able to access the HAN using existing connection arrangements,

(b) hard to reach premises.

(2) The Secretary shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers will support technical development of smart meters.

New clause 3—Review: Use of powers to support rollout of smart meters—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the rollout of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) providing for efficient removal and disposal of old meters,

(b) reviewing the exemptions for smaller suppliers from a legally binding requirement to roll out smart meters.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers supports the rollout of smart meters.

New clause 4—Review of smart meter rollout targets—

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report and a cost benefit analysis relating to the Smart Meter Implementation programme and lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall consider—

(a) progress towards the 2020 completion target;

(b) smart meter installation cost;

(c) the number of meters operating in dummy mode;

(d) the overall cost to date of the DCC;

(e) the projected cost of the DCC; and

(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter rollout with reference to the 2020 deadline.

New clause 5—Requirement on suppliers to provide information on cost of smart meter programme to consumers—

“(1) The Energy Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 88(3) (power to amend licence conditions etc: smart meters), insert—

‘(m) provision requiring the holder of a supply licence to include information with consumer bills on the cost to consumers of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme.’”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State by order to amend licence conditions so that energy suppliers are required to include the cost to the customer of the Smart Meter Programme in all customer energy bills for the period covered by the energy bill.

New clause 6—Smart Meter Implementation Programme: review of cost to consumers—

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of the cost to the consumer of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme.

(2) The review under subsection (1) shall include—

(a) a breakdown of the costs to consumers of component parts of the Smart Meters Implementation Programme including the cost of the DCC;

(b) the potential benefits to consumers of information on the cost of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme being included on energy bills and statements;

(c) a longitudinal estimate of the cost to consumers to date and the projected future cost of the Programme; and

(d) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of this review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the cost to the consumer of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme that must consider the potential benefits to consumers of including a summary of the cost on their energy bills and statements.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) in section 56FA(3) after “including” insert “the supply of such meters to energy companies and”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State by order to add “the supplying of smart meters to energy companies” to the list of licensable activities.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

“(c) in section 41HA(3) after “including” insert “the supply of such meters to energy companies and”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State by order to add “the supplying of smart meters to energy companies” to the list of licensable activities.

Amendment 1, in clause 6, page 6, line 27, at end insert—

“(15) Prior to making modifications under this section the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation on the potential impact the modifications available to the Secretary of State to secure funding of smcl administration could have on consumer energy prices and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require that, before considering modifications to ensure funding of smcl administration, the Secretary of State must seek independent evaluation of the impact such modifications would have on consumer energy prices.

[Dr Whitehead]

As all the new clauses and amendments are grouped together, I intend to address them in turn. I promise that I will not say anything after this speech, but will instead make all my points in one go.

When the Bill went into Committee, it did two things. However, as the Minister himself agrees, an opportunity was taken in Committee to add to it what is effectively another small Bill, so it now does three things. First, it extends to 2023 the period during which the Secretary of State has powers over the roll-out to organise and command licensable activities. It does so in part because the end date for such control was set out in previous legislation as 2018. It is now apparent that the roll-out will go on until at least 2020 and, depending on progress, perhaps even later. It is therefore not only prudent to change the date but important, because as things stand the power over the roll-out will be lost halfway through its implementation.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the circumstances under which the functioning of the Data Communications Company, which has been set up to manage and co-ordinate all the communications necessary to make smart maters work—the data they are collecting and sending; and the communications within and around the home, and on a wider network—can be maintained in the event that that company goes into administration. That is important because the functioning of the DCC is central to the whole operation of the roll-out and what happens afterwards, and a hiatus in that function while any administration was being processed would be disastrous—so much so that we might question, as we did in Committee, why such a provision was not in the original legislation that set up the procedures for smart meter roll-out, and why it has taken several years of the DCC’s operation, albeit not live, to get around to implementing such a crucial measure.

Thirdly, the Bill now provides for arrangements to bring about the half-hourly settlement of domestic bills, which was hitherto not possible, but has been facilitated by the smart meter roll-out. We welcome this potentially enormous benefit of smart meters, in that it eliminates estimated bills and allows for accurate billing on the basis of what has been supplied each half hour, thereby allowing households to pitch their use at times of best value. The provisions inserted by the Government allow such a system to be organised and regulated.

Altogether, we have a set of proposals relating to the existing smart meter roll-out, which has been under way since 2016, that are uncontentious in the main and, indeed, strengthen the fabric of the roll-out. The Opposition support the objectives of the smart meter roll-out and believe that smart meters will lead to considerable benefits, not only for billing and the use of energy by householders, but for the future operation of the whole system. We share the aim of ensuring that as many as possible of Britain’s 30 million households have a smart meter installed by the end of the roll-out target date, albeit on the clear understanding that this is a voluntary programme and that no one will have a smart meter forced on them if they do not want one to be installed.

Why, then, have we tabled the new clauses and amendments? I assure the House that it is not because we want to derail the roll-out process or to place obstacles in its path. Some real questions are emerging from the roll-out process, and our prime aim is to ensure that those questions are addressed, and that the roll-out takes account of them and their potential solutions.

I have identified six major questions that have appeared as the roll-out has progressed. First, what is the actual progress of the smart meter roll-out, and is it realistically on target to ensure that everyone who wants a smart meter can have one installed by the end of 2020?

Secondly, bearing in mind that the huge cost of installing smart meters now falls on the consumer, what assurances can we have that the cost-benefit ratio of the whole programme remains positive? How can the costs of the programme be properly managed so that it remains positive for consumers in the end?

Thirdly, why have millions of first generation SMETS—smart metering equipment technical specifications—meters been installed to date and virtually no SMETS 2 meters? SMETS 1 meters were supposed to be a small proving mode and SMETS 2 meters were supposed to be the backbone of the roll-out, originally from 2014 onwards.

Fourthly, why has the DCC taken so long to get up and running, and how much of an impediment to the full roll-out of smart meters will that prove to be? If the DCC does go into administration, for whatever reason, what guarantees are there that it will be subsequently owned by a body that has the security and integrity of the programme at its heart?

Fifthly, will everyone be covered by the communications network that is being put in place? Will people who live in blocks of flats, for example, have home-area networks that are fully able to reach them? Will those who live in remote areas enjoy the wide-area coverage that will enable their meters to work reliably?

Finally, what will happen to all the old meters, and indeed to a considerable number of SMETS 1 meters that will be replaced by SMETS 2 meters? Will they be recycled or reused in a suitable way?

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Does my hon. Friend accept that another problem—I have just had a response to a written question on this issue—is that when some people, particularly in rural areas, have a smart meter installed, their boilers are condemned because they are not compatible? There is no scheme or funding to help those people to put heating back into their houses. Does he agree that that is a significant problem?

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that when that occurs, it is a problem, but I am not sure that it is just related to smart meters, so a combination of issues needs to be addressed. We need to ensure that such occurrences happen as little as possible and can be overcome.

Our new clauses and amendments seek to address the six questions that I have identified in the context of the Bill. By doing so, they would considerably strengthen the Bill. After all, as I am sure that all hon. Members will agree, it is important in such a large project that requires public confidence that questions are properly anticipated and addressed, and that assurances are given, otherwise we will have a roll-out that eventually rolls out to not many people, and that fails to achieve the aggregate coverage that will enable the sort of benefits that we would want from the roll-out as a whole.

19:30

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about public confidence. Is there not a danger that when people with SMETS 1 meters switch energy supplier and lose their smart meter’s smartness, they will lose their confidence in the whole programme?

[Dr Whitehead]

Like me, the hon. Gentleman sat through many of the evidence sessions during the Committee stage, so he will know that an advanced programme is in place to ensure that SMETS 1 meters are compatible and interoperable, and indeed can work online, to ensure that that problem does not occur. That is a recent development. I agree that if it turns out that many SMETS 1 meters become completely dumb, that might be a problem for the overall roll-out. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that later, because it is important that we get this right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Following on from the previous intervention, does the hon. Gentleman believe that consumers’ concerns about their ability to switch energy suppliers smoothly to keep costs down, and about keeping the system going and keeping providers “on their toes”, are adequately addressed in the Bill, because some people say that they are not?

[Dr Whitehead]

I will come on to talk about how far more SMETS 1 meters have been installed than was ever intended, which was due to various reasons. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that if a substantial number of installations eventually give rise to non-smooth transfers when people want to switch, that will be deleterious to the roll-out as a whole. Indeed, that is something that needs to be very carefully and urgently addressed so that we ensure that such switchovers can be as smooth as possible.

When we think about the roll-out, we do not need to look very far into the timescale to conclude that, whatever might be said about the numbers already installed, it is not going well. We are more than halfway through the period originally specified for the mass installation of smart meters, but we are far below halfway towards the target of installing smart meters in 30 million homes. In fact, the latest quarterly installation figures show that only 8.6 million domestic and non-domestic meters have been installed to date. That issue has been exacerbated by the transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2 meters. SMETS 1 meters were supposed to be essentially proving meters that would have very little role to play in the overall process. However, the DCC—the body required to set up and implement all the communications systems to allow meters to talk to the system—is now two and a half years behind in going live, and is still not really functioning as intended. Millions of SMETS 1 meters have therefore been installed to make up the gap before SMETS 2 meters can come on stream, and we are still in a precarious position with regard to the new meters, because end-to-end testing of them is still not really available. A programme that should by now have seen the installation of a few SMETS 1 meters and millions of SMETS 2 meters now has the opposite position. To be precise, when I asked the head of the DCC how many SMETS 2 meters had been installed, the figure he gave was 250.

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

As I recall, that figure of 250 was given to the Committee by the DCC’s chief executive. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Department initially announced last week that it did not know the figure, but then admitted that it was 80, and that most of those meters actually belonged to company officers, not members of the public. Does that not suggest that this programme is woefully off track compared with what was planned?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend gives a very important qualification to that figure of 250. I must admit that when I heard that figure from the head of the DCC, it struck me as being pretty shocking in its own right. It is interesting, to say the least, to hear that the 250 figure is on the optimistic side, and that the number that are actually on the wall and working—in the homes of friends and family, as my hon. Friend says—is only about a third of that figure.

The slippage is reflected in the latest cost-benefit analysis, which is from last year. It shows the cost-benefit gap narrowing, at least in part because of the SMETS 1 and 2 hiatus. The analysis indicated a high spike in proposed installations at the end of 2019, with some 15 million meters needing to be installed at that point. That is a substantial shift in the predicted curve of installations, and an enormous increase in the rate of installations since the time of the 2014 cost-benefit analysis. Sticking by the timetable under these circumstances becomes fairly heroic. Perhaps it can be done, but it is clearly a daunting task.

That is the context in which the change in the date for Government oversight is important—the process of changing the date by which licensable activities will have ceased from 2018 to 2023. Whether or not it was a wholly wise idea, the 2004 and 2008 Energy Acts and subsequent regulations specified a date for licensable activities to end, which means that as things stand at the moment, the Government will have no control over what goes on after 2018. Everybody knows that we will still be at a relatively early stage of the roll-out in 2018, so it is impossible to conceive that it would be wise to continue with the original timetable. We therefore support the idea of specifying a more satisfactory date in the statute book.

The Bill specifies a date of 2023, but that does not appear to coincide with the Government’s publicly stated ambition for the end of the roll-out. I say that with caution, because while their statements about the roll-out have changed over time, they have always revolved around the idea of ending it in 2020, and there has been a lot of talk from the Government about the installation of 53 million smart meters by then. Indeed, the frequently asked questions page of the Smart Energy GB website states:

“By the end of 2020, around 53 million smart meters will be fitted in over 30 million premises (households and businesses) across Wales, Scotland and England.”

That is also the basis on which Ofgem is working in terms of its licence enforcement. However, the Government have changed their position, as they now saying that, by the end of 2020, 53 million customers

“will have been offered a smart meter”.

That is a very different proposition. We could interpret that as 53 million people being offered a smart meter by 2020, but only 10 million having them installed, although I assume that that is not what the Government mean. The statement might be meaningless or meaningful, depending on what happens before the end of 2020 and a variety of issues that will appear along the road. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify those matters today. We surely cannot mean that the whole obligation for the roll-out would be discharged by doors being knocked on and someone saying something. If the smart meter installation programme is pursued on the basis of just making a desultory offer, the result will be way below the critical mass necessary for the overall aggregate data to work properly and lead to decent decisions. At that point, £11 billion or some such amount would have been wasted on nothing much.

The smart meter installation programme is voluntary. But, at the same time, we need a proportion—not 100%, but getting close to it—of smart meters installed in order to make the programme work by having worthwhile aggregated data. Some people have said that we need 70% of smart meters installed and others have said 80%; we need something to make the overall aggregated data significant. We clearly need to put a lot of effort into ensuring that the benefits of the programme are explained to the public.

The evidence suggests that the public overwhelmingly like smart meters when they are introduced and they want to have them in their homes. We therefore need to make a lot of effort over the given period to ensure that the two ends—the voluntary nature of the programme and the need for substantial roll-out—can be reconciled. What do we need to do that has perhaps not yet been done to ensure that the roll-out programme gets its output properly organised and smart meters installed? That is the purpose of new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report to keep us firmly on track. But, of course, much of the progress towards the target at the end of 2020 now depends on how SMETS 2 meters can be rolled out and how the DCC performs.

It was always necessary for the DCC to start its roll-out to enable smart meters that have been installed and those that will be installed to connect with it, and therefore to go live at the earliest possible date. However, the DCC systematically failed to go live when it should have done. It repeatedly announced delays and eventually went live in autumn last year under circumstances in which eyebrows were raised substantially by most of the industry. That was because it went live just before the point at which it would have faced penalties for not going live. It also only went live in part of the country and did not go live with some of its peripheral activities. Indeed, it is still having problems as far as its liveness is concerned. However, the DCC is not a stand-alone company. It was set up in order to run all these things and was then successfully auctioned out to a company that could drive it. And that successful bidder was Capita plc. As far as running the system is concerned, the DCC is effectively a subsidiary of Capita plc. The rest of the smart meter programme now crucially depends on this company. If we look at the timeline of what was supposed to have happened, we see that it presents a really sorry picture.

According to the joint industry level 1 plan, the start of the mass installation of SMETS 2 meters was supposed to be in October 2014, and the DCC was supposed to go live in December 2015. The then Secretary of State approved the DCC re-plan to go live on 1 April 2016, but received a contingency request from the DCC to delay going live until July 2016, and even then to split into core functionality and remaining functionality, which was not supposed to go live on the new date. A further contingency request was made by the DCC for a delay until August 2016, and there were even further contingency requests for delays. The DCC finally went live, in the way I have described, in October 2016. But it was actually only live for central and south England in November 2016 and went live for the north of the country later that month. The remaining functionality eventually went live, but not until 20 July 2017.

I looked at the plans that were put forward when the DCC went live, and they were accompanied by pages and pages of so-called workarounds—that is, things that did not really work. That is still a problem today. A lot of the industry is saying that the DCC is not really live to the extent that it had anticipated, which remains a considerable problem for the end-to-end testing of SMETS 2 meters. That is why, among other reasons, there are currently only 250 or 80 on the wall, depending on whose figures are right.

[Stephen Kerr]

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that the DCC is operating—not fully live—for only 80 SMETS 2 meter customers? The SMETS 1 meters do not connect to the DCC.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is the unfortunate truth, yes. The total number of SMETS 2 meters to which the DCC is connected is 80—or 250, for those who are a little more optimistic. That means that there is rather a long way to go to connect up the rest of the SMETS 2 meters, assuming that they can be end-to-end tested in order to get the right circumstances in the different parts of the country to allow the testing to take place.

14:30

The Bill itself restricts legislation to the circumstances in which the DCC is rescued if it goes into administration. These are reasonable provisions, but they do not really address the current situation with the DCC and the sorry picture that it currently presents to us. The assumption behind the provisions is that the DCC might fail to carry out its functions because contributing bodies—that is, companies engaged in smart meter roll-out—might default on their obligations. But there are now surely two other scenarios in which the clauses in the Bill might need to be actioned: one if the company running the DCC decides to reorganise itself and walks away from the contract; and another if the company itself is unable to trade. Those scenarios are both unlikely, but they do need consideration.

I must say, for the record, that the Government might well have intervened regarding the contract on the DCC. My ideal way of running the DCC would be for it to be a public body, not responsible to a company. The formation of the DCC—maybe at a future date, should the circumstances be different—as a not-for-profit public interest body concerned with the proper administration of the whole smart meter arrangement, in the public interest and for the public good, would be the best way to organise things. That is not the position now, however, and it may not be for some time.

Amendment 1 would address some of those issues, as do new clause 5 and new clause 6, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). New clause 1 would deal with how one might align the public interest and public good with circumstances in which a successor company might be called on in the event of administration procedures. On this occasion, it would give the power to the Secretary of State, as it would give the Secretary of State discretion to look at the circumstances of a tender or a post-administration arrangement—presumably also by tender —in circumstances in which, for example, a non-GB company were to become the successor or putative successor company running the DCC.

Without entering into any great conspiracy theories, we have to have some regard for the ownership and running of an organisation that holds a huge amount of information about what we do, who we are and how we work. That is vital information concerning not just our activities but our aggregate activities. Ensuring that the company running the DCC is working appropriately in the national interest with that information and with that crucial role seems quite an important issue to consider. It would be prudent for the Secretary of State to have that power available to him or her so that we can put our affairs in order concerning what continues to be an unlikely, but not completely impossible, sequence of events. We ought to have it on our minds, however, in case these events occur. In that way, we can rescue not only the position of the administrator, but what the company subsequently does in the national interest as far as keeping control of all this data and running a smart meter programme are concerned.

It will also be important to know what the possible effect on bills will be in the event that the company went into administration. There might be circumstances in which the DCC goes into administration, is rescued in the manner suggested in the Bill, is put forward on a different basis and ends up being a net cost-benefit problem to the public. But apparently we do not know the likely cost in such circumstances or what the benefit might be, and we do not have any mechanism for appraising that against what else is in the cost-benefit analysis. Amendment 1 gives the Secretary of State a tool to do just that.

The DCC will also be crucial to the ability of the system properly to reach to everyone who wants a smart meter installed. The Minister himself accepts that it is by no means clear how we are going to be able to solve some of the problems of the home area network and the wide area network, known respectively as the HAN and the WAN. The home area network deals with the communications between the meter, the house and the immediate external data receiver. The wide area network relates to the extent to which data receivers can operate in certain areas where population is sparse or where there are geographical difficulties in getting coverage and so on. In those circumstances, the Government reported in the documents that went before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee:

“Smart meters make use of a home area network to link the smart meter to consumer devices such as the in-house display or smart appliances. The technical solutions already being delivered currently apply to approximately 96.5% of premises. In some premises such as apartments in high-rise buildings where there is a long distance between the smart meter and the premises, these solutions are not viable.”

That means, basically, that a number of properties in cities and urban areas will not be able to receive home area networks in the way that we want them to. Also, a number of homes that are not in urban areas but in rural areas will not get any signal at all. We need to make sure that they can receive, on a wide area network basis, the signals that they need to make their smart meters work. The Department considers that

“99% of premises in Great Britain are capable of being connected to the DCC through the wide area network.”

The alternative HAN forum is hard at work on trying to work out how to get smart meter signals into flats. I do not know whether there is an alternative WAN forum working out how to carry out wide area network reorganisation. The Department states:

“A different solution may be necessary to provide coverage to smart meters in the remaining hard to reach premises which the wide area network does not cover. It might be considered appropriate to create a licensable activity”

the same as for the home area network

“that relates to arranging the establishment of communications to these properties.”

The Department has in mind two licensable activities that may arise when those solutions are under way. As regards the wide area network, I understand that technical solutions such as patching—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that he is dealing with some complex issues that require explanation, but it may have escaped his notice that he has been at the Dispatch Box for almost half an hour. He might not be aware, but I am, that there are other people who wish to take part in this debate, so he might like to consider bringing his remarks on this particular part of the Bill to a conclusion quite soon.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept that we are dealing with difficult and rather technical issues, and so I thought it was necessary to try to set out for the benefit of the House how these matters might work, but I will of course be very mindful of your guidance to try to make sure, within the restraints of not getting too over-simplified, that I do indeed bring my remarks to a close.

New clause 2, in essence, asks the Minister to consider a specific review to get these arrangements properly under way.

My final question concerns the meters that have been removed as a result of smart meter installation or will be removed because they are SMETS 1 meters replaced by fully interoperable SMETS 2 meters. This problem is not just theoretical; it is happening now. It has several aspects. What about malfunctioning and existing smart meters that are no longer installed and are now redundant? What about the huge number of existing meters that will be removed and need to be disposed of as smart meters are installed? Those meters are not owned by installers but by meter asset providers that finance and ultimately own the meters that are put in. It has been a long-standing arrangement in the industry that meters are not owned by the suppliers but merely read by the suppliers. That means that when a programme is pursued of removing old meters, whether dumb meters or previous generation smart meters, there is a problem in identifying whose meters they are.

The difficulty that we are facing right now—it is not a problem for the future—is that we might see meter mountains arising in this country because the people who are removing the meters do not know who their owners are or who is going to take them away and recycle and dispose of them. I do not want to see, as a result of this roll-out programme, meter mountains, or alps, appearing across the country. We need to be clear about what method of disposal is going to be the most appropriate and workable. If we are not careful, the issue will overwhelm the roll-out, or at least have a significant negative effect on its overall atmosphere. In Committee, the Minister, encouragingly, agreed to set up a roundtable to consider this issue further. New clause 3 now addresses the issue, and I hope that it will be a way of taking it forward.

I have dealt with a number of important questions that have arisen as the smart meter roll-out has progressed. I hope that the roll-out can proceed to a successful and timely conclusion, because that will be important for the future of our energy systems as well as for the future sustainability of people’s electricity and gas supplies, and their ownership of what their bills will look like in future. However, we should not shirk from addressing the real problems that stand in the way of realising that. It is not sufficient to state that all is for the best in the best of possible worlds, and proceed on that assumption. I know that the Minister is working hard to get this right, as are his team in BEIS. The addition of these amendments would give them greater authority and support in making the roll-out work.

[Stephen Kerr]

I compliment the Minister and the Opposition Front Benchers for the way in which I have witnessed, as a relatively new Member of Parliament, how a public Bill is progressed through the legislative process. I have learned from observing the Bill Committee that for legislation to have durability and solidity, it is vital that there is strong collaboration between those on both sides of the House. It is in all our interests to make sure that legislation is well constructed and well meaning.

I support the Bill on the basis of a considered view that the roll-out of smart meters is a vital national infrastructure project that will bring benefits to consumers and businesses and to the whole country. I am not entirely convinced that we have done a good enough job so far in selling the proposition to the whole country, and I have concerns about our readiness to meet the Government’s objective. In fact, in the evidence that we heard in Committee, very few of the people we spoke to seem to believe that at the current rate of progress it is possible to complete the roll-out of smart meters by the perceived target of 2020. I want to come back to the target in relation to new clause 4.

None of this sort of work is ever going to be easy, as was highlighted in the evidence that we heard in Committee, but the trick is not to make it harder for ourselves than it would be otherwise. How do we get the job done—the deployment of these smart meters into nearly 60 million premises—in the most cost-effective way? There are still questions that should be asked and considered. We should not lose sight of the total cost of the programme—northwards of at least £10 billion. I think that £1.3 billion has been spent, or is earmarked to be spent, on the DCC alone. We are talking about 50 million-plus—nearly 60 million—separate installations of smart meters.

I have a lot of sympathy for the amendments tabled by the Opposition, because they do tackle issues that are pertinent and relevant to the purposes of the Bill. However, I will not support them if they are pressed to a vote, because I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide such reassurance that the issues raised will be covered off in some other way than by making changes to the Bill, so there will be no purpose in calling a vote. I am very confident that that will be the case, because that has been the spirit of the process so far.

20:00

Smart meters facilitate a smart grid. A smart grid facilitates smart homes, smart businesses and smart communities. There are all kinds of benefits available to consumers from smart meters and the creation of a smart grid, and powerful environmental and conservation arguments stand up in favour of the smart grid. The internet of things will facilitate smart appliances connected to a smart grid, and everything hinges on the flow of data. We are back then to the smart meter.

The most obvious and immediate advantage, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) referred to, is the end of estimated bills for those who have smart meters, with accurate meter readings that reflect real-time energy usage. I hope that that will mean there is more accuracy in the adjustments that should be made to monthly direct debits. While I appreciate the importance of spreading the cost of a year’s supply of energy across 12 monthly payments, there should be scope for greater accuracy, with more valid and true information available. The total cost of energy used will, I hope, then be more closely monitored, which should allow direct debits to reflect the true cost of the energy used in a person’s home.

[Steve McCabe]

Both the Government’s and Ofgem’s justification for the smart meter programme is that it is meant to save customers money. If we reach the stage where it is actually costing customers rather than saving them money, will the hon. Gentleman regard that as a failure of the programme?

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The purpose of the Bill, in facilitating the roll-out of smart meters, is to create a more energy-efficient economy, which should be reflected in cost savings for families, individuals and businesses. If that was not to be realised through the smart grid, that would be very disappointing.

There is so much in the future in terms of the changes we are seeing in the economy. I think of ultra-low emission vehicles, where there will be a necessity for smart meters and the smart grid for us to cope with the increased load on the grid. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that somewhere in the not-too-distant future is the promise of an energy market that is more competitive and more responsive to its customers’ energy requirements.

Mass usage of ultra-low emission electric vehicles is inevitable. We will get to a tipping point with those vehicles, on account of the cost per unit, improvements in battery technology and the visible availability of the necessary infrastructure for charging at home and recharging away from home. All those things will create new demands on the grid, and all the flexibilities we will need to meet those demands depend on the smart grid and smart meters. Things such as new tariffs, variable tariffs and smart devices that can interact on the basis of the smart grid will all be a feature of the future.

However, there are things referenced in the new clauses and amendments that concern me. We heard evidence in the Public Bill Committee from Dr Richard Fitton of the University of Salford, who is responsible for a task group for the International Energy Agency on the use of smart meter data for determining the energy efficiency of properties. He made the point that for consumers to be fully engaged with smart meters, they need to be able to log on to the smart meter and connect it to smart devices in and around the home. He described the frustration that he and his team of experts have had in being able to make that connection happen. He said:

“a magic black box called the consumer access device…streams real-time data to things such as smart appliances and smart heating systems for homes.”––[Official Report, Smart Meters Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2017; c. 48, Q94.]

He went on to say that neither he nor any of his colleagues had ever been successful at connecting SMETS 2 meters to those devices. That is a concern, but it is not directly related to the amendments, so I will return to them.

There is evidence about the impact of smart meters on consumer behaviour. The literature produced by the Department talks about how these meters will facilitate switching. In fact, all the evidence that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Public Bill Committee received suggests that smart meters probably will not have a direct impact on the rate of switching in the energy market. It should change consumers’ behaviour by piquing natural curiosity. When we first get a smart meter and have an in-home display, we can see how the energy usage in our home is affected by using different appliances around the house. That is very interesting and makes us aware of which appliances are the most energy-greedy, which could lead to a change of behaviour.

I would like to make some other points on energy awareness and my concerns that relate to new clause 4, with which I am broadly sympathetic but will not vote for. Even though I have sat through the Public Bill Committee and all the Bill’s stages, I am still not clear exactly what the Government’s objective ultimately is. They say they will make an offer of a smart meter to every consumer by 2020. That seems a rather fuzzy objective. How do we define what it means to make an offer? We could say that by sending out an email, letter or brochure to every household, every energy retailer has fulfilled its obligation to make the offer. I do not think that is really what the Government intend. Given the importance of smart meter installation to the creation of a smart grid, I would think the Government’s objective is in fact to get smart meters into a very high percentage of the total number of properties by 2020, but that is unstated, as far as I am aware. I would be delighted to be put right by the Minister on that.

I am aware, as a listener of commercial radio and television and a reader of the press, that there is currently a high-intensity programme going on to raise awareness among consumers about the availability of smart meters upon request. However, I question whether the case for the importance of smart meters has been well made.

Despite the fact that this subject could sound quite boring, it is actually very interesting, because this infrastructure is the basis for the fourth industrial revolution that will be seen in the homes of our countrymen and women. Given the current level of roll-out and the state of readiness of installation teams, it is highly likely that the Government can achieve their objective of offering smart meters to everyone, but it is highly unlikely that we will achieve anything like 100% installation of smart meters in all possible premises.

So far, somewhere between 8 million and 10 million SMETS 1 meters have been installed. I mention that estimated range because I am not sure what the recent figure is, and the update we received did not have a specific number. I think that it has been proved beyond any doubt that, as things stand, SMETS 1 meters are not interoperable. In other words, they do not communicate with any other supplier than the one that installed them; nor are they capable of sending data to the DCC at present. That is my understanding.

In the Public Bill Committee, we heard evidence about whether SMETS 1 meters could be made interoperable. The burden of evidence seems to be that without some sort of adjustment or update, SMETS 1 meters are not interoperable. That is my experience, which I have related before in a variety of settings, as someone who installed a smart meter and then tried to switch.

I have questions about SMETS 1 meters. How easy will it be to upgrade them at the appropriate time, so that we have the functionality of the new SMETS 2 meters? If they can be upgraded to the same functionality and interoperability, do we need to have SMETS 2 meters? How will SMETS 1 meters be upgraded and when?

There are many interesting points that have been covered by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and that I have tried to make in relation to the Bill. There are questions that, if answered by the Minister, will facilitate this programme, which I completely acknowledge is of vital strategic importance to the future economy that the Government are trying to build.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I had not realised that the SNP spokesperson wanted to come in. It has been so long, we got lost somewhere along the way.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You and I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that I am going to keep my remarks on Report very brief, because there will be another opportunity to speak and we are all keen, interested and excited to get to Third Reading.

I want to make one or two comments about new clauses 2 and 3, which are very important. I genuinely feel that the deadline to complete the roll-out by 2020 is simply not realistic. Beyond that, I am genuinely concerned that aggressive tactics have been deployed, and the fact that the energy companies face heavy fines if they do not meet this 2020 deadline only makes this more concerning. As I have said to the Minister, I feel there is a genuine conflict between best practice in rolling out smart meters to consumers and the potential penalties imposed on companies that do not meet the targets for the roll-out.

I am very concerned about the deadline of 2020 because the data show that, as of June 2017, only about 7.7 million smart meters had been installed out of a target of about 60 million premises. We know that the first generation of smart meters revealed some issues, and it is not yet clear whether there will be similar issues with the deployment of the second generation. In Scotland, many flats and tenements have banks of meters installed in communal areas, and there does not seem to be a solution for the installation of smart meters in those cases.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter roll-out with reference to the 2020 deadline, which is very important. It is worth remembering that the cost of smart meters is £11 billion and rising, and that cost is borne by every single household. Not every single household is necessarily told that when they are contacted, but it is important to put it on the record.

Smart Energy GB has referred to a Government cost-benefit analysis. Everyone in the House agrees that there are cost benefits, but the figure of £11 billion is one to watch closely. The UK Government must be transparent and publish the cost and progress of the roll-out, given that the 2020 deadline seems unrealistic to many people, myself included. It seems clear to me that the deadline ought to be reviewed, so that the roll-out is completed efficiently and shields consumers from unfair tariff rises. I urge the Minister to take on board these comments. I will say no more about the other new clauses—time is short, and I will let other Members speak—but I look forward to Third Reading.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I want to specifically oppose new clause 5. Although I have some sympathy with its intentions, I am concerned that, by including the cost of the smart meter implementation programme in billing, there is a danger of misleading consumers about the cost-benefits of the roll-out, as well as of detracting from the overwhelmingly positive impact that the programme will have on consumers’ ability both to monitor their energy use and to manage the cost of their bills in the long term. The programme is clearly in the best interests of the consumer, yielding £1.50 of savings for every £1 invested. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the cost of the overall project is already available to consumers, and has been scrutinised both by Parliament and in the detailed impact assessment carried out by the Department.

I firmly believe that what consumers such as those in my constituency really care about is the savings that can be achieved by having a smart meter installed. By having near real-time information about energy consumption displayed in the home, consumers will for the first time be able to manage their usage properly. If done correctly, that will result in a pounds, shillings and pence saving on their energy bills. I apologise for using pounds, shillings and pence, but it has a big impact. On reflection, the new clause does little to improve the quality of the Bill and I am unable to support it.

In summary, it is clear that smart metering is central to the wider energy revolution currently taking place in Britain, and I commend the Government for the action they have already taken to ensure that we have a cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy future. I am pleased to support the Bill tonight in its unamended form, and I congratulate the Minister and his team on piloting it to this stage.

[Steve McCabe]

As they say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try that again.

Amendments 2 and 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to license and regulate meter asset providers—or MAPs, as they are more commonly known. They are independent companies that secure funding and provide asset management and meter disposal on behalf of the energy companies. They are the middlemen who have come to play a very dominant role in the development of the Government’s smart meter strategy. We might think of them as being to smart meters what football agents are to the world of football.

20:15

MAPs have established their place in the energy sector by securing the initial funding for smart meters, so that energy suppliers can arrange to have smart meters installed without absorbing the initial costs. The MAPs provide the capital and then rent their meters to the suppliers, which pass the meters on to their customers. I argue that this needs some regulation and oversight because MAPs have emerged as one of the factors leading to the rising costs of the smart meter programme. The rental costs charged by MAPs are increasing and these costs are being passed directly to the customer. The costs are known as deemed rentals.

Where a supplier acquires a new customer and does not have a contract with the MAP that owns the new customer’s smart meter, the supplier has a choice either to pay the MAP a substantially higher rental cost, or to turn the existing meter to dumb mode and, usually, replace it with an identical meter from a different provider. As hon. Members can see, that leads to rising prices, but no customer benefit. Ofgem claims that it sees smart meters as an important step in protecting consumers, but it has done nothing to protect them or suppliers from the rise of the middleman market.

The continuing uncertainty over SMETS 2—we have already heard about that—and the DCC has led to a situation where it is rarely in the interests of the supplier to take on the high cost of the deemed rental on a SMETS 1 meter. They are constantly told that SMETS 2 is just around the corner. Equally, MAPs are going to charge as much as they can get for their SMETS 1 meters because they do not know how long the SMETS l market will last. The unresolved interoperability problems and delays with the DCC are creating a market where the customer is the clear loser. It is absurd that we should end up in a situation where it makes more sense to switch an existing meter to dumb mode and then install an identical one because of the MAP charges.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minster acknowledged this issue, but he said he regarded it as a technical failure, rather than a market failure. The smart meter industry is of course a technology trade and, consequently, a technical failure must also lead to a market failure. The Minister assured the Committee that the technical interoperability issues would be resolved in the timeframe outlined by his Department. That means that the interoperability problem of SMETS l meters should have been resolved by now. Will he tell the House today whether his confidence has been justified—has it been resolved?

The longer the uncertainty over the roll-out continues, the longer this farce will persist. The constant wavering over the date by which SMETS 1 meters will no longer count towards the 2020 target is part of the problem. As we have heard, the Government have repeatedly revised the date, most recently from July to September this year. Will the Minister say whether this is the last change, or can we expect another postponement?

The Minister will know that the problem of high deemed rentals will not go away, even if he resolves the SMETS 1 interoperability issue, and that many smaller suppliers have already been in touch with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about this, because they fear a similar problem if we ever reach a mass roll-out of SMETS 2.

I understand that, in origin, the issue is certainly a technical rather than a market problem, because unlike mobile phones, which are data-level interoperable, SMETS 2 meters are required to be device-level interoperable. The concern is that SMETS 2 meters might not technically merge at the device level alongside other SMETS 2 meters—for example, there might be no device-level interoperability for electricity and gas meters. That defeats the purpose. The excessively high deemed rentals need to be brought under control. Regulation is essential to protect consumers. The amendments would empower the Government and Ofgem to do just that. If the Minister will not accept them, I hope that the other place will take a serious look at them.

Let me quickly touch on new clause 4, which relates to the legal obligation on energy suppliers to take all reasonable steps to meet the 2020 target of every household being offered a smart meter. New clause 4 simply outlines some reasonable steps for the Government to take to ensure a timely, cost-effective and successful completion of the roll-out—one that protects consumers and ensures that the benefits are fully realised. As we have heard, only about 15% of the 53 million meters that could be installed by 2020 have been installed to date. I am advised by an industry insider that, even if the programme were to achieve unparalleled success from hereon in, the best that could be hoped for by 2020 is 65% to 70% coverage.

The costs have been increasing spectacularly and the roll-out now represents a net cost to consumers, rather than a benefit. We do not know how many smart meters are currently operating in dumb mode. The last figure that the Government provided was 460,000 meters, but some suggest that it may be as high as 20% of all installs—three times what the Government suggested. The costs faced by the DCC—as we have heard, it is basically owned by Capita, whose economic health the Government should now be at least concerned about—have increased by 56% since 2014. There do not appear to be any proper cost controls, so as the cost rises, so do customers’ bills.

The Minister will remember that he promised to

“deliver further information via the annual update of the smart meter implementation programme”.––[Official Report, Smart Meters Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2017; c. 167.]

I do not recall him explaining why publication of annual reports ceased. No doubt it was just a coincidence that it happened when we began to see persistent delays and missed targets. As the failures associated with the programme grow, I believe it is vital that we have an unequivocal commitment to a regular progress report, so that Parliament and the wider world can properly assess the roll-out and cost of the programme. As we have heard, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to publish an updated cost-benefit analysis. The last one is two years old. At that time, the net benefits had been revised down by £500 million. Surely the customer and Parliament need to know if we are on course for any net benefits at all.

The Minister will remember that, as we heard earlier, we were led to believe in Committee that 250 SMETS 2 meters had been connected to the DCC network, which at the time everyone agreed was a rather low number. Last week, after first denying in response to a freedom of information request that the Government knew the figure, his Department claimed that it was 80, not 250, and that most of those meters are staff test meters. Does the Minister regard that as the kind of new evidence that he thinks might lead him to think again about a cost-benefit analysis of the programme?

Let me touch finally on new clauses 5 and 6. According to the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, the purpose of extending the powers is so that the Secretary of State can ensure that the benefits of the roll-out are fully realised and customers properly protected. One way to protect consumers, especially from rising costs, is to tell everyone the truth about what things are really costing. That is what new clauses 5 and 6 are designed to achieve. They would give the Secretary of State the power to amend the supplier licence, so that suppliers included the cost of the smart meter programme in all customer bills. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the costs to the consumer. Utilita Energy, which supplies part of the prepay meter stock, has claimed that the roll-out cost per household has risen from £5 to £13 over 12 months. As the Minister will know, Centrica says that the cost to its customers is up to about £40 per year for the average household. Almost all the large suppliers now say that the rising costs of the smart meter programme are one of the main reasons for the rise in customer bills.

Of course, were Capita and the DCC to find themselves in financial trouble—something that was ruled out in Committee—that would have serious implications for who would pick up the tab. If the costs of the roll-out continue to increase and visible benefits decrease, this could obviously become a very expensive IT white elephant. I believe that the Government’s position is that they will intervene if they believe the costs to the customer are rising beyond what is reasonably acceptable. Can the Minister say whether he thinks £13 or £40 per year is acceptable, or how much higher the cost has to go before it is not acceptable? Who pays at that point? Will it be the taxpayers? Of course it will, but they are also the customers.

There is still time for Ministers to show that they have not got their heads in the sand on this programme. There is still time for the Bill to be improved and for concern about rising costs and the impact on consumers to be taken seriously. I hope that the Minister will indicate tonight that he is prepared to accept some changes. I regret that we are not pushing harder for them as an Opposition, but I hope that the other place will look seriously at the risks of a technology white elephant, outrageous rises in energy bills and the risk of a failed smart meter programme brought about because some people just will not listen to common sense.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I would like to speak briefly on new clauses 2 and 3, which deal in essence with the accessibility of smart meters and their environmental impact.

Accessibility is crucial. Smart meters do make a difference by putting consumers in control of their energy use and thus their energy bills. That gives people the ability to budget better and can help to prevent debt, hence the importance of accessibility for all, which new clause 2 seeks to achieve. I have small rural villages and some very remote properties in my constituency, so I understand the need to prioritise access. Everyone should be able to benefit from smart meters, and it is important to note that those homes often double as offices.

New clause 2 seeks a review to see how we can support the technical development of smart meters to facilitate both greater accessibility for hard-to-reach premises and alternative arrangements for providing a home area network where the standard equipment does not work. My concern about the new clause is that a review would not necessarily affect existing policy, but it would require a great deal of time, resources and management, and might duplicate existing work. We can support and encourage the industry to make advances without calling for a review. While I agree with the aim of the new clause, I do not agree with the means, and I do not think that it would improve the accessibility of smart meters.

In fact, work is already being done with the industry-led alternative HAN forum to monitor activity through wider programme governance, with milestone publications available from quarter 1 of 2019. In addition, work is being done to facilitate supplier innovations to maximise benefits for consumers in no-WAN instances, which are currently less than 1%.

Let me turn briefly to new clause 3, which is designed to make smart meters more environmentally friendly. It must be stressed that the use of smart meters will, by reducing energy consumption, help not just consumers but the environment. The new clause would specifically provide for the efficient removal and disposal of old meters.

Again, while I agree with the principle of the new clause and I do want to ensure that smart meters are as environmentally friendly as possible, the issue is covered by existing waste legislation. In addition, a commitment was made in Committee to a roundtable on recycling issues such as these. That will include representatives from across suppliers, helping to reinforce obligations and highlight best practice in relation to meter recycling and disposal.

The second aspect of the new clause is a call for a review of exemptions for small suppliers from a legally binding requirement to roll out smart meters. Such a provision was tabled and dropped in Committee. However, small suppliers are not exempt from their obligations from 2020, so I am a tad confused by this proposal.

In conclusion, although I have focused on only two new clauses, I shall not support any of the proposals tabled today. I believe that the Bill that sits before us, following its consideration in Committee, is robust and fit for purpose.

20:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, even though it obviously means a higher level of behaviour from all of us, as well as our obeying your edicts on timekeeping and so on? I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead); the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe); the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—I always forget the second bit—and my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan).

We have covered a number of areas in our debate, which has built on the consideration given to the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. The main point about the Bill and the roll-out of smart meters—I am not making light of any of the comments made by Opposition Members, or indeed Conservative Members—is that the prize is a great one: everyone, in their own household, controlling a smart grid that will give them independence, flexibility and consumer choice. In the long run, I hope that that will lead to very significant savings for them. I felt that I should put that into perspective.

[Steve McCabe]

I recognise that that is the Minister’s genuine view, but how much should consumers pay for the privilege, and at what point will he feel that they are not getting the benefits they have been promised?

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman said, I am convinced that consumers will get the benefit from smart meters. In this day and age, it is absurd that people—I include myself—have to read their meters on their hands and knees, with a torch and a duster to remove the cobwebs and everything else. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is an intolerable situation and that smart meters are the cure.

Let me respond to the shadow Minister’s comments about progress to date. There are now over 8.6 million smart and advanced meters operating across homes and small businesses across Great Britain. Nearly 400,000 smart meters—obviously they affect a lot more people, because of the number of people per household—are installed every month as suppliers ramp up their delivery, and that figure is increasing significantly every quarter. The Government are committed to ensuring that all homes and small businesses are offered smart meters by the end of 2020.

Let me turn to new clause 1. Future smart meter communication licensees will need to demonstrate that they are a “fit and proper person” to carry out relevant functions. That will include factors such as the ownership of the proposed licensee, but it is not appropriate to judge suitability solely on that basis, nor to exclude non-GB companies by default. Doing so would risk failing to deliver value for money for consumers, which could undermine the effectiveness of the smart meter system. I also emphasise that the Government take the national security implications of foreign control and ownership seriously. We have powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in mergers and takeovers that give rise to public interest concerns, including about national security.

New clause 2 is about the technical development of smart meters. Overall, we expect that more than 99.25% of premises will be covered by the national communications network. In homes, the standard wireless network will serve the majority of premises successfully. We want 100% of energy consumers to be able to benefit from smart meters, but it is true—this was raised by the Opposition—that the physical characteristics or location of a consumer’s home can affect connectivity. Challenges for systems include a diverse range of building types, including those in which meters can be a long way from the living space. We are working with the industry to identify innovative solutions and extend regulatory powers, because it is very important to have that flexibility.

[Dr Drew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I will, but I will make some progress first.

New clause 3 concerns the efficient removal and disposal of old meters. My officials have discussed this in detail with those from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as this falls within their remit. This point was brought up very eloquently by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I am satisfied that energy suppliers, installation contractors and meter asset providers are already subject to appropriate regulation for the proper removal, recycling and disposal of redundant meters. However, as I said in Committee, we plan shortly to host a roundtable so that interested Members can hear from representatives from across the meter disposal chain. It is my intention that that will allow us collectively to agree some action. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman and other interested Members being there, because the whole supply chain has to understand fully its responsibilities.

I will briefly focus on concerns raised about the programme costs and benefits.

[Dr Drew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I apologise.

[Dr Drew]

I thank the Minister for giving way. What I am concerned about, as always, is the urban-rural divide. We know that many rural areas are still suffering from a lack of access to broadband. Will he assure us that the rural delivery of this project is a priority, given that a lot of people in rural areas suffer because they are off the gas grid anyway?

[Richard Harrington]

I totally give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for saying that I would take his intervention and then forgetting to do so. I hope he will forgive me.

I said during previous debates that we would update our analysis if there were new and substantive evidence or changes in policy design. As a result of the representations that have been made in Committee and today, I am prepared to go further by committing to publishing an update of the programme cost-benefit analysis in 2019. As hon. Members know, 2018 marks a significant programme transition, with the shift from first to second-generation smart meters, so I think that 2019 really is the time to assess this.

As for new clauses 5 and 6, I do not believe that it is sensible to establish powers that enable the Government to require the provision of information on the costs of the programme in consumers’ energy bills, because I do not understand what benefit such a move would have for consumers. However, it is important that consumers understand the information that smart meters and in-house displays give them, because in that way, they understand the cost of their energy usage in pounds and pence—or as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) would say, pounds, shillings and pence, and probably farthings. She is a lady after my own heart. That will empower them either to change how they use energy, or to get a better tariff.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has raised concerns, as he did in Committee, about the MAPs—not pictures of the world, but meter asset providers—because he believes that the provider market is not working to deliver the programme objectives. I remain of the view, however, as I have clearly stated to him before—we will have to agree to disagree, I think—that the market is operating competitively and that there is no need for regulatory intervention. There are currently two typical rental arrangements available: churn contracts and deemed contracts, which he mentioned. Churn contracts are often similar to the original rental agreements, including with the presence of an early-repayment charge in the event that a supplier chooses to remove the meter from the wall early. Deemed contracts do not include that charge, but carry the added risk for a MAP that they can involve higher rental charges. The important point is that the DCC has published its detailed plan for the enrolment of SMETS meters from late 2018, and as progress is made, I fully expect energy suppliers’ confidence in choosing churn contracts over deemed rentals to increase. Initial indications support that expectation.

I turn briefly to the amendment on the draft licence modifications envisaged under a power in the Bill to allow the costs of smart meter communication administration to be recouped from the industry, in so far as there is a shortfall. The potential scale of the costs will depend on a number of factors, including the timing and reason for the DCC licensee entering special administration, and costs arising from any legal and technical expertise appointed by the administrator in support of the execution of its duties. As I committed to doing in Committee, we have formally agreed to consult on these licence modifications. We will consider and set out an assessment of the estimated potential costs that need to be recouped from the industry.

I would like to reflect on the points made about the DCC’s parent company, Capita, and to emphasise that Smart DCC Ltd is required to operate at arm’s length from Capita. Provisions in the licence prevent Capita from taking working capital out of Smart DCC Ltd. Furthermore, the DCC’s financial arrangements are constructed so as to make the risk of insolvency low. Putting in place a special administration regime is entirely precautionary and, I believe, the prudent thing to do.

The smart metering programme will secure an overall net benefit to the nation of £5.7 billion. The Bill is important to ensuring that this vital platform for our smart energy future is rolled out effectively, allowing the Government to respond to developments as the roll-out continues. I hope that these arguments will persuade Opposition Members not to press their new clauses and amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am disappointed that the Minister did not give us a better explanation and understanding of what “offer” means as far as smart meter roll-out is concerned. Indeed, that question was raised from the Conservative Benches. It might be that the Secretary of State can better illuminate us on Third Reading. Strictly speaking, however, that does not relate to the new clauses and amendments, on which we have had a good debate. If necessary, there will be further such debate in another place. This evening, however, it would not be wise to divide the House, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

20:43

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

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

The roll-out of smart meters, on which the Bill is focused, forms an important foundation for the smart systems and flexibility plan, which was published last year, and which sets out a number of actions to deliver a smarter, more flexible energy system that supports innovation in smart products and services. It is part of our industrial strategy ambition to make Britain one of the best places for energy innovation and clean growth, to the benefit of consumers, workers, investors and the environment. More broadly, the roll-out is an important part of our reforms of the energy market, driving engagement and competition. Smart meters will offer consumers much more knowledge about their energy use, which they can use to get the best deals possible. It complements the measures in our forthcoming retail energy Bill, which will protect consumers and ensure that the market is working for loyal customers.

Before I say more about the Bill, let me take a moment to express my gratitude to Members for the way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to its development, especially those who participated in the Committee and Report stages. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Clerks and the House authorities, the experts who gave oral evidence to the Committee, the organisations that took time to provide expert written evidence, and my officials, who have worked very hard and will continue to do so as the Bill proceeds.

I also thank both Opposition spokesmen. As ever, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) brought to bear his long-standing interest in and deep knowledge of these matters. Members have offered challenges and insight throughout the Bill’s passage, and their contributions—in response to many of which my hon. Friend has been able to make commitments—will aid this important programme.

Debates on a number of amendments have resulted in commitments to publishing more substantive annual reports on the progress of the smart meter roll-out, undertaking a public consultation on the expected cost impact on consumers before laying the licence modifications enabling the special administration regime cost recovery mechanism to take effect, and working with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), to promote best practice in the recycling and reuse of old meters.

The extended regulatory powers proposed in the Bill will enable the Government to continue to oversee and facilitate the smart meter roll-out. It will enable them to maintain appropriate consumer safeguards, and, in particular, to act on the findings of monitoring and a post-roll-out review. It will protect smart meter services for both consumers and businesses by providing the enabling framework for a special administration regime for the national data and communications provider. Having been amended in Committee, it will also support the efficient and effective delivery of half- hourly settlement by the energy regulator Ofgem.

As the House knows, half-hourly settlement is another important stepping stone to that smarter, more flexible energy system. It will help to deliver benefits both to consumers and to the energy system as a whole by incentivising energy suppliers to develop and offer time-of-use tariffs. That will empower consumers by enabling them to use energy when it is cheapest, and reward them for being flexible about when they use energy. It will also help to make the energy system more resilient as we move towards an increasingly low-carbon generation mix.

The Bill will ultimately ensure that this country is more efficient, resilient, empowered and smart in its consumption of energy. I commend it to the House.

20:47

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

My comments will be brief.

The Opposition do not oppose the Bill, and will support its Third Reading. However, there are still a number of outstanding issues, two of which have come to the fore since the Committee stage. First, there is the alarming fact that Capita, which wholly owns the Data Communications Company, has issued a profit warning, and company shares, as of last Thursday, have fallen to a 20-year low. All the communications and infrastructure for the operation of smart meters have been outsourced to Capita, and, in turn, Capita has engaged partners in the DCC to operate aspects of its overall function. As a result of the Bill, a special administration regime will hopefully mitigate the impact on smart metering should Capita’s fortunes worsen, but I reiterate the Opposition’s concern that if the DCC goes into administration, consumers will pay the price through this administration regime. Why should they pay the price for yet another failed outsourcing? I wonder what the Secretary of State’s rationale was for forcing them to pay for such failure.

In the case of the DCC, there will be some protection should Capita fail, but what about the detail, and what about contingency plans in relation to Capita’s other ventures? Indeed, what immediate measures are the Government putting in place for any potential collapse of Capita? Capita is a major outsourcing firm which last year alone was awarded 154 Government contracts. My colleague the shadow Cabinet Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), last week said

“that the Government’s behaviour in response…has been marked by indifference to corporate mismanagement, incompetence in office and complacency in the face of a crisis.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 980.]

We need assurances that any contingency plans will protect services and information, guarantee jobs for current employees, and protect the pensions of those employees and the pensions of the public sector workers that the company is managing. Will the Secretary of State in time provide those much needed assurances?

The second development is that the National Audit Office has announced it will be investigating the economic case for the roll-out of smart meters and looking at whether the Government are on track to achieve their target to roll out meters by 2020. The report is expected in the summer of this year. I would not want to pre-empt the National Audit Office, but it would seem that it is not only Opposition Members who are concerned that the Government are on track to miss their target at consumers’ expense. Indeed, it seems extremely likely they will miss this target, given that 40,000 gas and electricity meters would need to be installed per day even on present projections; that is no mean feat and perhaps why the language has changed to state that consumers will be offered smart meters rather than there will be installation per se. It seems irresponsible of the Government to have rejected Labour’s new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report and a cost-benefit analysis relating to the smart meter implementation programme and lay a copy of the report before Parliament within three months of the Act coming into force.

I referred to the energy price cap on Second Reading and I do so again now as it has been three months since then and still no action has been taken. It is estimated that customers are to pay somewhere between £130 and £200 on their bills to recover the costs of the installation of a smart meter on their property. This is in addition to the price increases inflicted by energy providers. The Government have promised a price cap and we have had sight of legislation to implement it, but we are still a long way off an energy price cap having any real impact on household bills. I would like to take this opportunity to say to the Secretary of State that although the days are starting to get longer and the weather milder—although this week is a slight exception to that—we on this side of the House have not forgotten the Conservatives’ promise of an energy price cap, and specifically to knock at least £100 from 17 million household bills.

I join the Secretary of State in thanking all those who have spoken throughout the passage of this Bill and all Committee members who have worked so diligently. I thank the Front-Bench teams for the good nature of the debates we have had on this issue, and especially my Labour colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), an expert who revels in the detail and minutiae of smart meters and has seen not one but two Bills through the House over the last two months—and who could forget his jovial use of the props Gaz and Leccy on Second Reading? [Interruption.] Google it; it is not to be missed. I also thank the Public Bill Office and the Clerks of the House for all their assistance on this Bill.

20:53

[Patricia Gibson]

It is important to point out that we in the SNP accept that there are some real advantages to the consumer in switching to a smart meter and to smart meters in general. However, that does not mean that I suggest that the roll-out will be trouble-free and that I have no concerns about it, because that would not be true. Before proceeding, however, I would like to point out that I accept that the Minister has been receptive throughout to my concerns and the concerns of others across this House in Committee and beyond, and I thank him for that. I know he is keen to get this right, as we all are, and I thank him for his listening, consensual and constructive approach.

In the past, I pointed out to the Minister that I had concerns about aggressive selling which I believe is, as I have said, a result of Ofgem having the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions—or certainly not assisted by that fact. One of the licence conditions is that each energy company should install smart meters in consumer homes by the end of 2020. Failure to do so can result in a massive penalty for the company. That being the case, aggressive selling starts to make more sense, given the pressure that energy companies are under to deliver smart meters to consumer homes within a rather tight deadline. I continue to detect a level of suspicion and scepticism about smart meters among far too many consumers. I hope that the Minister will accept that the licence conditions place pressure on the energy companies to roll out smart meters by 2020, and that that can place pressure on consumers in turn.

I am sure that, like me, the Minister will have been disturbed to learn of recent reports of energy companies employing salespeople to go out and proactively sell smart meters to consumers. If the reports are true, those salespeople can earn commissions of more than £1,000 week, which equates to bonuses of twice what the average worker earns in a year. Will the Minister acknowledge that this can lead to overbearing and aggressive doorstep selling, which can put consumers under pressure? Does he share my concerns about this? If so, what steps can he take to address it?

Cold calling is a discredited way of selling that puts undue pressure on consumers, particularly vulnerable ones. Does the Minister think that this is an acceptable way to proceed, given the rewards that sales reps can earn if they “persuade” enough people to install a smart meter? Is sending target-hungry salespeople to chap on the doors of the elderly and vulnerable the most desirable way we can think of to roll out smart meters? I would be extremely disappointed if the Minister—and indeed Ofgem—thought so. We know that doorstep energy selling was left with a very poor reputation after a series of investigations by Ofgem led to suppliers being fined millions of pounds for misleading customers over how much they could save. This resulted, between 2011 and 2012, in all the big six suppliers scrapping face-to-face sales practices, but smaller energy companies are now once again sending staff out to knock on doors. Is the Minister entirely comfortable with that? What reassurances can he offer to consumers and vulnerable members of our communities that they have the protection they need from such companies?

The Minister will also be aware of concerns about misleading letters being sent to consumers suggesting that smart meters are compulsory rather than optional. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for sending me samples of letters that have gone out to consumers from various energy companies, in order to reassure me. However, very few of those letters point out that smart meters are optional, and that the customer can refuse to have one. All the power companies in the sample of the largest suppliers say absolutely nothing about smart meters being optional. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable? Is he, like me and the trading standards authorities, concerned about this? If so, what action can Ofgem take to address the situation?

What is going on with the “You have been chosen for a free upgrade to a smart meter” letters that some companies are sending to consumers? I wish all consumers were aware that when a business tells them that they have been “specially selected” for something, it usually means that everyone has been “specially selected” for it and that the term is meaningless. Another old favourite involves the words “You are eligible”, which is also misleading, because everyone is eligible. If we all have the option to have a smart meter, why do some companies feel that it is honest and in order to tell us that we have been “specially selected”, or that we are “eligible” for one? Does the Minister have concerns about this way of misleading customers?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I was trying to attract her attention while she was mid-speech. The type of sales proposal she has mentioned is totally unacceptable. It is not within the regulations, and if she would like to write to me or see me with specific examples, I will take the matter up with the regulators myself.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but the information that I am imparting tonight comes from the sample of letters that the Minister sent to me, so some energy companies are clearly using this sharp practice. I would not say that all of them are, but some are certainly not saying that smart meters are optional, instead using language such as “You are eligible” or “You have been specially selected,” which is unacceptable.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that vulnerable citizens may fall foul of such things? For example, my constituent Mr Vezza ended up with no power for three years when his electricity was cut off due to a misunderstanding because he did not want a smart meter installed. He was so fearful about getting in touch with the energy company that he has been living without electricity for three years.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am sure that the Minister listened carefully to that intervention, because that is an example of the kind of extreme situation that some vulnerable consumers can find themselves in. The Minister will be keen to investigate such things, because it is simply unacceptable that vulnerable consumers can be left in such dire circumstances.

I have real concerns about the mythology being sold to consumers that smart meters are free. That needs to be addressed, because they are not free. We all pay for them through our energy bills. Why has that not been communicated to the consumer? The Minister and I do not see eye to eye on this, but if there is no intention to mislead, why is the consumer not being told that smart meters are not free—in the sense that a normal person would understand the term? Free means that it costs nothing. Smart meters are being paid for by all of us through our bills. As I said on Report, the cost of smart meters is £11 billion and rising. Smart Energy GB has referred to a Government cost-benefit analysis, but I am particularly worried about the figure. I will not be the only person in the House to be closely monitoring it, because I fear that it may rise, and that goes to the heart of consumer confidence. If there is no intention to mislead, what is the harm in energy companies clearly communicating with consumers about the costs that will be incurred when they get a smart meter? I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.

Some of the letters from energy companies that I have seen about deemed appointment are pushy. One particular company sent a letter to consumers stating that smart meters are flawed and will not work if they switch supplier, meaning that consumers should not switch after receiving a smart meter. That is what I call the cart pulling the horse. What does the Minister think of that practice? Ofgem talks about the deemed appointment system being acceptable, but I do not agree. Ofgem states that suppliers must ensure that they are compliant with their wider regulatory and other legal obligations and that suppliers should monitor consumer experiences. I wonder, then, what Ofgem makes of letters telling people that it is not advisable to change supplier once a smart meter has been installed because it will not work.

The Minister is well aware of my concerns and of the fact that many people are extremely suspicious about smart meters, not because they do not want to have greater control over the energy they use, not because they do not want to know which appliances are consuming high levels of power, not because they want to put estimated bills behind them, and not because they do not want to see the energy they are using in real time. People are suspicious because of the hard sell and the misinformation telling them they do not have a choice when they know that they do. Reports of target-driven, sales-hungry cold callers will do nothing to dispel that suspicion; it will only increase it.

I will end where I began. Despite everything that I have said, there are benefits to having a smart meter. However, as I have been saying for a long time, the Government and the energy companies need to ensure that consumers are at the heart of the process. Consumers will get on board by having access to correct and accurate information. Misleading information will only further alienate the consumers who could potentially benefit most from smart meters. That cannot be good. Energy efficiency is extremely important, and never more so than in households that are struggling to make ends meet, in which fuel poverty remains at 78%. Smart meters can help people to take measures that may help them and their household to have greater control over energy consumption. That is why we must get this right, and we must take consumers with us. I fear that we have a long way to go, given some of the concerns I have raised.

I urge the Minister to reflect further on the very real concerns I have raised—from my past experience, I know he will—and to do all he can to address them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 8 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Work and Pensions

That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Increased Cap for Long Service) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2017, be approved.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2017, be approved.

Human Tissue

That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2017, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 21 December 2017, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (6 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Tuesday 6 February, the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee may continue until 7.00pm or for one and a half hours after its commencement, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Business of the House (7 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 7 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—

(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Amber Rudd relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, and

(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Sajid Javid relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later;

proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill

Ordered,

That James Duddridge, Sandy Martin, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Bill Wiggin, and Martin Whitfield be members of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill Select Committee.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

Committees

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 12 to 17 together.

Ordered,

Communities and Local Government

That Fiona Onasanya be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Matt Western be added.

Home Affairs

That Preet Kaur Gill be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and John Woodcock be added.

Justice

That Laura Pidcock be discharged from the Justice Committee and Ms Marie Rimmer be added.

Public Accounts

That Andrew Jones be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Robert Jenrick be added.

Transport

That Laura Smith be discharged from the Transport Committee and Grahame Morris be added.

Welsh Affairs

That Thelma Walker be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Susan Elan Jones be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

Jobcentre Closures

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

21:06

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

I am pleased to have one hour and 23 minutes for this debate, having arrived in the House earlier today to be told by the Whips Office that I would do well to have the debate today, as opposed to early tomorrow morning. I take that as an early Valentine’s gift from the Government, and perhaps they will go further by addressing the series of asks that I and other hon. Members have for them.

The Minister will have briefed himself on the folly of the jobcentre closure programme, particularly in the city of Glasgow, where the Government wished to reduce the provision of jobcentres across the city from 16 to eight. Although I am immensely grateful, immensely proud and pleased that the one jobcentre the Government removed from the programme is the Castlemilk jobcentre in my constituency, for which I pay tribute to the trade unions, local campaigners and anybody who signed a petition on the various campaign days we had to save the two jobcentres in my constituency—I pay tribute to everybody who took part in that campaign—the Government, however, continued with the closure of Langside jobcentre, to which I will return later in my remarks.

I will remind the House how this all began. It began with a story in the Daily Record, which is how Members of Parliament representing Glasgow constituencies found out that the Government wished to slash the city’s jobcentre provision in half. That was followed the next day with a letter from the then Minister—now the Education Secretary—to Members of Parliament representing constituencies in which jobcentres were set to be closed.

It is worth remembering that, where Ministers were keen to send jobcentre users to alternative jobcentres, they relied on Google Maps to tell them which bus services people could use to move around the city to get to those jobcentres, despite the fact that Google Maps tells people to use bus routes that no longer exist and have not done for some time. Even after that was pointed out to senior managers at the Department for Work and Pensions and even after it was raised by myself and a number of colleagues in this Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions—even after all that—still no effective transport study was carried out. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) who said that if a school or a nursery were to close, the local authority would be duty-bound to carry out some form of transport analysis to determine how people would use the service they then had to use instead of the original service they relied on. Government by Google cannot be the way this is done.

We pressed Ministers on several occasions to contact directly every person who would be affected by the closures, but they did not do so. Of course, Ministers know all the people who would be affected, because, as you will know in your role as a constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker, when someone goes to the jobcentre to sign up for whatever support they are seeking, they do not get to leave that jobcentre until they have given the Government every single detail of their life. So I cannot understand why the Government did not take it upon themselves to contact people directly, instead relying on a couple of posters thrown up in the jobcentre, which many people would pass by.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have had the same experiences I have had. Many people I contacted to let them know that this was happening did not know and had not been told about it. Unless they were going into the jobcentre regularly, they just would not find out, so they would go along when they needed the service only to find that it had gone.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As hon. Members can imagine, this was a big election issue in the city of Glasgow in June last year. During the campaign in my constituency, I told people that I was campaigning to save the jobcentre, and I met folk who used the jobcentre and it was the first time they found out about its potential closure; there can be no excuse for that, because there was no reason the Government could not have let those people know—they had every detail necessary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue before the House. A positive campaign to retain the Ballynahinch social security office in my constituency was successful due to extensive lobbying, cross-party and cross-community support and the realisation that rural communities need a local office to make attendance possible and to encourage people to seek work. May I encourage him to continue to campaign, as there are clearly occasions when right wins and wrong decisions are defeated?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so this one now almost feels complete. I commend him for the work he has done to save a jobcentre in his constituency—of course I understand that the powers over that are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome his words of encouragement for myself and other colleagues to continue our campaign, but gently point out to him that he has more sway over Ministers here than we do, so any effort he can swing in behind us on this issue will be most welcome.

I wish to discuss another hugely important issue in this whole topic: equality impact assessments. Undoubtedly, Ministers will have carried out such assessments, as they have come to the Chamber and said repeatedly that they abide by all the requirements that they must follow under the Equality Act 2010, and they could come to that conclusion only having carried out an equality impact assessment, so where are they? Why have we never seen them? Why have the trade unions and Members of Parliament never seen them? They are not anywhere in the public domain. When the Minister responds, will he tell us why they have not been published and whether they will be published? If he does not intend to publish them for wider public viewing, will he at least endeavour to share that information with MPs?

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are seeing a scythe tearing through the poorest communities in Glasgow, with the closure of Maryhill and Possilpark, Easterhouse, Parkhead and Bridgeton jobcentres. The idea that a quarter of a million people will be reliant on Springburn and Shettleston to sustain these critical services is absolutely appalling. The equality impact assessments have been identified through freedom of information requests, which have shown that the closure of these jobcentres would disproportionately affect people from ethnic minorities, women and people on low incomes. That is clear already. What is the Minister doing to mitigate that effect? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that that justification is presented tonight?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Indeed, the issues he raises were the very motivations for our demanding that equality impact assessments be carried out before a decision was taken. It was obvious, though, that a decision was taken before the sham consultation that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to hold.

I have asked Ministers about the impact of the closures on disabled people, minority ethnic communities and women. For example, in a recent written question, I asked the Government how many disabled people used Langside jobcentre, which they closed two weeks ago. They told me that they do not hold those figures. If that is true for one jobcentre in my constituency, what is the answer for all the jobcentres across Glasgow? What is the answer for all the jobcentres that they are closing throughout the United Kingdom? This is a ham-fisted decision that has been handled in a ham-fisted way. The Government have relied on Google and do not know how the closures will affect huge numbers of people because they do not hold the data. I suspect that they do hold the data. I have to be honest: when I read that answer, I did not quite believe it. We would like to see the data and I can see no reason why the Government cannot give us the answers.

The other issue is that the Government have not actually thought through what they want jobcentres to do. I would have loved to have had a debate, when the Government announced the closures in December 2016, about how jobcentres can properly serve the people who use them and the communities in which they are based. The problem is that we were not offered that debate. We were offered a straight up choice: closure or non-closure. Rather than have a discussion about how jobcentres can, for example, better work with citizens advice bureaux and other employment agencies, perhaps under the auspices of local or devolved Government, all we were offered was a straight up closure programme. The Government did not even want to consult the very people who would be affected.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the tenancy that he and my other colleagues from Glasgow have shown in their campaign against the closures. Does he share my concern that, in such debates or when we talk about social security issues at Question Time, Ministers increasingly turn around and direct claimants to seek advice from jobcentres—the very same jobcentres that the Government are closing?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Consistency never was the Conservative party’s strongest suit, but there is a glaring hypocrisy in the fact that the Government are signposting people to jobcentres as they slash services up and down the United Kingdom.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has just spoken about consistency. Does he agree that, when the Government announced these closures, they said that the changes would offer a more efficient service and deliver good value for the taxpayer? If we are being consistent, does he agree that that is the exact same argument that the SNP Scottish Government and the Scottish Police Authority are using for their plans to close 58 police stations across Scotland?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Funnily enough, no, I do not. On consistency—I am not sure whether there are any jobcentres closing in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I know that none is closing in the Minister’s constituency—where the closures are going to happen, we need evidence of whether they will truly deliver better value for money and a better service, both of which we would all be in favour of. We need to see the evidence that will lead us to that conclusion, including the quality impact assessments and the number of disabled people using each and every service. This service is not comparable with police stations, which are not there to serve the public in the same way. I am happy to have a debate any time on police stations in Scotland, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you would not want me to deviate too far from the jobcentre closure title that we see on the annunciator.

Let me draw my remarks to a close. The Government managed an incredible achievement when they announced the closure plans. They managed to unite—not just in Glasgow, but right across Scotland—the Scottish National party, the Scottish Labour party, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church in Scotland, all the trade unions and people of other parties and of no party against this very plan. We could see that it was ill-thought out, that decisions had been taken not because of the evidence that was before the Government but in spite of the evidence, and they went to great pains not to share much of that or include people in the decisions that were being made about them. I do not know how well versed the Minister is in Scottish politics, but to cause that level of unity is some feat.

When the Minister gets to his feet, I want him to tell us a bit more about the thinking behind this plan. I want to hear about the evidence and the equality impact assessments. I want to hear how the Government intend to review each closure over the next 12 months, as they start to happen right now, to make sure that people are well served and, as the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) points out, that value for money is served. There must be value for money not just for the taxpayer, but for the people using the service. In some cases, people are doing round trips of up to 8 miles just to get to their local jobcentre. What about value for money for them and the impact that it has on them? When they go to claim their benefits, more and more of that money is used just to get to the jobcentre, when they used to be able to use a local service.

Will the Minister guarantee that when people are late for appointments, as a result of the closures, they will not be sanctioned? I am sure that he agrees that that would be completely wrong, though, like other Members, I have my doubts about that. I want to hear what the Minister intends to do to measure the impact particularly on disabled people as the closure programme gets into full swing. I want to hear about the options for reviewing the system should it be found that the evidence tells us that, in fact, the decision that has been taken has proven to be the wrong one. I understand that this comes on the back of the whole Telereal Trillium contract and the option to get out after 20 years and all the rest of it, but this has to be about more than spreadsheets and contracts. There are some desperately vulnerable people who rely on these services, some desperately vulnerable people who are let down by these decisions and some desperately vulnerable people who need to be better served by this Government.

14:30

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for having the foresight not only to secure an Adjournment debate, but to secure an Adjournment debate that allows us to detain the Minister for a certain amount of time and to rake him over the coals about this deeply flawed decision. If the Minister thinks that he is getting out of here before 10 o’clock tonight, he has another thing coming.

I commend the Minister for his promotion to this post. He will be aware that I, my colleagues on the SNP Benches, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and other cross-party politicians from the city of Glasgow have written to him commending him and congratulating him on his new post, and inviting him to Glasgow. Now, I have not checked my mailbag this evening to see whether we have yet had a response to that letter. I am sure that his response will be there when I toddle over to the mail room tonight; he will be telling me that he is coming to visit the city of Glasgow in the next couple of weeks.

The main issue I want to address is the disproportionate impact of jobcentre closures on the east end of Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has, in her time in this Parliament, very passionately outlined the case for retaining Bridgeton jobcentre, the doors of which closed on Friday last week. My own constituency of Glasgow East will see the closure of Easterhouse and Parkhead jobcentres over the next two weeks, with everybody being relocated to Shettleston. I will come back to that point in a moment.

Since being elected to this House in June last year, I have been clear that Ministers sit in their ivory towers in Whitehall, making decisions by spreadsheet and Google Maps. They decide what they are going to do in communities in Glasgow and in Scotland without having the foggiest idea about those communities. A visit to the Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance in December reaffirmed that for me. The Minister will have heard me mention the alliance in questions this afternoon. It is a coalition of independent housing associations that has been operating for as long as I have been alive. These associations know their tenants and their local communities. Every single director, staff member and board member of the alliance was absolutely clear that these closures will be deeply damaging for some of the most vulnerable people in the city of Glasgow.

If the Minister will not listen to the Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance, he could listen to the citizens advice bureaux in our city. There are fantastic citizens advice bureaux: in Easterhouse, led by Joan McClure; in Bridgeton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, led by Frank Mosson; and in Parkhead. I am sure that it is only a coincidence that the only jobcentre that the Government plan to keep open in the east end of Glasgow is not located next to a citizens advice bureau. When people are sanctioned or treated unfairly at the jobcentre in the east end of Glasgow, they can currently go to their citizens advice bureau to receive support. It is deeply damaging that we are going to remove that support.

After I was elected and met the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is now the Education Secretary, I was struck that there is this idea that this campaign is party political or that it is a campaign against the Tories. If the Minister wants to believe that, that is absolutely fine. He can take it from me that, as an SNP politician, I do not have a huge amount of love for the Tories. But if he will not listen to me, will he at least listen to the three Tory councillors in the east end of Glasgow—Councillors Thomas Kerr, Phillip Charles and Robert Connelly, who is the councillor for Calton—who have all added their voice to the campaign to save our local jobcentres? If the Minister leaves this debate tonight thinking that this is some sort of Labour and SNP campaign against the Tories, he is deeply mistaken. This is a campaign to protect our jobcentres and some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

I want our jobcentres to be kept open for three reasons: digital exclusion, transport and the deep-rooted issues of the gangland culture and territorialism that, sadly, still exist in our communities. On a cross-party basis, we politicians all have to solve that. Fantastic research has been undertaken by the likes of Citizens Advice and the Church of Scotland about the real problems associated with the total exclusion of people. Something like half of my constituents have never touched a computer. Some people are able to use the internet on their smartphones, but that is not the way to do a 90-minute universal credit application. If the Minister wants to come to Glasgow and find a library that is willing to allow people to sit for 90 minutes to complete a universal credit application, he will be quite shocked to find that that is not actually the case.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. The Public and Commercial Services Union has done an assessment of the rationalisation of jobcentres. Its survey data shows that libraries in Glasgow are so in demand that they place time limits on the use of computers, thus excluding people from being able to do these onerous applications using their facilities. This just places another barrier before people who are already IT illiterate or who do not have the capacity to do this.

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very powerful intervention. That is reaffirmed by the fact that I do a surgery in Baillieston library and Parkhead library, and as soon as I arrive at 10 o’clock there is already a queue of people waiting to use the computers. What the Government will do by removing the computer access at jobcentres will be deeply damaging.

The Minister will be aware, no doubt, of his predecessor answering a slew of written questions from me about the number of wi-fi connections and computer log-ons at Easterhouse jobcentre—the very jobcentre he wants to close.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My researcher counted my hon. Friend’s written questions and there were over 100. He mentions the invitation to the Minister to come to Glasgow. So far, no Minister has bothered to come to any of the jobcentres they want to close or to meet any of the people affected. Could I add to what my hon. Friend has said and implore the Minister to find time in his diary soon to come to Glasgow for such a meeting?

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who refers to the number of written questions that I have tabled. I am rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in my love for written questions.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the fact that Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions have not bothered to visit the city of Glasgow. In fact, one of the other written questions that I asked of the UK Government was, when was the last time that a Minister visited the city of Glasgow. I was rather shocked when in response to one of those written questions I was informed that a Minister had indeed visited a jobcentre—in Midlothian. I do not know what the geographical knowledge of Her Majesty’s Government is like, but can I impart a bit of wisdom to them? Midlothian is not exactly Easterhouse. It is not Castlemilk; it is not even Moray. If the Minister is serious about being someone who is focused on the entire United Kingdom, then he ought to come to visit the city.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

If the Minister does come to Glasgow, I would like to invite him to walk from one jobcentre that is closed to the next and see what these people are facing. It will take him over an hour. It takes half an hour on the bus, on average, to get to the jobcentres that are closing down. He will be more than welcome to come to Glasgow and do the walk.

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Even as an Albion Rovers fan, he is very quick off the mark, because he has worked out my very next point, which is on transport. He shares a constituency boundary with me. One part of that boundary is around Gartloch and Gartcosh. I do not know whether the Minister would be able to point to where Gartloch is on a map, but the reality is that, if someone has to walk from Gartloch to Shettleston on a cold January or February day, it is going to take them a rather long time.

The third issue that I want to touch on is the gangland culture and territorialism that exists in Glasgow. I am glad to say that, since the time I was growing up—nothing to do with me, I must add—a lot of that has been tackled, and we do not have quite the same problems that we did. I give the Minister the example the community of Wellhouse, which is separated from Easthall by a road. They are two communities in the Greater Easterhouse Partnership area. They are very, very small communities but they have their own community centre and housing association. That is because at one point young guys could not walk across that road without the fear of getting involved in all sorts of incidents.

If the Minister will not listen to me on the concerns about territorialism and the gangland culture, then he should listen to Commander Stevie Haslett, who heads up Glasgow East police. I was quite surprised to find out that the Department had not bothered to consult him about this either. The Minister will be aware, of course, because I am sure that he has done his homework, that Shettleston jobcentre was piloted as being one of the under-25 jobcentres that everybody in the whole of the east end of Glasgow would come to. This was a number of years ago. There was all sorts of trouble because people from different communities were coming together and clashing. That put the security staff and the jobcentre staff at immense risk as well.

My final point is about the jobcentre that the Government want to merge absolutely everything into—Shettleston, which would be some sort of UK super-jobcentre following the merger of Bridgeton, Easterhouse and Parkhead. I was quite surprised when I found out only a couple of weeks ago about the number of car parking spaces at Shettleston jobcentre. This is particularly about the issue of all the new staff who will be transitioned to that jobcentre. I say to the Minister that, if I find out in the next couple of weeks that Shettleston Road has been turned into a car park, I am going to be very unhappy.

The Evening Times, a local newspaper in Glasgow, has been resolutely united in campaigning to save our jobcentres. If the Minister will not listen to me as an SNP politician, and if he will not even listen to the Tory councillors in Glasgow, he should listen to the newspaper that is for Glasgow.

20:09

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not want to detain the House too long, but I want to pick up on a couple of points.

My local jobcentre in Bridgeton closed on Friday. That jobcentre was well used and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, it was round the corner from the Bridgeton citizens advice bureau. I spoke to the manager of Bridgeton citizens advice bureau, Frank Mosson, a week last Friday, after my surgery had finished. It was after 2 o’clock on Friday afternoon, and that was the first opportunity he had that day, since arriving at about half-past 8 in the morning, to go and get some lunch, but the soup had finished in the shop and there was nothing left for lunch. He had been sitting there all day working through case after case—complex cases—caused by the UK Government.

People rely on the citizens advice bureau in Bridgeton and other ones around the city to get the advice that they very much need and depend on. The jobcentre is being moved away from that local hub and the local support network. The credit union, the library and the housing association are nearby. All those things are right where people need them, but it is being moved out of the community and people are being sent nearly 3 miles away, on two bus journeys, or a 50-minute walk on a good day, if they are healthy and it is not tipping down outside.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is making a valid and salient point. When we fought the case for the Ballynahinch social security office, one factor we used was that people in Ballynahinch would have to travel out of the area, so people on benefits who already had minimal money coming into the house would have to find anything from £5 to £10 just to go and sign on. That is wrong.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. We are fighting the fight in Glasgow about bus fare rises in the city as well, which is making it more challenging for people to get about.

While spending time outside the front of the Bridgeton jobcentre, I spoke to a woman who was on her way in. She was in bits. She was crying and upset. She had come from her house, which was just along the street, and she was in fear of what she would find when she went into the jobcentre, because they were hassling her and sending her letters. She had already been through a lot. She had lost her daughter. She is a WASPI woman, so she should not even have had to look for work in the first place, but this Government are sending this poor woman who had worked her whole life out to work. She was in bits, so we comforted her as best we could. She went through that experience and was understandably even more upset by the time she left. It would have been very hard for her not only to leave the house and go to the jobcentre that was just around the corner, but to get herself up, get on the bus and find her way all the way up to Shettleston and then make the journey back again. That is a challenging journey.

It is also a challenging journey for people who have caring responsibilities, for people who have kids to drop off at nursery and pick up from nursery, or drop off at school and pick up from school, and for people who are tending to elderly relatives who are poorly, which is a very common occurrence for my constituents. The burden of that falls upon women, which has not been picked up in the Government’s lack of an equality impact assessment.

All those things mount up on the pressures of life that my constituents are feeling every single day. This Government are not trying to get them into work. This Government are making it harder for them to even get out of the house in the morning. They are making it really challenging for people to cope. I am fearful that people will just fall out of the system; they will think it is too hard, fall back on their friends and fall into debt, drink, drugs, gambling and all the other social ills that we need to see removed from our people in Glasgow, so that they can progress in their lives. This Government are making it harder for them to cope.

The impact on jobcentre staff has not been mentioned. One of the first things I heard as a candidate in Glasgow was a story from a trade union rep about a jobcentre employee who had been attacked by someone with a clawhammer. That is awful. No one should face that at work, and I condemn the situation that led someone to do that, but that is the situation, and those staff need to be protected. When I walked into that jobcentre, the first person who came to see me was the security guard and the second person was the manager, saying “What are you doing here?” There is a security guard on that door for a very good reason, which sadly is to protect the staff.

The Government are talking about outreach, flexible working and going out into communities, but they have not said what the impact will be on staff, how staff will be protected out and about in the community and how individual constituents who are also in very distressing situations will be protected, with their dignity intact, if they are told they are being sanctioned in the corner of the local community centre. How do we ensure that staff and our constituents are protected in those situations?

[Hugh Gaffney]

One of the elements we have forgotten about is the staff. In Coatbridge, 300 jobs were moved. It was speeded up and the jobs were moved more quickly. We intervened and asked why those people were being moved out. Jobcentre staff have a 1% pay rise. For some of these staff, it will cost up to £1,800 extra a year in travel costs, so they are being asked to take a pay cut to follow their job. I hope the Minister keeps that in mind.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is definitely right. He has previously spoken very movingly about the effect on local economies of having jobcentres as anchor tenants in such areas—in shopping centres and on high streets in local communities—and this is about the impact on the local shops, such as the butchers’ and everything else. There is an impact that the Government are obviously not taking into account.

I want to finish with a plea to the Minister. I know that it will be difficult for my constituents to make that journey. It will be hard for them to get there, find their way and do so on time. Buses are not very regular, and we cannot rely on them turning up precisely when we need them. On Google Maps, the timetable may say x—if people turn up at exactly that time, they can get here and there—but we know that that is just not how it works.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a particular case of a constituent in Carmyle. She recently told me that, for her to get to Shettleston jobcentre from the village of Carmyle, which is fairly isolated from the rest of my constituency, she will be required to leave three hours early. How difficult would that be if her appointment was at 9 o’clock in the morning?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The limitations of public transport make it difficult for people to get where they need to be at a specific time. In the early stages of this change, I want a guarantee from the Minister that not one single one—not one—of my constituents who arrives late, due to the decision of this Government to close their jobcentre, will be sanctioned. I will be keeping a very close eye on this Government and on this Minister to make sure that none of my constituents ends up being sanctioned because of the decisions his Government have made.

21:41

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I do not now have the opportunity to welcome Mr Deputy Speaker back to the Chair, but this would have been my first opportunity to do so.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) raised the issue of the funding for Police Scotland. I tried to say to him from a sedentary position that he is very welcome to support our call for the £150 million of VAT that the Scottish police are owed. This also gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, Angus Robertson, who announced at the weekend that he is standing down as deputy leader of the SNP. He has gone before his time, but we will no doubt see him again in some shape or form.

Maryhill jobcentre in my constituency has already been closed and, just as we predicted, the impacts are already being felt. We have already heard about a number of constituency cases from various Members. At my surgery on Friday, I spoke to the family of a constituent who is being made to claim employment and support allowance. There is some doubt about whether he is receiving what he should, and I hope that the Minister or one of his counterparts will at some point reply to my letter of 13 December about that. This constituent has autism and found it difficult enough to travel to Maryhill in the first place, but it is now even more complicated to get to the Springburn jobcentre. These are exactly the kind of difficulties and challenges that were predicted, and exactly what is panning out.

As we have heard in other speeches, it is important to say that the closure of an individual jobcentre cannot be seen in isolation from the broader range of reforms and indeed—this is what an awful lot of these Conservatives are like—from the broader erosion of the role of the state. The closures compound the impact of the pernicious welfare cuts and the new regime that has been imposed so cackhandedly—we hear universal credit and other issues raised in this Chamber day in, day out—and the situation is also compounded by issues such as bank closures. The Royal Bank of Scotland, of which we are a considerable shareholder, is disappearing from high streets.

We are always told that a post office or citizens advice bureau can stand in for these services, but they are undergoing their own reform processes. We are slowly seeing an erosion of the presence of the state on the high street and in the hearts of communities. That might suit the Conservative Government, but it does not suit SNP Members. It certainly does not suit our constituents, especially the poorest and most vulnerable who rely on these services. We are told that it is great that all these different services are somehow taking over yet, as my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) mentioned, all these buildings are owned by Telereal Trillium. Well, that is great, because have we not seen what a great success Carillion, Capita and all the rest of these outsourcing companies have turned out to be?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the buildings. Does he not think it ironic that the UK Government have told us that the entire process is about saving money when only last week we approved spending billions on this royal palace we sit in?

[Patrick Grady]

Precisely; I think that point speaks for itself. Many of us have been for meetings with the Minister or his predecessors in Caxton House, which is owned and operated by Telereal Trillium. Why does the DWP not want to dispose of that asset, turn it into flats that could make a profit for the taxpayer, and ship all its staff and ministerial offices out to Canary Wharf, which would be considerably cheaper?

That question is legitimate, because there has been no guarantee that these closures are the end. If the Minister answers one question from me at the Dispatch Box, it should be this: what guarantee can he give that this is in fact the end, or will other jobcentres in Glasgow be under threat in a future round? Ministers have repeatedly said, “Well, Glasgow has more jobcentres per head of population,” but has anyone stopped to ask why that might be? Is it a legacy of the impact on the economy of the decades of misrule by the Conservatives that has required people to go to jobcentres? Is it to do with the geography and the nature of the city, which are some of the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East touched on? We are still seeking a whole range of reassurances from the Minister. What it boils down to is looking at the welfare system and the entire reform regime, and starting again from scratch.

21:46

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing the debate. This is a critical issue for all Members who represent the city of Glasgow and the Greater Glasgow region, and all areas of Scotland that are affected by the jobcentre closure programme.

I represent the constituency of Glasgow North East. It is adjacent to the constituencies of the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), but we are all affected by this jobcentre rationalisation—the closures. Although the jobcentres are not physically located in my constituency, their catchment areas massively overlap it. In the last month, I have already seen the closure of the Maryhill and Possilpark jobcentre, which is to be merged into Springburn. The next tranche of closures will see Parkhead, Bridgeton and Easterhouse jobcentres merged into Shettleston.

That will be a major issue in my constituency, because unemployment there is twice the national average. The argument has been, “Well, there’s over-representation of jobcentres’ footprints in Glasgow,” but that is because historically there has been a higher than average unemployment rate in Glasgow. We also have to look at the historical development of that unemployment rate, which is particularly intractable. It is not the sort of transient unemployment rate that we see with economic cycles; it is a structural rate of unemployment, particularly among those with long-term addiction or IT literacy issues, or people affected by massive exclusion from society. This is just another measure that will push these people to the margins of society.

I have heard the Minister’s DWP colleagues saying that the Department’s objective is to minimise harm and improve general happiness in society. How will this programme deliver that outcome? On any rational assessment, it will serve only to visit further despair, dissatisfaction and problems on the lives of people who are already blighted by a number of structural problems.

Hon. Members have raised this in the House before, but the issue is clear. The geography of Glasgow, particularly in the east and north-east of the city, is very fragmented. Historically, the built environment has been particularly fragmented. Believe it or not, but 80% of the built environment from prior to the second world war was demolished. We have been subject to huge dislocation, with the development of motorways and the fragmentation of the area, so there is no major town centre that people can visit to access jobcentres. I encourage the Minister to observe the nature of Glasgow’s public transport system, as its privatisation and fragmentation makes things even more complex and difficult.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech in support of the very good speeches that have been made. We have heard about the fear that many people will deny themselves the support to which they are entitled because of the closures. There is evidence from the DWP’s own figures on employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance that people have fallen off the system but have not yet found work. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that that may well end up happening in Glasgow?

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point—I absolutely agree. Plenty of people come to my constituency office with their concerns, but the thing that worries me, as a new Member of Parliament, is the people who do not turn up. What about the people who are not aware of the opportunity they have because of the service provided by a Member of Parliament, never mind a jobcentre? What keeps me awake at night is thinking about the people sitting in a flat somewhere in Possilpark, Milton or Springburn who are sick to the back teeth and worried out of their wits about what they are going to do—how they are going to heat their house or how they are going to feed their family. They are not necessarily made aware of the opportunity that an MP can provide them with.

[Hugh Gaffney]

On the point about geography, travel and all the rest, jobcentres have closed and there has been a high number of sanctions, but there has been no leeway and no reprieve, and nobody has looked at these cases again. As we heard earlier, people are learning how to dodge the gangland and how to get to the jobcentre—how to walk there and what the shortcuts are. They can walk over an hour to get there; they are getting sanctioned, but they are still learning the new geography.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution, which leads back to the point I was making about the geographical issues that people face, particularly in the north and east of Glasgow. There are structural issues. The hon. Member for Glasgow East made the point that gangland issues are a deterrent for people who want to move around. There are structural issues with public transport, and there is also the general fragmentation of the built environment in that part of the city. None of that has been taken into consideration in the assessment process, and I urge the Minister to apply a reasonable approach to that issue when considering the mitigation of these jobcentre closures.

[Douglas Ross]

I do not want to dwell too much on the geography aspect, because in a constituency such as Moray, 8 miles would be an incredibly short distance for some of my constituents to travel to go to get to a jobcentre. I would have liked to have intervened a little earlier when the hon. Gentleman was talking about the problems that will be caused. I visited my local jobcentre in Elgin just a couple of weeks ago, and the staff there go above and beyond to try to accommodate every single person who comes through the door. So, yes, there are issues with getting to and from the proposed jobcentres, given the closures, but I think that all Members can agree that once they get there, people across Glasgow, Scotland and the UK get a great service from jobcentre staff.

[Mr Sweeney]

I speak for many members of DWP staff in these jobcentres—including members of my own family—and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents them, and those workers are viscerally against this rationalisation programme. Although they do their best to help people, they are stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare. Rigid decision-making processes mean that they have to deliver services that they would rather not deliver, but they are forced by policy to do so on pain of disciplinary action. Not only that, but the capacity to help people is severely limited by the huge demand for services in the ever-more depleted number of jobcentres. Staff are physically unable to provide the level of service and interface that they might otherwise offer, such as close coaching in making a universal credit application online. Those things are simply not available.

The alternative is to access Citizens Advice. We have heard about the closure of citizens advice bureaux, and about the dislocation between Citizens Advice and jobcentres. That will only add to the complexity that people face. The Minister has not taken that major issue into consideration.

I think that we are all here in a spirit of making constructive efforts to mitigate the problems faced by our constituents, and I would hope that the Minister approaches the debate in the same spirit. To give a good example of that, I was looking, as a new Member of Parliament, at where to locate my constituency office. I have picked a location on Saracen Street in Possilpark, which is right next to Maryhill Road, where the jobcentre has recently closed, and near to where the citizens advice bureau has recently closed on Saracen Street. I am occupying a building that is only one fifth occupied, but it is currently paid for by Glasgow City Council, Jobs & Business Glasgow and Skills Development Scotland. Why on earth has the Minister not engaged with those agencies to say, “Look, we have a cost-neutral option for providing a jobcentre service in that building”? That could actually be done with the same overhead as would be involved in rationalising provision into a smaller footprint. That is a ready-made opportunity I have observed in the last few months as a Member of Parliament, having looked at these things on the ground.

Why does the Minister not engage with that opportunity, or look at opportunities with housing associations, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned, or other agencies in Glasgow that could offer the possibility of providing the same service footprint within buildings that are already paid for by the public sector? That would be a cost-neutral option. There are options out there to mitigate this. I urge the Minister to take a fresh approach and look at these ideal opportunities to maintain the footprint of the service across Glasgow. It is out there for the taking, so I urge the Minister to do it.

There is a major issue in Glasgow North East and across the adjacent Glasgow constituencies. We have a structural unemployment issue. Universal credit will hit my constituency later this year, and I can see the demand for jobcentres only increasing. The IT exclusion faced by my constituents is disproportionately higher than in other parts of the UK, with Citizens Advice estimating that 39% of people have never accessed a computer or do not have access to a computer. Library services are increasingly constrained, as is the ability to offer such services to constituents, and the footprint of jobcentres is reducing.

We can see the clear outcome of that situation: pushing people who are already marginalised—the people we need to coach into becoming participants in our society and back into being productive members of it—further to the margins of society. That is simply unacceptable. We are all here in the spirit of trying to engage our citizens, and to make them productive and feel that they are engaged and involved in our society. I am sure that we all agree on that at least, but by penalising them and pushing them further away, how on earth are we going to mitigate the problem?

I urge the Minister to approach this debate in the spirit in which we have engaged with it. We have offered meaningful and proactive options to mitigate the jobcentre rationalisation in Glasgow and the Greater Glasgow region. I hope that he will engage with those points and that we can reach to a successful outcome that will at least make the lives of my constituents, and those of other Members who have contributed to the debate, better in the long run.

21:56

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for the kindness that they have shown by inviting me to their constituencies. I have never felt quite so loved by Opposition Members as I have this evening.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Wait till you come.

[Alok Sharma]

That is what worries me.

Employment in the United Kingdom is at a record level. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the claimant count has dropped by 50% since 2010. That drop has been replicated across Glasgow city, where there has been a fall of 11,000 in the number of claimants since 2010 to just 13,500 today. In Scotland as a whole, unemployment has fallen by 107,000 since 2010, and I know that all hon. Members will welcome those figures.

[Neil Gray]

The Minister appears to be saying that a reason for closing these jobcentres is that unemployment is down, and therefore the usage of jobcentres may be down. However, the increased conditionality that is attached to universal credit will increase the need for services and the requirement for people to visit jobcentres. Will he not reflect on that and understand why my colleagues are so keen for the centres to be kept open?

[Alok Sharma]

Because of the timing of the debate, I have plenty of time to respond to a whole range of issues that have been raised, and I will try to do so throughout my speech.

As I was saying, as the unemployment rate has fallen, the use of jobcentres has also dropped. Right now, across the whole country, there is a 30% under-utilisation of the Jobcentre Plus estate. It is therefore absolutely right that we reconfigure the estate after a 20-year period and make jobcentres fit for the 21st century as not just places where people go to “sign on”, but places they regard as somewhere that will genuinely help them on the road to employment.

Hon. Members have made this point, but let me repeat it. In March 2018, the contract covering the majority of the DWP’s current estate of more than 900 sites comes to an end. This presents a significant opportunity to re-evaluate what we need from our estate. The estate that we required at the start of the contract 20 years ago is different from what we need now. We want an estate that enables us to create more modern, digitally enabled and engaging environments that fit the ethos of universal credit and reflect the falling claimant count.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It is not really modernising it if it is no longer there, so why were we not offered a debate that could have been constructive, reflecting what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said about co-locating with other services that are provided, instead of a high-handed closure programme on which the public would not even be consulted?

[Alok Sharma]

I was coming to co-location. Our proposals seek to reduce the floor space we occupy in Glasgow while retaining sites and locations that are accessible to all residents. Of course, we explored options for co-location in sites that we are retaining, but we were not able to identify suitable locations in Glasgow.

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Milling.)

[Alok Sharma]

In Glasgow, where this is particularly relevant, we started with 16 jobcentres that, on average, were only 40% utilised—small, half-empty offices that made it challenging to create a welcoming and positive environment. Back in 2010, with nearly 25,000 claimants, this may have been suitable, but it clearly no longer is. This dated estate across the country comes at a significant cost. Our changes will lead to savings to the taxpayer in the order of £135 million a year over the next 10 years. This money can be reinvested in delivering services for claimants, which I am sure hon. Members agree is a good thing.

Colleagues have mentioned the consultation and what methods were used. We did contact claimants, and jobcentre staff did speak to claimants throughout the process, informing them of the change and supporting them through it. Additionally, there was a discussion about what method was used to work out travel priorities. We got input from local DWP colleagues, who know the local transport available, so the idea that we did not speak to anyone on the ground is unfair.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I do not doubt the Minister spoke to DWP people on the ground; I spoke to them—they told me they googled the transport options. That is how they worked this stuff out. On co-location, he did not bother to inform Members of Parliament of the decision; we had to read about it in the press. I understand that there was no dialogue with the city council about co-location at the time either, and the Scottish Government were not even consulted—they, too, had to read about it in the press. I am afraid that that does not stack up.

[Alok Sharma]

I think I have made the point about co-location. We are having an estate that is fit for the 21st century. Where a new jobcentre was over 3 miles and 20 minutes away by public transport, online public consultation was held, as hon. Members will know, and we operated on evidence, and we listened and took action as a result. For example, we are introducing a new employability suite at Atlantic Quay and, as hon. Members know, we decided to retain the jobcentre in Castlemilk because of the feedback we received. I hope that hon. Members will therefore feel that we have listened on that point.

As we deliver these changes, this local approach is continuing with stakeholders and through partnership events, and we are working with claimants to find the best solutions for them. So far, we have moved out of 70 sites across the country with success, and these moves are being well received both by claimants and staff, as well as our partners. There was a discussion about how staff and claimants were reacting to the move. The feedback from claimants on the move from Maryhill to Springburn is that the move has been extremely positive, and they welcome access to more facilities. One claimant said:

“I never expected it to be as good as this”.

Furthermore, 23 claimants have transferred to Partick because it is easier for their own journey.

I agree it is vital that staff are looked after, but staff have told us that they are happier being part of a bigger team and office, that it allows them to provide an evolving and improved service based on customer needs, that the teams have come together seamlessly and that the team culture, which is incredibly important in any organisation, is developing to maximise benefits to claimants. The idea that this is having a detrimental effect on claimants and staff does not hold true.

[Hugh Gaffney]

I think that this is sarcasm; we call it Glasgow banter. The Minister says the staff are happy, but that is not the feedback that we are getting. I am also concerned about disabled people who have had to travel for an extra half hour to the locations that the Minister is talking about. It costs £4.50 to use the local bus service, and many of those same people are going to food banks.

[Alok Sharma]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is sarcasm in what I am saying. That is certainly not my intent, and I do not think it is the intent of the DWP staff who have sent us feedback. I can give the hon. Gentleman a list of the things that staff and claimants have said about the moves involving Broxburn and Anniesland. Perhaps things are not quite as some Members feel that they are.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alok Sharma]

No. I want to continue.

Claimants moving to Springburn have reported how much better the facilities are, and how welcoming the environment is. Claimants have also said that they have appreciated the individual tailored support. For instance, during the recently completed move of Anniesland to Drumchapel, some claimants who preferred to move to Partick instead were easily accommodated. The impact on staff is also being well managed. The vast majority of staff affected are moving to other locations. A very small number will leave the department, but the vast majority have accepted voluntary redundancy.

[David Linden]

I do not want to test the Minister’s patience, but when I saw that red folder with all the little tabs on it, I rather hoped that he would not just read from a civil service briefing. Members representing constituencies across the city of Glasgow have come here tonight and made very sincere speeches about some of the profound difficulties that are being experienced. The Minister is now the best part of 10 minutes into his speech, and he has not touched on the territorialism, the transport or the digital exclusion. May I ask him, in the time that remains, to address the points that we have raised? It is all well and good for him to reel off place names like Atlantic Quay, but I do not think he would know where Atlantic Quay was in relation to Gartloch. The best thing he could do is agree right now to come to the city of Glasgow and listen and respond to local people—not DWP bigwigs, but local people in citizens advice bureaux and police stations, and those who will be affected.

[Alok Sharma]

I do not think that the people who are working incredibly hard in these jobcentres would appreciate being referred to as bigwigs. Since becoming the Minister in this particular role, I have been to a number of jobcentres, not in Scotland but in England, and I can tell the House that those people are extremely motivated to help the people whom they are serving and helping to get into work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that we should pay tribute to them rather than suggesting that they are either joking with us or doing something worse.

Let me make clear that in the Glasgow Jobcentre Plus network, no redundancies are expected. The overall rationalisation of the estate is definitely not a staff reduction exercise. Indeed, the number of jobcentre staff will be higher at the end of this process than at the start, with an additional 5,000 work coaches across the country. After the rationalisations there will still be 10 jobcentres in Glasgow, which—as we heard earlier—is more per head of population than in nearly all other cities in the UK. Those 10 jobcentres will be welcoming, positive places, offering training sessions, with employers helping people to get back into work. They will create a sense of partnership between work coaches, claimants and other organisations. For staff, they will offer greater progression and development opportunities. They will enable staff to do the job that they cherish, which is helping people to move into independence and lifelong careers.

A number of other points were raised, and, as I have enough time, I will address them. As part of the consultation, some of which was online, we talked to members of staff and trade unions. A point was raised about equality impacts, and I know the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised this with the former Secretary of State during the July debate. The then Secretary of State said about the equality impact assessment that the Government had fulfilled our statutory duties, as we always do. Throughout the redesign of our estate, the Department has been mindful of its duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and the impact of its plans on its colleagues and customers. Equality analysis carried out in respect of individual sites has not been published; that is not the policy, but the DWP will respond to freedom of information requests for equality analysis reports in the normal course of business.

A point was made about travel costs. The reimbursement of travel costs is available to claimants when they are required to attend the jobcentre for appointments other than mandatory fortnightly signing appointments. Additionally, jobseekers who have been claiming universal credit or jobseeker’s allowance for more than 13 weeks can apply for a Jobcentre Plus travel discount card.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised a point about having written to me; I have indeed written back to him and I hope he will receive that letter very shortly. A number of colleagues have invited me to visit their constituencies. I committed in DWP orals earlier today to come to Scotland, and said I would have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman about potentially coming to his constituency, but as part of my job I go around the country—across England, Scotland and elsewhere—to make sure I am hearing at first hand the experiences of people working in these centres, the claimants and also employers in those areas.

There was a discussion about sanctions, and I want to make it clear that a decision maker takes all the claimant’s individual circumstances into account before making a decision, and there has to be very good evidence. Claimants have the opportunity to come back and set out their case. This discretion is available and I hope it will be used by decision makers in the case of sanctions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister have any statistics on users of these jobcentres who have been sanctioned as a result of the amalgamation?

[Alok Sharma]

I have no figures in front of me now, but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman if these figures are available within the system.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned gangs. That is an important point. As part of our consultation, we engaged with Community Safety Glasgow and the Glasgow City Council strategic community partnership group, and they were not aware of any gang-related issues pertaining to potential jobcentre closures.

[David Linden]

As someone involved in the local community, I would have thought that if we want to ask people on the frontline about crime, we might ask the police. Did the Minister speak to local police officers?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have moved to this post in the last few weeks, but I understand that a dialogue takes place with Police Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of people who cannot access online services and find it hard to get to a jobcentre. Face-to-face support with work coaches is available at jobcentres and continues to be a core part of the service we deliver. People can also interact face to face, by email or telephone or by post.

I have a point of correction to make. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) suggested that Caxton House was owned by Telereal Trillium. It is not; there is an underlying lease.

We have had a wide-ranging debate and I have listened to colleagues, and I completely understand that they put forward the view of their constituents and the people they know locally. I have set out what we have heard through our dialogue with people working in jobcentres and with claimants who have transferred to other jobcentres. I will come to Scotland and I will meet and talk to a range of individuals there.

We have had a long debate, and I should like to conclude by saying that this is obviously a major change for the Department, as well as for our claimants and staff. However, retaining our current estate would miss the opportunity to improve value for taxpayers’ money and to create an estate that will meet the needs of DWP claimants now and in the future. These changes are the result of careful analysis and planning. I appreciate hon. Members’ concerns about the closures, but the rationale for these changes and the benefits that they will deliver for claimants and our staff are clear.

Question put and agreed to.

22:15

House adjourned.

Draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

Monday 5th February 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Stewart Hosie

Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

† Drax, Richard (South Dorset) (Con)

Farrelly, Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)

† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

† Kwarteng, Kwasi (Spelthorne) (Con)

† Masterton, Paul (East Renfrewshire) (Con)

† Mercer, Johnny (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)

† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)

† Offord, Dr Matthew (Hendon) (Con)

† Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester East) (Lab)

Leoni Kurt, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 5 February 2018

[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]

Draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

16:30

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft regulations follow the reforms introduced by the Government in 2015 to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. The 2015 reforms were commenced in stages, and the draft regulations cover the application of the reforms that came into force in April 2017. Specifically, the draft regulations make consequential amendments to the financial sector insolvency regimes to take account of the April 2017 reforms.

For the Committee’s benefit, I will briefly set out where the draft regulations fit in the context of general insolvency law. Insolvency law is based on the Insolvency Act 1986, which has been amended several times, including by the tranches of Government reforms instigated in 2015. That broader legal framework has been modified into specific insolvency regimes for different sectors, including for financial services. The insolvency regimes for the financial sector exist because general insolvency procedures are not always suitable for failed financial institutions. That is because general insolvency law does not necessarily reflect the complex nature of financial institutions and the impact that their failure may have.

The insolvency regimes for the financial sector sit alongside and are separate from the Bank of England’s resolution powers under the special resolution regime established by the Banking Act 2009. The draft regulations do not affect or amend the Bank of England’s powers under the special resolution regime. Instead, they are necessary to update and maintain the legislation governing the modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector following the wider insolvency law reforms that the Government brought forward in 2015.

Let me provide more detail on the 2015 reforms to explain the genesis of the draft regulations. The 2015 reforms resulted in wide-ranging changes to the UK’s general insolvency regime that broadly affected all sectors. Those reforms were implemented in several stages: in May 2015, October 2015, April 2016 and, finally, in April 2017. The draft regulations cover the application of the 2015 reforms that came into force in April 2017, which removed the default requirement to hold a physical meeting of creditors as a decision-making mechanism in an insolvency proceeding, thereby removing unnecessary burdens and enabling the greater use of technology to administer insolvency proceedings. The April 2017 reforms also gave creditors the ability to opt out of certain notices for both company and individual insolvency, reducing the expense of sending notices for the office holder and the expense of dealing with unnecessary and unwanted notices for the creditor.

I will now set out in further detail the effect and rationale of the draft regulations. The draft regulations align the specific insolvency regimes for companies, partnerships and individuals carrying on insurance or other financial activities with the April 2017 reforms, ensuring that the benefits of the broader 2015 reforms to UK insolvency law extend to the financial sector. The draft regulations do not apply the April 2017 reforms to the insolvency regimes for financial institutions that are not companies, partnerships or individuals. Nor do they apply the reforms to specialised regimes, such as those for banks and building societies. For those insolvency regimes, the draft regulations work to keep the legislation as it was prior to the coming into force of the April 2017 reforms. Because of the considerable volume of legislation that is affected, that approach is necessary while the impact of the reforms on those institutions is further assessed and decisions are made about implementation.

In conclusion, the consequential amendments are required to update and maintain consistency in the legislation governing the insolvency regimes for financial sector firms. The Government are committed to improving public and business confidence in the insolvency process, and having clear legislation that governs the process is fundamental to achieving that.

16:35

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. It is a sad fact that more and more individuals and businesses are dealing with problem debts, and the robustness of all our insolvency systems is of the utmost importance.

As I understand it, the regulations enable financial services firms to be covered within the provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Those provisions make insolvency proceedings more flexible by allowing, for example, for different approaches to creditors’ meetings and the receipt of notice by creditors about insolvency proceedings. The regulations either directly implement the requirements or disapply the 2015 Act to enable sufficient time to design appropriate mechanisms, as the Minister said, for financial sectors where it will be more complex to apply the requirements to existing insolvency provisions.

I completely understand the fairly reasonable points made by the Minister about holding a physical meeting, which is often neither practical nor appropriate given the modern methods of communication now available and given that insolvency proceedings are not now purely local matters as they would have been in Victorian times, when the insolvency regime was initially created. Furthermore, it is peculiar that office holders must produce and dispatch information to creditors even if they have no continuing interest in an insolvency and have already written off their debt. The opt-out regime allows for those with an interest to continue to receive notices regardless. The 2015 Act’s amending of the Insolvency Act 1986 to reflect that seems appropriate—we have no objections to that—as does the application of the 2015 Act’s requirements to financial firms.

My only request of the Minister is in relation to his point on disapplying the 2015 Act’s provisions while the Treasury strives to produce the new measures and the impact assessment as quickly as possible. If he could give us some sense of the timings that the Treasury has in mind, that would be particularly useful and appropriate.

16:37

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I rise briefly to ask the Minister a question on the back of the Backbench Business Committee debate in the Chamber two or three weeks ago. A number of small and medium-sized enterprises were driven into liquidation and insolvency by the big banks as part of their recovery procedures from 2008. The Minister said that the regulations do not cover the banks. Can I get an assurance that the regulations will not have any impact on the claims of the SMEs that were robbed of billions of pounds by the big banks? Are the regulations an entirely separate issue?

16:38

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful for the comments of both the hon. Gentlemen. I confirm that the Treasury will work as soon as it reasonably can to ensure that there is the appropriate application of the 2015 Act. In respect of the point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse made, I acknowledge the range of examples that were brought to the House’s attention, and I assure him that there is ongoing work to be done to investigate the impact of the Global Restructuring Group process. There was an encounter last week between the head of RBS and the Treasury Committee. There is more work to be done, and I will be making further comments in due course in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

16:35

Committee rose.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

Monday 5th February 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir David Crausby

† Adams, Nigel (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)

† Clarke, Mr Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

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

† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Khan, Afzal (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)

† Morris, David (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)

† Murray, Ian (Edinburgh South) (Lab)

† Nokes, Caroline (Minister for Immigration)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

Smith, Eleanor (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

† Thomas, Derek (St Ives) (Con)

Gail Bartlett, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 5 February 2018

[Sir David Crausby in the Chair]

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

16:30

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018.

The purpose of the draft order is to make a relatively small number of changes to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which, along with the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2017, remains in place. The changes are needed to ensure that the charging framework set out in secondary legislation for immigration and nationality fees remains current and supports plans for the next financial year.

The Committee will wish to be made aware that it has come to my attention that there is an error in the draft order and its explanatory note. Following further review of the section of the draft order that deals with circumstances in which a fee may be set in respect of the provision of biometric identity documents, it has been identified that the change we sought to make, through article 2(4)(a), has no effect. That is because of the way in which the related legislation, the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008, operates. The intention was to permit the Home Office to charge a fee when a person fails to collect their biometric residence permit within the required time limit. However, the 2008 regulations do not in fact require an application in those circumstances, hence there is no service for which a fee could be charged.

Although the explanatory note states that article 2(4)(a) has an effect, that is not correct. Before such a change can take effect, we will need to amend the 2008 regulations. The explanatory memorandum has been amended to clarify that issue for the record. The 2016 order continues to set out the overarching framework and the maximum amounts that can be charged for immigration and nationality functions over the current spending review period, as previously agreed by Parliament.

Changes made by the draft order are intended to clarify existing powers in connection with entry clearance to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man. The draft order will confirm powers to charge fees when offering premium services in relation to the Crown dependencies, and also makes clear that the current definitions of a “sponsored worker”, “unsponsored worker”, “sponsor” and “certificate of sponsorship” apply in respect of applications to the Isle of Man.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am slightly disappointed that the draft order does not allow for a reduction in fees for European Union nationals seeking residency. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Caroline Nokes]

That is completely separate issue from that which we are considering. We will introduce a programme that will allow EU citizens to apply for settled status at the end of this year. Those who already have permanent residency will not be charged an additional fee for settled status.

Two further changes included within the draft order will delete obsolete provisions for which no fee is currently set in regulations. The original 2016 order permits a fee to be set for the acceptance of applications at a place other than an office of the Home Office. That provision currently allows the Home Office to charge a premium fee when delivering an optional service to enrol biometrics at a place of convenience to service users. Under plans to modernise services offered, the draft order will allow for fees to be set at an hourly rate, rather than a fixed fee. That will provide flexibility and allow for the fee charged to be commensurate with the time taken to deliver such services. That change does not affect the Home Office’s basic services, such as for those who enrol their biometric information at a local post office.

Finally, the draft order will also update the power to charge for services offered on behalf of certain Commonwealth and British overseas territories, where such services may not be offered within consular premises.

To sum up, we seek to make a small number of changes to the 2016 order to maintain the framework for immigration and nationality fees. We do not seek to change the overarching charging framework, nor the maximum fee levels agreed by Parliament.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft order is part of the Government’s intention to move towards a border, immigration and citizenship system that is fully funded by those who use it, not subsidised by the taxpayer?

[Caroline Nokes]

Given that my hon. Friend is a former Immigration Minister, we should expect him to be completely right in that respect. Indeed, we seek to move to a position where the fees charged cover the costs of providing the border, immigration and citizenship service.

As I have said, we are not seeking to make changes to the overarching framework, nor to the maximum fee levels that were agreed by Parliament and set out in the 2016 order, other than in respect of the premium service fee, which I have already referred to. Individual fee levels to be charged over the course of the next year will be set by new regulations, which are due to be laid before Parliament in March 2018. I therefore invite the Committee to approve this amendment order.

16:40

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

We are not opposed to these measures. However, we do have some concerns and questions, which I will put to the Minister. On fines for those who fail to collect their biometric residence permit, will the provisions apply to those who legitimately cannot collect permits in time—for example, if they are ill or hospitalised? Why does the Home Office not allow people from outside the UK to have the BRP sent to a nominated address in the UK? How many of these fines does the Minister expect the Government to collect?

Turning to the super premium service proposals, the cost to individuals and families has become extortionate. The proposed arbitrary rate is a lot of money. What is the justification for privatisation? Why cannot the Home Office provide the service itself? Would it not be better and cheaper to sort out the chaos in the Home Office and then pay a private company to take over that part of it?

At the moment, people are finding out that even when they pay for premium service, their applications are severely delayed and decision making is poor. We do not want to see a private company being brought in and charging more but offering a worse service than that being offered at present. What has the Minister done to ensure that that will not happen?

Last year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated double the number of complaints against the Home Office compared with 2015-16 and upheld 60% of them. Some 95% of the complaints were immigration-related. The key issues people complained about were delays and decision making. In order to compete internationally for talent, students and tourists, who all contribute massively to our economy, we need urgently to reform the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office—£2,600 an hour is a lot of money. How long do these applications usually take and how much does the Minister expect people will be charged? At the maximum £2,600 an hour, if it takes four hours to process an application it will cost more than the £10,500 currently charged. It is feasible that some complex applications will take more than four hours to process.

Finally, the fees will include a profit for the commercial partner. I regret that applicants are now having to pay for a private profit as well as the cost of processing their application. How much does the Minister expect the profit margin will be? Has the Home Office started finding contractors and negotiating with them, and if not, when does it intend to do that?

16:40

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I echo many of the points that have just been made. We in the Scottish National party have concerns about the cost of immigration and the effectiveness of the immigration system.

I will highlight two particular points from my own constituency. At the end of July a woman who lives in the Gorbals applied via the premium service for a spousal visa for her husband, but the application was not approved until the end of September. The application was made so that her partner could be there for the birth of her child. Given that the response was deemed to be within the 12-week limit, she did not get a refund despite not having received any manner of premium service: the service did not meet her needs.

A couple in Pollokshields applied on 7 June via a six-week service for a spousal visa. The Home Office eventually got back to them on 1 October to let them know that their application had been refused. Not only was it not a premium service, but it did not have a good outcome and they received no recompense for the lack of a visa or premium service. By putting out the service to be delivered by an external commercial company, I am worried that whenever anyone makes a complaint about the likes of VFS Global the Home Office replies that timescales on its commercial partners’ websites are indicative, so there is no guarantee that applying for a premium service will deliver a premium service, and that is a matter of great concern.

I am also concerned about the suggested cost. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton sensibly pointed out that it could take more than several hours to process some of the applications, and it would be hugely stressful for someone sitting in the waiting room seeing the cost going up and up. It is already expensive.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that the whole point of the premium service is that the immigration service goes to it. The individual would not be sitting in a waiting room, but would be visited in their hotel room or home. That is why the premium service is so attractive to certain VIPs, footballers or perhaps foreign royals who need it.

[Alison Thewliss]

It is, regardless, still a very expensive service, and I question whether the expense meets the cost of processing those visas. It would be good to get more information from the Government about exactly how much it costs to provide such a service. As I was about to say, I am concerned about something not mentioned in the documentation, namely the equality impact, including on women, who have lower earnings and may be in the UK waiting for a spouse to come over. They will have even fewer means at their disposal. The situation was hugely stressful for the constituent I have mentioned, who was pregnant and waiting for her husband to come over.

Will the Minister clarify the point about charging people for not collecting biometric residence permits? I want to probe further as to the scale of that problem. Exactly how many people do not collect them on time, or at all? What are the reasons for that? What investigation has the Home Office done of that apparent problem? There must be a problem, unless the Home Office just wants to gouge people further for money for immigration. That seems to be a pattern, judging by what comes through my office.

Finally, a further example of such gouging is charging £6.25 for a webchat facility or email. It would be good to know exactly the reason for that, and for the £2.50-a-minute phone cost. Will those costs be fixed or capped, or will there be continued rises? My point is that immigration is a very expensive business. The super premium service has not provided anything like super premium responses to the people who come to my office. They come to me chasing answers, which they have not been able to get despite paying considerable sums of money to go through the immigration process.

I should like to know a wee bit more about quality checking, and the controls that there will be over external companies once the service is put out to them. At the moment my constituents tell me that the service is not adequate or fit for purpose, and they are not getting anything like a super premium service.

16:43

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank hon. Members for the consideration they have given to the order. A number of issues were raised, and it is important to clarify some of those. The service described as super premium—mobile biometric testing—is currently used by something in the region of 500 applicants a year. It is a very small number, and the service is used, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned, largely by VIPs—visiting royalty or, often, footballers, and people who are time-poor but well able to pay the current fee of £10,500.

As to the decision to move to an hourly charge, the fee has not yet been set. It will be a maximum of £2,600 an hour. In the vast majority of cases we fully expect the process to be significantly quicker than the four hours it would take to get to the current cost of £10,500, which is the set standard fee regardless of how long the work takes.

I point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that 98.9% of non-settlement visas are decided within three weeks and 85.5% of all settlement visas, including spousal visas, are processed within 12 weeks. It is impossible for us to determine how long each application will take without knowing how complex that application may be. It is fair to say, and I absolutely accept, that there are very long delays for some visa applications, but that is for the very complex cases. The Government have been very successful in turning around easy, straightforward applications. However, where applications are complicated, I hope we all agree that it is absolutely right that they are subject to the level of scrutiny that they need and deserve.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from my constituents is that, if the initial timescales are not met, they often find that theirs are deemed to be complex cases, because there is no time limit on dealing with those. They are put into a black hole in which it is very difficult to get their cases resolved.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. If she wants to raise specific cases with me, I am very happy to look at them. However, the reality is that, where issues are complicated and visa applications are not straightforward, it is absolutely right that full rigour is applied to inspecting and determining them.

[Afzal Khan]

On the issue of complexity, how do we know that the process is not being abused by the Home Office? Are there set formulae or criteria that say what is complex?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is fair to say that no single application is identical to another. I hope, and I am sure, that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the integrity of Home Office officials—the really hard-working civil servants who determine these cases and on whose judgment we rely. It is important that the system is rigorous but also as fair and as speedy as possible, because we are all conscious of cases of constituents who are concerned at the length of time it has taken. It is absolutely a priority of the Home Office that we speed up applications, and we are doing very well on meeting our targets in the straightforward cases. However, I absolutely take this on the chin, which is why I was in Liverpool last week, talking to caseworkers who deal with complex cases.

As I have said previously, the Government believe in the benefits of controlled migration, but we also want an immigration system that is strong and sustainable. It is important that we strike a good balance between the economic interests of the UK and the need to maintain a sound border, immigration and citizenship system. This amendment to the 2016 order mainly seeks to maintain and clarify the charging framework under which immigration and nationality fees are set. We aim to set out the actual fee levels for 2018-19 in regulations using the negative procedure in March. The passage of the draft order will not, other than for the premium fee, amend or increase the maximum amounts that can be charged for border, immigration or citizenship applications.

Prior to making any changes to individual fee levels in regulations using the negative procedure, we invite appropriate scrutiny of our proposals, ensuring that they are reviewed and approved by a number of other Government Departments and that an impact assessment is produced before they are presented to Parliament. I believe that those steps will ensure that the Government balance our policy that users should pay with consideration of the impact of fees on businesses, education institutions and economic growth.

As I have said, the maximum amount set for the new power is £2,600 per hour. The procurement process for the partner with which we will eventually work is currently under way. We will, of course, announce that partner in due course. As such, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

16:48

Committee rose.

Petition

Monday 5th February 2018 Petitions

Monday 5 February 2018

Proscription of Hezbollah

Monday 5th February 2018 Petitions

The petition of residents of the Hendon constituency,

Declares that demonstrations against the legitimate and democratic state of Israel where offensive and anti-Semitic language is used are not acceptable and that they, the petitioners, condemn such actions; further, that they, the petitioners, note that the police will not take any legal action against perpetrators under the current law; and further, that they, the petitioners, demonstrate their commitment to democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech be seeking the elimination of hatred.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to proscribe the political as well as military arm of the Hezbollah organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Dr Matthew Offord, Official Report, 17 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1022.]

[P002099]

Observations from the Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace):

Hezbollah’s external security organisation (also known as the Military Wing) was proscribed by the UK Government in March 2001 and in 2008 the proscription was extended to Hezbollah military apparatus including the Jihad Council. While the UK proscribes Hezbollah’s military wing, we do not proscribe the group in its entirety.

Hezbollah’s military wing is also designated in the UK under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010. Therefore, funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by its military wing in the UK can be frozen. In July 2012 the EU also designated Hizballah’s military wing as a terrorist organisation under the EU asset freeze regime.

The current proscription and asset freeze already sends a clear message that we condemn Hezbollah’s violence and support for terrorism. Groups are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please, irrespective of whether they are included on the list of proscribed organisations or not.

Peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society and it is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable these may be to the majority of us, provided that they do so lawfully. There is, of course, a balance to be struck.  Protestors’ rights need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or serious disruption to the community.  Rights to peaceful protest do not extend to violent or threatening behaviour and the police have powers to deal with any such acts. The management of protests is of course a matter for the police. Similarly, the investigation and prosecution of all criminal offences is a matter for the police, together with the Crown Prosecution Service.

The UK Government condemn any language or act which attempts to delegitimise the State of Israel, and also hate crime of any kind, directed against any community, race or religion, which has absolutely no place in our society. Violence against anyone in this country is a crime and will be treated seriously.

The Government acknowledge the petitioners’ request to extend the proscription of Hezbollah to cover the group’s political wing, however, while the list of proscribed groups is kept under review, the Government do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.

Written Statements

Monday 5th February 2018 Written Statements

Monday 5 February 2018

Foreign Affairs Council: 22 January 2018

Monday 5th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 January. The Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

EU Ministers discussed the Cotonou agreement, Libya and the Middle East peace process. In her introductory remarks the HRVP spoke about her recent visit to Cuba, as well as Syria and Iran. Member states raised DRC, Tunisia, the organisation for security and co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe.

Cotonou agreement

Ministers held an initial exchange about a future agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries (ACP); the current Cotonou agreement is due to expire on 29 February 2020. Ministers expressed their broad support for the Commission’s approach to move towards an umbrella agreement at ACP level combined with three regional tailored partnerships for Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Ministers underlined the importance of building on the experience gained through co-operation under the existing Cotonou agreement, in particular on political dialogue and on migration. Discussions on the negotiating mandate will continue within relevant Council preparatory bodies, with a view to adopting a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and the negotiating directives within the first semester of 2018.

Libya

Ministers discussed the current situation in Libya. The UN Secretary General’s Special Representative, Ghassam Salame (SRSG), who joined by video conference for part of the session, gave an overview of the state of play of the political process, including progress towards the adoption of a new constitution and the forthcoming elections. He received the full support of Ministers in his efforts to bring about unity and reconciliation in the country. Ministers discussed the importance of EU engagement in Libya as a way of supporting the UN in its efforts to bring about political stability, as well as those UN agencies working to address the situation of migrants in Libya. Ministers also highlighted the importance of continuing to work with countries of origin, in particular in the Sahel region.

I intervened to underline the UK’s support for the SRSG, including his efforts to tackle modern slavery and people trafficking. I also emphasised the need for proper technical, legal, and political preparations in advance of any elections.

Middle East peace process

Ministers discussed the latest developments in the Middle East peace process and looked at how the EU could help to ensure engagement by all the relevant players in order to advance the peace process.

In the margins of the Council meeting, Ministers held an informal lunch with the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. This was an opportunity for the European Union to reiterate its united and clear messages on the importance of preserving a two-state solution and the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.

Also in the margins, the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) briefed Ministers on the proposal for an EIB subsidiary to focus on development outside Europe. There will be further discussion among Development Ministers next month.

Ministers agreed a number of measures without discussion:

The Council adopted conclusions on Zimbabwe;

The Council adopted conclusions on sanctions on Venezuela;

The Council adopted conclusions on sanctions on North Korea;

The Council adopted conclusions on the integrated approach to external conflict and crises; The Council adopted EU priorities for co-operation with the Council of Europe;

The Council approved upgraded generic standards of behaviour for common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions and operations;

The Council agreed exercise specifications for the EU crisis management military exercises in 2018 (MILEX 18);

The Council adopted a decision on the promotion of effective arms export controls;

The Council authorised Europol to release to third countries and third parties, the operational action plans which are part of the EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime (Justice and Home Affairs);

The Council adopted a decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the EU within the EU-Ukraine Association Council and within the trade committee configuration (Trade);

The Council agreed to withdraw its appeals against six judgments by the European Court of Justice related to imports of biodiesel originating from Argentina and Indonesia (Trade);

The Council decided to publish the mandate given to the Commission on 13 November 2017 to modernise the existing association agreement with Chile (Trade);

The Council authorised the EU Railway agency to open negotiations on the participation of Switzerland (Transport);

The Council adopted a decision on an aviation agreement with Morocco (Transport);

The Council decided not to object to Commission regulation on the use of bisphenol A in varnishes and coatings (Health);

The Council appointed members of the Court of Auditors.

[HCWS448]

Upwards Extensions: New Homes

Monday 5th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

The Government are committed to ensuring the planning system supports the delivery of more homes where they are needed. The opportunity for new homes is not always an empty plot, or the redevelopment of a derelict site. As set out in the White Paper, “Fixing our broken housing market”, it is important that development uses the space that is available efficiently, and avoids building at low densities especially in areas of high demand such as London. The Government recognise that one of the ways to achieve this is to build up rather than build out, using the space above existing buildings to create new homes.

Alongside the White Paper, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward policy changes to support this objective, which this written ministerial statement sets out.

Planning policies and decisions should respond positively to suitable opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. They should allow residential and commercial premises to extend upwards, where such extensions would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, are well-designed—including complying with any local design policies and standards—respect the privacy of neighbours and can maintain safe access and egress for occupiers.

Policies and decisions on upwards extensions should take into account national and local policies, as well as relevant legal requirements, including relating to the conservation of heritage assets such as listed buildings and conservation areas. This will ensure councils can continue to protect valued areas of open space and the character of residential neighbourhoods, and stop unwanted garden grabbing.

The Government will be consulting on changes to the national planning policy framework, including changes to incorporate building up to ensure effective use of land for current and future homeowners. Appropriate guidance will be produced in due course.

[HCWS449]

Contingent Liability: Notification

Monday 5th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a Contingent Liability (CL) of £4 million associated with Solum JV.

Solum JV was created in 2008 to help Network Rail (NR) deliver its agreed housing target. Since its formation, the Solum JV has delivered over 200 housing units, has c.200 more under construction—to complete by 2021—and a pipeline of c.1500 further units, subject to planning and other approvals.

This counter-indemnity, for which NR’s CL of £4 million will be matched by its JV partner, Kier, will cover further multiple residential developments being built by the JV, initially at Twickenham and Walthamstow Phase 2 stations.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

[HCWS447]

House of Lords

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Monday 5 February 2018

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Recycling: Chinese Import Ban

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure that materials collected for recycling by local authorities are not incinerated as a result of the Chinese ban on taking plastic and other waste materials.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are encouraging industry to access alternative markets and are taking steps to reduce waste and recycle more. Where waste cannot yet be recycled, modern incineration facilities ensure that it can be used to produce energy and to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. These facilities divert waste from landfill and are tightly regulated by the Environment Agency. Our resources and waste strategy will set out further actions to increase recycling and manage waste to incineration.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we hear fine words from the Government, with lots of promises, reports, press releases from No. 10, and so on. But recently, the UK declined to commit to the EU-wide 65% recycling target by 2035. That target does not seem unreasonable. Why do the Government not put their promises into action?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we certainly need to consider this target carefully. The approach we want to take in future is to support our ambitions in tackling avoidable waste and supporting a circular economy. However, we need to consider this further because we do not want perverse incentives on heavy waste when actually, we need to consider what the most important waste is that we ought to be reusing and recycling more.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister seen the suggestion in the press that we should bury all this at £86—I am not sure per what measure, but think of what it would cost; it is expensive now even to suggest that—and then dig it all up again to recycle it when our facilities are available? Surely the answer is for us to set up companies in this country that can carry out the recycling, which would be to our advantage in business and environmental terms.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there is certainly value in waste, and we want to ensure that we have reduced dramatically the amount of waste going to landfill—that is why the landfill tax has been so successful. Interestingly, it is important that we do not put paper, for instance, which creates methane, into landfill; it is far better that that goes for incineration, if necessary, so that we can use it for energy.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s 25-year environmental plan promised a waste strategy later this year. Will they take advantage of that and bring forward the target of ending plastic waste by 2042 by a decade or so?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we are extremely ambitious: as your Lordships know, we have some of the strongest arrangements on microbeads, certainly in Europe, if not in the world. We want to go as fast as we can, which is why the resources and waste strategy will be important, and we want to reuse and recycle more.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, what studies have the Government commissioned into the environmental hazards that may occur if we start to burn large amounts of plastic waste, and what percentage of plastic can be recycled according to the Government’s own estimates?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, following considerable investment, there are now about 40 large municipal waste plants. They are highly regulated by the Environment Agency precisely to ensure that we recover energy and, importantly, they also operate within all the emission tests. I do not have the precise figure for what is currently recyclable but I will write to the noble Lord. However, the whole essence of our objective is to cut the amount of plastic in circulation and to reduce the variety of plastic so that we can recycle ever more.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

In his original Answer to my noble friend Lady Jones, the Minister mentioned that the Government were looking for alternative markets to replace the Chinese market as the current receptacle for much waste. Is it not immoral to say that we are just going to look for another place in the world to dump the rubbish that we should be looking after ourselves?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there obviously need to be alternatives and we are looking at them. Nothing is exported in the way that the noble Lord describes—there are very strong and strict requirements. I agree with him about wanting to recycle more at home but a number of countries—Turkey, Taiwan, Vietnam and India—all have resources and are taking more waste. However, we certainly want to work more on recycling at home.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, embracing the Chinese ban and implementing further restrictions in the coming years could be an opportunity to overhaul our current system and invest at home. What progress is being made in moving towards a joined-up waste and recycling policy that can respond positively?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the resources and waste strategy will be very important in that regard, and it is encouraging that industry is picking this up. We have already had announcements from businesses about plastic-free brand products, and it is interesting that we are now recycling 60% of our packaging. Therefore, although we need to seek further increases in recycling rates, we are now going in the right direction.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not time that the people at the top of the supply chain started taking more responsibility for the materials they produce? Manufacturers are always very quick to blame recyclers for allowing a build-up of waste to occur but, rather than just relying on manufacturers to take a voluntary approach, what are the Government doing to hold them to account for the plastic pollution they produce? That is at the heart of the problem. They need to produce alternatives to plastic but they are not doing that in sufficient numbers.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we certainly need research and co-operation from all to increase recycling rates. Business is beginning to make some important strides. The Co-op, Iceland, Unilever and the packaging industry have committed to implementing solutions to enable the sustainable recycling of all black plastic packaging by the end of this year. We need to collaborate and work with business. We have strong targets and we all have to change many of our attitudes.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, what are we doing to increase and enforce penalties on those who dump household goods and other things in the countryside and, in the process, spoil some of the most beautiful parts of Britain?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that fly-tipping is a terrible blight, whether in towns or the countryside. That is why we have introduced stronger powers for local authorities and the Environment Agency—for example, to seize and search vehicles involved in suspected crime. We have also introduced the power for local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices and we have just published the waste crime consultation, which proposes providing local authorities with the option of issuing fixed-penalty notices to those whose waste ends up being fly-tipped.

Data Protection and Privacy

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking, or plan to take, to ensure that people are aware of their rights and obligations in respect of data protection and privacy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to highlight the fact that the GDPR takes effect on 25 May this year. To that end, the Government are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that individuals and organisations are increasingly aware of their rights and obligations before new data protection laws come into effect. In addition to supporting the commissioner’s work to update and publicise the guidance provided through the ICO website, the Government will deliver an awareness-raising marketing campaign targeted at those organisations and sectors most in need of support.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, we are in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution: a revolution fuelled by data—our data. Does my noble friend agree that much good work has been done but that we need a public debate on a grand scale to enable everyone to understand the potential, and indeed the pitfalls, when it comes to the use of their data?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. That is why we are establishing the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which will advise on the measures we need to enable and support safe, ethical and ground-breaking innovation in artificial intelligence and other data-related technologies. I remind noble Lords of this House’s Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As for where we are with the centre, the process of appointing a chair for the interim centre is under way and expressions of interest for the role are currently live. More information is available on GOV.UK.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the earlier namecheck. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, there will now be a statutory code of practice on age-appropriate website design, which will set standards required of websites on privacy for children. Will the Government make sure that young people and their parents are clearly and effectively told what these standards are at an early date? That is especially important given that the ICO’s draft children and the GDPR guidance has already been overtaken by this major amendment to the Data Protection Bill.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord is right to mention the Kidron amendment—I think it is called that now, by universal approval—which the Government are pleased to support. It is early days, to the extent that the Data Protection Bill has not even had its Second Reading in the other place. However, the ICO is aware of what it will be required to do if this amendment remains in place and is working on that. In the meantime, it is concentrating on the GDPR coming into effect on 25 May, and the work that has to be done to get people up to speed before that date.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does the Minister believe that the best place to start is in schools, with personal data taught as part of a statutory PSHE course?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

It is very important that all young people are aware of both the opportunities and the dangers associated with the internet and data-driven technologies. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

Further to the previous two questions about young people, does the Minister accept that many children are being given access to mobile devices well before their 13th birthday, which is the point at which most websites and providers are supposed to limit the availability of certain kinds of content? While there is a certain amount that legislation can do about this, it is really an issue of public information, particularly as many of these young people are being enabled by their own parents, who need to understand the dangers. What are the Government doing to further the public education that would help that?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The new general data protection regulation specifies that children are a special case and have to be protected more than adults. I completely agree with the noble Baroness that education is important, and that is education for parents and not just for young people. Across all age groups, a lot of people have things to learn about the dangers of the internet. One thing that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation will do is show that it is not just Government who are involved in this but the industry, education, regulators and charities. All sectors in society have to come together to make sure that this tremendous opportunity is used safely by everyone.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Is my noble friend able to confirm that no government agencies now sell on or disclose to third parties personal data without the explicit agreement of the individual concerned?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not believe that that is the case although I cannot give an absolute guarantee because I am not sure of my facts. One thing that the Digital Economy Bill did was to outline what Governments can do with their own data. They can use it within government. The general data protection regulation makes the issue of consent much more explicit. Consent has to be genuine consent.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister add the National Health Service to the list of organisations that need to be involved? Does he agree that within the National Health Service there is an enormous amount of data that could be of fantastic benefit to medical research? It can be anonymised. It may be, for example, that in cohort studies people have already given their consent to that data being used. I declare my interests, as set out in the register. Will he agree that there can sometimes be a misunderstanding of the extent of data protection, which could act as a real obstacle to the sort of research that we all want to see?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is the subject of the amendment to the Data Protection Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. It gives a good example of the sort of thing that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation could consider. On the one hand, the National Health Service has an unparalleled amount of medical information that could be used to advantage. On the other hand, if it is monetised and sold on, which has the superficial attraction of providing money for the NHS, it could prevent researchers using that information in the same way that pharmacological organisations do. It could actually prevent health benefits occurring. It is a classic example of an ethical dilemma that the centre will be able to look at.

Asylum Seekers: Legal Advice

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to ensure that every failed asylum seeker, and anyone facing removal from the United Kingdom for whatever reason, has access to adequate legal advice.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, legal aid is available for individuals faced with deportation where they are claiming asylum or challenging their detention. The Government have commenced the post-implementation review of legal aid, which will include the scope of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many asylum seekers are unable to access legal advice, for different reasons. Some are penniless and others just do not know the procedures. The result is that many of the decisions made by the Home Office are unsound and reversed on appeal. In 2005, 13,000 appeals were allowed. In 2010, 35,000 were allowed and, in 2015, 17,000 were allowed. Therefore, in 10 years 250,000 appeals were allowed—a quarter of a million wrong decisions by the Home Office. Will the Minister please tell me what he is doing to remedy that situation so that we have a procedure that is fair and equable?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, all persons detained in immigration removal centres now have access to a duty solicitor and therefore have access to legal advice.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it should be axiomatic that legal assistance is available to people facing removal and the Minister has made it clear that that should be the case. However, surely the underlying problem is the shameful record of the Home Office in this area. We read regularly that people who have been living in this country for decades, often working and having led a successful life here, are now being ordered to depart. Will the Government review the performance of the Home Office and its policies in this very sensitive area?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the period for which a person has remained illegally in this country should not be and is not a determinant of their right to remain here. It is necessary to apply the relevant law both to the issue of asylum seekers and those who arrive here unlawfully, not even seeking asylum.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, a Bar Council report published last November found that at any one time more than 3,000 people, mostly failed asylum seekers, are held in administrative detention without being convicted of a crime, at a cost of £34,000 each. More than half are ultimately released into the community when their appeals succeed. Last Friday, in the case of VC, an asylum seeker from Nigeria with mental problems, the Court of Appeal slammed the Home Office for misinterpreting its own policy and awarded damages. Will the Minister review the means and merits test applied by the Legal Aid Agency, which academic research shows operates to exclude detainees from legal aid by,

“seizing upon the tiniest thing”,

to declare their applications ineligible?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Legal Aid Agency is of course independent of Government for very proper and good reasons. The application of LASPO—the legal aid Act—is the subject of internal review at present following an announcement by the then Lord Chancellor in October last year.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, research by the Children’s Society shows that unaccompanied and separated children are particularly vulnerable. Only 12 grants for exceptional case funding were made in 2015-16, fewer than 1% of the expected number of cases under the previous system. Hundreds of children are being left without a legal safety net. Can the Minister confirm that the situation of these children will be specifically considered within the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, current figures show that 103 children were put into detention in immigration-related matters in 2016, of which 42 were under 12. Some of those may have been unaccompanied but, under the policy of the 2014 Act, unaccompanied children should not actually go into immigration removal centres; they should be held pending removal decisions. With regard to exceptional case funding, the figures for the first two quarters of 2017 indicate that the success rate for immigration-related applications was 73%. Some 652 applications were made during that period.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we should remember the United Nations convention, which originally set out the criterion for granting asylum: to people in great need of protection. Does my noble and learned friend agree that it is terribly important for us to restate that, and to make sure that asylum is not used as a vehicle for immigration rather than giving the protection that the most extreme cases require?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is clearly in the interests of genuine asylum seekers that the system for seeking asylum as permitted under the UN convention should not be abused and should not be seen to be abused.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, according to an Amnesty report published in 2017, over 2,000 young people seeking refuge in the UK were deported to Afghanistan between 2007 and 2015, the majority of them since the legal aid cuts were introduced. Does the Minister agree with Amnesty that the UK is in breach of its international obligations and law, and if so what steps do the Government intend to take to put this right?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we do not agree that we are in breach of our international law obligations, nor is it obvious that there is a connection between the figures given by the noble Lord and the availability of legal aid.

Modern Slavery: Indian Supply Chains

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British businesses have taken action and reported their efforts to prevent modern slavery in supply chains from India.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is the first country to require businesses to report on the steps that they have taken to tackle modern slavery. Thousands of businesses have published transparency statements, with many examples of good practice emerging in India across a range of industries, from textiles to landscaping materials. I encourage businesses to stay vigilant and to work with local NGOs to understand the risks in their supply chains.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. According to the Government’s estimates, between 9,000 and 11,000 businesses with a turnover of more than £36 million a year are required to submit these statements, but the Government have not been willing to set up a central register. Groups of NGOs have set up two websites. According to them, less than 4,000 businesses have so far set up statements. Only 14% of these conform fully with the law. The NGOs further add that there is particular complacency among certain high-risk industries, which might also point to high-risk groups such as the Dalits and Adivasis in India. If the Government are still not willing to set up a central register, what steps will they take to ensure that all businesses comply with the law and provide a statement?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble and right reverend Lord gives a figure of 14%, but two independent NGOs have collated statements and found that between 32% and 50% of eligible companies have produced a statement. Clearly there is further to go. The legislation is relatively new. On compiling a register, we have considered in detail whether the Government could publish a list of businesses covered by the Modern Slavery Act. It is not easy to do so because it is not currently possible to filter the databases of Companies House by turnover size, but the Government are looking at this.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, it is not easy to find out whether the companies that are required to provide the annual report are complying. The companies we are concerned about operate right across the world, not just in India, although India is clearly very important. The Government really do need to take some action to ensure that there is pressure on these companies to comply with the Modern Slavery Act.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, part of the pressure is from the public, because the public are more and more concerned that their clothes are produced ethically—or whatever goods and services. The Home Secretary can apply for a court injunction requiring businesses to comply. If they still refuse, they will be liable to an unlimited fine for contempt of court.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise how weak her answers sound? In response to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, she said that it is for NGOs to keep a list; to the noble and learned Baroness she said that the public have to put on pressure. There has to be a little bit more action from the Government. They have this requirement, so they have to get behind it to make sure it happens. We understand, as we heard earlier, that the Government set their face against any statutory regulation in this regard, but will the Minister tell us what action the Government will now take to do their utmost to ensure that these companies register and understand the risk in their supply chain, as has been highlighted by the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which recognises that many companies just are not looking at this and taking it seriously? The Government have to step up to the plate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did not absolve the Government of responsibility by saying that it is up to the NGOs to produce a list. I outlined the difficulties of producing a list, because of filtering by turnover size. The idea of public pressure is a strong one. In addition, I outlined the remedies available to the Home Secretary, which include applying for a court injunction requiring businesses to comply. They are liable to an unlimited fine for contempt of court if they do not.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I believe that the Government have not yet taken the step, which I accept is something of a nuclear option, of applying for an injunction. Is the Minister aware that the National Audit Office, in its report in December on modern slavery, commented on the fact that,

“the Home Office does not produce a list of businesses that are expected to comply with the legislation and cannot say how many companies that should have produced a statement have done so”?

It also says:

“The Home Office has acknowledged that to date the quality of statements has been variable. Statements therefore do not provide equal levels of assurance to those scrutinising them”—


that is, the NGOs and members of the public. Do the Government have any ideas as to how to assist those who would wish to scrutinise them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in terms of the Government, all government departments require their suppliers to tell them whether they are compliant with the transparency requirement of the Modern Slavery Act. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that some of the statements vary in terms of the quality and the information that they provide, but I reiterate that the legislation is relatively new and I expect that the whole system will see improvements.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, because two noble Lords were speaking I did not hear my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Spicer]

My Lords, the person who has done more than anybody else to further this cause is Mr Anthony Steen. Should not something be done to recognise that fact?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that decision is probably above my pay grade, but I congratulate anybody who is helping to make improvements in this area. It is a major priority of this Government.

Civil Service Impartiality

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to defend civil servants from unwarranted criticism regarding their objectivity and impartiality.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code says:

“Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service”.


Our Civil Service is envied the world over and, as the Home Secretary said over the weekend, has the complete confidence of the Government. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 enshrines in legislation the core principles and values of the Civil Service, which include impartiality, integrity and objectivity. These values are set out in the Civil Service Code, which states that civil servants,

“must not … knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament or others”.

I do not believe that they do.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Of course, he more than anyone has upheld the Ministerial Code during a very long and distinguished ministerial career. However, in the last few days we have had assertions made, both by Ministers and by Members of Parliament, that officials are deliberately frustrating Brexit or fiddling the figures. Those civil servants cannot defend themselves in public. Does the noble Lord agree that officials must have confidence in being able to provide robust and dispassionate advice without fear of intimidation? Given that No. 10 Downing Street and the Prime Minister have failed to slap down those Ministers and MPs in his own party who have made these disgraceful slurs, is it too much to ask of the Prime Minister that she finally show some leadership?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

So far as Ministers are concerned—I answer for Ministers, not for Back-Bench Members of Parliament—the Minister concerned made a fulsome apology in another place on 2 February. He said:

“I accept that I should have corrected or dismissed the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. I have apologised to Mr Charles Grant, who is an honest and trustworthy man. As I have put on record many times, I have the highest regard for our hard-working civil servants. I am grateful for this opportunity to correct the record and I apologise to the House”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/18; col. 1095.]

The noble Lord generously referred to my experience as a Minister. I think I have done 20 years on and off—probably more than anyone else in this House—but with many discontinuities, and I have never had occasion to question the impartiality or objectivity of civil servants. They have spoken truth unto power. They have quite often said things that I did not want to hear, but I would never accuse them of some of the things that have recently been levied against them. I think we should be proud of our Civil Service, and I reject the smears that have been made against it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will recognise that this is not just a British issue. The current attack by the President and his Administration on the FBI in the United States raises rather similar issues. Can the Minister assure us publicly that, when we say that civil servants are expected to be impartial, they are not expected to be impartial between evidence and supposition, and that when Ministers prefer faith or fantasy to evidence, civil servants have the right to point out that good governance depends on paying attention to the evidence, wherever one can find it?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I quoted a moment ago the Civil Service Code, which includes objectivity. Objectivity is defined as,

“basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence”.

It is these standards for which our Civil Service is renowned.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend’s honest opinion? He will be familiar with this document: the Treasury analysis of May 2016 forecasting a complete collapse of the British economy if we were to vote to leave. I have maintained that this document is propaganda from top to bottom, and it turns out to be utterly untrue in reality. My noble friend has praised the objectivity of those who produce government statistics. If I continue to criticise the mandarins and the Ministers who approved the statistics and this document, does that make me a snake-oil salesman or a 1930s German Nazi—or maybe a bit of both?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think my noble friend should distinguish between criticisms of Ministers and criticisms of civil servants. The document that he has in his hand was publicly presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. Any criticism should be directed at the politicians who presented it. I think it was also endorsed at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Darling. They are the ones who should be criticised, rather than the civil servants.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Minister concerned has already apologised but has faced no sanction. Does that now mean that a civil servant can break the code and not face any sanction if he apologises later?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would be a matter for the Civil Service Code. There are penalties levied against civil servants who break the code. Depending on the severity of the offence, they can lose their job, as has happened in some cases, or they can apologise. In this case, the Minister has apologised. He has explained the circumstances. He had no reason to believe that what was being said at the time was not true. When he discovered it was not true, at the first opportunity he came to the House and apologised. I think that was the correct thing to do.

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of working with the Minister in his many guises and, if ever there was a Minister who lived by the code he has just talked about, it is the noble Lord. Does he believe that those making allegations without supporting evidence against serving civil servants, who will not respond, are undertaking a form of bullying that, to be honest, actually diminishes those making the attacks but, more importantly, damages our democracy?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, whether the accusations made in the House of Commons last week constitute bullying, I am not quite so sure. I think they were ill-advised, given that the evidence did not stack up for the accusations that were made. But I agree with what the noble Lord said in his final remarks that the people who come out of it worse are those who make the accusations, rather than those they are levied against.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Does my noble friend believe that those MPs and Ministers who impugn the impartiality and good faith of our civil servants are behaving very much as President Trump does in the United States with regard to the FBI?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not sure I want to open up a fresh front from the Dispatch Box, but I hope President Trump will read what my noble friend has just said.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that every sane business carries out an investment appraisal before it embarks on an investment, that every sensible person will always produce a business plan before starting a business, that responsible and sensible Governments must engage in cost-benefit analyses and policy analyses and that, if we gave up those habits, it would be deeply damaging to the future of the country? That is the logic that some of these people are trying to drive us to: that we should not have any experts, we should not have any studies and we should not have any analysis at all.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have not seen the documents that are the object of this exchange, but I understand that they were looking at a number of post-Brexit scenarios from an economic point of view. I also understand that the Prime Minister subsequently said that they were looking at off-the-shelf options, and she has made it clear that she is not looking at off-the-shelf options.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)]

My Lords, nearly every political generation experiences a reprise of this question. In the early post-war Treasury, Hugh Dalton was given some unpalatable advice and denounced his officials as “congenital snag-hunters”, but surely that is what we pay them for. Does the Minister agree that it would be pointless to hire ciphers for the beauty of their political opinions because that would be the road to a politicised Civil Service which would be ruinous for this country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree. It is the job of civil servants to bring to Ministers’ attention the consequences of their policies and to argue forcefully against them if they believe they are misguided but, once the decision has been taken, to go out and deliver them as best they can. My experience with civil servants is that that is exactly what they do, and I agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that disparaging remarks were made in a debate 10 days ago in this House by a Member of the Opposition Front Bench who impugned the integrity of the civil servants in our Library because she did not agree with the brief that they produced? I went straight to the Library, apologised on behalf of the House and said that no one would agree with her.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope my noble friend will understand if I pass on that one, not having been privy to the accusations that were made or the evidence, but I am sure my noble friend did what he felt was right in defending the Library.

Role of Women in Public Life

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:17

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That this House takes note of the role of women in public life and the progress made in increasing their representation in Parliament 100 years after the Representation of the People Act 1918 received Royal Assent.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, 100 years ago this House, our Parliament and every other Chamber across the UK looked very different. Every woman in the country was unable to vote, stand for election or sit in your Lordships’ House. The year 1918 was a turning point and, 100 years on, women and men gather to celebrate and commemorate. It also marked the end of a horrific and unimaginable war that changed our country for ever—and from the tragedies of that war came an acknowledgement that our country needed to change.

The Representation of the People Act received Royal Assent on 6 February, exactly 100 years ago tomorrow. The Act gave the vote to women over 30 with property for the first time and extended the vote to all men over 21. It was a massive step in the right direction, but the fight for women’s participation goes back decades before 1918 to petitions, lobbying and debates throughout the 19th century and includes the first petition to Parliament in 1832, the first mass petition in 1866 and countless failed Bills in the following 50 years. The determined lobbying, and the persistent production of thousands upon thousands of pamphlets alongside those petitions, are most associated in later years with the suffragists—the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies—led by Millicent Fawcett.

The suffragettes—a pejorative name given to the more militant campaign—were centred on the Women’s Social and Political Union and the Pankhurst family. Tired of the lack of progress, this group changed its mode of campaigning to include protest, vandalism and even arson. The suffragettes were also joined by prominent figures such as Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who upset her neighbours in Hampton Court Palace, where she lived in a grace and favour apartment, by selling suffragette newspapers at the palace gates.

This fact demonstrates the nature of the campaign for women’s suffrage: it crossed social boundaries, cultural boundaries and international boundaries. It brought together women from all walks of life in a common purpose, all determined to be heard and all intent on making their case. Women wanted to be truly represented in the laws and customs of our country; women demanded to take part in writing the laws and customs of the UK. The voice of women deserved to be heard. The suffragettes and the suffragists may have used different tactics but they all saw them as a means to achieve the same end.

In 1910 Princess Sophia joined Emmeline Pankhurst and other women and attempted to meet the Prime Minister in Parliament. Many of them were forcibly removed. This was just one of numerous incidents when women entered Parliament only to be ejected by violent means. Many were gradually banned from the estate after they continued their acts of vandalism or chained themselves to railings and statues. You can see their work on damaged statues all around the Palace. Their story and their relationship with this building are told by the stained glass window that nods to the Cat and Mouse Act. This Act released hunger-striking women from prison until they regained their health, only to then promptly return them to their cells.

Being of a peaceful and non-law breaking nature, had I been alive 100 years ago I would like to think I would have been a suffragist. I would like to tell the story of the procession organised by the suffragists in the summer of 1913. They organised marches throughout Britain which culminated in a great rally in Hyde Park on 26 July. Volunteers led multiple routes to the rally. Over about six weeks, meetings were held along these routes, bringing together women from all walks of life. By the time the marches ended in Hyde Park, the group of women was 50,000 strong.

There are very few occasions even now when you see women collect in numbers of that scale. That the suffragists collected in such great numbers, with such pride and despite the risks, is testament to the strength in their souls and the knowledge in their hearts that they were right. The will and the determination of those women, and the men who supported them, meant that not only could some women vote in 1918 but that they could also stand as parliamentary candidates.

But it would be another 40 years until women were welcome in your Lordships’ House. The year 2018 also marks another key milestone: 60 years since the Life Peerages Act, which allowed women and men to enter the House of Lords for the duration of their life. The Act marked a fundamental shift in the entire make-up of the House of Lords. It meant that Parliament could acknowledge and benefit from the vast pool of expertise of both women and men to work alongside hereditary Peers. In total, 294 female life Peers have been created. At the current time there are 203 female life Peers in your Lordships’ House, which means that 69%—or over two-thirds—of all the female life Peers created are still here. I find that an amazing statistic. But women still represent only 26% of the total. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that there is still a way to go.

The women in your Lordships’ House today also reflect a broader change over the past 60 years. They are drawn not just from political careers but from professional roles, from business, and from science and the arts, bringing a huge range of talent from across the full spectrum of society. This would have been unthinkable 100 years ago: not only that women would be recognised for their merit but that they have had the opportunity to demonstrate their merit with careers.

Women have made history in all sectors. In your Lordships’ House, the first two Lord Speakers were women. I am particularly amused by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who said that,

“it gives me some quiet satisfaction that, should a man break through the glass ceiling to succeed me, he will be known as the first male Lord Speaker”.

I hope that the current Lord Speaker appreciates his role in history. The point remains that any man who goes first is always the first person. I sincerely hope we are on our way to a world where a woman can be remarkable for achieving a feat rather than for doing so despite the implied handicap of her gender.

I shall mention some other brilliant women firsts who followed Baroness Wootton as the first female life Peer. Baroness Swanborough became the first woman to take her seat in your Lordships’ House in 1958, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester took her seat as the first female Lord spiritual in 2015 and Baroness Young became the first female Leader of this House. Outside the Chamber, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, became the first woman to be appointed Attorney-General in 2007, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, was the first woman to be chief executive of a FTSE 100 company and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, became the youngest woman to join this Chamber at the time when she took her seat, having already succeeded in the male-dominated technology sector.

The brilliant women of your Lordships’ House have succeeded in every corner of society: in law, football and cricket, as business owners, scientists, activists and performers. It is not the mere presence of women such as them that rights the wrongs of past inequalities but the role that they play in giving voice to their communities. They are providing scrutiny of the laws of our country and acting to drive change by contributing a diversity of opinion and experience. We have always been comfortable with the diversity of political opinion that a partisan system brings, but only in this past century have we seen what diverse debate really means.

I am honoured to work alongside some extraordinary women and to work with excellent men who all value the experience and knowledge that we bring. We must also remember and celebrate the many men who have supported the cause of gender equality, and indeed those who continue to advocate for women, for diversity and for equality. The Acts that have given women access to democracy and to Parliament were passed by men. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game. I will make the same comment as last year; I would like to see a greater number of noble Lords of the male variety contributing to debates such as these—and I thank those who have stepped up on this occasion.

I pay tribute to all the extraordinary women and brilliant men who have moved us this far, and to those who continue to strive for equality. There has been 100 years of progress. Let there be 100 years more.

15:28

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for securing this important debate. I know she worked hard to get it on the agenda today.

Over the last 100 years, women’s lives have seen great improvements. There are more women in political and public life than ever before, although they are still a minority in Parliament. Since 1918, 489 women have been elected to the House of Commons but that compares with 4,801 men. That is quite a minority, so it is not a great figure. Of those 489 women only 45 went on to become Cabinet Ministers, but there have been two woman Prime Ministers in the last 100 years.

The new institutions seem to work better for women. Devolution in 1999 meant that there were many more women in political life, as we have seen in the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I give the example of Wales, where more women were elected in one day, 24 on 1 May 1999, than the total number of female Welsh MPs—19—in the last 100 years.

New ideas were tried to ensure that women were elected, as Labour did in Wales by using twinning or pairing of constituencies to ensure that we fielded an equal number of women and men candidates. By 2003, 30 women and 30 men were elected to the Welsh Assembly. That made it the first democratically elected institution in the world to have an equal number of men and women members. If we can do it in Wales, we can do it anywhere.

New institutions serve women better; a different agenda is pursued because they are much more diverse than the Houses of Parliament. One thing I know: where there is a level playing field, women will come forward. There is no shortage of women wanting to stand for public office and give service. All women want is a chance to serve.

Women have made progress in other walks of life since 1918, not just in political and public life. In the past, many jobs had a married women’s bar which meant that women had to give up work when they got married. In 1946, this bar was abolished in the Home Office, but it took the Foreign Office until 1973. This bar operated in many walks of life, and it must seem strange to women today that it could possibly happen. Thankfully, our laws now prevent it.

There are many ways in which the lives of women have been improved. The advent of oral contraceptives—the pill—allowed women to control their own fertility for the first time. The Abortion Act 1967 meant women were able to seek safe, legal abortions and did away with the backstreet illegal abortionists, where, as we know, many women lost their lives.

The founding of the National Health Service in 1948 meant that women—certainly working-class women—could now get free healthcare. In the past, a woman went without in order that her children could be treated; or, she just could not afford the cost as money was needed for other things, so she went without. Despite some criticisms of the way the National Health Service works, it is still the best thing we have, but it needs to be well taken care of and should get the resources it needs; otherwise, we are in danger of losing such a precious asset.

The lives of women have been improved by the Government setting up new institutions such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, established by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, established in 2006. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, and we remember the Dagenham women who started off the debate by campaigning for equal pay in their workplace.

Unfortunately, there is still a gender pay gap, about which much has been heard in recent weeks. The Women’s National Commission was set up in 1969 and continued for 40 years until, unfortunately, the coalition Government of 2010 decided it was time to close it down. I served as the commissioner for Wales for more than five years, and I can vouch for the great work it did for women as a whole in the United Kingdom, as can my noble friends Lady Crawley and Lady Prosser, who both served with great distinction as chair of the WNC and will speak later in our debate.

The closure of the WNC was a great loss to women’s organisations. No doubt the Minister will say that it was taken in-house—into the Government Equalities Office—but that does not do the work or have the engagement of the WNC. That was definitely a minus for women.

Although women’s lives have improved, there is still much more to be done. Women need to be able to live their lives without fear. Violence against women is still with us. On average, two women a week are killed by their partners or former partners. Women are victims of domestic violence, stalking and coercive and controlling behaviour. The conviction rate for rape is still low compared to other crimes. Sexual abuse and harassment is rife in the workplace and in schools. Women in all walks of life are still underpaid in comparison to men. Many women in public and political life are abused and harassed, especially on social media.

However, despite all this, we all recognise that life is much better for women in many ways. Women’s charities such as Women’s Aid, the Fawcett Society and End Violence against Women, and organisations like the Women’s Institute, Girlguiding and many more, have done great work and continue to support women and girls in many and different ways, although some of these organisations have had their funding cut and are facing resulting difficulties.

Research has shown that austerity has hit women much more than men. Analysis has found that 86% of the savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit changes since 2010 have come from women, and that the previous Budget did nothing to change this. Women continue to bear the burden so much more than men. Many organisations that support women have had their funding cut, meaning that they cannot provide the services they have in the past.

How can we now improve the lives of women for the future? There are certainly a number of ways to ensure that more women come into political and public life. A starting point would be the Women and Equalities Committee’s 2017 report and recommendations. One suggested enacting Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—that all political parties publish their parliamentary candidates’ diversity data for general elections. Another recommendation was to extend the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, allowing all-women shortlists to be extended beyond the current provision of 2030, and to extend its use to police and crime commissioner elections and mayoral elections. Unfortunately, the Government rejected all the recommendations; I do hope there will be a rethink.

Very few women hold positions of power in all walks of life. Achieving equality for women is still something we are still waiting for and getting impatient about. The more we strive for equality, the more we will provide role models for girls to aspire to. This is achievable but needs government action and working with civil society, such as the Fawcett Society. Tomorrow, the 100th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act, the society will launch a campaign, #OurTimeNow, which plans to break down the barriers to gender equality throughout 2018 and beyond. Let us work together towards that aim so that future generations of women will have a life with no barriers to overcome, and life will be better for all.

15:38

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Gale, this afternoon.

For me, the story of women’s growing role in politics and other aspects of public life is a story of numbers, because what we do not measure, we cannot manage. So my first number is, of course, 100. It is 100 years since women over 30, with certain property qualifications, got the right to vote. But it would be another 10 years before women got equal voting rights with men, then set at 21, and a further 30 years before non-hereditary women were eligible to enter your Lordships’ House with the Life Peerages Act 1958, when the first four female life Peers took their seats, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has already said. Today, women still comprise only 26% of this place—a poor comparison to the Commons, where we have reached the dizzy heights of 32%.

This improvement in representation was made possible, at least in part, by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which for the first time enabled all-women shortlists to become a reality. This was conceived and introduced by the Labour Party, which does so much better than other parties, with 45% of women in the Commons, as opposed to Liberal Democrats on 33% and Conservatives on 32%. Others, like my own party, have struggled with the concept of all-women shortlists, but the figures clearly speak for themselves. The notion that it must be the quality of the individual candidate which determines selection has dogged us, and I would that it were not so. The guilt engendered in so many women at the thought that they might be advantaged over men and, Lord forbid, be a token woman, causes them to hold back. If I thought that deliberately choosing a quotient of women would result in any deterioration of quality of representation, I might agree. But when you look at some of the men who represent us, who have no doubts about their entitlement to rule—well, I rest my case. Noble Lords in this House this afternoon are of course exempted—not wishing to get lynched.

Anyway, moving on—my next figure is 1979, which, of course, was the date when we got our first female Prime Minister. Personally, I would feel more inclined to celebrate this milestone if she had encouraged other women to come forward, to use some of the talented women that she had at her disposal. But, sadly, she got to the top and pulled the ladder up behind her, which is a great shame, because the whole point of having representation from all parts of society is to make for better government. We know for a fact that companies with diverse boards thrive and prosper more than boards comprising all men, of the same ethnicity and the same class, from the same school and even belonging to the same club. It is obvious that you get better decisions when you take more views into account, but when you look at one of our ruling political groups today, you see that pattern. I am not saying that men would deliberately discriminate against women, different ethnic groups, disabled people, people from different backgrounds, and so on. They just do not think about us. Out of sight, out of mind. That is why we need to be there, around the table, where the real decisions are made—and role models for us are few and far between.

So my next number is 90%. That represents the percentage of statues in London depicting men. That is clearly unfair to all the female talent that we have to inspire us, and I have my own suggestion for who the next candidate for a plinth should be. I am sure many of us have been approached by Bee Rowlatt, chair of the Mary on the Green campaign, to erect a statue on the green outside Parliament of Mary Wollstonecraft, who fought for women’s suffrage a full century before Millicent Fawcett commended her as the “leader in the battle”. If there is one thing the Minister could agree to today, it could be to take back to her colleagues the request and suggestion that Mary Wollstonecraft be acknowledged in a statue for her trail-blazing work, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, published in 1792. I hope that she will give us as favourable an indication as she can in her remarks later.

Women are important in all aspects of public life. We comprise 28% of judges, but only 9% of Supreme Court judges. We are 33% of councillors, but only 17% of council leaders. There is a deficit—a talent deficit—and, in these challenging times, I would respectfully suggest we need all the talent that we can get. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, what we do not measure we cannot manage. The EHRC is calling for Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 to be enacted. That section requires political parties to publish candidate diversity data. Bringing the facts into the cold light of day has a wonderful effect on behaviour. The gender pay gap reporting rules come into force this year. As I speak, large companies are scurrying around looking at their gender pay gaps and trying to put in place systems to ensure that they do not get shown up in the same way again. The shaming effect of having one’s less-than-commendable statistics published for all to see would give political parties the incentive they need to revise and reform the way they choose their candidates.

My final number is 276. A postcard with that number printed on it arrived on my desk last year, and it took me a while to work out what it meant. It is my number; my place in the history of women elected to the British Parliament. In 2005, when I was elected, only 275 women had preceded me. Today, progress has speeded up but even so it will, apparently, take another nine elections before we achieve parity with the men. I want to see parity in my lifetime, but if I die before it happens I will jolly well come back and haunt these corridors until we have fair and equal representation of all the talents in this potentially great country of ours.

15:46

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, we celebrate the centenary of the Representation of the People Act tomorrow. I take this opportunity to reflect briefly on one element of how it all came about. Much of the focus over the coming year will be on the suffragettes, the suffragists, the Pankhursts, the Fawcetts and other brave women who courageously campaigned in this cause. However, I should like to spare a moment to think about one group of people who may not get the attention they deserve: the men who introduced the legislation and made it happen, and one man in particular. Although there was a growing groundswell of support for women’s suffrage before the First World War, the contentious issue of the parliamentary campaign was not whether women should be able to vote, but how many. All the political parties were anxious about extending the franchise because of how it would affect them.

Willoughby Dickinson was a Liberal MP—later a Labour Member of this House—who dedicated his entire parliamentary career to winning women the vote. According to the Vote 100 historian in Parliament, he was the only MP with a perfect voting record on women’s suffrage. He introduced the first Bill of the 1906 Parliament and reintroduced it every year until the outbreak of war. He called for equal pay for women in 1903, secured financial support for the masses of women who were left widowed by the war and protected the rights of women who were married to foreign citizens imprisoned during the war. He was a crucial member of the Speaker’s Conference, chaired in 1916-17 by the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, the recommendations of which finally led to the Act which we celebrate tomorrow.

Through his years of parliamentary campaigning, Dickinson had the franchise knowledge, the cross-party contacts and the experience of suffrage debates to produce a solution to the deadlock. He emerged as the conference’s deal breaker, winning a majority of one vote by suggesting that age be used as the discriminatory barrier. Millicent Fawcett’s NUWSS wrote to him, saying:

“We all know that a very large part of the great triumph of this week was due to your personal efforts … we always felt that you were our true champion in the House of Commons”.


He wrote in his diary:

“The House of Commons passed the third reading of the Representation of the People Act without one protest. The greatest measure of reform since 1832 ... It is ten and a half years since I first introduced my Women’s Suffrage Bill and now at last I see something done. I feel as if I had not lived in vain”.


For him, this campaign was not merely matter of justice; he was also motivated by the fact that his sister, an eminent doctor who worked behind the lines in Serbia during the war, could not vote while he could. How proud he must have been to see his daughter, my grandmother, take her seat in 1937 as the 33rd ever woman MP, and how proud I am of them both today. I hope they would be pleased that I have taken on their fight, which today we still need to win.

Therefore, although we can celebrate the fact that 489 women MPs have been elected since they were able to stand in 1918, compared, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, to the 4,503 men over that same period, there is still much to be done. Today, one-third of MPs are women—better, but by no means good enough. Noble Lords will be aware that, thanks to all-women shortlists, the Labour Party has already reached 45% and is committed to a target of 50%.

When we went into the election in May last year with 70 Conservative women MPs—up from 17 in 2005, when Theresa May and I founded Women2Win—and with 30 candidates in good target seats, I felt pretty confident. The polls showed us winning most, if not all of those and, looking ahead to the election beyond that, we were confident that a substantial number of old, white men would pack it in and women candidates would be in a good position to get selected for many of those retirement seats—job done. I, too, could retire. But it was not to be. Not a single one of those target seats was won by a woman, and the additional challenge we were not expecting is the 30 ex-MPs who may be looking to return to Parliament at the next election. In addition to not winning those target seats, many Conservative women candidates received disproportionately vicious abuse, online and in the constituencies. Resilient they may be, but the whole experience had been far from joyous for many and, as the results became clear, I could hardly bear to crawl out from under the duvet.

But here we are, and having picked ourselves up and dusted ourselves down, we are ready to support the next generation of talented women. I am today delighted to welcome Women2Win’s new co-chair, Mark Harper, former Chief Whip in another place. For us in the Conservative Party our pipeline remains challenging, so if any of your Lordships know someone you think would make a good MP, please encourage her to step up and start the journey. If she is a Conservative, please send her our way. The #AskHerToStand campaign needs to be supported by all who care about diversity of experience in Parliament.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to deal with the issue of abuse, and I understand that she will spell out her plans in greater detail tomorrow. No one standing for public office should be treated with anything but respect. It is an honourable thing to aspire to represent one’s community, and women in particular should be encouraged rather than bullied. We should never allow our public discourse to become toxified, and we should stand for decency and tolerance. I urge the Labour Party to sign a similar behavioural pledge to the one we are committed to. We also need to be aware of the barriers that women who want to work in Parliament still face, including working between multiple locations, balancing caring responsibilities with long and demanding working hours, and ensuring their financial stability while pursuing election.

Even today people sometimes ask me, “Why does it matter if there are more women in Parliament?”. Conservatives are, sadly, at 21%, Labour is at 45% and Parliament at 32%. It matters because women are different. Their life experiences are not the same as men’s. They are neither superior, nor inferior, but different, and that difference has to be better reflected here in Parliament.

15:53

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be part of this debate, in which across the Benches of the House we recall an historic event and remember some of the brave and foresighted women who made change happen.

Opposition to women’s suffrage came, of course, from all quarters. The Labour and trade union movement did not much like the idea because these women were upper class, posh, and most likely to side with the Tories if they came into the House. Equally, the concept of feminism was neither universally popular nor widely understood. Rebecca West is quoted as saying:

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what Feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat”.


We have been there. Then there were those women who felt the whole argument had nothing much to do with them: women with no money, too many children and no independence. It is no wonder that people said at the time that the coming of electricity was a greater liberator than the suffrage.

However, the point of increased representation or participation in either Parliament or public life generally was about more than the numbers; it was to bring about change and to bring a different perspective to the debate, with different experiences being brought to the table. That was the high intention but change was a long time coming.

In the 1940s, women in the Transport and General Workers’ Union held a conference. The general secretary of the day, one Arthur Deakin, was asked why so few women were employed by the union to work as organisers. He replied that every woman had the same opportunity as every man to apply and to be brought forward for interview. Over 40 years later, when I was appointed to work as the national women’s secretary, the union had about 2 million members. There were 400 paid organisers, of whom four, including me, were women. So much for the equal chance. That was an in-your-face example of wishful thinking going nowhere.

When Bill Morris—my noble friend Lord Morris of Handsworth—became deputy general-secretary, he and I introduced a series of positive actions designed to get more women involved in the work of the union and instituted programmes which were important to women, such as the Full-Time Rights for Part-Time Workers campaign. Every region had to employ a women’s organiser and run women-only education and training programmes. These programmes were intended to get women on to the union ladder. After initial separation, they would then join the mixed programmes. “Separate to integrate”, we said.

That brings me to the situation today. As far as I can tell, all and any pieces of legislation or policy designed to improve the position of women in society have been introduced by various Labour Governments. My noble friend Lady Gale has already mentioned some areas of legislation, such as the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Social Chapter was also brought in. It was a wonderful basket of initiatives designed to enable women to participate more fully in the world of work.

I cannot find any such initiatives which have been introduced by a Conservative Government, and therein lies the rub, because just like the situation I have described from all those years ago in the T&G, women’s lives will not improve as compared to those of men unless positive action is taken. In fact, the coalition Government of 2010 actually did away with programmes which were going very well at the time. The Women and Work Sector Pathways Initiative was a programme designed to improve women’s employment skills and was vigorously supported by employers, both financially and practically. It trained or retrained more than 25,000 women, enabling them to move up the ladder or move into work, but it was done away with in a swipe.

That initiative came out of the Women and Work Commission report, presented to the then Prime Minister in February 2004. All 40 of its recommendations were accepted by government and a general programme proceeded, including, for example, looking with employers at ways in which better-quality part-time work could be provided, training programmes, as I have mentioned, and initiatives in schools to get more girls into STEM subjects. I get slightly fed up with discussions on the gender pay gap when there is a pretty clear and well-trodden area of debate as to how to help eliminate it.

I cannot conclude my remarks without quickly mentioning all-women shortlists, which have already been referred to. These were another recognition that there comes a time when softly, softly is simply not enough to bring about the change that is required. However, we will not be defeated. Let us remember the words of Charlotte Whitton, who was the first woman mayor of Ottawa. She said:

“Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good”.


Then she said:

“Luckily, this is not difficult”.

15:59

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in this important debate and declare an interest as a woman who, like other noble Baronesses speaking here today, has had a long journey to reach this Chamber. Many of us, as we stand on the summit of life’s mountain looking down at the valley of experience, think, “Who would have thought?”.

In 1966 I started my journey as a lowly clerk in the chief accountant’s office of Barclays Bank, a place dominated by men in grey suits and bowler hats. At that time it was my ambition to become the first black woman bank manager in the country. Sadly, it did not take me long to realise that there is a difference between ambition and fantasy. I did, however, cause uproar when I dared to go to work wearing a trouser suit instead of the obligatory skirt. Many of my female colleagues soon copied me, much to the consternation of our male counterparts.

In 1981, at the height of my career as a regular presenter on BBC children’s programmes, getting pregnant was considered a serious error of judgment. In those days it was almost certain that it would be the end of your career, as you were expected to disappear gracefully, with babe in arms, to a life of wifely domestic servitude. Pregnant women were certainly not to be seen below the waist on television when their pregnancy started to become evident. Fortunately for me I had a visionary producer, Cynthia Felgate, who at one time was in the Guinness book of records for producing the most television programmes in the world. She allowed me to continue working and presenting until I was eight months pregnant. This was unheard of and made national and international news. I was seen by millions of viewers fully pregnant, and once I even stopped mid-dance to declare, “I can feel the baby kicking”—the children watching loved that moment. Other female presenters were grateful for this pivotal moment, because they, too, could become pregnant and carry on working onscreen throughout their pregnancy.

It was around 1968, living through the civil rights movement and the race riots here in Britain, when I started to become conscious that more women’s voices were needed in politics. So I organised political meetings and events for fellow Caribbeans in London who felt excluded from society—something that the legendary Claudia Jones had earlier fought against by establishing the West Indian Gazette and the creation of what we all know now as the Notting Hill Carnival. Because of these influences, over the years I began to speak out more and more: I wrote letters to political leaders and campaigned on issues such as seat belts on school buses, diversity in publishing and in the media, and, for 20 years, for a Minister for Children—until we finally got one. It is such a shame that that position has now been downgraded from a full ministerial post. I hope that the Government will reconsider this change and correct this short-sighted mistake.

There have been many women who have been motivational to others and acted as mentors. One in particular for me was the late inspirational and visionary Marchioness of Lothian—Tony Lothian as she was affectionately known. She influenced thousands of women’s lives. She was a journalist, a writer, a benevolent force for good and the founder of the Women of the Year lunch. She was awarded an OBE for services to women, which she treasured and considered her greatest achievement. She believed in bringing women together from all over the world, from all creeds and classes, and from all social, religious and financial backgrounds. She fought for liberty, peace, fairness and equality.

She set up the Women of the Year lunch to highlight the efforts of women who were changing the world and making a difference and to recognise the contribution that they were making to public and political life. But in 1955, when she decided to celebrate professional women’s achievements with a lunch that would raise funds for the blind, she was told condescendingly that she would be lucky to find 50 women to attend. She found 500 and the lunch has continued to this day, with thousands of women from all walks of life being acknowledged.

Many occupations and professions that were closed to women simply because of their gender are now annually celebrated. Among the guests are pilots, train drivers, engineers and of course Prime Ministers—a position women could only dream about back in 1955, when women were not even elevated to the peerage here in this Chamber. Women leave the lunch feeling that they want to inspire others and to press the reset button for change.

But it is sad to think that, 63 years on, an event such as the Women of the Year lunch is still necessary because that resistant glass ceiling still exists, especially for women of colour who, as they progress up the ladder of society, are often asked, “What are you doing here?”—or they get “the look”. Women of colour know that look. It is the look that says it all. A few years ago, when I put myself forward for a board position, I was told, “Who do you think you are, rising above your station?”

Do not get me wrong: things have slowly changed over the last 100 years and we are gradually reaching a state of equality nirvana. It is great to see so many women now being propelled into high-level positions in public and political life, at local level and here in Parliament. That includes women of colour, too—but not enough.

One of the many challenges that women sometimes have to contend with when they reach new heights is that they are so often judged differently from men and have to work harder to prove themselves. Opportunity is what we all need to make progress, to be all-embracing and not to be tribal, defensive and protective. I always get excited when I see real progress, so I was thrilled that recently two of our public service broadcasters appointed female chief executives. I hope that they are paid equally to their male counterparts.

Many women have banged on the doors of inequality and continually tried to break down barriers. We have been told to shut up or we would never work again, to back off and know our place—but that has never deterred us from fighting for equality and fairness. My mother was a housewife and did not have the chance to have a career in public life, but had she lived in today’s world she would have made it right to the top. She was a determined and remarkable woman. So we must never underestimate the value of women of her generation, who nurtured, guided and influenced their girl children to reach for the sky, and made huge sacrifices in doing so.

We can all personally do our bit to inspire, motivate and pave the way for future generations by encouraging young girls and women to experience environments such as Parliament by inviting them here to visit this Chamber to see for themselves the differences being made by women in public and political life. We need to write books about our personal experiences—or at least keep diaries so that future generations can measure progress.

One of the most extraordinary women of our times is Her Majesty the Queen, a woman dedicated to duty who is a record breaker on several fronts. No other monarch, male or female, has achieved or will ever achieve what she has—at least not in the next 100 years. I am an optimist, so I look forward to the day when matters such as the struggle for equality and lack of diversity are looked on with a degree of bemused nostalgia, and when the contribution of women in Parliament, business and public life in general is regarded as entirely normal. That day is fast approaching and, as I reach the age of 69, I am so pleased, proud and privileged to have lived and worked through an era when huge changes have taken place in women’s rights. I hope that I survive long enough to see the day when sexism, misogyny, gender inequality, sexual harassment and violence against women are consigned to the dustbin of history where they truly belong.

16:07

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to contribute a few historical reflections to a debate that so clearly invites them, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington demonstrated so movingly, along with my noble friend Lady Vere, who introduced this debate so powerfully.

My starting point is that posterity is sometimes inclined to give undue credit for great advances in political and public affairs to those who campaigned for them in dramatic and memorable ways. The suffragettes live on vividly in the public mind, immortalised in literature and in film. The bravery and courage they showed in the face of harsh treatment by the authorities will always command widespread admiration. But their militant campaign in the years before the First World War did not mark the vital turning point. One of the objectives of all that is going to be done this year to celebrate the centenary of a great parliamentary reform, and the subsequent if incomplete progress that it made possible, should be to ensure that this achievement is seen in a clearer historical perspective.

What happened 100 years ago represented above all victory for the law-abiding suffragists, led by Millicent Fawcett, a woman who retained the respect of Gladstone and his Liberal Party after parting from them over Irish home rule and becoming a prominent Liberal Unionist in alliance with the Tory party. She and her supporters, some 50,000 strong and thus far outnumbering the suffragettes, waited a long time for their triumph. It was in 1897 that their effective advocacy of their cause first secured a Commons majority for the principle of women’s suffrage. Legislation did not pass because successive Governments failed to give it priority. Winston Churchill and others opposed it tooth and nail, and opinions differed as to the property and residence requirements which women should meet in order to vote, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington mentioned.

When the suffragettes came on the scene, support for women’s suffrage in the Commons slipped. It is hard to argue that law-breaking assisted the cause. Millicent Fawcett never wavered in her opposition to violent methods. It is surely right that her memory should be honoured this year by a statue, the first of a woman to be erected in Parliament Square. I hope that it will stimulate greater interest in her remarkable career, which spanned a period of more than 60 years and encompassed many other causes besides women’s suffrage.

The Conservative Party was prominently associated with the 1918 Act. Its leading politicians dominated Lloyd George’s coalition Government, who were responsible for the legislation. In marking its centenary, Tories today will be deeply conscious that this is also the 90th anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928, a more far-reaching measure which gave the vote to all women. It was made possible by the resolve of Stanley Baldwin, the first person to use the phrase “one nation”, which has been incorrectly ascribed to Disraeli. Baldwin as Prime Minister in 1927-28 overcame the strong opposition of his Chancellor, Winston Churchill, who never really reconciled himself to the emergence of women in public life. In 1930 Baldwin, as a leading champion of the right of women to vote, unveiled the well-known statue of Mrs Pankhurst, who had been the Tory candidate for Whitechapel at the time of her death two years earlier.

For far too long, women MPs remained few in number. Some leading Tories were not content with that state of affairs. They included Sir George Younger, the great-great-grandfather of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. As chairman of the Conservative Party in 1921, he explained that:

“I have tried my very best to get certain constituencies to accept a lady candidate”,


adding that one constituency chairman,

“wrote back saying I had given him the shock of his life”.

It is important to remember that by this point many women were already involved in public life as members of locally elected bodies. Women had been given the right to vote for and to serve on many of them in 1869. They proved especially successful in winning election to school boards and Poor Law boards. After 1907, all local authorities were open to them.

Furthermore, the Tory party itself had provided significant roles for women since the 1880s. About 1 million of them worked with great commitment in the Primrose League, the largest voluntary mass movement Britain had yet seen, often taking charge of a branch, of which there were some 2,300 in all. After 1918 the party swiftly created an elaborate organisation of its own throughout the country. It provided many opportunities for women. I got to know well one of the first women constituency agents as she approached her 100th birthday, which was duly celebrated here in the Lords with Margaret Thatcher. She would have made a fine MP, but found fulfilment in another political sphere.

Tory women in Parliament during those early years regarded themselves as part of a wider movement within and beyond the party. Nancy Astor became a national celebrity with her exuberant feminist views. “I married beneath me”, she declared, “All women do”. Katharine Atholl was admired for her diligence as a junior Education Minister, later exhibiting great independence of spirit as a supporter of the republican cause in Spain. Mavis Tate worked with women in other parties on campaigns for equal rights. They and others were all resourceful pioneers.

Baldwin once said that Conservatives must be capable of,

“continuous adaptation to the ever-changing facts of social life”.

But as Conservatives have adapted over the years they have held firmly to the principle on which Margaret Thatcher, the greatest of all Conservative women, insisted: merit should determine the positions women occupy in public life, just as it should for men.

16:16

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to join this already spirited and good-humoured debate—how could it be otherwise, when we have so much in common and so much to celebrate? I will take a rather oblique look at the occasion. I will do so by virtue of the suffragette colours: violet, white and green. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is in her person acknowledging those colours, which at one point were supposed to stand for, “Give women votes”, but apparently that is apocryphal. These three colours are still worn in girls’ schools around the country on the occasion of their founders’ days. My daughter went to Camden, which was founded by Ms Beale, one of the great suffragists. The suffragists set the tone for a policy that would have to intensify with the suffragettes.

There are still women marching in the streets of this city wearing the suffragette colours. They are proud to do so. They use the suffragist methods. They are, of course, the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality. The occasion of their protest was a good one, because the whole idea was that equality of pension age was overdue in fairness to men, which is something, of course, that they acknowledge. But the decision was a wrong one. It was implemented incorrectly. Steve Webb, the Minister of State at the time, told us so. He said that,

“we had to make a difficult decision”,

and that, two months later, they realised that,

“the implications of what we were doing … were very different from what we thought … so that’s a decision that we got wrong”.

That wrong decision affects 3.8 million women. Their failing was to be born in the early 1950s.

WASPI’s campaigning reflects much of the suffragist movement. It has more than 140 local branches across the UK. It has a grant from the Rowntree Reform Trust to further political campaigning. It has the support of UNISON. It delivers petitions. Last October, 100 MPs petitioned on its behalf, many of them, of course, women. It has had petitions signed around the country. Some 193,000 people signed the last one. It has had five debates in Parliament. It has had the intervention of the ombudsman to speed up the Government’s response to its requests. The most recent Motion on this, moved by the SNP in November last year, passed in the Commons by 288 votes to zero. The DUP voted for the WASPI women, and five Tory rebels voted for them too. This is not yesterday’s event, nor 100 years ago; it is a living campaign that has adopted and respects the methods of the suffragettes. In the most recent debate, introduced by Ian Blackwood, it was said that these women are guilty of nothing; they simply had the misfortune of being born female in the 1950s. This House knows that being born female is no answer to anything. The WASPI women are today’s heirs of the suffragettes.

16:20

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this most timely debate in what I hope will be a historic, transformational year in addressing the barriers to women entering public life. I take great strength from the number of dedicated and inspirational noble Baronesses who are speaking today from all sides of the House. I also thank the noble Lords who have stood up to be counted, for we need your help; we will not win through alone but by getting men to understand that parity of female representation will create a better society for us all. Before I go further, I must declare my interests as honorary vice-president of the Conservative Women’s Organisation, co-chair of the APPG on Women, Peace and Security and a member of other organisations specialising in women’s issues, as set out in the register.

We have already heard many statistics about women in Parliament but some are worth repeating. A total of 489 women have been elected to the Commons since 1918. At the general election last year, 208 women MPs were elected: 32% of all MPs and a record high. Prior to 1987 women had never made up more than 5% of MPs. Women were not allowed into the House of Lords until 40 years after 1918, and as of last July we make up only 26% of its Members. There can be no doubt that progress has been made in the last 100 years, and not just in Parliament—look across our judiciary, clergy, Armed Forces, police and many other areas—but it is not enough. While 32% of MPs might be our all-time high, this ranks us only 39th in the world for women’s representation in Parliament: the Nordic countries and Rwanda lead the pack. Last year’s general election broke the 200 barrier for the first time, but the Fawcett Society highlights that this represents only a 2% increase on the last election. If the UK improves by only this much at each election, we will not see equal representation in the other place until 2062—almost another 50 years.

I am proud of and commend the hard work of Women2Win, the Conservative Women’s Association and the #AskHerToStand campaign within my own party, seeking reform, encouraging and supporting women candidates to put themselves forward, helping them along the bumpy road of politics. Each political party needs to take responsibility to review, reform and enact changes, but we must make sure that the system and the process as a whole are much more welcoming. Women still shoulder the burden for most of the caring responsibilities in the home, and thus the demands of political and business life can impose an enormous strain on relationships. Research published in 2013 found that 45% of female MPs did not have children, compared with 28% of male MPs: there is clearly a motherhood gap in Parliament that needs to be considered as part of the gender gap.

Today, I believe it is the terrible abuse that women are exposed to, both campaigning and online, that is making them turn away. Just look at some of the responses my noble friend Baroness Jenkin got for speaking out the other day. Just look at the findings of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report on intimidation in public life, which found that women, especially Conservative and BAME women, received the greatest amount of abuse. Even in the 21st century, women seem intrinsically less confident than men and therefore need much more support and encouragement. We need to keep looking at how our culture and education systems continue to reinforce this lack of confidence down the generations.

There is not enough public recognition that women’s lives often have a different shape to men’s. Many take time out in the childrearing years, but this is sometimes misinterpreted as lack of dedication in the very male workplace. When they have children at home, many do not wish to work the long hours demanded by City firms, which make their employees sign out of the EU working directive. Thus they do not get promoted, or choose to leave the industry. Some women choose to return to the workplace when their children are older but often it is hard for them to get employed in a job that matches their ability.

We know that having women involved in the policy conversation and in decision-making positions makes a difference, as many issues impact differently on women, who are, after all, about 50% of the population. I know from my experience of international women’s issues in developing, conflict and post-conflict countries how important it is to have women around the peace table and to have gender-focused humanitarian relief, such as women and children safe spaces in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. In the business world, female entrepreneurs and businesswomen support growth and stability through diversity. One need look only at the work of the 30% Club on getting women into boardrooms here in the UK or how female-led microfinance and SMEs form the backbone of individuals’, families’ and communities’ paths out of poverty across the globe.

I welcome this debate. It is an excellent forum to discuss and exchange ideas, as there is still much further to go. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what action do the Government plan to take this year to further the cause? We talk smugly about how the UK is leading on gender equality across the world, yet we have never nominated a woman to serve on the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Doing this would demonstrate that the UK is serious about gender and wishes to highlight the work of this important body. Through support to UN Women, the UK could work with it to help evaluate the effectiveness of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. It is, after all, the second biggest annual meeting at the UN, yet we hear nothing about it. Surely this is a missed opportunity. As the Fawcett Society has asked, when will Section 106 of the Equality Act, requiring political parties to collect and report monitoring data, commence?

At a time when trust in public figures is low, surely it is a no-brainer that removing barriers to enable more women to enter Parliament and participate in public life will benefit our country and, critically, help us achieve goal 5 of the UN sustainable development goals. After all, we should never forget Mrs Thatcher’s famous words:

“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman”.

16:27

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, to commemorate the fact that 100 years ago tomorrow certain women in the United Kingdom were enabled to vote: women over 30 who either owned property or were married to men who owned property—so no woman on either side of my family would have been able to vote; they had to wait another 10 years. Indeed, seeing my noble friend Lady Gale at the Dispatch Box today reminded me that, in 1978, she and I were at a reception in 10 Downing Street where we commemorated the 50th anniversary of universal female suffrage. As my late right honourable friend Tony Benn used to say, when you reach the age of 50 you realise that a century is not a very long time.

As the 168th woman elected to the House of Commons, in 1992, I am conscious of the fact that in those days there were more men called John in the House of Commons than women MPs. In the very first vote of that Parliament, we voted for the Speaker and I voted for my noble friend Lady Boothroyd. In the Division Lobby, I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell. She and I were friends. We saw each other and I said, “Tessa!”, and she said, “Jean!”, and we gave each other a hug. We were overlooked by two gentlemen whom the Conservatives used to refer to as knights of the shires—they used to call them the Sir Bufton Tuftons—and one nudged the other and said, “Look at this: the place is filling up with women!”. I also want to say how fortunate I was to have Barbara Wootton as a friend—the first woman to sit on that Woolsack and the first woman life Peer. She was absolutely a model for us all.

I want to spend most of my speech on a woman whom I knew when I was the women’s organiser for the Labour Party in the south-west region, based in Bristol, from 1976. She was coy about her age, but she was in her 80s and she was one of the last surviving suffragettes. Her name was Jessie Stephen. She was a Scot, the eldest of 11 children. Her father was a tailor. She left school at 14 and went into domestic service. She realised in no time that it was drudgery from dawn to dusk and it was isolating. She had a half-day off every week. She said to me, “During my afternoons off, I would go around Glasgow putting incendiary devices into post boxes”. She was a suffragette. Although I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, said from the Government Front Bench, the suffragettes needed the suffragists and the suffragists needed the suffragettes, and I do not make a distinction.

At the age of 17, Jessie founded the Scottish Domestic Workers’ Union and was its general secretary well into the 1920s. She saw in me, she said, a reawakening on some of the things on which she had fought in her life, issues which she thought had become dormant in the 1950s and 1960s—the issues that we were concerned about then included access to jobs, abortion, rape, childcare—and it pleased her no end. She used to reminisce with me on the fight for women’s suffrage. She talked about the Cat and Mouse Acts and about helping to organise suffragette meetings. I loved to hear, more than once, about how she helped to carry a big wicker laundry basket into meetings during the time of the Cat and Mouse Acts. The police on the door would say “What’s in that basket?”, and the organisers would carry it as if it contained what they said it contained—bunting—but it actually contained Mrs Pankhurst. They would take her to the back of the hall and find a room. When the meeting opened, Mrs Pankhurst would appear and the police would try to rush the platform, but there was a phalanx of women like Jessie on the front of the platform whom they had to negotiate while Mrs Pankhurst was spirited away out the back.

Jessie joined the Labour Party and stood for the council in Bermondsey in 1919, as shown in the Daily Express of 30 October of that year which recorded how many serving women were delighted to find that one of them was standing for election. She became celebrated on the lecture circuit of the United States and Canada, and when she had to dash back for an election the Liverpool Echo recorded that she had come back from a lecture tour. She was a woman whom people knew. When she was in Portsmouth, she stood as a Labour candidate and reduced the Conservative majority from 18,000 to 5,000. Although there were other speakers on the platform, when she finished speaking most of the audience would leave with her for her next meeting. She became the first woman president of the Bristol Trades Council in 100 years, which was no mean feat in a city characterised by industrial workers and dockers.

Jessie also turned her hand to journalism. The title of one her articles particularly amused me. It is: “After the Wedding: Why Should Wives not Continue to Work?”. It was written in 1920. The 4 October 1919 edition of John Bull put her down as one of the world’s most powerful women.

Jessie was a parliamentary candidate three times—of course, she stood in seats that were not usually winnable. I understand that because, when I was a women’s organiser in 1979, I persuaded some women to stand for election in the south-west of England. None of them could have won, but one of my male colleagues in another region—who is now departed from us—said, “Who’s that woman in Bristol persuading women to stand for Parliament”, as if it was an offence when nobody complained about him conducting shortlists that were all men.

This was the wellspring of reminiscence and experience in that little house in Bedminster, Bristol, which so impressed me, and I am pleased to say that Bristol City Council has recognised Jessie’s worth and there is a plaque on the wall of her house in Chessel Street, Bedminster, recording when she lived there. She wrote her autobiography and bequeathed her papers to me, as she thought of me as a kind of daughter, but because of a misunderstanding her sister burnt them the day after the funeral. Noble Lords can imagine the distress I felt about that. But I discovered that her trade union had a copy of her autobiography and some of her papers, photographs and press cuttings, and I have deposited them in the Bristol reference library.

In June 1979, the National Conference of Labour Women was in Felixstowe, and I was told that Jessie was ill and had gone to hospital. She died on 4 June, and it is recorded that her last words were, “You’ll have to change my tablets; I am going to a women’s conference”. The point of all this is that we stand on the shoulders of women like Jessie: women who nobody has ever heard of but who mean so much to us. I wanted to record here and now that, without people such as Jessie Stephen, we would have waited even longer for some of the privileges that we rely on today.

16:35

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, women’s involvement in public life and particularly in government did not begin 100 years ago. Women had some limited franchise prior to the great leap forward achieved by the Act of 1918. Women were allowed to stand for election to the newly created school boards in 1870, to district and parish councils in 1893 and finally to county councils in 1907.

This gradual progress of enabling women to take on responsible roles was, as can be seen, in areas where women were deemed to have some practical knowledge. Women could contribute to social reform—and they did. That perspective came to define women’s involvement in government at all levels for a hundred years. The generally accepted view, though, was that women did not have the experience or, indeed, even the brain power for the big issues of government: taxation, defence, foreign affairs. I think it is questionable as to how far society has rid itself of that prejudice.

Women in the Liberal Party had long been advocates of women’s suffrage. By the beginning of the 20th century, the Women’s Liberal Federation was formally committed to equal pay, to equality in divorce laws and in access to all areas of employment, and of course to women’s right to vote on an equal basis to men. Sadly, some of the most senior men holding power in the Liberal Party opposed women’s suffrage. The male tribal preserve was to be protected.

Some senior Liberals did, however, publicly advocate votes for women. Notable among them was Sir John Simon, who was at the time Liberal MP for my home area of the Spen Valley in Yorkshire. Eventually, the pressure from the many mainly women’s groups for the vote, combined with the catastrophe that was the First World War, broke down the barriers, and the coalition Government under the Liberal Lloyd George in 1918 passed the Act giving, as we have heard, only some women over 30 the vote.

I now turn to the achievements of Liberal women in the last century in local government and some in central government—first, local government, where things can really be changed. The renowned Elizabeth Garrett Anderson had a trio of firsts in public life, as the first woman to sit on a school board, the first woman to be qualified as a doctor and the first woman to become a mayor of a local council—a true trail-blazer for women.

Another woman I want to draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to is somebody who is not really well known, Gertrude Elsie Taylor. She was elected to Batley Borough Council in 1927. Many of your Lordships will not know Batley, but it is a male preserve. It is a woollen mill town—actually, a heavy woollen mill town—and not the sort of place where a woman would easily succeed in public life, but Gertrude Taylor did. She became the mayor of Batley in 1932.

These women across the country laid the foundations for all of us who have been elected to local councils, and the Liberal women who were elected to Parliament in those early years are equally to be recognised. Margaret Wintringham, who in 1924 became only the second woman MP, was elected to Louth in Lincolnshire despite advocating many feminist causes. Margaret Ashton fought every election as a Liberal from 1918 to 1935 as well as by-elections in 1937 and 1944, in an era when standing as a Liberal and standing as a woman were not particularly to be acknowledged. She gets a special mention for flying the Liberal flag in an era when that was not easy to do so.

Despite this early success and 100 years of the acceptance in principle that women could and should be able to vote and hold high office, there is much that needs to change. Men still dominate both government and local government. Women are often still rarely elected to leadership roles of councils or, indeed, as metro mayors. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and I were the first women to be leaders of our respective Yorkshire councils. The sad fact is that the same cultural fault-line runs through our society as 100 years ago, be it in business or government, wherever major decisions are being taken.

Despite the best endeavours of many people and the clear progress that has been made, women are still not involved on an equal basis with men when it comes to significant decision-making. Women need to be fully engaged in the discussions prior to the formal decision-making. In my experience, that is often not the case. Until there is equal representation from all parts of society at the early stage of decision-making, in business, in government or in any other part of public life, then inequality will persist.

So let us celebrate the tremendous achievement of those campaigning women over 100 years ago. Laurels we must grant in abundance to the many women who campaigned for the right to vote, but we women today should remember that laurels are not there to be rested on.

16:42

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for giving time to this historic debate and to my noble friend Lady Vere for opening it so eloquently. If my mother had still been alive, she would have been 102 years old today. She was born in 1916 into a world where women were not allowed to vote, and born to a mother who, although she was poor and worked in a cotton mill, was highly political. It would be 1928 before my grandmother and all other women over the age of 21 had the vote, but she celebrated, as do we, the vote given to some 6 million eligible women after many years of struggle and sacrifice. We should not forget that the Representation of the People Act 1918 also widened the franchise for men, and it had in it proposals for proportional representation. As the Manchester Guardian headline on 7 February 1918 read: “Reform Bill Passed: Women’s Vote Won … Alternative Vote Definitely Rejected”.

My grandmother may not have got the vote in 1918 but that did not stop her keen interest in politics. Over the years, due to deaths and remarriage, she ended up the mother and stepmother to 14 children. By any measure she lived in poverty but she and her family had a wealth of love and generosity, and no matter how many mouths my granny had to feed there was always something left for someone else in the street who might not be well or had lost a loved one. People came to her for advice and help with their children and even with the birth of their children. She was simply a one-woman welfare state—and she was a staunch Tory.

I mention this to highlight the countless women over the years who, had their circumstances been different, would have made a significant contribution to public and national life, and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in paying tribute to them. That is why those of us who have been lucky to play our part have a responsibility to do all we can to motivate and support women to take the opportunities afforded to them.

I doubt there is one woman in your Lordships’ House today who would be here without the championship of other women. As the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, we stand on shoulders. I know that I would not be here without my noble friend Lady Seccombe—like many women in the Conservative Party, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to her—although I might not have had the benefit of her support without Barbara Porter. Barbara was chairman of the Bolton West Conservative Association, and she sent me off on a cold and foggy November weekend—with great reluctance on my part, it has to be said—to a training session for women in West Bromwich, which turned out to be the catalyst for all that followed. I owe her heartfelt thanks for pushing me out of my comfort zone.

It was that weekend that subsequently led me to stand for Parliament in Oldham in the 1992 general election, and to meet someone else who encouraged me to persevere. I have never subscribed to the view that unless you share the same politics, you cannot share friendship. So it was that I met and came to like my opponent in that election, Bryan Davies, now the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. He was so kind to me at the count, where I inevitably lost. In his speech, he thanked me for a good campaign and said that he hoped that I would get to Parliament, just not in Oldham. If only all politics was like that.

The advances made by women over the past 100 years would never have happened without the help of enlightened men, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington. I am sure her great-grandfather would have been very proud of everything she does today. I know that my work as vice-chairman for candidates would have been that much harder without the wise counsel of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was dedicated to getting more women into Parliament. After all, we had no shortage of young men beating a path to our door looking to fill in that awkward gap between leaving university and becoming Prime Minister. I am delighted that my honourable friend Kemi Badenoch now has the role of vice-chairman for candidates. I know she will do it brilliantly and I wish her well.

History will rightly praise David Cameron for the way he changed the face of the Conservative Party, but if it had not been for the drive and determination of my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, with his resolve that the party must look and sound more like the country it wished to represent, and attract more women and ethnic-minority candidates, all the exciting progress my party has made would have been that much harder to achieve. The progress we have made from 2005 to today is in large part down to the wonderful Women2Win, which I had the pleasure of co-chairing for a short time. It was formed after the 2005 election when, although we had far more talented women on our candidates list, many of whom are now in the Commons or your Lordships’ House, serving as Ministers and members of the Cabinet—some of them are sitting not far away from me now—we had not made the electoral breakthrough that we needed to make a significant difference.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, who is not in her place, that she is plain wrong when it comes to the Prime Minister’s support of women. The founders of Women2Win—my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington—both knew that it would not be easy, but they threw everything into searching for new talent and then training and nurturing that talent, and our party and Parliament are much the richer for their efforts.

Of course, it started before 2005 for the Prime Minister, who in her previous position as the first woman chairman of the Conservative Party pioneered a number of radical initiatives to shake up the selection process for candidates. That included the first-ever open primary, in Warrington South in November 2003, which resulted in a woman candidate for the Conservatives. She never shied away from facing down complacency and prejudice, and I am therefore not at all surprised that the Prime Minister will use this historic centenary, when we celebrate the bravery of those who fought so hard for the extension of women’s rights, to highlight the pressure and abuse facing women—and many men—today as they exercise their freedom to express their political views, which some would seek to deny them.

In 2002, I was interviewed by Simon Mayo on Radio 5 Live about how the Conservative Party was going to attract more women. I was asked the inevitable question about all-women shortlists, and I was just about to give my stock Conservative answer when I decided to say something different: “Whatever your views on all-women shortlists, you cannot deny the impact they made”—and, they did. The numbers could no longer be ignored and it meant that the rest of us, in our own way, had to step up our game. We have come a long way since 2005, but in the words of the trailer on Channel 4 for its all-girls special of “The Secret Life of 5 Year Olds” to mark 100 years of women’s suffrage: “A lot has changed, but we are not there yet”.

16:51

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, who has always worked hard to promote women in her party, and it is a delight to take part in this unique debate. I am much encouraged by the many activities and events that Parliament and the Government have so far planned for this exciting anniversary year.

I can remember talking to my grandmother, Sarah Ryan, about how proud she was of her first chance, in 1918, to vote and how she got quite irritated with my grandfather, who thought she might not know how to, and tried to come in with her to show her. The Representation of the People Act 1918, it could be argued, was the most significant piece of legislation for women in the history of our country, as it opened the door to our democratic participation. After so many years of reasoned debate and persuasion falling on deaf male ears, the civil disobedience and imprisonment of the suffragettes and then the war years when the banners were swapped for spanners in the arms factories of the First World War, in 1918 women started—I realise it was only a start—pushing open the door towards full parliamentary participation.

The Representation of the People Act, of course, as my noble friend Lady Corston said, was only for women who had access to or owned property, and only for women over the age of 30. How patronising. But it was thrilling anyway for millions of women such as my grandmother. So, along with the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, which gave women the right to stand for election to the House of Commons for the first time, the long lists of firsts began. Countess Markievicz of Sinn Fein was the first woman to be elected to Parliament—but refused, in that Sinn Fein tradition, to take her seat. Nancy Astor was the first woman to take her seat, as the result of her husband’s by-election in Plymouth Sutton in 1919. Plymouth is a city I love and grew up in, and I can remember my mother saying how she had met Nancy Astor, and how she had been “quite a character”. In 1921 Margaret Wintringham became the first Liberal woman MP, and the first Labour women MPs were elected in the 1923 general election—Margaret Bondfield, Dorothy Jewson and Susan Lawrence.

The first time women and men had equal voting rights came in 1928, with the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act. We are the beneficiaries of the Life Peerages Act 1958, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in her spirited introduction. It saw the creation of peerages for women for the first time. By the end of 1958 there were 884 male Peers and four women Peers. We have come a long way—but not far enough.

As we know, Margaret Thatcher became the first woman Prime Minister in 1979, nearly 40 years ago. Baroness Young became the first female Leader of the House of Lords in 1981—a popular practice now on both sides of the House. Betty Boothroyd was our first woman Speaker of the House of Commons in 1992. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, is very much an active Member of your Lordships’ House and was on her feet yet again last week, making a powerful intervention on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Of course, another very important first for us was my noble friend Lady Hayman becoming the first woman Lord Speaker in 2006.

To tack back a bit, by 1945 the total number of female MPs elected since 1918 had increased to 77. Here in the Lords in 1963 there was legislation to enable the first woman hereditary Peer to take her seat—and so Baroness Strange, who I had the pleasure of knowing, and who was a great campaigner for widows’ pension rights, became the first to take her seat. Of course, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, remains a very active Peer today. No female hereditary Peer in her own right has ever been admitted to the House through the hereditary by-elections—another reason to see the back of them.

In graph 1, available to us in the House of Lords Library’s excellent briefing for this debate, we see that the pivotal year for a significant increase in women’s numbers in Parliament was 1997, when Labour won the general election and increased hugely the number of women elected—the result of all-women shortlists, as noble Lords have said, and other promotional activities within the Labour Party to see more women in Parliament. That is a very good reason to keep all-women shortlists going beyond their sell-by date of 2030, as called for by my noble friend Lady Gale in her excellent introduction.

The 1997 election saw 13 Conservative women elected, 101 Labour women elected and three Lib Dem women elected. That was the year when the force of scale really mattered for the first time in women’s influence in the Commons—although, of course, there had been many very important individual women’s contributions up to that point. I remember very clearly and worked with the redoubtable Baroness Barbara Castle, for instance. At the moment, I am writing a piece about a terrific Birmingham MP of the 1970s called Doris Fisher. So, yes, in all parties there were many significant individuals, but I believe that 1997 marked a turning point in the influence and political heft as far as women were concerned—and so began another round of firsts. Margaret Beckett was the first woman Foreign Secretary in 2006. The first female Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, was appointed in 2007, and the first female Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland—and here in your Lordships’ House in 2015 the first female Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. Of course, we look forward to welcoming our first female Black Rod, Sarah Clarke, very shortly.

So we have come a long way, here in the mother of Parliaments, but we must not forget the many hundreds of women councillors, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and MEPs, who represent people so well locally and internationally—although, unfortunately, our MEPs will soon be gone. Although we have come a long way, the place of women in the modern body politic is a complex one. We share the general lack of trust and disillusion meted out to most politicians, but we are picked out for particularly vicious abuse and vitriol on social media and elsewhere. At its most extreme, we witnessed the terrible death of Jo Cox MP. We have seen women MPs standing up for other women, in the recent #MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns, and that must continue.

The legislation that women MPs have worked on down the decades on equal pay, access to justice and maternity leave, and against violence against women, has without doubt helped improve women and girls’ lives in this country—but the pace of change and of cultural change has often been glacial. But that, as we know, is no reason to give up. In education we must continue to be vigilant to guard against any cultural or religious restrictions placed on girls’ lives. On pay, we have only to look at the current fight to close the pay gap at the BBC to realise that there is so much more to do. My own bugbear is the effect of Brexit on women’s rights—and so the fight goes on. There is much to celebrate in this anniversary year, but much to make us all even more determined than ever not to give up the fight. As Barbara Castle would say, “Keep the faith”.

17:00

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this debate has been a pleasure and it has been entertaining. One cannot often say that about debates in your Lordships’ House. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, who outlined the progress that has been made, but also said that progress has been glacial. I do not want to bring the mood down too far but would like to outline some of the problems that society still has in this regard.

I am sure all your Lordships know that society is still extremely unequal as regards women’s place in it. Therefore, we still have a long way to go. I wish to make some suggestions about how we can speed up that process. A lot of noble Lords have quoted people. I should like to quote Theresa May, who said:

“There are women who gave up their lives to have the right to vote in this country and people who yearn, across the world, to have this freedom and so we should use it”.


That is absolutely true. We are incredibly lucky that we have got as far as we have here. However, if we really valued the vote, we would make sure that elections were fair and not stitched up by an archaic voting system. We need a system of proportional representation for both Houses of Parliament. In bodies where that is used, more women are elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, in the National Assembly for Wales, just over two-fifths—42%—of Members are women. In the Scottish Parliament, just over one-third—35%—of Members are women. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, 30% of Members are women. Following the 2014 European Parliament elections, women account for 41% of UK MEPs. An elected second Chamber using a system of fair votes would transform this House, where only a quarter of the Peers are women. We keep talking of the figure of 489 women who have been elected to the other place so far, but we should remember that they would still not fill all the available seats. We are still hugely unrepresented. The Green Party parliamentarians are 100% women, but there are only two of us.

Whatever your take on the results of the European Union referendum, where every single vote counted, wherever it was cast, it showed that if you give people a say and give them a vote that means something. They can be very political indeed, as citizens who feel that they can be genuine agents for change or not. Here in the UK, we no longer have agents of the state arresting women and torturing them by force-feeding. However, we have undercover police invading the lives of innocent women and using them in a systematic attempt to get information about campaigners. Those women were lied to and there were even children born of those liaisons. The “spy cops” case is once again in the High Court. At 9 am today, I stood outside the High Court protesting about the case in which the Met is blocking every move it possibly can to hide the identities of the police officers involved. The Met still refuses to see the illegality of its position and its actions.

We also have example after example of online trolls hounding and abusing women—and it seems mostly to happen to women. Anonymous rape and death threats are not pleasant and must be taken very seriously. In America, the #MeToo campaign has highlighted the systematic abuse of women by powerful men, including their President, condemned by his own boastful words.

Here in the UK, we had the Presidents Club fiasco last month, showing that the #MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns are vital for us here as well. Over the weekend, there were reports of the Freemasons here in Parliament: journalists, parliamentarians and staff—a male bastion of privilege and cosy, women-excluding creepiness that I cannot imagine. Freemasonry records show New Welcome Lodge, set up for MPs, Peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, for the political press corps. Both remain active, according to the Guardian. Apparently, New Welcome Lodge has about 30 to 40 members, of whom only around four are understood to be MPs, while none is a Peer. Well done, gentlemen.

The WASPI women are another classic case of inequality and injustice that we ought to be discussing more.

In 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst said that the vote would create equality for women. We know now that that is not the case, but it opened up the possibility of equality, if women choose to make their self-interest a priority on issues such as pay and childcare. It says a lot about the society that we live in that it still has to be mostly women who speak out on those issues.

When we talk about women’s equality, there is always the Thatcher and May question: is it not great to see women in positions of power? Strong women have emerged in recent years and they have had to struggle against the odds in their parties, though not in the Green Party, obviously. Having Arlene Foster as leader of the DUP, however, does not make it a force for liberal politics and feminism. It is not a bad thing to have different types of people, but I would like young women to be inspired by different role models, such as, for example, Caroline Lucas—who would be a much better Prime Minister than Theresa May—Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, or Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru. There are 10 male Peers speaking in this debate and I congratulate them on standing up today. I shall listen carefully to what they have to say. It is obvious that we women cannot do it all on our own; it is incredibly important that we have the support of men.

I close with a last word from the Local Government Association, whose Be a Councillor campaign,

“works with councils, political parties, individuals and talent-spotters to encourage more people to stand as local councillors. It is important that local government reflects the communities it represents”—

I cannot emphasise that enough—

“and the Be A Councillor campaign includes a focus on encouraging woman and under-represented groups to engage with and enter politics”.

However far we have come, we still have a long way to go. Things such as this debate will enable us to see a more equal society.

17:08

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I decided to speak in this debate because it is important for some males to contribute. I have one or two things to say and, as has been referred to, the second woman to take her seat in the House of Commons was returned for Louth, in a by-election in 1921, following the death of her husband, Tom.

The first of my two points is to draw attention to the somewhat anomalous wording of the Motion. The Representation of the People Act was enacted in 1918. Women have been able to stand for election to the House of Commons since 1918. However, they have not been able to stand for election by virtue of that Act. The qualifying age for election to public office is dealt with in separate legislation from that governing the franchise, and the Representation of the People Act left unchanged the ineligibility of women to stand for election to the House of Commons. It was eight months after the Act received Royal Assent that the House of Commons approved, by 274 votes to 25, the Motion:

“That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Bill be passed forthwith making women eligible as Members of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/1918; col. 785.]


The Bill to give effect to this wish had one clause and received Royal Assent the following month, on 21 November. As there was no reference to age in the measure, the minimum qualifying age was deemed the same as that for men: 21. The omission appears not to have been an oversight, as the implication was acknowledged when the Act was going through the Commons. There was no real opposition to letting women stand at the age of 21. The reason the franchise was restricted to women aged 30 and over was to ensure that women remained in a minority in the electorate in the immediate post-war period. That reasoning, of course, was irrelevant to the qualifying age for election to the House of Commons.

Thus, we should be acknowledging in the Motion the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918. That was the measure that enabled women to enter the House of Commons. As we know—it has already been touched on—it did not exactly open the floodgates to women being elected as MPs. This brings me to my second point. There may not have been quantity in numbers but there was quality. Some of the women elected to Parliament in the inter-war years made a significant contribution to the nation’s politics. The House of Commons may not have seemed a conducive environment for the few women MPs elected in this period. Some, though, did take to it, and with effect. Nancy Astor was obviously high-profile and capable of giving as good as she got. However, she did not achieve as much as some other women MPs.

Three years ago, I gave the Speaker’s Lecture on Eleanor Rathbone, the independent MP for the Combined English Universities from 1929 until her untimely death in 1946. She was the first woman to be elected as an independent and remains the only woman to have served as an independent MP throughout her parliamentary career. She knew how to use Parliament to get what she wanted, and she enjoyed it. When the House got a little unruly, she confessed to Mary Stocks that she,

“rather liked the House when it is in this rollicking mood, though I suppose it would shock a serious critic of Parliament”.

She knew how to use procedure and how to pursue Ministers, not just in the Chamber but in the Corridor. As Harold Nicolson recalled, she would stalk through the corridors, weighed down with her papers, to waylay Ministers, who in time became to view her approaching figure with some trepidation. As Susan Pedersen wrote of her:

“She was, simply, implacable; and, since she was well-placed, impossible to shut up, and immune from party discipline, officials and ministers had no alternative but to deal with her. But when they did so, they often found, to their surprise, that she was neither fanatical nor impractical, but flexible, imaginative and terrifyingly good on the details”.


Her achievements were remarkable. She is credited with getting family allowances introduced—the Family Allowances Act was enacted shortly before she died—but she did much else beside. She was amazingly prescient in recognising the dangers posed by Nazi Germany. Six weeks after Hitler became German Chancellor, she was on her feet in the House, warning of the dangers. She fought hard for refugees: with three other MPs, she set up a Parliamentary Committee on Refugees. She fought to improve the condition of women in India. She became a champion for the creation of what became the State of Israel. She demonstrated real stamina in pursuing her goals—all the more remarkable for the fact that she was first elected to the House of Commons at the age of 57. According to one of her biographers, she was the most significant woman in British politics in the first half of the 20th century. As I said in my lecture, one can identify a “look at me” politician, driven by ego, and an “I want to get things done” politician, driven by values. The two types are not mutually exclusive, but Eleanor Rathbone was a pristine example of the latter.

Rathbone was thus distinctive, though she was not unique in being a female MP who made a mark in the inter-war years. She worked with the Conservative MP, the Duchess of Atholl, to evacuate some 4,000 children from Spain during the civil war. The duchess resigned her seat in 1938 to fight a by-election in opposition to the Government’s policy on appeasement. On the Labour side, there were politicians such as “Red” Ellen Wilkinson and, of course, Margaret Bondfield, who was the first woman to serve in the Cabinet.

They all deserve credit for demonstrating that women could do just as good a job as men in the House of Commons, if not better. Rathbone has been described as an early Margaret Thatcher. It would probably be more accurate to describe Margaret Thatcher as a latter-day Eleanor Rathbone. They were very different in many ways, although both were products of Somerville College, Oxford, and both demonstrated what women could achieve in the House of Commons.

As has been emphasised, the return of women MPs has been slow—indeed, for decades glacial—but one should not lose sight of what the few who were returned in those early years contributed to public life and in a not necessarily congenial institutional setting. This is a great opportunity to draw attention to all that they did.

17:15

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, for her very kind remarks about our election contest. When I expressed the hope that we would meet in the Chamber in due course, I had assumed that it would be at the other end. Never once, when we met in discussion over the political position of the nation, did I conceive that either she or I would be present in this Chamber.

I too want to concentrate my remarks mainly on one woman. When I first entered the Commons in 1974, there were three women in the Cabinet: Barbara Castle, Judith Hart—the Minister for Overseas Development—and Shirley Williams. Although it might be going a little far to say that they were household names, certainly for anyone with the remotest interest in politics those women made a big impact. Many of my male colleagues rejoice in that but we recognise that we have an awfully long way to go to produce anything like fairness towards women. Undoubtedly the big step forward was having all-women shortlists in the 1997 election. I have met enough men who have objected to those shortlists; nevertheless, their efficacy is undoubted. If we are to make significant progress towards anything like equality of representation of the sexes in the House of Commons, other parties also have to think along those progressive lines.

This debate commemorates the achievement of the vote for women in 1918 and we all salute the contributors to that cause. Some names are very well known. Those of Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia drop off the tongues of anyone remotely interested in such history, but I want to concentrate on someone who I think deserves similar recognition but gets infinitely less. Her name is Annie Kenney. She was brought up in Oldham, the town which I had the privilege to represent in the Commons some time ago. She started off as a mill girl in one of over 400 mills which Oldham—the cotton king of England—boasted of at that time. Annie always bore the scars of that work. Just as miners often have the tips of fingers chopped off through the dangers of their work, women mill workers lost fingers through controlling the bobbins on looms in the factories, and Annie suffered from that handicap. It is about the only handicap that she ever recognised because, my goodness, she was a woman of considerable spirit.

There is presently a proposal to erect a statue of Annie in Parliament Square in Oldham. It is a very fine square. On one side of it is Oldham’s war memorial, quite a wonderful piece of sculpture and deservedly so, because Oldham lost its sons at the Battle of Loos in 1916. In those terrible times, the young men of a whole ward could be wiped out by the carnage on the Western Front. On the other side of the square is a magnificent example of 19th-century civic architecture: the town hall, complete with the requisite Doric columns. It also has a blue plaque, which states that Winston Churchill addressed the people of Oldham there on his election—his first election—as a Member of Parliament. It is a prestigious location, and I will now give the reasons why I think Annie Kenney should be commemorated there.

Annie listened to Sylvia Pankhurst at a meeting of the Oldham Clarion in 1905, and immediately struck up a political relationship with Sylvia. There was no doubt at all that Annie was born of very strong stuff indeed. She was certainly a militant suffragette; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, paid tribute to them, while disavowing their effectiveness in the long run. She was alongside Sylvia when the first political meeting was disrupted by the suffragettes. Sir Edward Grey was one of the speakers, and Winston Churchill another, so it was a fairly star cast to upset, but the suffragettes had no inhibitions about that. As a result, Annie spent three days in jail. Subsequent to that, following further disruptions carried out by the militants, she suffered force-feeding in prison after being arrested and was a victim of that outrageous cat and mouse Act, whereby women were released until they were fit enough to be returned to prison, where they were treated just as cruelly as they had been in the past.

The militant suffragette campaign was suspended in 1914, and of course Annie was a patriot: not for her any question of reservation about participating in the war. It was the job of men to go to war and it was the job of women to fill the places that the men had vacated and play their full part in sustaining the war effort, which Annie did as ably as she could. At the end of the war, Asquith was long gone, and Lloyd George had been convinced, partly through the militancy of the suffragette movement before the war, that the vote had to be granted to women. So although I accept that of course wartime changed a great deal in British politics, and although I accept that the militant aspect of the suffragette movement will always arouse some degree of controversy, there is no doubt that it played its part. By far the most important part was the war effort and the fact that women were able to demonstrate that they were the equal of men in sustaining production at home. But it was inevitably the element of challenge laid down by women—a determination that they would be satisfied—that helped to convince the political establishment of the time, all of whom were male, of course.

I hope and expect that a statue will be constructed over this next year. I hope that Annie Kenney will be recognised for the outstanding Oldhamer, subject and woman that she was. Tremendous courage was needed to sustain these activities over many years, and we should do nothing else but give due praise to the women who did so.

17:24

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am humbled to take part in this important debate on the role of women in public life and their increase in representation in Parliament, both in this Chamber and in the other place. We have already heard how hard-won the battle was for all women in the United Kingdom to be allowed to vote and to play their part in electing the Government, and about their selfless struggle to gain equality. I wonder how those women would have viewed the progress that has been achieved in the past 100 years. On the ballot paper, a woman’s vote is still worth exactly the same as that of a man, but there is still a significant underrepresentation, as we have heard, of women in Parliament. In this Chamber, the percentage of women Members seems to be stuck fairly stubbornly at 25%. Although there is a higher percentage of women on these Benches than there is on the Benches of the other major parties, I do not think that 33% is yet good enough. Of course, as we have heard, in the other place, only 32% of Members are women.

If we look at the position of women in the rest of our society we see that there is no equality. There are whole swathes of society where women are barely represented. According to Fortune magazine, there is a greater chance of being a CEO of a FTSE 100 company if you are called David or Stephen than if you are a woman. I guess being called Mike means that I would never have made it big in the world of business. Perhaps I should have called my daughter David or Stephen.

The representation of women on the boards of major companies is pitiful. The Women in Sport survey found that half of the 68 bodies funded by Sport England and UK Sport have fewer than 30% of women as non-executive directors—a percentage that is now a precondition for receiving public funding. The small number of women is reflected in the tiny coverage of women’s sport in our national newspapers, although both the BBC and Sky deserve praise for increasing the coverage of women’s sport.

Just as 100 years ago the tectonic plates of history were finally shifted by those remarkable campaigning women, the plates are now shifting again. The row over the gender pay gap at the BBC is now moving into other areas of public life. The denigration of women, whether at a rich men’s dinner cloaked in fundraising for charity or some working men’s clubs, or the appalling sight of scantily dressed women having to publicise a boxing tournament or Formula 1 race, is not acceptable any more. It is heartening that the public are universally clamouring for this change.

It is through education that the esteem and self-esteem of women must be started. In primary and secondary schools we need to ensure that there is parity of opportunity for men and women and that stereotypes are challenged. That must continue into apprenticeships, further education and higher education to ensure that we have strong role models. It is a pity that our school curriculum and GCSE and A-level syllabuses are so strongly weighted towards men.

I want to talk about two important women, one of whom has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. However, you do not always have to be famous to make a change to your community and society. I start with Eleanor Rathbone, the Liverpool campaigner and independent MP for Combined English Universities. One of her first speeches in this Parliament was on preventing female genital mutilation. She joined the British Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council to support human rights and was, as we have heard, outspoken on appeasement. She co-founded the Liverpool Women’s Citizen Association to promote women’s involvement in political affairs and was president of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship—the renamed National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies.

In Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone formed the 1918 Club for women, reputedly the oldest women’s club still meeting, which of course celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Our Lord Speaker has kindly agreed to host a reception for its members in her honour. It is important that we remember and celebrate the thousands of remarkable women like Eleanor Rathbone.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, women from all walks of life have brought about change. I think of my mother. She was German and a refugee fleeing from the invading Russians. She ended up in Liverpool, the city that was the most heavily bombed place in the UK outside London. She did not speak a word of English and was 24 years old. That woman managed to survive, to run a business, to bring up a family and to live happily ever after. When my father suggested that my mother might like to return to Germany, she said, “No, my home is in Liverpool now”. There are millions of women like that who do remarkable things every single day.

We recognise the contribution that women have made. Currently there is an excellent exhibition in Portcullis House, a raft of events planned in Parliament for this year, and a celebration in the year-long Women and Power project organised by the National Trust. Of course we must remember that before 1918 it was not only women who did not have the vote, it was also non-householders. They included men living with their parents, working as servants, serving as soldiers and the homeless. Without the women’s suffrage movement I wonder whether universal suffrage would have been extended to men as well.

We must all take responsibility for challenging the underrepresentation of women wherever we come across it. We must use the correct term to describe occupations because language is important. It is not acceptable to talk about “firemen” and so on. I know that some people will say, “What’s in a name?”, but actually it is important for us and for our children growing up. Parliament should become a beacon of women’s rights and opportunities, not just in the Chambers but in the number of female officers, staff, researchers and interns we employ. It is about equal pay and equal opportunities.

Two weeks ago I met a group of women who are campaigning for more women to be employed in the construction industry. As a result of that meeting I put down a Question for Written Answer, and yesterday I received a reply from the Minister telling me that practical steps are being developed, including the Be Fair framework. As I walked to the Chamber earlier, I looked at all the scaffolding around Parliament, and I wondered how many women we employ from the construction industry on our own building. I would bet that actually there are none, but we could be a beacon and ensure that women in the construction industry are employed here in Parliament itself.

In conclusion, I should say that I was very nervous about speaking in this debate, but I am glad that I have. Without being patronising, I have been genuinely inspired by Members’ contributions, and I thank them for that. As I have said, much needs to be done to reach the nirvana talked about by my noble friend Lady Benjamin, but with women like her and others in this Chamber, it will be achieved.

17:33

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Although much of the focus of this debate is on the representation of women in Parliament, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we should reflect on the role of women in local politics, both in the suffrage campaign and in the present day. In this centenary year, it is worth remembering that local government led the way for women’s rights. Women could vote in local elections nearly 50 years before they won the right to vote in parliamentary elections. They stood for election as local councillors and Poor Law guardians, and used their positions to fight for better conditions for their local communities. The Women’s Local Government Society and the LGA have worked to identify 100 suffrage pioneers who were active in the campaign for votes and went on to use the extended rights to citizenship in a positive way locally. The suffrage pioneer campaign will be launched tomorrow, on 6 February.

My home city of Bradford was at the heart of the women’s suffrage campaign. A rally held in 1908 at Shipley Glen, close to where I live, was attended by crowds of 100,000 people. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Margaret Wintringham in her list of able women. She was born in Keighley, which is part of Bradford, and she took her seat in 1921. She was the third woman, rather than the second, to be elected as a Member of Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, told us that Lady Astor was the first female Member of Parliament to take her seat. We note that she was a Conservative. The second was Countess Markievicz, who represented Sinn Fein and never took her seat, while Margaret Wintringham was a Liberal. That shows us that the suffragette movement encompassed women of all political persuasions, and we should learn from that as a way of doing things that deliver. We all have something to offer and no one has a monopoly over all knowledge and virtues.

I have really enjoyed hearing about the inspirations that other Members and women have referred to in their lives, and I particularly liked the description by my noble friend Lady Morris of her mother and grandmother. I was fortunate in that both my mother and grandmother ran their own businesses, which was absolutely unheard of in their generation. Moreover, the Primrose League, which has been mentioned, featured large in my family history. But I must say something positive about how the encouragement and inspiration to do things in political life came from the male in my life—my father. He died in 2001, aged 96. He had always been very encouraging of women. He had only brothers and no sons, just me. He was determined that whatever I wanted to do, I should be encouraged in that. He encouraged me to take a deep interest in politics, and he employed women on occasions when many others would not have done. He gave them responsibilities and always regarded them as intellectual equals. I am very lucky in that, and I thank the male Members of the House who have taken part in this debate because we appreciate that not all men have negative views about the rights and role of women. Long may we encourage them to play their part in bringing forward even more opportunities for women.

This centenary celebration must not only be a time for looking backwards; we must look forwards and find practical ways of encouraging more women to serve their communities as local councillors. The lack of parental leave and pension contributions can act as barriers to standing as a councillor, and in particular to taking on the responsibilities of a cabinet member and needing to give up full-time employment. The intimidation of people in public life, which affects both men and women, is also a barrier to standing for public office.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life recently published a report on intimidation. It recommended that the Government should bring forward legislation abolishing the requirement that those standing to become local councillors should publish their home addresses on ballot papers. This is a recommendation that I would encourage the Government to look at closely, having personally suffered harassment in the past and unwelcome intrusions into my family’s lives when I was the first woman leader of Bradford Metropolitan Council. I know that some men suffer intimidation, but I doubt that male leaders both before and after me in Bradford council were on the receiving end of so much unwarranted treatment.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, the Be a Councillor campaign is a very helpful way of getting underrepresented groups to engage with and enter politics. It has recently formed a network of women councillors, which can help and advise those who are thinking about standing for election. I encourage all noble Lords to support it. In closing, I ask whether the Minister could update us on any further plans to increase women’s representation nationally and locally in political and public office, given the work that both central and local government are doing to invest in the Be a Councillor campaign.

17:40

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so glad that we have this opportunity to celebrate the huge breakthrough that took place in 1918 when women first got the vote. It was a really great leap for womankind and another victory in the struggle for equality, but it is important to remember that none of it happened because the powers that be gladly decided to share power. It had to be extracted from them, like pulling teeth. Power is never given away readily. It was the product of monumental struggle—a visceral, gut-wrenching struggle.

The demands for suffrage had started long before 1918. As someone mentioned, they probably started when Mary Wollstonecraft started arguing about the rights of women at the end of the 18th century, but during the 19th century there was that great struggle by women fighting for property rights. The Married Women’s Property Act created a seismic shift in the status of women, albeit middle-class women. Having your own money and your own property is a liberation for women, as we now know so well and as women have realised.

Women did not want to be seen as the property of their fathers or their husbands. They were demanding access to education, the universities, medical schools and the legal profession, just like their brothers. They brought cases to court—I say this as a lawyer, because it is a piece of history that really is shocking. The women argued that the law was neutral. It said that “any person” suitably qualified could enter university, become a city councillor, study to be a doctor or enter the Inns of Court, so why not them, if they were suitably qualified? But the judges, intellectually honest to a man, said that the word “person” did not apply to women. Male exclusivity won the day. It was only by persistent pursuit of cases through the courts and challenges to the ruling bodies and institutions that the rules were eventually changed.

The rights to higher education, to enter the professions and to vote were achieved only after a traumatic and painful set of battles in which women were vilified, humiliated, battered, beaten, imprisoned and force-fed, and in which they lost their lives. So when women today are trolled, abused online, stalked and humiliated, or sexually violated and hurt, it is not new and we are right to ask: have we come far enough? It is shameful that after 100 years we have not yet achieved real equality.

The whole issue is about the position of women. Many wonderful women—we have heard tributes paid to so many remarkable women—took part in struggles. It should be a source of pride to us that we have had so many wonderful women in Parliament. Some noble Baronesses here now were women in the Commons. They have held high office. We have had wonderful women in the senior judiciary and in all our institutions. Although we have had all those good women who have enriched our society, improved it, brought their gifts into the public arena and defied scorn to fight for equality and a better society, there is still a huge “BUT”, which has to be written in capital letters and spoken very loudly: we still have a long journey ahead.

We have tried to do it the nice way. We have tried to make nice. We have listened to our elders who used to tell us not to rock the boat. I heard it said to me so many times. Happily, many of us in this House did not listen, but we made a mistake in believing what we were told—that by asking for equal pay, equality, equal treatment and just laws somehow equality would automatically follow. We packaged our demands according to the male template. We adjusted our demands to the male norm. Unfortunately, we followed the stories about the law’s neutrality and blindness to gender and that we get there on merit. We have to ask ourselves: who is deciding what is meritorious? Who decides the values that will be attributed to the roles that should be available to women as well as men? Treating as equal those who are not equal does not create equality.

We have to look at the deeper structures of our society, which I regret to say are still coded male. That is why we have to change the structural engineering of our society if we want real change. It is why it has to go beyond the numbers game that we are talking about today. We have to look at the economic structures that keep women in low-paid jobs and caring jobs, which are so undervalued and never get the resources they deserve. Women are supposed still to have almost exclusive responsibility for children or elderly parents and to look after the home. That is still going on all too often.

I have played my part. I have been an activist in the law. I have written on the law’s failings for more than 40 years. In fact, I have devised many of the reforms that have been introduced by women parliamentarians into the legal sphere. Women in Parliament have collaborated with women practitioners such as me. We have tweaked and amended the law, and passed new Acts of Parliament. But I ask noble Lords these questions: have the changes delivered justice in rape cases? Are we seeing domestic violence ending? Did our changes to the law stop Jimmy Savile or any of those others? Did it prevent the church scandals, the Rotherham scandal or scandals in any other cities, or have we continued to see the normalisation of violence towards women? Do women get equal pay? We have just had the BBC matter, but we know, when we look right down the line to the low-paid jobs, the ordinary factory jobs, the secretarial jobs and the jobs inside our companies, that there is not equal pay. Have we removed sexual harassment from the workplace? What does #MeToo tell us? How can it be that prominent businessmen still feel able to hold men-only sleazy events?

So why do women suffer so much misogyny on the internet and social media—trolling, stalking and revenge porn? I am afraid it means we have to look at the attitudes that underpin the way our society works. Women who have succeeded have often had to play the game by male rules. That method has delivered for some with great success, but not for most. Sometimes those confident older women who have enjoyed success are very hard on women coming up behind them. It takes a lot of courage for young women who are being exploited, harassed or abused at work to speak out about what is taking place. Older women should be supporting younger women, not disparaging them, when they take their confidence into their hands.

We do not have equality. Young women are saying, “Enough: everyday sexism has to stop”. They want equality and I am on their side, as I know most people in this House are. I want quotas and all-women shortlists because I have lost patience. I thought that the world would have changed by the time I got to the great age that I now am. It has been too long a-coming. I say to you all: we tried doing it the nice way and now we are going to have to kick down the barn doors.

Yes, let us celebrate the wondrous women who went before. We do walk in their shoes. Let us chalk up every gain, victory and position that is taken. But now I say to you men: you have to make this your business too.

17:48

[Lord Loomba (CB)]

My Lords, women’s empowerment and gender equality are all at the heart of my work and what I strive to achieve as an advocate for women and girls’ rights across the globe. These rights that we are celebrating today have been hard won and are still being hard won the world over as progress continues to move at a snail’s pace. Indeed, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792 and is acknowledged as the leader in the battle for votes. Here in this House, female participation, through life Peerages, took a further 40 years after the 1918 Act to achieve.

Globally, the latest figures from the UN show that only 11 women are serving as head of state and 12 as head of government. The figures also show that, globally, there are 38 states in which women account for less than 10% of parliamentarians in single or lower Houses, including four Chambers with no women at all. One country that particularly stands out is Rwanda, where women have won 63.8% of seats in the lower House, the highest number of women parliamentarians worldwide. Figures from the IPU show that globally the UK is ranked 39th for female participation in Parliament. While we are not that far in front of Afghanistan, in 55th place, we are faring much better than the USA, in 99th place; but our closer neighbour, Germany, is in a similar position, in 45th place. France has bucked the trend and recently achieved over 40% of female Members in its last elections.

What can be seen from all these statistics is that the mainly slow, grinding process of increasing women’s participation in political life is not achieving a lot; as Helen Lewis said in a recent article:

“It is embarrassing that it took 98 years”,


until 2016, for the total number of women ever elected to our Parliament—to date, 455—to reach the same number as male MPs sitting at present. It is something that we, as a developed nation, should be leading the way on. We should be setting an example on the world stage that we truly believe in equality in political life.

Women make up nearly half of the world’s population, yet very few are actively involved in the decisions that affect their lives. Each country is different, with different needs and different priorities, but what is not so different is the lack of women in political life. If Rwanda can increase women’s participation, so can we. We must seriously look at what it is that prevents women partaking in politics in this country and do something about it. Is it the issue of work/life balance? Is it the awful abuse we see meted out? Is it parity of pay stopping women achieving these aims? Is it lack of interest? Is it all of these things and more? Do we know the answer to these questions? It is only by knowing what is stopping women getting into politics that we can seek to address the problem.

Just as the UN has the HeForShe campaign, we too can encourage more men to get on board with the idea, so that it is not a fight for gender equality but a collaboration, a working together so that we can achieve it. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that there are only 10 men participating in today’s debate and three times more noble Baronesses. It should not be like that; we should be at least equal. The UN has also asked everyone to “step it up” with its “Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality” campaign. But how can we possibly help women to achieve in other walks of life if we do not have enough women in Parliament too? We should be stepping it up, but ahead of 2030, and making it a challenge for the next general election.

17:54

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, I have found it very interesting to hear how families have been behind many of us here today. I pay tribute to my mother, who was behind me every step. She loved elections and came canvassing with me even when she was 92, in the year she died. I also pay tribute to the many husbands, because I feel that for a certain generation, one had to have your husband behind you and they did wonderful work in supporting us.

Today I feel like a parent in 1918 reading her son’s school report: “A little progress, but could do so much better”. 1918 was indeed a milestone, when all men over 21 and some women were enfranchised. These were privileged women who owned property: had I been about at that time, I should have been livid if I had not qualified. This was at a time when women had been not only keeping the home fires burning but keeping the country going—running businesses and farms, nursing sick and broken men returning from the front, as well as upholding their family responsibilities and keeping life on as even a keel as possible.

I understand from the House of Lords Library that the number of men who qualified at that time was 12,913,000, while 8,417,000 women became eligible to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, the age qualification for women was to ensure that they did not form the majority of the electorate. How disgraceful. I must not be curmudgeonly and grumpy, but I feel for those women who did not qualify. They had been struggling for four long years and were rejected in this savage way.

I find it strange that in 1918, although women were not allowed to vote, they were allowed to stand as candidates. Dame Christabel Pankhurst, as she became, the daughter of Emmeline Pankhurst, stood in the rough, tough area of Smethwick in the West Midlands. Elections were fought in large gatherings in those days, and she was subjected to oranges laced with razor blades being thrown at her. You had to be brave and courageous to be a candidate then.

Throughout my life, I have always felt that we needed more women in every sphere of public life, not only to balance the numbers or for equality reasons but because I feel that the country is missing out on so much talent. My role as a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party was to find women and encourage them to take the plunge, to promote them whenever and wherever I could. I think we can say that we made modest gains, but I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin and other colleagues who, with the wholehearted support of the Prime Minister, are succeeding in so many ways. Women bring a different perspective to issues, and now many who were given the chance are thriving. Today it is much more normal for the best applicant to be appointed, male or female, and long may it be so. However, we must not forget that there is always more to do.

I pay tribute to those courageous women who, at huge cost to themselves, blazed the trail. Therefore, there is every reason to celebrate the enormous change that has taken place and I do so enthusiastically, but I hope that in 2028, in 10 years’ time, there will be a remarkable celebration for the day that all women became entitled to vote. I will not be here, but I hope that those who will be will have a very good party.

17:59

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, what a great pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. In her quiet and undemonstrative way—although she was not all that quiet just then—she is a real champion for the role of women in society and I pay public tribute to her. It is right that we pay tribute to the women—and men—who campaigned for votes which we too often take for granted.

When you look at the serried ranks of the establishment at the time, those campaigners faced formidable barriers. No one has mentioned Lord Curzon yet—the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is nodding. He was co-president of the National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage immediately before the Act. In 1914 he warned this House that suffrage would,

“unquestionably weaken our prestige and influence throughout the world”,

and that women lacked the “balance of mind” to use the vote. Even a social reformer such as Octavia Hill, who helped establish social housing in Britain and was one of the founders of the National Trust, believing in the right to clean air and open spaces, was anti-suffrage. She thought that there would be,

“a serious loss to our country … if women entered … political life”.

Those who campaigned against such odds are a role model and an inspiration.

I suspect that I would have had to wait a further decade before being enfranchised, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, because only those with property qualifications benefited in 1918. The majority of the working classes were excluded. It may sound cynical, but I suspect the vote was granted to women only because ex-servicemen over 19 and other men over 21 were given it, and leaving women out would have been seen as unnecessarily provocative.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to make any direct links between enfranchisement and prosperity or equality. That is not to diminish the importance of the vote. In my trade union days, I visited Pinochet’s Chile, the former South West Africa—now Namibia—and apartheid South Africa to support trade unions and visit political prisoners. People died for democracy in those countries, just as they did here. I know how important it is to be able peacefully to vote a Government out of office. When I first joined the campaign trail for equal rights for women in the 1960s we had the Ford women workers as our inspiration. I thought we would have made more progress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, in achieving equal pay and pension rights, better representation for women, and protection against sexual harassment and domestic violence. Of course I was idealistic. In some areas the absence of real progress is appalling: an estimated 54,000 maternity sackings; two women killed every week in domestic violence incidents; and women still dependent on men, in England at least, for the payment of their benefits.

We had a debate quite recently, as has already been mentioned, about the WASPI women: women who lost out on their expectations of a state pension because they were too young for one system and too old for the new one, after also being discriminated against in occupational pensions all their working lives. They call themselves Women Against State Pension Inequality. Now we learn that thousands of military spouses are also losing out on their state pension if they reached pension age before 6 April 2016, whereas those reaching retirement age after that date will be able to claim credits equivalent to a year’s national insurance for any year they were abroad since 1975. Those who reached pension age before 6 April 2016 will be entitled to only 60% of their husband’s pension. As one military wife has said, it was frowned on for wives to work:

“Even throughout the 1980s, women had to live on the base. I had to look after the 100 or so families on the base”.


She was expected to be hostess and welfare adviser, all unpaid. She cannot claim credit for her six years abroad serving her country in an unpaid capacity and she will now receive a reduced state pension. I believe this is a betrayal of some of the military wives in the same way as WASPI women were betrayed.

Anniversaries such as this give us the opportunity to reflect on whether we have made a contribution to society—what inspired us about the suffrage movement—but also how far we still have to go. I was the seventh woman president of the TUC in the 132 years of its history. My noble friend Lady Prosser was the sixth. She was a role model for many of us. Margaret Bondfield, who has already been mentioned, would have been the first president of the TUC in 1923 but she left to take a post in government. It was left for Anne Loughlin of the Tailors and Garment Workers’ Union to become the first woman TUC president in 1943—75 years after its founding. However, since 2000 there have been eight women TUC presidents, including my noble friend Lady Drake—three in the past three years—and a woman general secretary, Frances O’Grady, for the first time. We made a slow start but we are now catching up. I represented low-paid workers, mainly women, in my trade union and was extremely proud to be appointed to the first Low Pay Commission in 1997. So far I am the only woman to have been chair of ACAS.

I learned from the women campaigners before me that you need determination, patience, a great deal of gritting of teeth and an understanding that there are different ways of working. My noble friend Lady Prosser put part-time workers centre-stage in the trade union movement and I was privileged to move acceptance of the part-time workers directive in the European TUC, which at the time quietly believed that only full-time work was respectable. As an aside, a Canadian-style deal with the EU after Brexit will end up with ILO minimum standards and the current protections for part-time workers, paid annual holidays, parental leave, and the protection of working conditions if your company is taken over by another will not be there. I promise that anyone who tries to remove those protections will have quite a job on their hands.

In conclusion, the campaigns are still needed, whether it is on the gender pay gap or protecting workers’ rights—people’s rights—after exiting the EU. There is still much to do.

Immigration White Paper

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:08

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure to come to the House today to answer the Question from the right honourable Member for Pontefract and Castleford. In doing so, I should point out that Ministers have made great efforts to keep the House informed of the state of play relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union, bearing in mind that we are in an ongoing negotiation and we cannot give a running commentary. Since June 2016, there have been numerous ministerial Statements.

This Question, however, relates specifically to immigration so let me remind the House where we have got to. Our first priority in negotiations was to reach a deal on citizens’ rights—the position of the 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK and, just as importantly, the 1 million UK citizens who reside in other EU member states. An agreement was successfully concluded on that last December, meaning that all those people were guaranteed continuing rights to live and work as they do now. Of course, we updated Parliament fully at the time.

Our next priority is to agree the arrangements during the implementation period—the period immediately following the UK’s exit next March. Negotiations are shortly to begin with the EU. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out the UK’s broad objectives in the speech she gave in Florence last year. We will publish a White Paper in the coming months, when the time is right, and of course we will consider how we can update the House as negotiations progress.

As to the longer term, as the House will know, the Government have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the economic aspects of the UK’s exit. The MAC has been asked to report by September 2018, although it has been invited to consider whether it could also produce interim reports. Let me be clear: given that we expect to have an implementation period of around two years after we leave, there will be plenty of time to take account of the MAC’s recommendations in designing the longer-term immigration system for the UK.

We are clear that the Government will make a success of Brexit. We will end free movement and build an immigration system that works in the national interest and we will, as we have done thus far, ensure that Parliament is kept informed and up to date”.

18:11

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Question given in the other place by the Immigration Minister. Her problem is the Government’s lack of any credibility on this. We have Boris Johnson and Michael Gove charging round seeking to undermine the Prime Minister, and they were recently joined by Jacob Rees-Mogg. The Government’s action, particularly on immigration, is making us an international laughing stock. Will the Minister explain to the House why publication has again been postponed? Is there anything in the department, even in draft, or are there just sheets of blank white paper sitting in the Home Office? What assurance can she give the House that we will not be sitting here again in a few months’ time with another postponement? The Minister was not specific on when she will come back to us. We would like to know that we will not be here again in a few months with another postponement.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. On the timing, it is clear that we are considering a range of options for the future immigration system. This is incredibly important. We will set out initial plans in the coming months. We have to make sure that all decisions we make for the future immigration system are based on evidence and engagement. I encourage all noble Lords and those they talk to to consult the Government about what they would like a future system to look like. We are already in consultation with a wide range of representatives from business, universities and various countries and when we are satisfied that we have the evidence and have completed the consultation, we will make our decision.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, presumably the Minister will have seen the political coverage over the weekend about the damage caused by the uncertainty over Brexit, not least to the National Health Service, which EU nationals are leaving because of the uncertainty. From a situation where they felt they had some certainty, we now learn that there is no certainty during or after the implementation period. The Minister talks about there being plenty of time, but the longer the delay, the more people will leave. What further damage does the Minister believe this delay and the publication of this White Paper will cause to an already understaffed and underresourced National Health Service?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his observations, but I do not feel he is quite correct. Let us be clear: we have already reached a very important milestone. We have reached an agreement—a citizens’ rights deal—with the EU. That covers EU citizens who already live in the UK, so if you are a nurse from the EU living in the UK, you are covered. You need to register with the Home Office. You will then be able to obtain settled status and can remain in the United Kingdom and have the same rights as you would have had prior to our leaving the EU. What will happen during the post-exit implementation period is subject to negotiation, and it would be foolish for us to reveal exactly what we want because the quickest way not to get what you want is to reveal it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Would the Minister notice, or agree, that the timing for the White Paper that she has given is about as vague as anything I have heard, and I have heard plenty of vague promises from government about the timing of White Papers? Can she say that the White Paper—when it comes, if it comes, whenever it comes—will cover the aberrant practice of treating international students as economic migrants and will finally address that issue in terms that stop that practice?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think I can assure the noble Lord that it will come, so “if” is not required in his question. I think I have been very clear that it will be with us in the coming months as the situation progresses. The noble Lord raises including students in the net migration figure, and I am well aware that it is an issue about which he feels very strongly, but we are no different from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US in including international students in our net migration calculations. I am afraid I cannot make any promises to him about what will be in the White Paper.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. Will there be a regional dimension to our future immigration policy?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for her question. We have to take into account the labour requirements in regions and in different sectors of our economy. This is why we have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the economic and social impact of the UK’s exit from the EU and on how the UK’s immigration system should be aligned with the Government’s modern industrial strategy, which was published recently. The Migration Advisory Committee will report in September 2018, so there is sufficient time to do the work that needs to be done. We are considering a range of options for a future immigration system, and I am sure we are not ruling anything out at this stage.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Will the Minister please be a little more open with the House about the Government’s objectives for their immigration policy in the transition period, or the implementation period, as the Government call it? Is the objective to reduce numbers coming to this country or is it not? The Minister talked about policy being evidence-based. Is it not absolutely clear that at the moment, as the NHS scours the rest of the EU for doctors and nurses to keep our health service going, any restrictions on free movement in that implementation and transition period would have a devastating effect? The Government should make clear that they will not impose conditions on their rights of residence in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord will know, as I am sure many noble Lords know, that immigration numbers have already started to fall. It is our ambition to achieve a sustainable level of immigration after we exit the European Union and after the post-exit implementation period has completed. The noble Lord asked what our objectives are for the post-exit implementation period. It is instructive to look forward to the period beyond implementation because that is the period for which we have to establish a stable and robust immigration system that works for every region and every sector of our economy. So in terms of where we are now and where we will be in, say, 2021, the objective for the implementation period and the immigration system for that period is a smooth transition. It is to ensure that there is no cliff edge and that we are able to have the people and skills we need in our country.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, it has been well known for a long time that there have been acute shortages of high-skilled and low-skilled workers. The Answer makes no reference to them. What are the Government thinking and what will they do?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, we are well aware that there are shortages in certain areas and there may be overstaffing in other areas. As for what the Government are doing, they are listening. The most important thing that we can do at the moment is to listen to businesses, to universities and to our colleagues across the European Union. The Government have a number of user groups, which have been set up with representatives from all sorts of different organisations. The most important thing we can do is listen, and if we feel that there will be shortages in certain areas—whether regions or sectors—that is what our future immigration policy must address.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, order. This side.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I believe the Government have made a mistake in recent years in understating the scale of immigration and forecast immigration in their planning for health, housing, schools and infrastructure. What annual estimates of immigration are the Government making for the next three to five years—ranges if need be—beyond the implementation period, and how are they planning for the consequences for public services and infrastructure? Will this feature in the White Paper?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I am afraid I am not able to answer the questions that she has raised about the numbers we are looking at and the forecast for our public services. I can say, however, that we are working very hard to improve the quality of the data we use for immigration forecasting. We are working very closely with the ONS and other parts of government to improve the quality and use of administrative data. We need a better understanding of how many migrants are in the UK, how long they stay for and what they are currently doing. The ONS will be reporting back within a year, and we look forward to its report.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, we have had 10 minutes. We are now moving on to the next Question.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

Order. Lord O’Shaughnessy.

NHS Winter Crisis

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:23

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“Winter is challenging for health services worldwide. With a high number of flu cases this year, we have seen an increase of around 35% in A&E attendances from flu—triple what it was last year—with around 3,000 hospital beds occupied as a result of flu, and a further 700 because of norovirus. The NHS saw 1,200 more patients a day in A&E compared to this time last year. The guidance issued by the national emergency preparedness panel sought to free up capacity for emergencies given the high number of flu cases, including two dominant strains of flu co-circulating this year.

It is important to remind the House that the deferment of operations referred to in that guidance applied to around 13% of hospital beds dealing with elective patients, of which around half were protected within the guidance in respect of cancer and other urgent elective treatments. That guidance was updated on 26 January to confirm that further deferment of hospital operations was no longer needed. In terms of the impact that the guidance has had on operations, we will not know this until mid-March, when that data will be published and placed in the Library for the benefit of both sides of the House”.

18:24

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. Before I ask my questions, I also thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their responses to the United States President’s bizarre attack on our NHS.

Over 95% of hospital beds were full last week, leaving just one bed in 20 available. We saw the highest number of accident and emergency diverts for any week this winter, with 43 incidents across England. I pay tribute to our NHS staff, who have gone the extra mile in very challenging circumstances. We know that 50,000 elective operations were planned to be cancelled, but it would seem that some urgent operations have been cancelled, too. Will the Minister explain to the House why those operations have been cancelled, despite NHS England’s advice to the contrary?

It would also now seem that the accident and emergency targets that are enshrined in legislation and the constitution have been abandoned until March—that is, March 2019. Will the Government bring forward legislation to amend the constitution? Finally, will the Minister accept that the winter plans that have been outlined are now being compromised in the light of the fact that at least 23 trusts are now on black alert, which means that they are under severe pressure?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I agree with her that we are all proud of our NHS, on all sides of this House, and I am sure that we all have great pleasure in stating that through whatever means we are required to. I also join with her in paying tribute to the staff, who do such a fantastic job, often in challenging circumstances.

She asked first about urgent operations. It is clear in the guidance that they should not be cancelled when it would negatively affect patients’ outcomes. If that has happened, NHS England is investigating and reinstating those operations. The guidance is quite clear and NHS England has followed that up.

As for A&E targets, we know that they have not been achieved recently. It is important and instructive to look at the extraordinary increase, not just in winter but overall, in the number of episodes that are happening. They really are increasing at a very high rate. Demand is very high—higher than I think could have been anticipated—and it is a credit to the NHS that it has produced the performance that it has. The aim now, with funding given at the Budget, is to get us back to the four-hour target that we all agree ought to happen. That is what will be happening over the coming year.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, this morning I visited a suburban hospital in London, with an almost brand new A&E unit and a well-managed winter crisis. But despite all that, it has still had to face a bed occupancy rate of 97% on several days, which is stretching its ability to make this work. Money was clearly an issue—the hospital was quite anxious about what its end of year accounts might look like. Today, the Liberal Democrats launched a report looking again at a different way of funding the NHS through the creation of an office of budget responsibility for health and care, long-term health and care funding, and a ring-fenced tax to replace national insurance. Also, there is a clear need for some sort of short-term fix, and we have suggested that £2 billion should be raised by adding a penny to our income tax. Has the Minister looked at this report and will he agree to meet with me to discuss it?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I am glad she had a positive experience this morning at the hospital she mentioned. She is quite right that bed occupancy is very high at the moment. A good job was done in getting it down below 85% across the system in the run-up to Christmas, but of course it has filled up subsequently. An important part of dealing with this is the social care side, as we know, and the extra funding that has gone in is having some impact on these so-called DToCs—delayed transfers of care—and freeing up a number of beds.

The noble Baroness is right of course that money is important, particularly as we have the demands of a growing and ageing population. More money was of course announced in the November Budget for the short term. As for the long term, there is obviously a very informed and lively discussion going on not just among the Liberal Democrats but across the system and across politics about what is the right long-term solution. Obviously, as I have said before, issues of taxation are for the Chancellor and not for me, but I would be delighted to meet her to discuss those plans. What I can say, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is that we understand that there needs to be sustainable, long-term increases in NHS funding. We have to find the right way to do that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Do the Government recognise the concern of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that the revised way of collecting data by NHS England does not allow meaningful comparisons because it includes walk-in and minor injury units, some of which are off site from the level 1 major emergency departments? Its concern is that this may be giving an overoptimistic impression of throughput and does not reflect the huge pressures on level 1 units. Will the Minister undertake to meet the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine with me to discuss some of its concerns?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

This is an afternoon of agreeing to meetings—but, yes, I would be delighted to do so. I am not knowledgeable enough about the issue that the noble Baroness mentioned but, while of course there is a huge difference in the kinds of workloads of those different types of A&E, the target incorporates all of them. They all have the obligation to reach the four-hour waiting time standard and we want to make sure that, whatever the situation and whatever the venue, we can do that.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain how, five years after the Francis inquiry, there is a lack of investment in the health and care nursing workforce in England, as outlined in the RCN report published today? That report, Left to Chance, shows that even if we had more beds we would not be able to staff them. In comparison, Wales has invested heavily in new nurses and continued professional development, and is doubling the number of district nurses that it intends to train this year. In England we currently have 4,400 qualified district nurses, but in 2010 we had 7,500. How can we resolve this quickly and ensure that we have more district nurses in training by this September?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

This is a really important point about nursing numbers. I think the particular accusation was about the Francis report and the follow-up to it. Of course, a lot of that was about nurses in NHS hospitals and indeed on wards. The latest figures from October 2017 show that, when compared to May 2010, there has been an increase of more than 14,000 in acute, general and elderly. At the same time, that has meant that some other areas of nursing have been impacted; we have talked about mental health before as well as district nursing. I say to the noble Baroness that the big increases in nurse training places ought to mean that there are more nurses going through not just into acute, general and elderly but into mental health and community nursing as well.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, despite the increase in population over the last 30 years, the number of beds in the National Health Service is half what it was 30 years ago. Germany has eight health service beds per 1,000 and in France the figure is six, but in the UK it is two and a half. Is it not about time that we revisited the whole question of the number of beds available in our National Health Service?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The noble Lord raises a very interesting issue. As he rightly points out, that number has been dropping over a long time. It has plateaued in recent years, but it has been falling. This is a difficult situation. We all agree that more care should be delivered in the community, but we also understand that at certain times of year you do need beds in hospitals. I will point to two things: first, making sure that bed capacity is more efficient so that people can stay safely for less time and can spend more time being treated in their homes—which often is where they want to be, and that is why the extra funding for social care is important; and, secondly, the reconfiguration test that has been introduced by NHS England, which is about stopping reductions in bed numbers—which, as the noble Lord said, has happened under successive Governments—where it cannot be proven that any reduction is for the benefit of patients in terms of their overall care.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Is the Minister aware that at Stoke Mandeville’s national spinal centre, a ward that is absolutely necessary has been taken away from the spinal unit and used for general patients? There are waiting lists in the seven spinal units all over the country, affecting seriously ill patients who need specialised treatment. Will the Minister look into the situation?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I was not aware of that but I shall certainly investigate and write to the noble Baroness.

Grenfell Tower: Insulation Materials

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made by the Housing Minister in the other place earlier today:

“Mr Speaker, I wish to comment on the decision by the Building Research Establishment to withdraw a building cladding safety test from its website. BRE was contacted by Celotex after it identified anomalies between the specification for a cladding system that it had submitted for testing and the actual system tested. It was alerted to this issue last week. As a result, BRE has withdrawn the classification report relating to that test, which was carried out in 2014. That is the right thing to do.

The cladding system in question included a fibre cement board rainscreen and Celotex RS5000 insulation. It is important to underline that this was not a test of the aluminium composite material cladding system understood to have been present at Grenfell Tower. We understand that Celotex is contacting customers who have used this material. We have published a range of advice for building owners on the fire safety of cladding and insulation materials, including this type of insulation.

That advice still stands. As it makes clear, building owners should take their own professional advice on any further action, reflecting their building’s particular circumstances. We continue to expect building owners to progress necessary remediation work and, where necessary, to implement the interim fire safety measures to ensure that residents and their buildings are safe”.

18:36

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the answer to the Urgent Question given in another place. I remind the House of my declarations of interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The answer is disappointing and highlights for me that the testing system is in chaos. More than seven months on from the disaster at Grenfell Tower, only three of the 300 tower blocks have had their unsafe cladding replaced, leaving thousands of people living in homes that are not safe. How many residents are living in tower blocks with insulation that now has invalid approval? What action are the Government taking to ensure that any other similar tests are also not flawed?

Some in the industry now suggest that the government-commissioned cladding tests used different standards from those in official guidance, with cavity barriers three times as fire resistant. Can the Minister confirm today that that is the case? What does he say to insurers or landlords who say that the Government’s tests are not sufficient to show that they breach building regulations so they will pay no removal and replacement costs for leaseholders, leaving them liable to foot the bill?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the test system is not in chaos. I made it quite clear that the Celotex issue does not have a bearing on the advice that we have given in relation to the Grenfell testing. The system tests were designed in line with the British Standard and were scrutinised and witnessed by independent observers. This is a discrepancy between what Celotex thought it had submitted and what was actually tested; it was not a reflection on the testing itself. Meanwhile, officials are working with the manufacturer on what has happened, and we will look to learn lessons from this. I will write to noble Lords to give more details of that as they become apparent, but I want to underline that this is no reflection at all on the testing system, or on what has happened in relation to Grenfell.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

There are 10 points in the Government’s response. Paragraph 2 says that the Building Research Establishment was contacted by Celotex last week. However, the reply does not say why this problem occurred in the first place. Why was the testing inadequate?

With regard to paragraph 5, the Minister has made clear that this was not a test of the aluminium composite material cladding system that was understood to have been present at Grenfell Tower. However, weekend media reports said that Celotex RS5000 insulation was on Grenfell Tower. Was that the case?

Thirdly, on paragraph 8, the Minister says that the advice currently given to owners of high-rise blocks and public buildings still stands, but I suggest to him that it is not enough. As of 10 January 2018, there are 312 residential buildings over 18 metres high in England, and public buildings are part of that total. All those have aluminium composite material cladding but, of the 312, 299 have aluminium composite material cladding that the MHCLG’s expert panel advises is unlikely to meet current building regulations guidance, and therefore presents fire hazards on buildings higher than 18 metres.

Does the Minister feel that that situation is acceptable, and does he understand the frustration of building owners that the Government are not being sufficiently clear on fire safety measures that are essential, nor on exactly where the finance for essential works will come from?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises various material points which I shall try to deal with. First, I restate that nothing in the system of testing done in relation to Grenfell is faulty. The Grenfell testing is not in question from the Celotex test.

The noble Lord raises an issue about the 299 tests that failed. He is absolutely right about that figure; it is the ministry figure. These are failed tests following the Grenfell fire in June last year, and we are in the process of ensuring that all are remedied. Some are on local authority buildings, some are public buildings, some are student residences, some of them are in private hands, but on all of them either interim measures have been taken or the process has been completed. That process was put in place post Grenfell and, as I said, there is no question but that appropriate action is now being taken in relation to those 299 failures of the 312 tests undertaken.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the simple truth that there are many tenants in private, publicly owned and social-housing blocks of flats nationally who are completely unaware whether their flats or the blocks that they live in are a fire risk? With that in mind, would it not be wise to introduce a simple and cheap initiative? That would be for all freehold landlords of all blocks in the United Kingdom, whether they be social landlord, private or whatever, to place in a public place in the entrance to those blocks a sign on the wall which specified the cladding of that particular block. That information in the hands of tenants would be a powerful weapon for them to use when they sought improvements to the standards of insulation of their block.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The noble Lord is right that many different blocks have been tested and found wanting in this process. I just referred to the 299 that have failed and I have the breakdown here: 45 in local authority hands, 115 housing association, 13 public buildings, 95 private residential and 31 student residences. They are going through the process of ensuring that appropriate measures are put in place.

Meanwhile, the Hackitt review is looking at the area much more widely. In response to the disaster that we had at Grenfell, it was felt appropriate to have a thoroughgoing review of fire safety measures; I agree. We are already acting on the interim report. We are now awaiting the final report, which will come up with recommendations which we will pursue once they are made. That is expected in the late spring. There is also a public inquiry.

There are many aspects to this, but in relation specifically to the Grenfell-type of cladding, we put in process a system of testing that goes across all sectors, public and private, and I do not think we could really be expected to do more.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister inform us whether the documentation of the type of cladding includes the way it is attached to the building? If it is adherent to the surface, there will not be an updraught on both sides of it. The problem, as soon as anything starts to burn, is updraught, which brings more air and oxygen in and fuels the inflammability of whatever material is there.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has a degree of expertise which I do not profess. If I may, I will pick up her specific question, but I think it is appropriate to say that it was the system that was tested, not just the cladding. I will write more fully to her and ensure that my letter is copied to other noble Lords who have participated.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question. I am interested in the position of the tenants. The tenants do not realise what is happening. I suggest empowering the tenants by giving them the knowledge so that they can put pressure on the landlord, whoever it is. Will the Minister answer my specific question, which is about the rights of tenants?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I take the specific point that the noble Lord makes. It is not so much that something is happening; it is ensuring that that is percolated down, as it were. It is a fair and material point; I apologise for not seeing it earlier. I will make sure that that is put in front and drawn to the attention of the Hackitt review.

Rail Update

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place. The statement is as follows:

“On 10 January, I informed the House that my department was preparing contingency plans for running train services on the east coast main line in the event of the existing franchise failing. Despite delivering significant returns to the taxpayer and having some of the highest passenger satisfaction scores in the country, the lead operator of the franchise, Stagecoach, has been incurring significant losses. In that debate, I promised to return to the House to provide an update Statement on the situation, and I am doing so today.

Since 2015 the franchise has met all its financial commitments to the taxpayer, returning nearly £1 billion to the public purse, but this has come at a substantial cost of nearly £200 million to Stagecoach. I already informed the House that the franchise will in due course run out of money and will not last until 2020. It has now been confirmed the situation is much more urgent. It is now clear that this franchise will be able to continue in its current form for only a matter of months, and no more. Last week, following detailed analysis, my department issued the franchisee with notification that the franchise had breached a key financial covenant.

It is important to be clear with the House—and, indeed, the public—that this will not impact on the railway’s day-to-day operations. The business will continue to operate as usual with no impact on services or staff on the east coast. But it does mean that I will need to put in place in the very near future a successor arrangement to operate this railway and to end the current contract. Given the imminent financial pressure that the existing franchise is under, I am taking action now to protect passengers who depend on these train services and ensure continued value for money for taxpayers. Given the urgency of the situation, I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on my plans.

It is worth remembering that our franchising system as a whole has delivered great benefits to passengers. There has been new private investment totalling £6.4 billion over the past 11 years, and passenger journeys on the rail network have more than doubled. The private sector is paying for new trains across the country. There are those who want this stopped because of a dogma that the state could run the railways better, but we see the fruits of private investment all round the network.

There has been much misinformation about this franchise, so it is worth stressing again at the outset that, because payments to the Government have been subsidised by Stagecoach, the taxpayer has continued to profit financially from this franchise. Passenger satisfaction is high and preparations are well under way to deliver state-of-the-art new trains on this railway.

The problem is very straightforward. Stagecoach got its numbers wrong. It overbid and is now paying a price.

Contrary to widespread speculation and rumour, no deal has been done on this railway and I have not yet made a decision on the successor operator to run the east coast line until the longer-term plans for the integration of track and train can begin in 2020. There is no question of anyone receiving a bailout. Stagecoach will be held to all its contractual obligations in full. As the Brown review said five years ago, this is what you would expect in a competitive franchise system—private businesses risk substantial amounts of their own capital, and if they fail to live up to their stretching targets they lose out, not the taxpayer.

To anyone who thinks that the nearly £200 million that Stagecoach will lose is insignificant, let me put it into some context. The combined profit of every single train operator in the country was only £271 million last year. The loss equates to over 20% of Stagecoach’s total market value. So it is a significant amount of money by any measure, and it should also act as a stark warning to any company tempted to overbid in future. Moreover, the franchising system has been adjusted to further deter over-optimism when bidding.

The priority now is to ensure the continued smooth running of the east coast franchise for its passengers. I have therefore asked my officials to conduct a full appraisal of the options available to the Government to ensure continuity of service until we implement the east coast partnership on the route from 2020. My decision on which option to choose will be made in accordance with the key principles set out in the Statement on how I use my rail franchising powers. This includes: protecting the interests of passengers; preserving the interests of taxpayers by ensuring value for money; and supporting investment and improvement in the railway, including the deployment of the new intercity express trains on the east coast.

In order to inform this decision, the department will assess the extent to which each option performs against these principles. Our value-for-money assessment will be based on a number of criteria, including which option returns most money to the taxpayer, the risks attached to each, and the value of any improvements in passenger services. I will also have regard to the effect of my decision on other franchises. This decision will be taken in a transparent way. The department’s assessment of the options will be published and be properly validated.

At this stage, one of the options is to consider the possibility of Stagecoach continuing to operate services on the east coast under a very strictly designed and short-term arrangement. The current management has a strong record of customer service and to rule out its involvement now would go against the principles that I have outlined above. However, given the circumstances in which the Government are having to step in to protect passengers on this line, I am prepared to consider this option only on the basis that the franchise will be operated on a short-term, not-for-profit basis. The only potential financial reward for Stagecoach would be received at the end of the contract and only in return for clearly specified passenger benefits and improvements being delivered.

The second alternative is that the east coast franchise would be directly operated by the Department for Transport through an operator of last resort. My department will subject this option to the same rigorous assessment to establish whether it will deliver value for money for taxpayers and protect the interests of passengers. This option is very much on the table and will be selected if the assessment I have set out determines that it offers a better deal for passengers and taxpayers than the alternative.

In either scenario, the east coast main line is expected to deliver substantial revenue to the taxpayer. The line will also continue to deliver premium payments to the Government once the east coast partnership is in place from 2020. Let me be absolutely clear: the east coast franchise will deliver a healthy operating profit for taxpayers. It has over the course of this franchise so far, and it will in the future.

There will be those who claim that because Stagecoach overbid, it should be excluded from bidding for future franchises. The legal advice on this is clear. As Stagecoach is meeting its contractual obligations to support the franchise, including with the full parent company support, and because it has operated the services on the east coast successfully, the department has concluded that there are no adequate legal grounds to restrict it from bidding on current and future franchise competitions on this basis. It will be understood that it is my duty to follow that legal advice, and I will therefore do so. But let me be clear: we will keep its eligibility for current and future bids under close scrutiny and constant review.

It is not just me who has encountered this restriction. Following the failure of National Express in 2009, the NAO report on the issue made it clear that the then Government and Secretary of State agreed that the company would not be precluded from bidding for future franchises. Indeed, it went on to win the c2c franchise in subsequent years. It is vital that we continue to focus our attention on delivering benefits for passengers across the network and secure the benefits of privatisation.

So, in addition to the transparent, rigorous process I have set out for the east coast, I am making some additional franchising announcements that will deliver benefits to passengers on the west coast and east Midlands routes. In December 2016, we set out our plans to award the West Coast Partnership—the franchise that will deliver the first passenger services on HS2. In that announcement, we made clear our intentions to agree a short, direct award with the incumbent to allow us the time necessary to design the West Coast Partnership. These negotiations have been completed and we have agreed a direct award with the existing operator, Virgin Trains West Coast. As set out 14 months ago, this is a sensible bridge between the existing contract and the West Coast Partnership, and once that partnership is ready, this direct award will cease to exist.

Let me be clear, the east coast and west coast franchises should not be confused. The west coast franchise has a completely different corporate structure, where Virgin Trains is the majority shareholder, and is meeting all its contractual obligations. Virgin has transformed the west coast from a poorly performing service requiring a subsidy of over £75 million a year to the franchise with one of the highest passenger satisfaction rates, at 91%, and returning over £200 million per year to the taxpayer. This has included introducing trains every 20 minutes between London and Manchester and London and Birmingham, hourly services between London and Scotland, installing wi-fi on all trains, lengthening Pendolinos to 11 carriages to accommodate growing passenger numbers, and introducing a free, at-seat entertainment service.

My decision is also in keeping with the three key principles I set out earlier in protecting passengers, ensuring value for money and supporting investment. I look forward to the release of the invitation to tender for the West Coast Partnership in due course, and I am confident we will see strong competition for this exciting new franchise, which will help transform rail travel in this country through the delivery of the first HS2 services.

We are also transforming the east Midlands franchise in the coming years, with the biggest investment in the Midland main line since it was completed in 1870. Passengers will benefit from more seats, new trains and dramatically reduced journey times from Nottingham and Sheffield to London. Once complete, there will be almost twice as many seats into London St Pancras in the peak compared with today. The next operator will be required to deliver many of these improvements, so I am today setting out the next step of the competition that will award this contract. Abellio, Arriva, Stagecoach and a joint venture between First and Trenitalia have all been shortlisted to run the east Midlands franchise that will deliver these improved services. As I said, the Government have no adequate legal grounds to restrict Stagecoach from bidding. The competition will be run on a fair, transparent basis, including new safeguards against overbidding. Ultimately, the winner will be the firm that offers the best service to passengers and best value to the taxpayer.

In a competitive market, franchises will sometimes fail. When that happens my duty is to protect passengers and taxpayers and ensure continued investment in the railway. Stagecoach has paid the price for failure, as stipulated in its contract. Passengers on the east coast main line can be assured that services will continue as normal. This Government will undertake a transparent appraisal of the options available to ensure that passengers and taxpayers are protected. We remain committed to the success of a private railway. It is vital we remember the benefits that privatisation has brought to our railway over the past 20 years. Passenger numbers have doubled. We have one of the safest railways in Europe. Passenger satisfaction is high across the network, and other countries are now adopting Britain’s model for running the railways. The plans I have set out today will allow the British public to continue to benefit from an ever-improving railway into the future. We have challenges to meet, but we will meet them. I commend the Statement to the House”.

18:58

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place earlier today. Railways were privatised in 1994. Whatever we think of privatisation—there was lots going on at that time—it is fair to say that it has not gone well over the last few years. There were problems with Railtrack, Network Rail and various companies, and here we are again with another problem with the railways.

Today’s announcement by the Secretary of State, repeated by the noble Baroness, is just another monumental misjudgment, and adds to a growing list of miscalculations by the Secretary of State. I do not think that taxpayers or rail passengers are at the heart of this, or the rail industry itself. The culture in the Department for Transport is not serving the taxpayer or the travelling public well. I regularly use the railways in and around London as well as to and from the Midlands and the north of Scotland. With all the times that I have been detrained at Doncaster and elsewhere, and the problems and frustrations on the east coast line, it is really just not good enough.

It is frustrating to hear in the Statement what the Minister said about the new tender, that of course we cannot prevent the provider from actually tendering, because legally we are not allowed to do that. That is fair enough, but I recall the public sector being prevented from tendering for this contract; it was running it very well but was not even allowed to tender, which is very frustrating. If we want to get the best value for taxpayers, you want to get the best service possible.

I just do not believe that making direct awards to Virgin/Stagecoach on the west coast or east coast represents good value for money at all. I am really not convinced by that one little bit. We now have a number of train companies getting contracts without competition; many of our routes are now run that way—west coast, Great Western, east Midlands, CrossCountry and now east coast. That is because the Secretary of State is ideologically opposed to the public sector running railways; that is the political dogma that we have here today in front of us.

The Statement from the Minister is lengthy, and I have a couple of questions. The Statement said that the problem was that Stagecoach got the numbers wrong, that it overbid and is now paying the price. Maybe the Minister can explain to the House whether, when the bid was submitted—I assume that it was analysed and looked at—anybody anywhere thought, “Oh, maybe they’ve got their figures wrong here”. At the end of the day, of course you want to get a lot of money for your contract but, if it was actually not going to work, why did nobody spot that? Were any questions raised anywhere, when that contract came in? I would be very interested to hear what happened with that contract. Also, with regard to contracts in future, what is going to happen there?

The Statement talks about ensuring the,

“smooth running of the east coast franchise for its passengers”.

Can the Minister say a bit more about that? How will the Government ensure that it will be a smooth operation with no problems for passengers? I like the idea of this short-term, not-for-profit basis for a railway. That is the policy of the Co-operative Party. I have been a member of that party for many years, and we have a policy for a people’s railway, with the whole railway run on a not-for-profit basis. So I am delighted to see that, even if it is only in one small part of the policy, the Government have actually taken that point on board.

Can the Minister say a bit more about the operator of last resort? Who would that operator actually be? How would it actually be done? On the legal advice, the Minister said that they could not actually exclude Stagecoach or anyone who failed. Would it not be wise to draw up the contract in such a way that, if an operator fails to deliver on it, they cannot come straight back in and have that contract again? They may need to look at that as well because, if they cannot get the bid right, what is the point of having people running it who cannot get it done properly?

I shall leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response on the issues that I have raised.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I start from a rather different position, as I do not believe that the answer lies in renationalisation—but I am sure that the Minister will accept that things are not going well. We have had the fiasco of Southern and we have had Carillion being given more and more contracts, despite the profit warnings. We have had HS2 and the unauthorised payments, and now we have the east coast. The DfT seems to be presiding over a tale of muddle and huge commercial misjudgment.

The Secretary of State in his Statement says that Stagecoach/Virgin overbid. We all knew that it had done so; there was commentary in the commercial press at the time by other operators that this was a hugely overoptimistic bid. Why did the DfT allow that bid to go ahead if it was unrealistic?

The Statement says that,

“the franchise had breached a key financial covenant”.

Can the Minister please explain to us what that is, and why they are stepping in now as opposed to at any other point?

Much is made in the Statement of the £1 billion return to the public purse, but does the Minister accept that the railways are run as a service to passengers and that maybe the DfT is expecting far too great a return to the public purse, and the whole concept on which this is based is unrealistic? The Government are slowly reducing the percentage subsidy to our railways at a time when the railways are expanding and the number of passengers is generally increasing. Does the Minister accept that this is actually unrealistic as a way forward?

I am glad that the Statement includes options for the future and that among them it has the DfT as the operator of last resort. When that happened before, rather a good job was done by the state stepping in, and I urge the Government to do that in the case of Southern. Does the Minister consider that the concept of a franchisee needs to be expanded so that it includes public/private partnership and public sector bodies? Maybe mutual models, which involve staff and passengers, could be allowed to bid as well.

I also want to ask about the knock-on effect on other franchises. It is known that other franchisees are having a tough time. We need only a small hint of further problems in the economy and those franchisees could say, “The Government stepped in this time—why can they not step in and help us?”.

Finally, how is it that there is no adequate legal ground to exclude Stagecoach from further bids at this point? Surely the DfT should be writing the franchises more tightly than this.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as the Statement set out, our priority is to ensure the continued smooth running of the east coast main line for the passengers who use the service. As the Statement said, it has a 90% passenger satisfaction score, and we are looking at the future options for either direct operation through the DfT or Stagecoach continuing to operate. We will look at each of those options and work out the best solution to match the three principles set out. As the Statement says, it is a profitable line and we want that to continue in future.

On the franchising system and privatisation, the franchises will maintain an element of risk because they are run by private companies, and the success of the franchise is down to how they run the service. I think that the benefits of privatisation have been made clear in the Statement. I could add that, back in the mid-1990s, taxpayers paid out £1.8 billion in subsidies to the operators, and now the operators invest in the railways and pay premiums to the taxpayer—of £763 million last year. We have also seen investment of more than £6 billion from private investment over the last 11 years.

We are continuing to improve and refine the franchising model. Obviously there was an overbidding in this case, and we look at the performances of all franchises closely. In recent franchises, we have looked to take a different approach to the risks and are now moving more clearly towards the offer which will provide the highest-quality service for passengers and away from the highest bidder. The noble Baroness was absolutely right that passengers should be put first.

To address some of the lessons that we have learned from previous franchise evaluations, we have introduced new measures to deter overbidding as well as improving on our financial modelling and stress testing. With this added testing, the department will be able to forecast bids that are likely to default and exclude them in future. We have engaged with the market about those changes and continue to highlight to prospective bidders the more rigorous testing that bids will be subject to on the upcoming franchise competitions.

On the operator of last resort, there will be a team within the Department for Transport, supported by specialist advisers, to maintain continuity of passenger services. As I say, the changes in the rail strategy last year are designed to ensure that we get the best of both public and private sector worlds, and the new model will keep the benefits of privatisation while maintaining vital infrastructure in public hands. We have already begun this process of evolving how we run the railway.

19:09

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a huge amount of waffle in the Statement that the noble Baroness has just repeated. But I shall cut through it: Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State, is undertaking another unjustified bailout of Virgin and Stagecoach at the expense of taxpayers. I would like to ask the noble Baroness a few questions about this bailout. First, will she confirm that Virgin has been awarded its new contract for the west coast main line without any competition whatever? Secondly, will she confirm that Stagecoach is being allowed to bid for the next three franchises despite walking away from the east coast main line? Thirdly, will she confirm that Mr Grayling appears, astonishingly, to be prepared to allow Stagecoach to continue operating the east coast line despite walking away from it, and that he has not ruled this out, although he is putting in place legal procedures that look to me to be the prelude to re-awarding it the contract? Fourthly—this affects my tenure in the office of Secretary of State personally—will she confirm that it is quite wrong to say that National Express was not banned by me from bidding for future contracts in 2009? It was banned. The incoming Conservative Government in 2010 lifted that ban, which is a fundamentally different point. I believe that that was a mistake and that it has prepared the way for the problems that we face today.

Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that the reason for these disgraceful bailouts which we have seen from Mr Grayling is because he simply is not prepared to contemplate putting his duty above ideology and substituting for failing private companies a state company? This is not a matter of being left-wing or right-wing; it is a matter of him performing his duties as Secretary of State for Transport, which he is declining to do because, as we heard in the Statement, he wants to make a whole set of cheap points about “private good, public bad”, which I think demean his office and are costing the taxpayer very dearly indeed.

[Baroness Sugg]

I will attempt to answer the questions the noble Lord raises. If I do not manage to answer all of them, I will certainly follow up in writing.

I am afraid that we do not recognise the bailout accusation. As I said, Stagecoach will be held to all its contractual obligations in full. It has returned nearly £1 billion to the taxpayer and resulted in a nearly £200 million loss to the parent company. On the west coast line, it was a direct award and no other bidder was involved. As we stated in December 2016, we set out the plans to award the West Coast Partnership with that direct award. It is a short-term award and there was no other bidder involved. It was put in place before the new West Coast Partnership was awarded. On whether Stagecoach was allowed to bid for continued franchises, as we said, it will bid for the new east Midlands franchise. We are keeping the legal advice on that under review, and we will see what happens in the coming months, but as things stand Stagecoach is bidding for future franchises. The Secretary of State quoted the 2009 NAO report. I will send the noble Lord a copy.

[Lord Adonis]

It is not correct for the noble Baroness to say that National Express was not banned from bidding. It was banned from bidding.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, there is a conflict in the Statement between what it is stated in paragraph 7:

“The business will continue to operate … with no impact on services or staff on the East Coast”,


and what is stated in paragraph 18:

“I have … asked my officials to conduct a full appraisal of the options available to the Government to ensure continuity of service”,


until the fresh start in 2020.

The noble Baroness may well recall that I tabled a Written Question last week, which she kindly answered on 1 February. I had had a look at the press release that was put out by Stagecoach when it got the franchise in the first place. It said that it would give us direct services from Middlesbrough to London, two-hourly direct weekday services between Bradford, Harrogate, Lincoln and London, and a new direct peak-time service between Huddersfield and London, to be established by May 2019. The noble Baroness answered that the Government:

“expect to provide additional services between Lincoln, Harrogate, Bradford and London from May 2019. It remains our intention to deliver additional services to Middlesbrough and Huddersfield”.

She does not say when. She continued:

“Virgin Trains East Coast has contingent rights to run services from London to Middlesbrough from May 2020 and firm rights from May 2021”.


I do not know how strong they will be now. I do not know when all this brewed up, but does she still stand by these services commencing in May 2019 that she signed off on 1 February?

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. On the issue of making sure that we get the decision right for passengers, as the Statement said, protecting the interests of passengers is the first principle which we look at and we will be looking at the comparison between the two on that basis. I have a copy of the reply to the noble Lord’s Question as I thought that he might bring it up; he helpfully read it out. We absolutely expect to meet those commitments. Whatever decision the Secretary of State makes on the running of the franchise up to 2019, whoever gets it will inherit those. Again, with the new partnership in 2020, they will be expected to deliver that.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I for one am rather relieved and reassured that the Government are stepping in before the situation adversely affects passengers. This is not a bailout if Stagecoach is losing £200 million. However, I am delighted to hear that this line makes a net contribution to taxpayers. It is a line well known to many in your Lordships’ House. However, I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give further details on how the Government will maintain the current high levels of customer satisfaction on this line.

[Baroness Sugg]

As I pointed out, there is a high level of passenger satisfaction on this line and we aim to continue to keep that. I reassure noble Lords that there will be no impact on the running of the trains and the services will continue. Tickets are valid as normal. The Secretary of State has today set out the options being considered for the future. We are working to ensure that passengers continue to receive the service they expect.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I detect a certain amount of ducking and diving in this very long Statement. I congratulate the Minister on keeping a straight face on some of it. However, the role of Network Rail is not mentioned at all. My understanding from several sources is that Stagecoach’s contract was based on Network Rail undertaking a large number of enhancements on the east coast main line so that Stagecoach could run more trains, and, presumably, get more revenue. This has not happened because, apparently, Network Rail has run out of money. Surely the answer is to give Network Rail the money to do that and not blame Stagecoach for everything that has gone wrong, as I think that most of the blame lies within the department and its own infrastructure manager, Network Rail. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I agree that there is no simple reason why the franchise has failed; there are a number of reasons. The east coast has not performed as expected. It can be attributed to external factors which were not predicted. For example, the decrease in petrol prices resulted in increased competition. On the enhancements, from the start of this franchise to date all the infrastructure upgrades planned for the east coast have been delivered. Further upgrades for the route are planned but were not due to be completed by this stage. It is clear that Network Rail’s overall performance has not been satisfactory in recent years and we need a change within the business to deliver a more customer-focused policy. Network Rail has committed to transformation and an efficiency programme of change. That will see it judged on the performance it delivers for passengers in partnership with train operators. We continue to push Network Rail to devolve to ensure that there is one route managing director directly accountable to passengers.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that on a franchising system such as this operators will sometimes fail; I think those were her words. This is three times on the same route. I fancy that if GNER had been allowed to exit its contract on a basis as favourable as Stagecoach has been allowed to, with the possibility of rebidding, it might not have left the line in the first place, which would have been helpful as it was probably the best of the operators that we have had. But each time we are told, “Oh, the department is refining its system. It is all going to be better next time”. Given the three failures, is there really a system in place which can judge bids at all?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, on the failure of franchises, the Statement quoted the Brown review, which identified that it is neither sensible nor realistic to design franchise structures that seek to completely eliminate the risk of default. At the time, the department carried out an assessment to ensure that the bid was realistic and in the best interests of taxpayers and passengers. However, Stagecoach rightly took a degree of risk with its assumptions. I do not recognise the noble Lord’s view that this has been a favourable exit for Stagecoach. As I said, we are holding it to its obligations, and this has cost it dearly. It has lost almost £200 million running the service—a big sum for a company which is worth less than £1 billion.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that, contrary to what my noble friend said earlier, she did not keep a straight face while reading the Statement and grinned on a couple of occasions? This was entirely to her credit because she must know, in her heart, that the Statement is absolutely preposterous. This House is being asked to believe that the franchising system on the east and west coast has been perfect, yet a Statement is being made that both are being scrapped. The Minister said that there are no other bidders for the west coast, but no one has been asked to bid for it. If the late Brian Rix were still alive, he could have a Whitehall farce about the whole franchising business. Does the Minister accept that the Government have not come out of this business with any credit, either on the east or on the west coast? Can she confirm that whoever bids for the Midland main line will not be running electric trains to the great cities of Leicester, Nottingham and Derby but to the town of Corby, which until recently was not even on the railway map? That is not a railway project; it is lunacy.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I apologise if I did not keep a straight face throughout the Statement. I was a little distracted by the noise from the Benches on the other side. On bidders for the west coast and east coast, the noble Lord is absolutely right that there was a direct award for the west coast and we are considering the options for the east coast. Those are both short-term plans and in 2020 we will be opening them up to further bids. We look forward to receiving them to deliver what the passengers need.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it seems to me that there is the past and there is the future, and I know that there has been a lot of agonising in the department on the future of franchising. Will my noble friend summarise the improvements to the franchising process that the Government are planning, including Network Rail’s role, to avoid the kind of problems that have been identified in relation to National Express, Stagecoach and so on? Can we look forward?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I would absolutely love to look forward. As I set out, we are making improvements within the department. There was, obviously, a problem; the franchises failed and we are learning those lessons. We are introducing measures to deter overbidding and looking at our financial modelling and stress testing. We hope that, with this added testing, we will be able to forecast and exclude bids which are likely to default. We are continuously improving our risk-assessment process to reduce the likelihood of overbidding in the future. As I said, we are working with Network Rail to ensure that it devolves its services and performs better in future.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular passenger on Virgin west coast, a not infrequent user of east coast and someone who, from time to time, has to make use of the services from St Pancras. What has been sadly lacking in these exchanges is a tribute to the staff: the train drivers, train staff, platform staff, clerks and people operating the signal system, without whom the railways simply would not operate. We are blessed with an incredibly committed and, on the whole, cheerful staff who make sure the railways are a success. Do all these shenanigans, uncertainty and financial confusion give them the kind of support and structure they deserve? They are about serving the nation, not making profits. In that sense, will the Minister please accept that we have heard enough about the private sector being the right way to deliver public services? Look at the prisons, the probation service, and now the railways. Where is the practical, pragmatic evidence that what the Government claim is true, as distinct from ideological fulfilment?

[Baroness Sugg]

I am pleased that the noble Lord’s experience of staff on the trains is positive. He is absolutely right to say that they are committed. When we are making decisions about future franchises, we are also trying to provide consistency and structure for them, so that they have the security of knowing that the services will continue. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord on privatisation. I have spoken before about the amount of investment it has brought in. Passenger numbers have doubled; we have one of the highest satisfaction levels and safest networks in Europe. New trains would not have been delivered without private investment from rail franchising. Some 7,000 new carriages will be introduced to the rail network between now and 2021.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the interests of my noble friend Lord Judd as a regular traveller on Virgin trains and agree with his kind remarks about the staff. I seek a point of clarification from the Minister about what she said in the Statement and in answer to questions. Is she saying that the Secretary of State has no legal power to ban Stagecoach from seeking to operate this franchise in future? Is it being seriously suggested that if Stagecoach tried to take the Government to court, because it was not allowed to bid, a judge would uphold its right, given the way it has let down the taxpayer in this instance?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as Stagecoach is meeting its contractual obligations to support the franchise, including full parent-company support, and because it has operated the services on the east coast, there are indeed no adequate legal grounds to restrict it from bidding in future franchise competitions. That is the current situation: we will continue to look at it as the months progress and we look at future franchises.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place set out some admirable principles that should be observed: protecting the interests of passengers; preserving the interests of taxpayers by ensuring value for money; and supporting investment and improvement. Looking to the future, the Minister has indicated a possibility that the current east coast franchise may stay with Stagecoach, under a very strictly designed and short-term arrangement. Will she spell out with more clarity what that involves? Unless there is some easement on the money side, the three principles which the Minister has set out cannot be met and there must be some give on at least one of them. What is likely to happen if we do go down that avenue?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, if Stagecoach continues to run the service and it is decided that this would be the best option for taxpayers and passengers, then that would be on a not-for-profit basis. By operating a not-for-profit service, VTEC would only receive a performance-related payment at the end of the contract, assuming that it met the stretch target set out by the department. That would ensure that VTEC would be wholly focused and incentivised to achieve excellent performance and would, consequently, provide a better experience for passengers over the life of a contract, but would not receive any moneys unless those targets were reached.

Role of Women in Public Life

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note (Continued)

19:29

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to join colleagues today in a debate commemorating 100 years since women were first enabled to vote. I pay tribute to all those women who campaigned, struggled and suffered, whether physically or mentally, but who refused to give up the fight for votes for women. I thank them for their courage, fortitude and determination to achieve a basic and fundamental right for women. I also thank all Members who highlighted the contributions and records of particular women throughout this long and important campaign.

Although 100 years is a long time, attitudes and mindsets have been very slow to change, as other noble Lords have said. The battles that the suffragettes and campaigners fought were to counter beliefs that women were intellectually inferior, incapable of understanding such things as politics, and downright dangerous if allowed to vote. Yet these same arguments are used today in discussions about extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I believe that they are as untrue today as they were then. Young people are not only capable of understanding and evaluating arguments but have to do so much more than perhaps their parents and grandparents did. As school curriculums have changed and learning has been transformed, both in method and substance, it is essential that proper education be provided so that our young people are enabled to be active, interested and sceptical citizens of the 21st century.

Education in citizenship in this country is patchy and variable in quality. How can such important subjects as how we are governed, our democratic rights and how we exercise these rights be considered optional? There has been much discussion on the failure of democracy and disenchantment among young people, yet they are the future and should have the chance to participate in an active way, to be consulted and to deliver their verdict through the ballot box. On the 100th anniversary of the granting of women’s franchise it seems timely to be considering extending democratic rights, including full education on government and citizenship, to 16 and 17 year-olds. I hope that the Government will be listening and will at least soon enable a consultation and public debate on the subject.

Coming back to women’s rights, there have been significant achievements. Many of us here today will have real-life experience of times when low status and even lower expectations were the norm for women. I can remember when I was growing up that the view was held by some that educating girls in anything other than basic skills and domestic tasks was a waste of time. Girls had to demonstrate much higher levels of ability to study science subjects and to be considered capable of higher education. Indeed, I knew many who did not challenge this and left school at 15 to go to work. My own mother, who was a widow, understood that sometimes, as happened to her, women had to manage alone and bring up their children without the support of a man, and that earning sufficient money was possible only with an education.

However, in 2016, 59% of all undergraduates were women and now they lead the way in high achievement. We have the Equal Pay Act and other rights for women, including maternity leave and pension entitlement. But after 100 years of progress, as other noble Lords have said, only 34% of MPs and 26% of Lords are women. It seems scarcely believable that only since 1958 have women been Members of this House. Equally, 60% of FTSE companies have failed to meet the 25% target for female representatives on their boards—and, despite the Equal Pay Act, the gender pay gap is still widening: it was 18.1% in 2016 and 18.4% in 2017.

Unsurprisingly, the historic gender pay gap results in a pension pay gap across every occupation. A report published in January 2018 from Aegon demonstrates that the pension pay gap gets worse as women get older. At 50, the average female pension is worth £56,116, and the average male pension is worth £112,789. A woman would have to find a contribution of £360 a month to gain equality with a man.

A recent IFS report says that for every £1 a man receives, a woman receives £32. Nearly a quarter of single female pensioners live in poverty. Women suffer as a result of the gender pay gap; they are not treated equally, so pension contributions are also unequal. Women suffer even at the end of their lives for having taken breaks in their career to have and bring up children. They are often in low-paid jobs with little pension, and are more likely to be part-time workers with limited entitlement. The OECD reports that the UK has the lowest state pension of any developed country as a percentage of earnings. There is also a high dependence on private pensions, where women receive much less than men. So I hope that, as part of the legacy of 100 years of women’s franchise, a revisiting of women’s pension rights—including the 1950s WASPI women, as described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Donaghy—will pave the way for fair treatment of women and will provide all women with a pension they can live on.

The sacrifice made by so many campaigners places a responsibility on us all. We must step up the fight for equality of representation, reinvigorate our democracy and extend participation, and battle as the suffragettes did to end the injustice still suffered by so many women throughout their lives.

19:36

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

First, can I say how proud I am to be part of the 25% of speakers—in other words, men—who are speaking this afternoon and this evening? I hope that next year we can get closer to parity—so I shall be enlisting the help and support of my noble friend Lady Jenkin in this cause.

This debate is about the long fight for women to play their full part in the public life of our country. It is about the long battle against the deeply entrenched prejudice that there are jobs that women cannot do, should not do, or cannot do as well as men. The battle has gone on for a century—and it still goes on. Many noble Lords have of course mentioned the Act passed in 1918, which gave women—although only some—the vote and which allowed them to stand for the House of Commons. But a long road still lay ahead. It took another 40 years before women could become Peers and Members of the House of Lords.

Fast forward to 1957, when Harold Macmillan’s Conservative Government brought in the Life Peerages Bill. The Bill was broadly welcomed, but there was opposition to one provision: the admission of female Peers. I will give your Lordships an indication of the kind of prejudice that the campaigners were up against, even as recently as the 1950s. I will read to your Lordships what one Peer said in that debate:

“Frankly, I find women in politics highly distasteful … I believe that there are certain duties and certain responsibilities which nature and custom have decreed men are more fitted to take on … It is generally accepted … that a man’s judgment is generally more logical and less tempestuous than that of a woman. Why then should we encourage women to eat their way, like acid into metal, into positions of trust and responsibility which previously men have held? … If we allow women into this House, where will this emancipation end?”.


He ended his speech by saying that,

“we like women: we admire them; sometimes we even grow fond of them; but we do not like them here”.—[Official Report, 3/12/1957; cols. 710-11.]

Fortunately, the House of Lords overruled him. To give that Peer credit, 25 years later he happily and loyally served in the Government of Margaret Thatcher and disowned his remarks.

However, progress elsewhere was still slow. I was amazed to realise that it was not until the 1960s that we had the first female judge, and we had to wait until the 1970s before women were admitted as members of the London Stock Exchange. Then there was a big breakthrough in 1975 with the election of a woman to lead the Conservative Party. At the time, many people thought that a woman leader, whom they caricatured as shrill and shallow, would be an electoral disaster for the Conservatives. I am told that on the evening that Mrs Thatcher was elected leader, Denis Healey went round the House of Commons poking Conservative MPs in the ribs and saying, “Out for a generation. Out for a generation”. Of course, Mrs Thatcher became the longest-serving Prime Minister of the century.

Whatever one thinks of her politics, she showed the world and a new generation of women that a woman can do a man’s job. Indeed, so much so that when in 1990 John Major became Prime Minister, my 11 year-old niece was shocked to find a man doing the job. She thought that, with the Queen as sovereign and Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister, women running the country in a kind of matriarchy was the norm and that a male Prime Minister was rather strange.

But still the battle had to go on—and it carries on today, well into the 21st century. I refer of course to the BBC. The BBC apparently committed to transparency—but in name only, because for years it hid the gender pay gap, which at last has been exposed. I saw Carrie Gracie give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee last week. I heard her say, as people will have read, how the BBC had tried to justify her unequal pay by telling her that for the first three years as the BBC’s China editor she had been “in development”. Those in the BBC responsible for that should be ashamed of themselves. Christina Lamb, the highly distinguished journalist who has worked for the Financial Times and the Sunday Times, was on “Desert Island Discs” a couple of weeks ago. She said that in 30 years she had never had a female foreign or news editor.

So prejudice persists and, sadly, it still does in some areas of politics. Seven years ago, in 2010, John McDonnell MP said that he wished he could go back in time and assassinate Margaret Thatcher. Then in 2014 he repeated remarks which had been made by somebody else about lynching Esther McVey. I played it back last night. Far from condemning the remarks, he quoted them approvingly—and they were followed by laughter from the audience. I know that he has now tried to disown those remarks—and rightly so, because surely, following the murder of Jo Cox, people should realise how inflammatory and dangerous such casual language can be. Therefore, I welcome the prospect of legislation from this Government to protect parliamentary candidates from abuse and intimidation.

This is a hugely important debate and I have only one regret—I wish that more men were taking part in it.

19:44

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and perhaps I may match him story for story. In 1834, when this building was burned down, the House of Commons had to meet in the old House of Lords, which had somehow miraculously survived. In 1835 there was a proposal that galleries should be added to the Chamber so that women could come to watch the proceedings. The House of Commons, to a man, was shocked at the idea that women should be allowed to watch them. As one Member said, if women were there, it would cramp their style—I have put that into modern parlance—and therefore it would be a bad thing. Luckily, they were overruled and women were able to watch politicians in Parliament. So progress has been made, although it has been rather slow.

I have another story. In about 1974—I think it was before Mrs Thatcher was elected as leader—I was babysitting my young daughter, who was about two or three years old, and I took her to the LSE. It was a glorious summer’s day and we were standing outside a pub. Robert McKenzie, my colleague at the LSE, was there and I said, “What do you think of Shirley Williams’s future? How soon do you think she could be Prime Minister?”. Robert McKenzie looked at my daughter and said, “It will be lucky if we have a woman Prime Minister by the time your daughter attains maturity”. In 1974 he thought that there would not be a woman Prime Minister for another 20 years. So sometimes time speeds up and sometimes it is very slow.

We have heard lots of very good speeches, especially reminiscences and examples of people who are not in the public eye. I want to make a suggestion which has not been made so far. I think that we need a museum for the women’s franchise and their struggle for the vote. I have recently been associated with another museum which my wife has set up, the theme of which is the partition of India and Pakistan. Memories are still alive there—they have been recorded. We can still record people’s memories about their mothers and other people they knew. Those memories of women who were local councillors, mayors and so on need to be preserved for posterity. If we do not do so, they will be lost. It would involve a lot of work and a lot of money, which I am sure could be raised from private donations. I urge not necessarily the Government but people here to make a concerted effort to set up a museum to pay tribute to women’s progress in our society. Of course, there has not been enough progress, as we all know.

In this debate there has been talk about suffragettes versus suffragists, but I do not think you can have one without the other. The suffragists, starting in the 1890s, patiently burrowed away at Parliament but eventually it was the suffragettes who made progress. They may have publicly lost the support of the Commons but I can tell your Lordships that the Members of the Commons were frightened out of their wits. The suffragette movement was perhaps the most violent political movement in the British Isles—even more violent than many trade union movements had previously been. However, something like that had to be done to wake people up to the fact that there was a burning desire on the part of women to get some sort of equality. Of course, the First World War helped as well. It was not just the suffragettes and suffragists; Rosie the Riveter helped too. Had women not worked as a vital part of the wartime economy, men would not have realised that women could do more than just sit at home and cook. Therefore, those three things—the suffragettes, the suffragists and the First World War—together were very helpful in building the case for women’s suffrage.

Many noble Lords have mentioned that, yes, there has been equal suffrage, but there has not been equality. One has to say that getting the vote is a very small part of the struggle for equality. There is no equality among men, there is no equality among women and there is no equality between men and women. Political action and political democracy are a very small part of what generates the day-to-day inequalities in income and wealth. We could talk about all sorts of disadvantages that we find very hard to remove, and there are parts of the world that still have gender selection of children. Women suffer disadvantages from birth onwards. Very often, even well-to-do families will send their boys to private school but their girls to the local state school. The advantages for the male child are built in from the early years onwards. Those things add up.

Substantial equality between men and women and between all people is a distant goal that we will be able to achieve, but political action is one thing that we can do now collectively. That is why it is important that we go on, through the legislative process, trying to remove the many disadvantages that women suffer. We must hope that, in the future, other people will follow our path and achieve equality. So I welcome this debate and I look forward to the debate in 10 years’ time, when we will celebrate the centenary of universal adult franchise. That is when the country became a real democracy.

Let me add one more thing. The impact of 1918 and 1928 was even more profound on the Commonwealth. All the countries that became independent from the Commonwealth had, at the outset, universal adult franchise. India had universal franchise for men and women in 1950, upon its birth. That would not have happened without 1918. That is a tribute to what was achieved.

19:52

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton for moving this Motion to mark 100 years of women winning the right to vote. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, with whom I agreed on quite a lot.

It is always good to stand and reflect on how far we have come and how much more there is to achieve. It is right to pay tribute to the extraordinary—and the ordinary—women who put their lives on the line for equality, and to those who have tirelessly and passionately advanced the cause, a number of whom are sitting in the Chamber this evening. But we should remember the motto adopted by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters when they founded the WSPU: “Deeds not words”. It is easy to talk about equality and to impose arbitrary quotas. It is far harder to ensure that all talent flourishes and to show the courage, honesty and relentless determination needed to tackle the real problems.

The increase in the number of female Conservative MPs owes a huge debt to a force of Baronesses—my noble friend Lord Sherbourne assured me earlier that “force” was the correct collective noun. The combined force of my noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lady Morris and Lady Jenkin has certainly helped to support and promote many female MPs and candidates. I know that when my noble friend Lord Maude, as party chairman, made it his mission that the Conservative Party’s MPs should be more representative of modern Britain, many were sceptical about whether we could succeed without all-women shortlists. I have heard the persuasive arguments in the Chamber, but I still believe that quotas and targets are rarely the answer by themselves. Persuasion and merit work far better.

While the battle is well under way, it is far from won. The moral and business cases for promoting women are beyond question, so we need to ask ourselves why more women do not rise to the top tiers of public life. While organisations mostly acknowledge the need to be more inclusive and policy intentions are clear, their implementation is often inconsistent, unco-ordinated and lacking in real drive and commitment. “Deeds not words” must remain the maxim.

The narrow focus on targets and quotas has failed to change the culture, and indeed can sometimes harm the cause. Our successful experience during the coalition Government of increasing the number of women appointed to the boards of public bodies demonstrated that quotas in isolation had previously failed to work. They failed to address the real barriers and obstacles that women faced. A key point was that the insistence on track record and proven experience meant that the same candidates were constantly being recycled from one board to another and did not allow for new participants. By replacing such a requirement with an emphasis on talent and ability, we managed to expand the field of female candidates. We made other small changes, such as the requirement that job advertisements should be written in intelligible English, and we held events to persuade and encourage women to apply. It was not rocket science, but the difference was quite clear: over 45% of appointments to public bodies in 2016-17 were to women, which continued an upward trend from five years ago when the figure stood at 34%.

We applied a similar practical approach when tackling gender diversity in the Civil Service. We commissioned a report from the Hay Group, which was given a remit to be brutally honest, identify real problems and barriers, and make practical recommendations. Its Women in Whitehall report was an eye-opener. Despite policy being broadly in line with best practice, and in some cases being described as “leading edge”, the culture and leadership climate was identified as preventing women progressing into senior roles. Line manager practice was variable, so experiences of leadership and talent were something of a lottery. Many women simply did not believe that the rhetoric on policy and promotions matched the reality on skills and behaviours.

I do not have time to go into all the detailed findings, and I am sure noble Lords are grateful for that, but I will highlight some of the more revealing. One man described the contrast between the stated way that promotions are made—on competence—and the way that they are really made, which was on personal recommendation and cronyism. A woman described how she applied for a promotion but failed to get an interview because,

“I would have performed better than the preferred candidate—it was his turn for promotion”.

The leaders of the Civil Service were described as simply “not leading” and the culture as “cut-throat and underhand”. It was all quite shocking, and we commissioned further reports on LGBT, BME and those with disabilities, which in turn informed the Talent Action Plan, published in March 2015.

I mention this plan because I fear that what has subsequently happened highlights the ongoing gap between words and deeds. The Talent Action Plan was a two-year plan with key deliverables and specific and measurable objectives. In March 2016, the Cabinet Office published a detailed progress report, highlighting an increase in unconscious bias training and that all Permanent Secretaries now had diversity objectives. However, it is relatively easy to increase training and to write objectives; it is far harder to address underlying problems of culture and the various application of policies across departments. The two-year progress report on the implementation of the Talent Action Plan was due last March. It has not been published. The Minister for BEIS at the time wrote after a debate in April to say that the,

“Civil Service has implemented the majority of actions”.

The plan has now been superseded by the diversity and inclusion strategy, which tells us:

“We have made good progress but we know that we need to go further”.


There is no granular and transparent evidence to show what practical advances were made, what remedies worked and what practical issues remain. This was the original commitment. I worry that without such focus the diversity and inclusion strategy will be yet another grand strategy, full of bland and worthy platitudes, but which, like so many, fails to implement itself.

The commitment to women’s progress in public life is hard work and we need to get it right. It requires strong leadership and concerted action. I applaud, admire and pay tribute to those who fight, and who have fought, long and hard, but the battle is not over. It will not be over until the old joke—“That’s a very good point, Miss Smith, perhaps a man would like to make it”—becomes unrecognisable and part of history. I fear that we are still some way off that time.

19:59

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who has been working on the issues that I and others have been working on and will talk about this evening. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for arranging this historic debate today to celebrate 100 years of the Representation of the People Act 1918 receiving Royal Assent and the continuing role of women in public life. What would have happened without the passion and commitment of our ancestors, those old and young and from all work walks of life who were bound together to pursue, demonstrate and lobby politicians until it was accepted that women should have the vote? They went down many difficult roads.

In 1918, the vote gave women from the age of 30 with property the right to vote in parliamentary elections for the first time. The key development of women having the right to stand for election to the House of Commons quickly followed. In 1928, women had equal voting rights to men. In our House, it took some time and we saw the creation of women life Peers in 1958. I thank the late Baroness Bea Serota, who was a great mentor to me. When I was a local councillor, she was in Camden while I was in Brent. When I came to this House, she was wonderful to me right up until she died.

I would like to think that, in Great Britain, we are leading the world on women in public life. To an extent we are, compared with a lot of other places, including America, which I have to say is going backwards. We were brought up years ago to think that America was the future, but it is no longer and they are having to fight today to keep the rights that none of us thought would be taken away from women. We must also look today to ensure that the rights that we have can never be taken from us.

Great Britain has women in public life. We have more women qualified as lawyers, doctors, engineers and accountants and in the STEM subjects. But where are they at the top? They are not getting the opportunity to move further up, and we have to fight for that.

The debate is to celebrate what we have achieved in the past and where we wish to be. Moving forward, after the next general election, I think that we are agreed across the political divide that we would like to see a larger proportion of women in Parliament and in the elected Assemblies. We should be striving for 50%. To achieve that, political parties must agree to having all-women shortlists for the next three elections. It is possible under the Equality Act. We should take a lead from my party, which did this with the help of the trade unions and the leadership of Harriet Harman and Prime Minister Blair. That made the change for our party. Unfortunately, we did not continue in that way with all-women shortlists and there were other difficulties around the electorate. We should try together to push for that because that will really make the change.

Women are often discouraged from standing because of the violence and verbal harassment against other women politicians that they have seen in the media and in the way that they have been stalked. We need to see legislation tougher and quicker in these situations.

We must look for a way to make the pipeline easier for women to become interested in politics—not just turning up, as we all know, to the dreadful branch meetings that are all right for the very committed. They will come later. Let us really encourage women; then they can see some of the more boring sides of life, which are also important because we cannot get policy change without meeting with the electorate.

With Britain’s influence, we can persuade other countries to have better representation of women. We know in countries that are war-torn, part of the peace process is to have a 50:50 Parliament. On that issue, we must also ensure that Britain takes a firm stand about women at the peace table. Local women are there. They make the decisions, as I have told this House many times. War is over when women say that enough is enough. They have every right to be at the peace table, as they fought for in Northern Ireland. We need to have more women who are trained, as they are being trained at the LSE and in Georgetown, to be part of that peace process with other women parliamentarians. When women are in Parliament and at the peace table, the peace lasts; when it is only men, it lasts five minutes. It is an important issue for us and for this House. Women bear the brunt of all of this.

I ask noble Lords to think about the women in the FTSE 100 and in the 250. Where are the women CEOs? The disproportionate number of women is staggering. In 2010, the 30% Club was launched in the United Kingdom by me and my colleague Dame Helena Morrissey and it is now in many major countries around the world. The goal is to reach a percentage of 30% of women executives in the boardroom and on executive committees by 2020. The 30% Club has developed what has become an international business-led approach for developing a pipeline of senior executive talent. The 30% Club does not believe in quotas. We believe in a voluntary, business-led approach to realise meaningful and sustainable change.

Our plan works in conjunction with senior business leaders, government, men and women working together to achieve measurable change. Our strategies complement individual company approaches and networking. With the help of the Davies commission and now Hampton-Alexander, we hope to be able to take things further forward.

Statistics show that companies with more diverse boards perform better. One reason is that diverse boards often better mirror customer and client bases. Having a diverse board can help better understand purchasing and consumption decisions, particularly because women drive 70% to 80% of all purchasing. Listening to and including the viewpoints of a diverse board brings a new perspective and new ideas. Above all, it helps the organisation to succeed.

I ask noble Lords today not only to acknowledge and celebrate the changes that have taken place for women in the past 100 years but to realise that, deep within, these changes took strength, grit and perseverance to come to fruition. I ask all of us in this Room to capture a sense of that strength and courage in order to continue to take action for true equality for women. It was not easy 100 years ago for our forefathers who started the momentum. It is our job and our duty to continue to look for a robust pipeline for the future leaders of this country.

20:06

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am a representative of the minority 25%. Indeed, it is slightly worse than that, because I am a hereditary Peer with an older sister.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Addington]

Yes. I thought that my spiritual gum-shield might be required today.

If we accept that we have a society comprised of more than 50% of one group, that group should probably be represented in roughly that number among those who make the decisions about it. You will understand it better and have a better way in and so forth. You will be able to understand the pressures and things going on. That is a reasonable assumption to make. But it is one that has the weight of history against it. It also has a great track record of people trying to change that. That is what drew me to this debate. Why has it not happened?

A hundred years ago, women arrived as voters, and very closely after that they arrived as representatives. Then there was a very staggered process through. The amazing thing, looking at the guidance provided by the Library, was that in 1964 we had 29 female MPs. We did not exceed that number until 1987—six general elections in a row there were fewer. That suggests that positive action is required. Then we should discuss what type of action.

We have heard two primary schools of thought here—either to change the structure or to drive change through by action out there with shortlists. I suspect that we will have to work from both to achieve change if we are not to wait another 100 years to get close. But if we achieve change only by affirmative action, we have also failed. You have achieved balance when getting 50% is not a big deal and is not a surprise. You have it when you get to the point where you can say, “This time it was 52% and then it was 48%”. That is what happens when you achieve true equality.

How do we get there? The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who is also a friend, said that we should work across the parties and learn from each other. That is because we seem to agree on the target. There are different ways to move forward and different pressures, but unless we start to learn from each other, we are not actually going to achieve the target. The cultures and political stresses in the parties will fight against each other and slow things down unless we can establish a degree of consensus. The great virtue of this House is that we can probably start to get some consensus a little more easily than you can down the Corridor, and that is a fact. We are dealing with a practical question, and unless we work together, we will not get there as quickly, easily and sustainably as we might otherwise.

The other thing that attracted me to this debate was the fact that gender balance in representation is another example of how, if you want to change society, you have to be incredibly persistent. Most of the activities I have taken on in this House have been in the area of disability, where you hear similar types of arguments in different packages: “Oh, you can’t do that because”, or, “I know we can make the change, but really we haven’t done it before”, or, “What do you mean I have got to change the way I behave?”. That last is the worst one, and if anyone who has worked in this field has not come across it, I will buy them many beers. It is something that we have to address, so taking the messages from this area of social change is very valuable because, let us face it, it is the one which has the most experience and the most form. You also have potentially the biggest lobby, and it might set good examples to help you carry on. But unless there is a coherent attitude of persistence by saying that certain changes must be made, all of these areas will struggle.

We hear things like, “It doesn’t concern me and it’s okay because no one’s complained”. That is the best one. “We have never asked the question, we have never considered it, it has never arisen, so there is no problem and let’s move on”. You might hear, “We’ve passed a bit of legislation, so for the politicians the job is done”. We only get dragged back to look at an issue when the campaigners say, “It hasn’t worked”, or, “It hasn’t worked properly”. We must take this example into all areas of social change so that we go back, re-examine and make sure that what we are doing is right. Ultimately, time has to be spent on readdressing issues.

What we do not do, and this is a problem across Parliament as a whole, is say, “Okay, we have passed the law, so now let’s see how it works in practice”. If we had done that in the areas I have talked about and in the areas other noble Lords could talk about it—if passing a law were enough—there would not be a problem. “We have the Equality Act. Hey, job done and problem solved. Go away”. But it does not happen like that, because you have to go in and back it up. We have two models in this area: affirmative action and culture change. Unless we learn to bring them together, we are going to come back and applaud ourselves for making small changes, not for the big ones. I hope that we can make progress and take the examples set in this area into other parts of our society that desperately need them.

20:13

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just said. Women are now leading and shaping this country like never before, but while it is right to recognise progress, it would be wrong to become complacent. I am afraid that once you scratch the surface, it is clear that there is still significant inequality of power between men and women in this country. The quality of women in Parliament does go some way to making up for the lack of quantity, and we on the Conservative Benches owe my noble friends Lady Jenkin, Lady Seccombe and Lady Morris a great deal on this front. So although the situation is much improved, female levels of representation are still a long way from being good enough. We, like the other place, need to be more representative of society generally, and if not, we surely risk being irrelevant and some of the rocks that are thrown at us are sometimes justified.

We all know why women are not running into politics in their droves. Spectacles like PMQs, with all its braying and shouting, are big turn-offs, as is the combative, aggressive default position of many politicians. We need to show each other more respect in politics. We all want the same thing after all, which is to make the country a better place, but we sometimes disagree on the route to get there. More signs of working together to get the right outcome and less division would make political life more appealing to many people, and not just women. We also need to practise what we preach in Westminster. There would be outrage if business tried to ape some of our loose employment structures. Harriet Harman made this point well last week. If we want more women to seriously consider politics as a career, which no one disputes we do, then we have to find ways to make ourselves more appealing and more modern.

The media also have a part to play in this. I do not suggest that they should stop holding politicians to account by going soft, but I do think the relentless aggression sometimes shown to reasonable politicians simply setting out their stall must surely eat away at the numbers of women wanting to sign up to life as an MP. Technology is supposed to be a great leveller, but with the easy availability of hardcore porn often degrading women and the seemingly endless pressure to be body beautiful, social media need to make sure they do not play an unintended part in holding women back. Moreover, the persistent trolling and intimidation of MPs, or indeed anyone, on Twitter for standing up for their views is a sickening and unattractive development of public life.

This debate is about recognising the progress that has been made in increasing our numbers in Parliament, but we have a duty to represent those who are nowhere near public life, and I want to broaden my speech out with that in mind. All of us recognise that there is no easy switch that can simply be flicked to solve the stubborn issue of gender inequality. The subject is complex and tied up with long-standing cultural attitudes that both men and women still hold. While I do not pretend to have all the answers, a good place to start is being more honest and open about the potential barriers.

First, deeply ingrained gender stereotyping starts early on. When my daughter was barely four years-old she bounced in to the kitchen saying, “Mummy, I want to be a nurse”. I was delighted, until she followed up by saying, “I would quite like to be a doctor, but only boys can be doctors”. This was last year. I have no idea where she gets this into her head—in fact I do, it is “Peppa Pig”, but moving on—but it serves to highlight my point that it starts early and is very subtle. It can still subconsciously drive women and men down different paths.

Secondly, we should be open and cognisant of the female tendency to be a bit more cautious. I have done it myself and I have witnessed it time and again in both my professional and my personal life—passing off opportunities or perhaps not speaking out in that crowded meeting because I did not feel 100% qualified. We need to engender girls from an early age with a strong and resilient self-belief. We also need to keep that ambition going throughout their lives.

I also thank my mother, who is watching this debate. She gave up her career to look after us, so I owe her a great deal. To borrow a phrase from others this evening, I do indeed stand on her shoulders.

I have been unbelievably fortunate in my career. I have had several brilliant bosses—all male, I might add—who never put any limitations on what they felt I could achieve. I drew enormous confidence and strength from their belief in me. I do not think it can be underestimated how powerful mentoring and coaching can be. It frustrates me that it is very often still only the preserve of senior executives. It should be encouraged right from the get go, starting in education and continuing throughout a career.

Finally, on children and jobs, we should be honest about how challenging this can be, if and when children come along. All the talk of superwomen having it all is not very helpful to most women in this country. “Leaning in” is all very well if you are a highly paid executive with wraparound childcare, but less so if you are a single parent or if both of you work very long hours and there is a hard stop for nursery pick-up. It also should not be a crime against your career to want to see your children awake during the week.

Organisations that show little or no flexibility will lose good people, but particularly women. Women do not want special treatment, but we do deserve a level playing field. If a woman takes time out to have a child then companies must try to ensure that the broken service does not serve to level off her opportunities. They must also try to help her maintain the same level of ambition.

Laws and legislation are not the only answer, but the Government should be rightly praised for the proactive role they have played. Shared parental leave and gender pay reporting are arguably the biggest thunderclap moments for this agenda in many years. Legislation makes organisations and companies look at themselves in the mirror and ask painful questions, forcing them to interrogate internally. “Could we change the culture at the top to promote fairness? Are we creating an environment where the juggle is sustainable? Is there flexibility? Is there an option of a meaningful job share, weekend travel bans and”—most importantly in my mind—“a stamping out of a macho culture that sniggers behind its hand at shared parental leave or dads playing a bigger role?”. Equality at home is the ultimate game-changer for equality in the workplace.

Nothing in isolation offers an overnight panacea, but I hope they all add up and over time help to shift attitudes even further. The signs are good: the intellectual argument has been won. Nobody could argue that society is not far healthier if it is balanced and fair, but we must march on and keep the pressure up to make sure a debate such as this at the bicentenary would be long obsolete.

20:21

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I so welcome this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for introducing it with such vigour. Speeches from men and women in such debates are always enjoyable and powerful. It is always wonderful to hear how so many amazing women are being celebrated. Women may not be content, rightly, with underrepresentation in Parliament or in top jobs, with unequal pay and other gender discrimination, and with unacceptable harassment and abuse, but women have much to be proud of and to rejoice in.

I am proud that last week, in the Second Reading of the withdrawal Bill in your Lordships’ House, 48 women spoke confidently and incisively on divisive issues. From these Benches, I was proud of the scintillating performances of my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Hayter, a team who have worked tirelessly, endlessly and patiently to present so effectively the complexities facing us regarding Brexit. The debate was relatively respectful and good humoured on all sides, from men and women. It was an example of knowledgeable and analytical presentation, enhanced, I believe, by the presence of women, just as I believe that today’s debate is enhanced by the participation of 10 men—most of them are not here, but there were 10 altogether. I am proud that women are moved to protest against put-downs, insults and affronts to their bodies. On 20 January, women in the United States marched in cities to protest against the Trump concept of their place in society. My daughter, an American, was there and sent me a picture of a placard saying: “We are the granddaughters of the witches you never burned”. Anyone from Lancashire or Massachusetts will appreciate that remark and celebrate women’s resilience and determination.

It is a good sign that one daily newspaper last week had a huge spread on the history of women’s suffrage. It is wonderful that cities around the UK will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act in dynamic ways in the coming months. I know there are problems with grass-roots funding for projects and I regret that, but today in my local tourist office in Lewes, Sussex, I saw a wonderful window display on women and the vote, together with comments from young people expressing their disappointment that they are not able to vote at 16. I agree with them. I look forward to the Museum of London’s “Votes for Women” exhibition, our own parliamentary “Voice and Vote” in Westminster Hall and the Pankhurst Centre in Manchester’s year-long celebration of the suffragette movement.

Manchester was, of course, where Emmeline Pankhurst held the first meeting of the Women’s Social and Political Union in 1903. It may not be generally known that Pankhurst was voted the greatest northerner in history in a recent poll. A statue to her will be unveiled in Manchester in 2019. I was born and brought up close to Manchester and I am proud of the northern suffragettes; not all upper-class ladies but also women who worked in mills and in domestic service. In passing, I say that while we celebrate women in public life we should also celebrate the women who may never be in public life, nationally or internationally, but who work hard and diligently to bring up children, to care for members of their family, to do volunteer work, work in the professions and toil in the lower ranks of politics—we all know what that is like. Here’s to them.

Just after the women’s march, I read in an American magazine comments on the #MeToo movement. It reminded me that women attain professional goals, or sometimes simply do a job, under duress and discrimination. This means that courage and drive play a part. I quote from that article:

“Women in positions of power know one thing for sure: they’re leaving the world a much better place than they found it”.


Studies have shown that female participation in the labour market improves the strength of economies. From working on boards and in Parliament, I believe that women’s contributions improve the depth and quality of decision-making. There is much more to be done in persuading women into and retaining them in public life. It is true that powerful women will leave a legacy, but not without tapping the shoulders of the next generation to continue the fight.

Speaking of tapping the shoulder, Millicent Fawcett acknowledged Mary Wollstonecraft as the “leader in the battle” for votes. One was born in 1759, the other in 1847. Fawcett will shortly have a statue in Parliament Square. Wollstonecraft, for some inexplicable reason, has no memorial except her novels, histories, the great treatise “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” and, of course, as the mother of Mary Shelley. Surely it is time that she received some visible accolade as a leader in the feminist movement.

I move on to more recent events, with two women of contrasting backgrounds that I want to mention again. Nancy Astor became the first woman MP to take her seat in the House of Commons. In her maiden speech she spoke these words:

“I am simply trying to speak for hundreds of women and children throughout the country who cannot speak for themselves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/20; col. 1631.]


It is a familiar theme in our Parliament. Margaret Bondfield, a working-class girl from Somerset, became the first female Cabinet member in 1929, in a Labour Government. She witnessed first-hand the drudgery of women and the lack of prospects for women shop workers, and became an active union member, determined to improve equality for women. I cite but two examples of women politicians down the years who have striven mightily for justice and democracy. There have so been many and I am delighted that today we acknowledge and celebrate them.

20:29

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton for moving the Motion marking such a monumental milestone in the life of our democracy and, indeed, civilisation. Although it was long overdue, it is hard to believe that a whole century has passed since women over 30 were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections for the first time, so significant have the achievements been since then. Who could possibly have conceived that only 51 years after the 1928 Act which gave women the right to vote on the same terms as men, we would have our first woman Prime Minister and now, 90 years later, our second? What a tribute that simple fact is to women, to have overcome such prejudice in the public service of our country and its people, and how much richer we are as a society for that, in so many ways. Yet it is worth reflecting that until relatively recently all of this was a pipe dream. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, who would have thought it possible?

I will not repeat the key developments about which we have already heard from my noble friend and other noble Lords. I am sure they fill us all both with pride in the progress that has been made to date and, as other noble Lords, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have argued, an impatience for the further progress that still needs to be made to ensure that women realise their potential in public life. I say that not just because I acknowledge their right to realise their potential but because it is something that society has a direct stake in—as my noble friend Lady Seccombe told us, it is society as a whole that benefits and has benefited so much over the past 100 years as women have contributed more and more to our parliamentary democracy and other fields.

Marking this centenary is of course a cause for celebration, and yet it is more than that. The remarkable progress achieved by women in public life, particularly when one considers for how long their exclusion had been normalised, is also a cause for hope, not just for other women but for me personally and other disabled people who still face discrimination, as I appreciate some women do—although, I would suggest, to a lesser extent, at least here in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned disability. We are light years behind the progress made by women. Disability discrimination is still embedded in our culture. Nowhere is it more normalised—more institutionalised—than in the way that a human being diagnosed before birth with a disability such as mine is devalued on account of their disability, to the extent that they are regarded not just as worth less than a non-disabled human being but as worthless, disposable right up to birth, specifically for being diagnosed with a disability.

So why do I, as a severely disabled person, draw hope from this centenary? I do so because it reminds us of a simple but fundamentally important lesson which the experience of the past 100 years teaches us, which is that, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, highlighted, attitudes change; that how we look at each other and how we value each other can change so radically as to be revolutionary; and that progress which once seemed inconceivable can be achieved and enduring cultural change can follow.

I will always remember reading as a teenager about someone I do not think has been mentioned so far: Emily Davison, a suffragette who tragically lost—many say gave—her life when she ran in front of the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby 105 years ago in 1913. I ask that while we reflect on her sacrifice for the right to vote, we also reflect on all those human beings diagnosed as female and disabled before birth, whose equal right to exist, to become women, to vote and to contribute to public life has been denied on account not of their sex but of their disability. Their potential contribution—perhaps one of them could have been our first disabled woman Prime Minister—has been lost for ever because the diagnosis of disability before birth denied them the most basic right of all, the equal right to exist. That is our tragic loss as a Parliament and as a people.

I close with this question for the Minister: would it not be wonderful to have as a clear goal the election of many more disabled women to show by their example, as their non-disabled counterparts have done, that being born with a disability need not prevent a woman—or, for that matter, a man—making a significant contribution to public life in the service of our great country? What better way to build on the progress of the suffragettes and since, and thereby disprove enduring discriminatory attitudes that so devalue disabled human beings, male and female alike, before they are even born?

20:37

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, like many other speakers in today’s debate, I took inspiration from a couple of women I know of. The first was my great-grandmother, who got up before dawn to make sure that she was the first woman who voted in her mining village in Scotland. The second was called Elizabeth Downie. In 1948, I understand, she proposed the resolution to the NALGO conference to get rid of the married women’s work bar. Within her family, she was known as “Red Betty”. Some years later, when I started to go out with her daughter, who is now my wife, I am not sure what alarmed her more: the fact that her daughter had taken up with a woman or the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat.

The theme I want to explore this evening is hidden history. I was inspired in part by going to a lecture at the LSE library last week. It was about Sapphic suffragettes. It is possible that they were not all straight. It is a bit more difficult to assert that some of them were lesbians, but there is a fairly reasonable case to be made that they could have been, and there is a very good case to go back and take away some of the myths that have grown up around the suffragettes, particularly about the First World War being the reason legislative change came around. There is a case to be made that these women were so well organised and so strategic in what they did that it became apparent to people such as Lloyd George that they absolutely were responsible enough to vote.

But I want to talk about these hidden giants on whose shoulders we are standing. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was absolutely right that it did not all start in 1918: this was the culmination of something that had been going on for a long time. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses will have walked through Westminster Hall and seen that wonderful artwork “New Dawn”, which marks John Stuart Mill’s presentation of the first petition for women’s franchise. What your Lordships probably do not know is that he was heavily influenced by a wonderful woman called Harriet Taylor, whom he ultimately married. It was she who campaigned away against the prison that marriage was back in the Victorian era and against the harm that happened to women because they had to be economically dependent on men and were treated as no better than chattels.

Another person I doubt very many of your Lordships will have heard about, but who ought to be an inspiration, is Viscountess Rhondda, an amazing woman from south Wales. She inherited her father’s business and, during her lifetime, was a director of more than 33 companies. Extraordinarily, she and her father survived the sinking of the “Lusitania”. After inheriting his business, she went on to set up Time and Tide, the famous progressive women’s magazine. She campaigned tirelessly for women to inherit their titles and sit in this Chamber. She tried to argue this on the 1918 legislation, which talks about women not being barred from any public office, but she did not succeed. We heard the quote from Earl Ferrers earlier, about the admission of women in the 1950s. My other favourite quote from that same debate—the clincher that the men put forward to keep women out—was that to admit women would play havoc with the plumbing. In light of restoration and renewal, maybe they were right. Sadly, Lady Rhondda died moments before that legislation came in. But she was a brilliant woman and, what is more, a lesbian. There are all these people who have parts of their lives and inspirations to what they do that have been hidden for a very long time. We quite often miss the diversity of women’s experiences, inside and outside Parliament, in this fight.

There are so many women who have been truly inspirational. This place is one of immense privilege, but none beats being a colleague of Shirley Williams. She was an absolute inspiration to me when I was a kid and has worked tirelessly to inspire women to come forward, to get their elbows out with the men in the room and to argue for equality.

We have some considerable way to go. We are extraordinarily lucky to be women who live in this country. I know, as a woman from my community, that I am extraordinarily lucky to be who I am at this point in time, when I can be open about being a part of my community and can bring that to discussions in your Lordships’ House. We are not fully there in terms of diversity yet. I hope that before too long, somewhere in Parliament, we will have representatives of the trans community. I hope they will be elected in another place. Would that not be a slap in the face to that woman on the Times who is giving that community a real battering at the moment? They really do need some support.

I will end with a couple of points. Many have talked about statues today. I understand why your Lordships want to do that and why it is important to increase the visibility of women. But I am much more interested in our passing on a different legacy to the next generation, and that we inspire them to be involved and to follow us and tear down some of the walls in this building. I was really pleased during the last election to take part in the “register her to vote” campaign that was happening on Twitter, to get young women registered to vote. I hope the Government will support that and other initiatives. A terrifying statistic is that in 2015, 9 million women who could have voted did not. A number of noble Baronesses will, like me, have stood on doorsteps over the years listening to young women saying, “I really don’t see why I should vote”. Fortunately, it has been a long time since I heard, “I don’t know how we’re voting; my husband hasn’t told us”. It is really important that we inspire young women to vote. I hope Peers will go out and actively support the work of organisations such as the Patchwork Foundation, which seeks to demonstrate through role models to young people from disadvantaged communities that they too have a place in public life and a valuable contribution to make.

I have been inspired to go back and read history and learn the lessons from wonderful women such as Eleanor Roosevelt. She inspired me to look again at that very dry subject of human rights and to ensure that in all that comes before our Parliament—especially in everything that will come before us in the next few months—we never lose sight of women’s rights and human rights, and that we never assume that they have been won and are safe. We have to continue to work for them. We have to recruit and inspire new generations of young men and women to come and join us in the battle.

20:46

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, as one of the last Back-Bench speakers speaking today, I thank my noble friend Lady Vere for introducing this important debate. We have heard some deeply moving speeches, reflecting the contribution that women have made over the past 100 years.

I will begin with Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Not only was she the first female mayor in England but she established a new hospital for women in London in 1872 that was staffed only by women. It was an all-women organisation. She had struggled to qualify as a doctor because she was not accepted as she was not a man. Instead, she became a nursing student, later going on to train in Paris and eventually gaining her Society of Apothecaries certificate to become a doctor.

Elizabeth had a very clear vision of what she wanted to achieve—as did Alice Hawkins from Leicester, whose seven-foot statue was unveiled yesterday in the new market square. Alice left school at 13 and became a shoe machinist. She was actively involved in the Equity Shoes trade union, fighting for the rights of women. She attended the Women’s Social and Political Union rally in Hyde Park, which has already been mentioned, and over the following seven years she was arrested seven times and jailed five—the last time in Holloway, when they thought they had managed to persuade her otherwise.

My noble friend Lord Lexden spoke of Millicent Fawcett and the work done by the Fawcett Society and its members. Indeed, I believe that it is a combination of the approaches of both women, and their determination, that has led to the changes that we are celebrating today. It is true that both Elizabeth and Alice understood the inequalities of life at that time and fought long and hard to change attitudes—although I suspect that others will have come to the fore in very different ways.

One such woman was Rosa Parks, born in America 105 years ago yesterday. She is probably among the top 100 women recognised worldwide. I do not know where she got the confidence to do as she did and withstand the consequences, but she was the girl who, aged 15, refused to give up her seat and get off the bus. In her book, Standing up for Freedom, she said:

“You must never be fearful about what you are doing when it is right”.


Last week was the bicentenary of the Institute of Civil Engineers. I wondered whether even one of those founding fathers envisaged a future where the person directly responsible for the infrastructure of the 2012 London Olympics would be a woman. Louise Hardy was just that woman. She masterminded the installation of the roads, cables, telephone wires, broadband, water, sewage disposal, heating and everything else that went with it to make it the mammoth achievement that it became.

I have also chosen to talk about women in public life outside Parliament—those working in business and others serving in their communities, both locally and nationally. In the business world progress is being made—although it is slow, as others have indicated. In 2016 women occupied 35% of all managerial and senior positions, but in 2015, a year earlier, 25% of directors of FTSE 100 companies were women, which was an improvement, and I know that the target is now to increase this to 33% by 2020. In many small and medium-sized companies, women are taking the challenge to start their own businesses and become entrepreneurs in their own right. However, it is in bigger companies that women still struggle to reach the top.

I have been intrigued by Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In, already referred to by my noble friend. Sheryl is chief operating officer at Facebook. She describes the inbuilt barriers to success. It is a fascinating read and I recommend it. She acknowledges that women in the developed world are better off than ever, but reflects that until women have supportive employers and colleagues, as well as partners who share family responsibilities, they do not really have that chance.

I turn to the City of London. I must admit that I was surprised that the name of Lady Donaldson was not included in the very good list of firsts for women in public life, as Lady Donaldson was the first woman Lord Mayor of the City of London back in 1983. She was followed by Dame Fiona Woolf in 2013. They are the only two women to hold this post. The role of Lord Mayor is not simply one of great occasions and grandeur but is much more about promoting UK business abroad: during their year the Lord Mayor will probably visit 50 countries, giving more than 900 speeches.

I have spoken about the contribution that women make to local government and the many hours they give to their communities. All of us here started somewhere. I began my public life with the Women’s Voluntary Service and continued with other organisations and charities. However, I pay great tribute to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who was at the helm when I became involved with the Conservative Women’s Organisation. My noble friend is a good example of encouraging others to achieve their goals, and looking around her this evening she must reflect on the many hours she spent promoting and helping some of us women who are lucky enough to sit in this House. In the same way, my noble friend Lady Jenkin continues to help and inspire women to become parliamentary candidates.

I cannot let this occasion pass without mentioning the late Baroness Thatcher. Her total commitment, courage and belief inspired women of all parties, and some of none, to have confidence to take up the challenge and achieve their personal goal.

Finally, we continue to have the experience of women who are leaders in their sectors. I think of Stella Rimington, Anita Roddick, Ellen MacArthur, Rosalind Franklin and Marie Stopes, to name but a few. Their contribution to society should be recognised. Ellen MacArthur broke the record for the fastest solo circumnavigation of the globe back in 2005. She was not just the best woman, but the best. Her achievements helped squash prejudices about women’s inferiority in sport, and her trust helps young people with serious illnesses.

Listening to the contributions today, one cannot fail to be moved by the achievements over these past 100 years—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said, there is so much more to do. For me, equal opportunity is not equal unless everyone receives the encouragement that make seizing the task possible.

20:55

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, may I say how much I welcome the debate in your Lordships’ House today, and compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and my noble friend and sister Lady Gale on their wonderful opening contributions? About the only partisan thing I intend to say is to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the other women on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches—and it is not the first time I have said this in this House. It is possible that the Labour Party at the next general election will achieve a 50:50 gender balance in its representation. Frankly, if the women and sisters in your parties do not do something other than the encouragement that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about, it will be a long time before we get gender balance overall in our Parliament. We in the Labour Party will not be able to do it all on our own.

It is said that history belongs to the victors, and that is true of who won the vote for women, as in everything else. As noble Lords have said, the smaller voices get drowned out. The history of how women won the vote tends to belong to the famous, the better educated, the most well-off families and leaders of the suffragette movement. Like my noble friends Lady Corston and Lady Massey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, and Lady Byford, and others, I want to reflect on and pay tribute to the women who were less well known, less well off, and particularly those from Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield and other places in Yorkshire. It is said in my family that one of the women in our family was an active suffragette, and I would not be at all surprised. We are not known for our modesty and our quietness in my family, but I have no proof. In a way, that makes my point.

I am indebted to Jill Liddington, senior research fellow at Leeds University, to the women’s history project, and the contemporary articles from Bradford’s Telegraph and Argus. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, is quite right. In November 1881, St George’s Hall in Bradford was the location of a huge meeting—3,000 strong—at which Bradford’s provisional women’s suffrage committee was established. It presented the first petition to Parliament demanding the vote in 1882. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy put it, for almost 20 years, women and the men supporting them—I think of Keir Hardie, for example—more or less politely asked for the vote. In October 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst gathered a group of women in Manchester to form a new franchise campaign, the Women’s Social and Political Union, marking the end of what might be called the Victorian campaign. The next 10 years were to be very different, and sprinkled with the names of women whose part in the struggle gave them an indelible and honoured place in our history.

We all know that in 1913 the suffragette martyr, Emily Davison was killed beneath the King’s horse at the Derby. Less famous was Dora Thewlis, a 16 year-old Yorkshire mill worker who, in 1913, despite her impoverished upbringing, was moved to join a suffragette mission to break into the Houses of Parliament. She was thrown into prison and catapulted on to the front page of the Daily Mirror, which said, “Suffragettes storm the House”. The reporters and paparazzi christened her the “Baby Suffragette”. Indeed, in her clogs and mill dress she secured vital publicity for the cause. Again in February 1913, an elegant woman entered the Jewel House at the Tower of London. She removed an iron bar from her coat and threw it at the glass showcase containing insignia of the Order of Merit. Wrapped around the bar was a statement: “This is my protest against the Government’s treachery to the working women of Great Britain”. That was Leonora Cohen, a seamstress from Leeds.

It is only relatively recently that research has uncovered how Thewlis and other poor, often self-taught, Yorkshire women are among the forgotten heroines of the long struggle for the vote. They include Lilian Lenton; Edith Key, a mill worker born out of wedlock and given away by her mother; Lavena Saltonstall, a self-taught journalist; Elizabeth Pinnace, a rug weaver; and indeed, Leonora Cohen. Miss Newton—I do not know her Christian name—was distributing leaflets when a mob of boys picked her up, carried her round the town centre and dumped her on the town hall steps. It must have been terrifying. The local paper reports that she did not let go of her leaflets.

These women fought despite minimal schooling and the risk of censure and ridicule. During this time of the fight in Yorkshire, the organiser was none other than the youngest and least well known Pankhurst—Adela Pankhurst—who ended up in Australia in 1914, a casualty perhaps of the early splits in the suffragette movement. She was the Yorkshire organiser, known for being disruptive in public meetings. In Pudsey, she and fellow speakers were pelted with rotten oranges, eggs and peas. In 1908, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, she was the one who organised the Shipley Glen rally, attracting 100,000 people. Christabel Pankhurst’s contemporary account says:

“For weeks past all Bradford has been talking about the Yorkshire Suffrage Sunday held in Shipley Glen on May 31st … The vast audience of orderly and attentive persons prevented any effective disturbance, and at 5 o’clock a resolution calling upon the Government to enfranchise the women of this country … was carried with practical unanimity. The Prime Minister expects us to show a popular demand for votes for women. We offer to him the demand of the people of Bradford, which has already spoken officially through its City Council when it adopted some months ago a resolution similar to the one carried at the great open-air meeting on the Suffrage Sunday”.


Several other militant actions caught my attention. In 1910, when Winston Churchill came to a meeting at the same St George’s Hall, his visit ended in chaos, thanks to a handful of suffragettes, who secreted themselves under the platform and leapt out, apparently,

“thirsty, dishevelled and unwashed, but with hearts on fire for their cause”,

as the Telegraph and Argus said. The women waited until the hall filled up, then launched into their protest before being swiftly thrown out.

In 1913, the Bradford suffragettes dug up and scorched the second and 12th green at Bradford Moor golf club, replacing the flags with purple, green and white flags, and then went on to leave a trail of burning letter boxes across the district. Also in 1913, the reservoir at Chellow Dene turned a rich shade of purple, having been discoloured by wool dyes. It was believed to be the work of suffragettes, but it was never proved. Millions of gallons of water had to be drained. I am pleased to report that they had fun, too, turning up to see Ellen Terry at the Bradford Alhambra in full suffragette costume and getting a standing ovation. I pay tribute to these brave women. Indeed, we stand on their shoulders.

21:01

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

With the leave of the House, I am grateful to the Front Benches for giving me just a moment before their closing speeches to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. During my contribution earlier, I took her to task about remarks that I thought she had made regarding my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and her so-called lack of support for other women, and was rather incensed. I now realise that, of course, she was talking about our other Prime Minister. Of course, it is rather confusing when you have had two women Prime Ministers—although, as the noble Baroness will have heard from my noble friend Lady Byford, Margaret Thatcher was also a great supporter of women. But I apologise to the noble Baroness for taking her to task for comments that she had not made.

21:02

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which has given grants to, among others, WASPI, Make Votes Matter, and other organisations that have been mentioned already during the debate, as well as to many other political reform campaigns. I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Vere, for introducing this debate. We have had the most extraordinarily unified views about the success over the last 100 years, but also recognise that there are many problems.

I want to move back well over 100 years ago to John Stuart Mill. My favourite quotation from him is:

“The most important thing women have to do is to stir up the zeal of women themselves”.


He said that in a letter to Alexander Bain in 1869. A lot of the rest of his political life was spent helping women to be able to do that.

The woman who stirred up my own zeal was Baroness Stocks of Kensington and Chelsea, who started life as a Brinton and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. She had an extraordinary life. I did not know that—I knew a doughty old lady who came to lunch on Sundays. She was principal of Westfield College, just around the corner from where I lived. My Conservative father, though not an MP at that time, won every argument at the dinner table, except when Mary was there. She taught me, by my watching the way in which she debated and engaged, that it was perfectly possible for women to do what they wanted. I can remember her saying to me on one occasion in the late 1960s, when I was still just at secondary school and so a bit behind the revolution that was going on around me, “You know, you can do exactly what you want to do. You just have to set your mind to it”. This woman did set her mind to it. She did an extraordinary range of things, as did many of the other women who were suffragists and suffragettes. They took that into other parts of their lives. But her passion and deeds started early. In 1907, aged 16, she was on the Mud March, one of the first big marches of the suffragist movements. I quote her voice at that time from her autobiography, My Commonplace Book:

“I carried a banner in the 1907 ‘mud march’ at the head of which walked Mrs Fawcett, Lady Strachey, Lady Frances Balfour, and that indomitable liberty boy, Keir Hardie. As we moved off through the arch of Hyde Park Corner we met a barrage of ridicule from hostile male onlookers. ‘Go home and do the washing,’ ‘Go home and mind the baby’ were the most frequent taunts flung at us. As we proceeded along Piccadilly it was observed by some of the marchers that the balcony of the Ladies’ Lyceum Club was crowded with members looking down from their safe vantage. Some of the marchers looked up and shouted: ‘Come down and join us.’ I do not know whether any of them did.


It was a great adventure for a sixteen-year-old; and on returning to school on the following Monday I was uncertain how my public exploit would be regarded by authority. I need not have worried. All the mistresses were suffragists, as indeed were all salary-earning professional women”.


She went on in this autobiography to include some of the pictures from her journal at the time. There is a glorious cartoon dated 1913 of three versions of herself. The first is of a glorious young Edwardian lady in the full panoply, hat and social get-up of the upper middle class in London. Underneath, it says, “What Mary’s mother would like Mary to wear”. The next picture is of a young utilitarian girl about town—at this point she was an undergraduate at the LSE—and underneath it says, “What Mary’s mother thinks Mary wants to wear”. But the next picture is the most poignant. It is of a woman prisoner and underneath it says, “What Mary would really like to wear”. That is why I wear these colours, because she was not allowed to become a suffragette. She and many others would have been utterly shunned by their families if they had done so. Therefore, I wear these colours in her memory and that of many women who wanted to do more.

Lest noble Lords think that Mary felt stifled by being a suffragist, I should tell them that she did not. She had many friends who were suffragettes and she acted as a link between them. In her chapter on votes for women, she talks about how both the suffragettes and the suffragists understood that both sides were absolutely vital to winning the argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to earlier. The suffragists had the ears of politicians. They were perhaps too patient, especially in the face of Lord Asquith’s opposition. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, is not in her place when I refer to her great-grandfather, but it is true that Lord Asquith was the major block to suffrage happening earlier.

Other noble Lords referred to those who 100 years ago led the way. As others have said, the failure of the Liberal Government was moved on when David Lloyd George ousted Asquith and attitudes changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was right when she talked about the strategic positioning of both the suffragists and the suffragettes. All the right conversations had been had in the background. It is also interesting that the suffragettes’ militant action stopped the moment the war started and all women put their shoulders to whatever task they were asked to do to demonstrate that they were worthy of changing those men’s minds.

Many noble Lords did not want women’s suffrage. On observing the debate in the Lords that night, Mary Stocks said:

“The course of the debate made it clear that a majority of its members regarded even a limited measure of women’s suffrage with distaste, amounting to horror. But in view of the movement of public opinion outside, as demonstrated by an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons, the House of Lords was not prepared to flout democratically expressed public opinion. The anti-suffrage peers abstained from voting in sufficient numbers, thus enabling the vital clause to go through. In fact the Upper House was not in 1918 prepared to frustrate the clearly expressed will of the people. Nor should it be so prepared”.


That has relevance to the debates that we are undertaking at the moment on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and I have been encouraged by listening to the debate we had last week. Despite the fact that this House recognised that it has the opportunity and right—nay, the duty—to challenge and scrutinise, we also recognised that there is a will elsewhere. It does not stop any noble Lords whose political views are that they want to remain continuing to fight for that, but I have not heard that view changed. I am encouraged, though, that even the men who opposed suffrage were prepared to abstain to allow the voice of the people to go through.

The quote from the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, from 50 years later was also interesting. Mary Stocks became a Peer in the mid-1960s. She was somewhat scathing about coming into the House but she also loved it. She reckoned that she was brought in as a broadcaster. For many years, she was the token woman on “Any Questions”, “The Brains Trust”, and the predecessors of “Prayer for the Day” and “Thought for the Day”. She was also an excellent interviewer. The interview to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred is really engaging and the parliamentary archives still have it. Mary Stocks, who was not a Conservative, interviewed Nancy Astor, who was definitely not Labour. If any noble Lord gets the chance to see it, it is fascinating; it certainly was on Parliament TV some time ago.

There have been other notable women in the Lords. I am reminded of Nancy Seear, the first Liberal leader in this House, who was an indomitable woman. If you ever met her, you would never forget it. Shirley Williams was my mentor; many other women in my party and the Labour Party had her support. She guided me for 10 years when I was standing for Parliament and trying to decide what to do, and when I came into your Lordships’ House. I also note some of my current heroes. My noble friend Lady Thornhill was the first woman elected mayor in this country and is about to stand down after 16 years’ service in Watford. My noble friend Lady Benjamin is a role model, and not just in broadcasting. Since she took her place in your Lordships’ House she has become an absolute advocate for the safety of children and we listen to her with great care and attention. I was amused by her stories about the BBC. She and I worked together on “Play School” when I was a floor manager. At the same time as she was being put under pressure for expecting her first child, I got engaged. I was hauled in to see the personnel officer who asked, “So when are you leaving us?”, because married women did not work. I had a colleague who did work after she got married. She came back from maternity leave, having made arrangements for her very small baby. The first thing the floor management team did was send her to Thailand for six months to work on “Tenko”. She resigned.

An experience of my own of being a woman in that field was filming in a men’s club. I was the only woman on the team; the actors in the show and the other people there were all men. I was urinated on as I was trying to cue actors in the corner. My story is personal to me and shaped the way I view things, but every other woman in this House has experienced similar things.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Me too.

[Baroness Brinton]

I am glad that there are others who are prepared to affirm it.

On business, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about the need for deeds not words. She referred to the work of the coalition Government, and I particularly want to highlight the work of my honourable friend Jo Swinson, who steered through parental leave. This is important, and it is not just about maternity leave. My son and daughter-in-law have two very small, premature babies. He works for L’Oreal, to which he moved just as the babies were born. He was told that there were no meetings after 4.30 pm because all young parents should have the chance to be at home to put their babies to bed. With examples like that, we have the pipeline that other noble Lords have been talking about. The responsibility for helping women move on entails an understanding that all parents, regardless of their gender, have a role in helping to bring up their children. Parental leave will take off as soon as organisations start asking young men what they are going to be doing when their baby is born.

The other fun person who I just wanted to raise briefly in the last couple of minutes—I think she has been mentioned in passing—is Marie Stopes. It is not fashionable to recognise her as a heroine but she was. I think her true recognition came in the 1960s, when her contribution was finally recognised for what it was. Mary Stocks wrote—I do not have enough time to quote her—that Marie Stopes did not just want contraception, she clearly changed women’s views about sex. One woman, speaking to Marie Stopes, said:

“He’s a good husband, he only troubles me once a week”.


In the 1920s, that was the common view. We talk about the outside and external achievements, but we must remember that the suffragists and suffragettes who went on to run birth control clinics also changed the lives of women around us—the entire world.

I must correct the view from some noble Lords on the Labour Benches that the Liberal Democrats have not introduced all-women shortlists. We have. Some 58% of our target seats in 2015 and just over 50% in 2017 had women in them. Unfortunately, when you lose seats, the chance of moving forward in other areas is somewhat difficult. We remain committed to that for exactly the same reasons as the Labour Party, because we know that it will improve diversity in other ways. It will improve the representation of disabled, BME and LGBT women in Parliament.

In conclusion, we have talked a lot this evening about deeds, not words. I ask every one of your Lordships to make your own deeds about what you will take out of this debate today. Write yourself a postcard with your top three actions, give it to your Whips Office and ask them to post it back to you in three months’ time to see what you have done. I will tell your Lordships why. I spoke about my granddaughters; they will be two this summer. At the current, glacial, rate of change they will be in their ninth decade before we have parity in the House of Commons. That is not good enough.

21:17

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to participate in this historic debate and an honour to close on behalf of the Labour Party, which has done much over more than 100 years to promote and advance the cause of women’s rights in many areas.

I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses opposite for achieving this debate—it is of course entirely appropriate that they should—and to all those people, as well as organisations, who are recognising the significance of 100 years of votes for women by organising or taking part in such a wide range of events, some of which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Massey. Our Parliament is well to the fore with its Vote 100 programme of events, and there are special exhibitions at the People’s History Museum in Manchester and at the Museum of London, where the shadow Cabinet will meet tomorrow to mark the centenary. Noble Lords may also be aware of Beyond the Ballot, a free online course which begins today, tracing women’s rights and suffrage from 1866 to the present. It has been produced by the Royal Holloway University of London and the Open University’s FutureLearn digital education platform, and I highly recommend it.

From this distance it seems barely credible that in the early years of the 20th century women felt driven to acts of violence simply to achieve the basic human right of casting their vote for the Government that would pass laws affecting their everyday lives. Violence can never be condoned, but in the circumstances I can understand why it was resorted to as a tactic. Let us not forget that the violence was by no means one way. The shameful events of Black Friday in 1910, when women campaigners were brutally assaulted by police and then imprisoned, where they were force-fed—an act, it should be said, that today we call torture—is not mentioned often enough when the suffragettes are recalled.

Noble Lords mentioned many of the most prominent women whose campaigning culminated in the 1918 Act. I planned to mention two, but my noble friend Lord Davies has left me with nothing to add to his excellent tribute to the remarkable Annie Kenney, one of many working-class women who fought for the right to vote. My noble friend Lady Thornton reeled off an impressive list of other working-class women, together with some beguiling and very interesting anecdotes.

I thought I would be the only person to mention Margaret Mackworth, the 2nd Viscountess Rhondda—but the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, stole my thunder. However, I will say one or two things about her, because she seems to have been a remarkable woman in many ways. She was involved in militant action with the Pankhursts—activities which saw her thrown into jail, and she was released only after going on hunger strike.

Neither the 1918 Act nor the one that followed it a year later satisfied Margaret Mackworth. The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 ended most of the existing common law restrictions on women, with marriage no longer legally considered a bar to the ability to work in the professions. But Mackworth realised that much more remained to be done, and you can understand why when I quote from the Times of 1920. I dare say that the Times regarded itself then, as it does now, as the newspaper of record, but it issued grave warnings about the dangers of extending voting rights to women under 30. Mature females might finally be allowed to engage with politics but the,

“scantily clad, jazzing flapper to whom a dance, a new hat or a man with a car is of more importance than the fate of nations”,

must never be entrusted with a vote. So in 1921 Margaret Mackworth founded the Six Point Group, a feminist campaign group focusing on equality between men and women and the rights of the child. It was instrumental in winning support for the change to all women getting the vote in 1928.

After her father’s death, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, Lady Rhondda tried to take his seat in your Lordships’ House, citing the 1919 Act, which, in theory, allowed women to exercise “any public office”. The Committee of Privileges voted against her plea and she never did enter this Chamber, although she very nearly lived to see the first women do so in 1958. That was when women were first admitted under the Life Peerages Act and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, a total of only 294 women Peers have been created since—that is less than five a year.

In the debate, noble Lords from all sides have welcomed the all-women shortlists introduced by the Labour Party. I think that generally there has been a great deal of agreement on that across the House. I would say that all-women shortlists are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and I saw them operate effectively in the Scottish Parliament. So perhaps, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy said in her typically forthright contribution, the time has come to consider quotas to lift the number of women Peers to 50%. Such a move could not be regarded in any way as ground-breaking in your Lordships’ House. After all, for the first 600 years of its existence it operated a quota—of 100%. Of course, as many noble Lords have said, 100 years ago it was not just in terms of the right to vote that women were held back. In many spheres of life—not least in terms of improving themselves—quite artificial barriers were placed in their way.

This year also marks the 150th anniversary of women being admitted to higher education. That was at the University of London and they were able to sit only for “certificates of proficiency” rather than being awarded degrees. It was a further 10 years before that threshold was crossed, although that still left women far apart from men, and it was not until the 1919 Act to which I referred a few moments ago that women were allowed to enter the professions.

In the years since, opportunities for girls and women have advanced considerably, but young women continue to experience gender stereotypes which prevent them reaching their full potential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, said. It runs a bit further than Peppa Pig; none the less, those are influential children’s television programmes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will know. Only one in three girls who take maths and science at GCSE progresses to take a STEM subject at A-level or equivalent, compared to eight out of 10 boys. Many schools still restrict the educational achievement of girls through gendered subjects at school and in apprenticeships. The Royal Society reported two months ago that only 20% of GCSE uptake in computer science in England is by girls; at A-level the figure is 9%. That is an essential tool for our economic future, yet so many females are excluded.

Even when they do well in attainment in education, it does not necessarily transfer to the workplace. There is a major shortfall in the number of women in senior positions, while, as we know only too well, gender-specific roles at work and the glass ceiling persist widely. According to the House of Commons Library, in 2016-17 54% of apprenticeship starts were by women and 46% by men, and more women than men have started apprenticeships each year since 2010. But the Fawcett Society analysis of BEIS data on apprenticeship starts and achievements reveals that men continue to dominate those with the best earnings potential. In 2014-15 nearly 17,000 men started engineering apprenticeships, while only 600 women did so.

The divided labour market is a key cause of the major issue in the working environment—the gender pay gap. This is a national scandal, and we knew that long before the BBC forced it into the spotlight. I have had an interest in this issue for a considerable time. Indeed, my university thesis in 1974 was on the implementation of the Labour Government’s Equal Pay Act. Of course, although that Act got on to the statute book in 1970, there was a five-year lead-in period for employers to make the changes necessary to accommodate the legislation. That was always an optimistic aim but, almost 50 years later, more than a quarter of the gender pay gap remains to be filled.

In 1975, women earned 36% less than median male hourly earnings. The latest available figure issued in April last year in the Office for National Statistics Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is 9.1%. That represents the comparison between full-time workers and excludes overtime earnings, but of course more men than women work overtime and more women than men work part time, so the 9.1% figure gives a distorted view of the gap in actual take-home pay between men and women. Taking all employees into account, the gender pay gap in 2017 was 18.4%.

That brings me to the BBC. Various noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, highlighted the recent events. I am one of the organisation’s biggest supporters and have defended it often from attacks by Governments of left and right, as well as by the right-wing tabloids. But I have to say—and I would do so were the noble Lord, Lord Hall, in his place today—that the BBC has got it very wrong on pay. As an organisation it has been slow, even reluctant, to take meaningful action for far too long. Who could have listened to the brave and hugely impressive testimony of Carrie Gracie to MPs last week without experiencing anger? That anger was not assuaged by the frankly risible conclusions of the PWC report on pay that there was,

“no evidence of systemic gender discrimination”.

Really? That message would have been no more credible had it been tattooed on the body of a pig flying past Broadcasting House.

Of course, we know what we know only because the BBC is publicly funded and has a duty of transparency. What about private companies in the media, as well as other sectors of employment? Anybody who does not believe that systemic gender discrimination in pay exists widely needs to get out more, probably from the comfort of their men-only club.

The Labour Party is proud to have a gender-balanced shadow Cabinet and to have more women MPs than all other parties put together, but we acknowledge that there is no room for complacency. We have yet to see the first female Labour Party leader elected at national level, although there is at least the fine example of Labour in your Lordships’ House, where we now have our fifth woman leader.

Women’s right to vote was achieved by determined and committed groups of politically motivated women who sacrificed much for their struggle. A record 208 women were elected to Parliament last year. But 100 years after the law was changed to allow women to become MPs, they still account for just 32% of the House of Commons, which simply is not good enough. Only in 2016 was a landmark of sorts reached, when the total number of women MPs ever elected reached 455—the same as the number of men then sitting as MPs. Were the suffragettes and suffragists able to express an opinion on events since 1918, I suspect they would be disappointed that the advances they achieved have not spurred more extensive gains bringing greater equality to the lives of women—and, as many noble Lords have said, a greater presence of women in senior posts in the law, business and the media, to name but three sectors.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy was undoubtedly right when she said that the game can no longer be played by men’s rules. We men must make it our duty, too, to change attitudes. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there must be a culture change. It is surely the collective duty of all of us, men and women, to ensure that the progress achieved thus far is extended until its natural and only acceptable conclusion of true equality is solidly embedded in all aspects of life.

21:28

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been not only very good humoured but humorous, and so varied in the number of absolutely fascinating and informative stories that we have heard.

I am very proud of the history that has allowed me the opportunity to stand here and speak. The campaign for women’s franchise started a chain of events that did not stop at the vote and enabled women to take their seats in this House. Before I respond to the particular points raised today, I want first to acknowledge those who made it possible for me to be here, some of whom are in the Chamber today. My noble friends Lady Morris of Bolton and Lady Jenkin, and in the other place the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister, and David Cameron before her, have all been pivotal in my journey here today.

In a wider sense, I have heard so much about the history of brilliant women that I did not know before and I want to go home and read about them all. To name a few, Jessie Stephen sounds fascinating and feisty, as does my noble friend Lady Jenkin’s granny and my noble friend Lady Seccombe’s mother, and who could forget Annie Kenney? Some of the women came from quite ordinary circumstances and went on to do extraordinary things. Those are the most powerful messages that we can deliver in this centenary year.

We must never forget that those women made remarkable sacrifices so that the sight of women here would be unremarkable. They faced criticism, abuse and defamation—one noble Lord told a story about oranges with razor blades in them. Their opponents rebuked them for stepping outside of their domestic environment. Little did those opponents know that it was in just those spaces from which women ran their households and raised their children that they also built their campaigns. It was in a Manchester parlour in 1903 that Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters established the Women’s Social and Political Union. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, might like to know that there is a small room in Manchester underneath the Women’s Aid building where you can find the Pankhurst Centre. We also have the People’s History Museum in Manchester, which tells much about women’s suffrage.

As so many noble Lords said today, it took many decades—you could say hundreds of years—of meetings, petitions and debate to achieve women’s suffrage, led ably by Millicent Fawcett and the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, which relied on the volunteering and tireless campaigning of women up and down the UK.

I have also listened to the challenges that women continue to face to enter Parliament, have a fulfilling career and survive the daily aggressions and harassment that can restrict women’s freedom and right to safety. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin said, the UK has made great progress, but there is so much more to do. All young women should be able to see Parliament as a place that they actively want to come to and make a real difference to people’s lives.

To answer a point raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton, we are commissioning evidence of what works from evaluated programmes in the UK and internationally. We know that there are many barriers to participation, but it is vital to understand what is effective and whether it is effective for only some women. Our aim is to offer political parties a range of options that they can draw on and adopt depending on their own needs.

Many noble Lords talked about legislating to commence Section 106 of the Equality Act. We welcome all actions by political parties to demonstrate their commitment to diversity, but we do not believe that further legislation and regulation is the best way forward. We have heard about what political parties are doing, and we believe that they are responsible for their candidate selection and should lead the way in improving the representation of women.

When Nancy Astor took her seat in the other place in 1919, she represented the women who protested, picketed, fought and died in a long campaign to be heard. Once elected, she received up to 2,000 letters a week from women all over the UK who trusted her to take their concerns seriously. Too often, many belittle the inequalities that continue to affect women and girls as “women’s issues” instead of society’s issues. These injustices should continue to shock and prompt action.

We have heard particularly about the barriers that women face to enter Parliament. Some of these are about the practicalities of life working in Westminster—working between multiple locations, balancing caring responsibilities with long working days or ensuring financial stability while pursuing election. I would like to commend Parliament, particularly the work of the Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion, for its work to make this a more family-friendly working environment, through practical solutions such as childcare facilities and changes to the parliamentary schedule.

The Government are also acting to ensure that women can play an equal part in the economy by giving them valuable skills and opportunities, encouraging girls into STEM subjects, introducing coding lessons from the age of seven, and delivering high-quality apprenticeships to challenge the notion that there are men’s jobs and women’s jobs. We want women to have equal access to higher-paying sectors and careers. We are investing £5 million in returners schemes so that people who take time out for caring responsibilities can return to work in jobs that match their skills and experience. We are also determined to address the gender pay gap through new regulations on businesses with more than 250 employees to report the differences in median earnings between women and men. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, talked about that. These actions are helping to level the playing field so that women are free to make choices about their lives and their aspirations, including politics, while ensuring their financial security.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Donaghy, talked about the WASPI ladies. We should recognise the skills, talents and experience that older women bring to the workforce by equalising the state pension age and eliminating gender inequalities in social security. However, the Government did introduce a concession that is worth £1.1 billion which means that no one should be made to work more than an additional 18 months as compared with the previous timetable to retire as a result of the change in the state pension age.

My noble friend Lord Sherbourne and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked about the BBC in relation to its pay issues which have been so prominent in the press recently. We welcome the publication of the BBC’s review into on-air pay and the plans to establish a new transparent pay policy for presenters and journalists. That is long overdue. The BBC must ensure that its pay arrangements are rooted in fairness and equality, and we expect it to act quickly to resolve any outstanding issues. It remains a matter for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to consider whether to investigate pay at the BBC as the regulatory body for enforcing equal pay. We understand that the EHRC has already approached the BBC following the concerns raised by Carrie Gracie, the former China editor.

I have also heard very clearly how women are held back by outdated beliefs that they are unsuited to taking on positions of authority. I am proud that enough people challenge those norms so that we now have our second female Prime Minister, the first of course being Mrs Thatcher, but recent events and revelations remind us that we still have a long way to go.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked about the closure of the Women’s National Commission. I had not heard of the Women’s National Commission and am pleased to be educated about it. The Government Equalities Office continues to work closely with the women’s sector following the move to bring the work of the Women’s National Commission into government. In preparing the UK’s eighth periodic report to the CEDAW committee, the Government Equalities Office conducted a targeted engagement exercise with a cross-section of women’s organisations and we intend to build on that.

My noble friend Lady Hodgson made the point that no women have been appointed to the United Nations. A range of factors are explored when considering the nomination of a candidate for an election to a body such as the CEDAW committee, and a decision on whether to nominate a UK candidate for the next CEDAW committee membership will be made by 7 March.

The Prime Minister has updated the Ministerial Code to state that, as well as maintaining the highest standards of personal conduct, Ministers must,

“be professional … and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect”.

This Parliament often sets an example to the world with ground-breaking legislation and open debate on the pressing issues of the day, but clearly it also reflects the obstacles facing all of society. The Government acknowledge that a gender-balanced Parliament is long overdue and we share the aspirations of those on all sides to make it happen. Parliament should be a place any person can aspire to work in.

My noble friend Lady Eaton talked about local councils. Women make up 33% of local councillors in England, but only 17% of council leaders. I recall that when I became a council leader I was the only female leader in Greater Manchester—in fact, the only Tory leader in Greater Manchester. That is an interesting form of 100% representation. Government and other administrations should reflect the constituencies they serve and gender parity is long overdue at all levels of governance. In December, the Department for Communities and Local Government held a round table with local government representatives, women’s organisations and others to identify barriers to women and to understand what support the Government can provide.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who I cannot believe is 69 years of age—I have some major repair work to do to myself—talked about greater discrimination against women of colour. I am proud, as I am sure she is, to be part of the most diverse Parliament in history, but we welcome all moves by political parties to remove barriers that limit anybody’s ability to participate in it. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the same points regarding having more trans and LGBT candidates, and indeed elected and appointed representatives in Parliament. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin talked about having not only the first female Prime Minister, but maybe the first female disabled Prime Minister. That time may well come.

As I have said, we do not think that legislation and regulation is the way to make this happen. We believe that political parties have the primary responsibility for doing this. Different parties take different approaches. The histories of political parties also mean that some of their internal structures differ enormously. Therefore, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. As time goes on, the public will dictate that both the elected and unelected Houses will look far more representative. That is why the Government Equalities Office is commissioning the review that I talked about. Its aim is to provide political parties with a range of possible solutions that they might want to draw on.

There is other positive activity happening to move the debate forward. In March 2017, the Chancellor announced a £5 million fund to mark the centenary of women’s suffrage. Through it we aim to celebrate, educate and encourage more women to participate so that they have an equal voice. With the fund, we have developed an exciting national programme that includes education projects, a £1.5 million grant scheme for local communities and organisations that are supporting women’s representation, and the commemoration of two important figures of the suffrage movement so that a new generation can be inspired by their story. I have had several suggestions for several statues in several parts of the country. It will keep the DDCMS busy for quite some time to come.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, made a point about lowering the voting age. We set out a manifesto commitment to maintain the voting age at 18. We have every intention of doing so. It is widely recognised as the age at which one becomes an adult. Full citizenship rights, from drinking, to betting, to voting, should be gained at adulthood. It is important that children and young people feel engaged in the decision-making process. We do this in many different ways, from the Youth Parliament to gaining the views of children and young people on specific areas of legislation.

We are funding the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, the first woman to be honoured in this way. Manchester, as one of seven centenary cities and towns in England with a strong suffrage history, is receiving a portion of £1.2 million for projects that extend the legacy of their story. As someone who has spent all my adult life there, I am delighted that Manchester is using funds to honour the work and life of Emmeline Pankhurst with a statue. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, requested a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft; she was mentioned by several noble Lords. I know there are lots of calls for statues and campaigns such as Mary on the Green are actively campaigning and fundraising for memorials to mark the achievements of British women.

The presence of women in Parliament has, without question, altered social policy and legislation, and focused Parliament’s attention on gender equality. What is more, I believe we can benefit only from a Parliament, from business and from laws that represent the beliefs and make-up of the UK in its entirety.

Before I conclude, I pay tribute to the Fawcett Society, to Helen Pankhurst and her family, and to the countless organisations that continue to advocate for women in the UK and internationally and press for an end to inequality. I encourage noble Lords to take part in this year’s celebrations to mark the suffrage centenary and to celebrate the many women who have made their mark on Parliament and this House. The Representation of the People Act will be on display in Central Lobby from tomorrow so that any noble Lords who would like to see it can do so.

I shall end on someone I have not mentioned but who was very influential on me: Mrs Thatcher. I know she commands a wide range of views. She became Prime Minister when I was 11 years old and showed what women could achieve. Women might not agree with her, people might not agree with her, but everyone was always clear about Margaret Thatcher; she knew exactly what she wanted and she went out and got it in what was a very male world at the time. No, she did not promote many women to her Cabinet because there were not many women in Parliament in those days, in 1979, but she paved the way for women to know that they could get there—it was possible. I shall end with a quotation from Mrs Thatcher given by my noble friend Lady Hodgson: “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman”.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.48 pm.