House of Commons
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
1. What estimate he has made of the average change in funding for fire and rescue services between 2011 and 2013.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
Driving down the nation’s deficit remains the Government’s principal priority, but we have protected fire and rescue services in the spending review by back-loading their reductions to 2013-14 and 2014-15. As a consequence, the revenue spending power of single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will be reduced by only 2.2% in 2011-12 and by 0.5% in 2012-13.
Mr Anderson
The local chief fire officer in Tyne and Wear advises me that although the average loss across the country is 6.5%, in the metropolitan areas it is 12.9%. He believes that if the cuts go ahead they will lead to a weakening of national and local resilience, firefighters made compulsorily redundant, a further reduction in the number of rescuers, a significant fall in the number of readily available appliances and fire station closures. What will the Minister do to ensure that that prophesy does not come true?
Robert Neill
All local fire and rescue authorities must perform their statutory duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and act in a way that is consistent with their integrated risk management plans. The Government adjusted the fire formula following consultation with local fire and rescue authorities and increased the weighting given to the needs element and risk factors in urban areas.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that at least £630 million will be wasted by the Labour Government’s commitment to regional control centres and that in the south-east the taxpayer is likely to be paying £1.5 million a year in rent over the next 20 years for a control centre in Farnham that nobody needs? All that money could be better spent on the fire service today.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is right to point out the exceptionally strong condemnation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of the previous Administration’s project. We have done our best to minimise the damage to the taxpayer by terminating the contract and thereby ending the haemorrhage of money. We have also reduced the maintenance costs of the remaining stations and are seeking end uses for them. We are making progress in finding an appropriate use for them, to get them off the public books as swiftly as we can.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Fire services in Hampshire, Essex, Dorset, Devon and Somerset are receiving an increase in the Government grant over the next two years. South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, the west midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester all face cuts of more than 12%. Why?
Robert Neill
Apart from the adjustments to which I have referred, I used the same fire resources needs formula as I inherited from the right hon. Gentleman, so he should know.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Minister should stop being so complacent about these terrible cuts to the fire service. He has been warned by the country’s metropolitan chief fire officers that if his cuts proceed lives will be endangered and our ability to respond to acts of terrorism and other major incidents will be compromised. Will he listen to their warnings and scrap his plans for even deeper cuts to the fire and rescue service in years three and four of the budget cycle?
Robert Neill
I was about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his post in the reshuffle; I might rethink that, because I am afraid it is the same old story and he is plain wrong. The Government have made it clear that we are protecting the fire service as a front-line service. We have back-loaded services and indicated to county councils with fire authorities that they should maintain the same profile. We have also made available £70 million of capital grant to improve their future adjustments and made it clear that we will protect all front-line operations.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
2. What steps his Department is taking to dispose of surplus public sector land and offices.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
We are leading a cross-Government programme to release surplus public land for up to 100,000 homes.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is one thing to release brownfield land; it is another to get it built on. That is why we introduced the innovative build now, pay later regime, which will get homes on those sites quickly, with developers paying for them only when the receipts start to come in. That will do a great deal for social mobility, as will the home swap direct scheme, which was launched last week, and which I noted the Opposition criticised.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will probably guess that I was against the abolition of regional development agencies. Some of us are worried about the arrangements that were made to enable staff to start social enterprises, with generous endowments from the RDA, who then go into competition with existing players in the third sector.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman need not be too concerned. We believe that the best way of getting homes built—and the most built—is proper free competition between different providers, different developers and different organisations, which would range from co-ops to registered social landlords and commercial developers. We see no problem with that, and we have gained some sense that it is working. After all, more affordable homes for rent were built in the first year of this Government than at any time since John Major was in power.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
3. What the monetary value was of (a) council tax relief for second homeowners and (b) discounts on council tax for empty properties in England in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The Department keeps no figures for Scotland, but for 2011-12 the estimated monetary value of council tax relief for second home owners in England is £45 million, and for discounts on council tax for long-term empty properties in England it is £70 million. The hon. Gentleman might wish to refer to the written ministerial statement on technical reforms to council tax that I have laid before the House today.
John Robertson
I thank the Minister for his response. What would he say to those who think his new policy, as in his statement, is a penalty surcharge? Does he agree that they are wrong and misguided?
Mr Pickles
I should point out to the Labour Whips that the hon. Gentleman’s question was not planted to coincide with today’s announcement. The Labour Government reduced the second homes discount to 10%. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed what we are doing rather than condemn it. Perhaps he is of a mind that because the Tories are doing it, it must be wrong.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Second home and holiday home ownership in some Cornish parishes is as much as 80% of the overall housing stock. As part of the Government’s localism agenda, will my right hon. Friend consider giving local authorities the power to limit the number of second and holiday homes in an area?
Mr Pickles
I think that would be rather difficult and open to abuse. This is an important step for my hon. Friend’s constituents and it should enable council tax bills to be cut by an average of about £20.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
4. What estimate he has made of the number of social housing units occupied by people earning over £100,000 per annum.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
We estimate that there are about 6,000 households in social housing where the person named on the tenancy agreement and their partner have a combined income over £100,000 a year—something we intend to tackle through the pay to stay scheme, whereby those on six-figure incomes who wish to stay in their properties can pay to stay there.
Mr Burley
The 2,345 people currently on the housing waiting list in Cannock Chase will be gobsmacked to learn that an estimated 6,000 people still living in council houses are paying a subsidised rent despite earning more than £100,000 a year—four times the average salary of my constituents. With so many people in need of housing languishing on waiting lists, what assurances can the Minister give me and my constituents that those people who earn more than him will be forced to pay their way like the rest of us?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend points out a real problem with the housing system—that it is possible to earn a six-figure salary, sit on the Labour Benches and still occupy a home built for some of the most vulnerable people in society, who deserve those homes. We will allow the pay to stay scheme to go ahead, meaning that people can stay in their homes and pay the market rent so that we can use all the money to build more affordable homes for people who really need them.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
If the Government are so keen on restricting social housing to those on low incomes, how does the Minister explain the affordable rent regime? Is it not the case that in local authorities such as my own, even at 65% of market rents, the income required—without benefit—to pay for an affordable family-sized house is £77,000 a year?
Grant Shapps
We are keen to protect people on low incomes, not on high ones, as the hon. Lady suggested. The point about the housing benefit changes is that many of her constituents, along with mine and everyone else’s, will be asking how it can be fair for people in receipt of housing benefit to live in homes and streets that people on ordinary salaries cannot possibly afford to live in. That is the system that we are going to fix; when the Opposition were in government, they used to support that policy.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Will the Minister ensure that the revenue raised by pay to stay is ring-fenced for social housing?
Grant Shapps
I can provide a little more information. We expect some tens of millions of pounds to be raised by pay to stay. Those with six-figure incomes will pay a market rent to stay in their homes, and we will use every single penny of the money to build the more affordable housing that the most vulnerable people in society deserve and need.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does the £100,000 to which the question refers constitute household or individual income?
Grant Shapps
It constitutes the income of a household consisting of two partners.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
5. What the percentage change in band D council tax was in (a) England and (b) Worcestershire between 1997 and 2010.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Council tax in England more than doubled under the previous Administration, and shire counties were hit particularly hard. Under that formula, Worcestershire saw an average rise close to 140%.
Harriett Baldwin
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to record his thanks to staff and councillors at Malvern Hills and Wychavon district councils, which have managed to make enough back-office savings to enable them to freeze council tax following those shocking increases?
Mr Pickles
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking those two councils for prioritising their expenditure, for working together, and for protecting front-line services. After all, that is what local government should do, and it is what local government is particularly good at.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has earmarked funds for councils for this year and next year to encourage them to freeze council tax. Given the importance to councils of planning, is the Secretary of State thinking about what will happen in the following year? Is he likely to continue his present policy? Does he accept that if he withdraws the grant he will not have frozen council tax, but will merely have deferred two years’ increases and produced the possibility of very large increases in the following year?
Mr Pickles
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that for a moment. The arrangements for council tax in the current year will continue next year and the year after, throughout the spending period. On top of that, there is a one-off payment to councils to help them to reduce their expenditure. That seems eminently sensible to me. After that, the people will decide; it will not be up to me. The hon. Gentleman scoffs at referendums. The hon. Gentleman does not like talking about democracy. The hon. Gentleman seems not to think that the population are up to making such important decisions, but we do.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to promote local enterprise.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to promote local enterprise.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
19. What steps his Department is taking to promote local enterprise.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
My Department has been championing a series of measures to promote local economic growth. For example, our proposals for the local retention of business rates will reward councils for working with business, and will provide new incentives to drive growth. The 22 enterprise zones will generate new businesses and jobs in a targeted way across the country, from Newcastle to Newquay.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership in developing the enterprise zone at Warton. What steps is his Department taking to drive it and similar enterprise zones forward, and to create jobs for the people of Lancashire?
Mr Pickles
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind remarks. I do not want us to become a mutual admiration society, but although my hon. Friend was initially unsuccessful in securing enterprise zones, he continued to lobby, made a very good case for them, and managed to form a coalition of the willing in industry that Opposition Members would do well to emulate. Following the announcement on 3 October, when the Chancellor invited the Lancashire and Humber local enterprise partnerships to put together a scheme, my officials worked with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lancashire councils to produce something of which the people of Lancashire will be very proud.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
My question also concerns job creation. When I met the chief executive of my local council recently, we talked about what more could be done to support encourage local entrepreneurs. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to encourage all councils to display a “can do” rather than a “can’t do” attitude when approached by budding entrepreneurs?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend’s council has long had a reputation as a can-do council, and it is one of the best for keeping down the council tax and keeping satisfaction high among its residents. Given that quite a lot of the important developments in west London lie within her patch, we are looking to her and to the council to expedite badly needed growth.
Nicola Blackwood
Businesses in Oxford West and Abingdon tell me how important it is that they access local government procurement contracts, and about the difficulties they have in navigating some of the complicated procurement processes. The Government have taken some steps to support local businesses to access central Government procurement processes, but how can the Secretary of State’s Department help to open up local government procurement processes in the same way?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, we have been working very closely with the Local Government Association to try to free up procurement. Part of that, of course, has been ensuring that there is transparency so that we can see how councils are spending their money. I am particularly grateful to the LGA, with which we are trying to demystify the complexities of European procurement regulations to allow local businesses to bid.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will surely acknowledge that in cutting two thirds of the funds available to the regions of England when the regional development agencies were abolished, the Government struck a blow at the very innovation, growth and enterprise that he has been praising this afternoon. Is it not strange and revealing that it has been announced today that Sheffield Forgemasters will be given a third of the loan that was originally sought? Is that not an admission by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary and the Business Secretary that they got it totally wrong last year?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely wrong. The regional development agencies cannot be described as a success by any stretch of the imagination. The north lost out in economic growth compared with the south under Labour, and gross value added per head as a percentage of the total UK level fell across the north from 1997 to 2009 but rose in London. The north lost out in private sector jobs created under Labour—for every private sector job generated in the north and midlands, 10 were generated in London.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Why was the Coventry and Warwickshire bid for an enterprise zone turned down?
Mr Pickles
It came very close, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will work with the local councils, because it is possible to have a local development order in the area. It is certainly possible to do a deal on broadband, and once the Localism Bill is in force it will be possible to do a deal with regard to local taxation.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
How can the Secretary of State claim to be promoting local enterprise when the Government have kicked away its support? They abolished RDAs, against the advice of local business; he has paralysed the planning system; and his proposals for business rates mean that local authorities would be better off building big retail parks than supporting manufacturing and small business. As we now know that for every two jobs lost in the public sector fewer than one is being created in the private sector, why does he not admit that this out-of-date, ideologically driven policy is not working?
Mr Pickles
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I hope all her questions are as feisty as that one.
The Labour party simply has to stop clinging to the comfort blanket of the idea that it somehow left a golden economic legacy. It did not. It is impossible for Labour to defend local government and at the same time say that all it would do is put up sheds for Spudulike and Carphone Warehouse. Local authorities are responsible, and they will use the new initiative to work together and bring about growth, unlike the regional development agencies, which by and large were not a good thing.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the level of protection afforded to high-value agricultural land in his proposed planning reforms.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
The draft national planning policy framework contains strong protections to safeguard high-value agricultural land and recognises the importance of food production. We are now carefully considering the responses to the consultation.
Elizabeth Truss
Food and farming are vital to tourism and exports in Norfolk, and its produce is very high quality, as the Secretary of State found out when he visited the Norfolk food festival in Parliament earlier this month. Does the Minister agree that the planning framework should take into account the long-term value of agriculture, as once farmland is lost it is very hard to get back?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and when I was talking to the Secretary of State earlier, he extolled the virtues of the pies available at the Norfolk food festival. We must take into account the long-term value of food security as well as the short and medium-term economic benefits of food production.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to help local authorities reduce the cost of their property.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his great work in the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. Public sector assets are worth about £385 billion, almost two thirds of which are owned by councils.
Matthew Hancock
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. Is he looking forward to sending his boss along to next week’s launch of the second leg of the review of how much can be saved by reforming the way property is used by local public sector agencies and local authorities, which will highlight that this is about not just bricks and mortar but increasing productivity and spending money more wisely?
Grant Shapps
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will enjoy that visit enormously, especially if good food is on offer. My hon. Friend is on to something here: public sector assets are worth £385 billion, and two thirds of them are council-owned. If a saving of just 20% in running costs were made, that could save about £35 billion a year in receipts over 10 years. There is an enormous amount of money to be saved, therefore, and I commend the work that has been done.[Official Report, 21 November 2011, Vol. 536, c. 2MC.]
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
10. What recent representations he has received from environmental organisations on the national planning policy framework.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I have received several representations from environmental organisations on the draft national planning policy framework, and we are now considering our response to them.
Kerry McCarthy
That was a short, and not particularly sweet, reply. As I am sure the Minister knows, the wildlife trusts are calling for local wildlife sites and nature improvement areas to be included in the national planning framework, in order to protect wildlife against developers and to give councils more strategic guidance on improving local ecological networks. Will the Minister explain why such locations are not included in the framework?
Greg Clark
I have been having some very constructive discussions with the wildlife trusts, in which they have made precisely that point. The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I can say that we have heard their perfectly reasonable representations and have listened very carefully.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
There has been considerable outcry about the presumption in favour of development in the new framework, but is it not correct that there has been such a presumption in our planning framework for the past 40 years?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right, but the presumption in the draft framework is in favour of sustainable development and it is very important that development that would damage the future environment and social aspects of our towns, cities and countryside does not go ahead.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
As the Minister will be aware, many environmental organisations, ranging from the Campaign to Protect Rural England to English Heritage and to the National Trust—which might be better known to the Minister as left-wing nihilists—have raised a storm of protest about the Government’s planning proposals. Are their fears about the future protection of the environment likely to be allayed by the revelation that Treasury officials were much more involved in writing the national policy framework than were environmental planners?
Greg Clark
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box? It is good to have her serving on the Opposition Front-Bench team, as she has a long-standing interest in environmental and social matters. I am happy to correct the report to which she refers, however, which I think was based on a series of written parliamentary answers. I can assure her that a wide range of officials from many Departments participated, including from my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That report was therefore incorrect.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
11. How many bids to participate in the affordable rent scheme have been received to date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
We received offers from 197 providers for the affordable homes programme by the deadline of 3 May. On 14 July, we announced that, subject to contracts, 146 providers will deliver 80,000 new homes for affordable rent and affordable home ownership, with Government funding of just under £1.8 billion.
Iain Stewart
Nearly six months into this scheme, has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to assess what impact it might have on the provision of social housing in areas such as my constituency?
Andrew Stunell
I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that 15 of the 146 bids were for the Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale area. Ten of the bids were accepted, and nine have been signed up with the Homes and Communities Agency. Overall, the Government are committed to investing nearly £4.5 billion in new affordable housing, delivering 170,000 new affordable homes compared with the 150,000 originally estimated. That means we shall be increasing the supply during this Parliament rather than reducing it, as the previous Government did.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us how much money is being provided to local authorities to develop new council homes? Why are his Government insisting that any self-funded local development be provided by increasing council rents to 80% of market value, which makes those rents totally unaffordable in many urban parts of this country?
Andrew Stunell
I want to set the hon. Gentleman straight, because the ratio of the rent packages under the affordable rent offer in London is averaging 65% of market rents across London. Of course, tenants of those homes are eligible for housing benefit, as required.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
14. What steps his Department is taking to support home ownership.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
This Government are, of course, committed, first, to ensuring that interest rates remain low for as long as possible, so we have been tackling the deficit to help first-time buyers. In addition, we are helping 10,500 first-time buyers through our FirstBuy scheme and 100,000 new right-to-buy tenants currently in council houses will own their own homes.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the gap between deposit aspiration and deposit actuation for first-time buyers in Banbury and Bicester. Will he update the House on how the FirstBuy scheme will support young first-time buyer families in my constituency?
Grant Shapps
People are having to save such large deposits for their homes and we are keen to do something about that, so the FirstBuy scheme ensures that they need to save only 10% rather than the current average of 20%. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 169 homes are available in his constituency under the scheme.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
At a time when the Scottish Widows research shows that the average age of first-time unassisted buyers is set to rise to 44, is the Minister at all concerned that he might be just a little too complacent in his response?
Grant Shapps
First, just to correct the figures, we think that the current average age is about 37. There was a report suggesting that over the next 20, 30 or 40 years the figure might increase unless action is taken. We are absolutely focused on taking that action, which is why, as we have discussed, 100,000 homes are being sold through the right-to-buy scheme, with 100,000 affordable homes being built. This afternoon, we have discussed the 100,000 homes on Government land and, of course, the 170,000 homes through the new affordable homes programme, which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) mentioned. Yes, we are confident; we are doing many of the things that never happened under the previous Administration.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Because the Government have mismanaged the economy, consumer confidence, house prices and house building are falling, and we have a mortgage market in which people cannot get mortgages. Were it not for the 60,000 homes that were commissioned and paid for by a Labour Government but built in the past 12 months—Labour’s legacy—the house building industry would have been on its knees. Will the Housing Minister now back Labour’s call to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax in order to build 25,000 homes and create tens of thousands of jobs and apprenticeships? Will he also work with lenders and the house building industry to introduce a mortgage scheme that will offer hope to those who wish to buy their own home that they will be able to realise their dream?
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He will be the eighth housing spokesman or deputy on the Labour side whom I have faced either in government or in opposition. I hope that he stays there longer than the previous incumbents. I think the main questions are about the new homes bonus, the HomeSwap Direct scheme, the opposition to £100,000-salaried tenants in council homes and whether the gap in policy and the constant switching of Ministers are going to come to an end, because without that the Opposition have nothing to say about housing policy at all. We are starting to get homes built in this country for the first time in years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the legal opinion obtained by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England in relation to the green belt and the national planning policy framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
The Government have clearly stated their determination to maintain strong protections for the green belt. Of course, by abolishing regional strategies we are removing the threat to the green belt in more than 30 separate locations across the country. We have received a large number of representations in relation to the NPPF and we will give all of them, from all sources, appropriate and careful consideration.
Bill Esterson
I note that the Minister is ignoring the legal opinion. Let me read to him what CPRE has to say. It is concerned that
“Green Belt policy would be undermined by the sustainable development presumption together with the expectation that applications should be approved unless there are adverse impacts to policies in the NPPF as a whole.”
What is he doing to address those concerns, which result from a legal opinion? Does he agree with that advice?
Robert Neill
I have to say that one comes across a lot of legal opinions—I have done so myself in a previous life—and I have every respect for the author of that opinion, but we will consider it along with all the other submissions we consider in relation to the NPPF.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Perhaps the difficulty is that the countryside is not defined and neither are green spaces or green areas. Could we perhaps refer to “appropriate” rather than “sustainable” development?
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. Obviously, we will consider any constructive suggestions, as we have made clear. It is worth bearing in mind that the presumption enhances a plan-led approach. Indeed, the significance of up-to-date plans is strengthened under our proposal, which I note that another eminent QC described in the planning encyclopaedia as an “excellent piece of work”.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
16. What steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to develop landlord accreditation schemes for the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
Good accreditation schemes can play an important role in developing a local authority’s relationship with its local landlords. Experience shows that accreditation works much better when it reflects local circumstances at local government level.
Simon Hughes
Given that it is only seven weeks until the official beginning of winter and that one of the great failures of the private sector for tenants is that it often provides badly insulated homes, what can the Government do to make sure not only that tenants stay warm but that they do not have ridiculously high fuel bills?
Andrew Stunell
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Both fuel poverty and carbon emissions are major targets of the Government’s policy. That is why we are introducing the green deal next year, which is available to landlords for the private rented sector, and that is also why we have the energy company obligation. My right hon. Friend will know that the Energy Act 2011 provides the opportunity to introduce minimum standards in the private rented sector from 2018 if we need to go further.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the growing trend whereby the produce of drugs sales is used to fund the private rented sector and as a means of laundering the money involved? If so, what is he going to do about it.
Andrew Stunell
Clearly, if the right hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, I am sure that he will pass it to the proper authorities so that action can be taken. I am well aware that such matters will be vigorously investigated by the police and, if necessary, the Revenue.
Mr Speaker
Order. I had been advised that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) had withdrawn his question, but a simple nod of the head will suffice to reinstate him. We are grateful.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
17. What contribution he expects the private rented sector to make towards future housing need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
The private rented sector has already responded flexibly to housing need over the past few years. By 2010 it had expanded to house some 3.4 million households in England, an increase of 1 million since 2005.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and apologise for any delay, which was caused by my train. In view of his response, what assessment and modelling has his Department undertaken on the impact of the change to the thirtieth percentile for housing allowance and the extension of the single-room rent to those under 35 years of age? Many private landlords are extremely concerned about the impact on their viability.
Andrew Stunell
I thank my hon. Friend and am grateful that his train got him here on time. The Department for Work and Pensions has published a full assessment of the number of residents projected to be affected by the changes that have been brought forward and has presented to the House the facts of the situation.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
If we accept that, as the Minister suggests, we will be more dependent on the private rented sector, what action will he take to deal with the very high rents and very low standards in much of the sector?
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that satisfaction surveys have shown that 70% of tenants in the private rented sector say that they are fairly satisfied or very satisfied, which contrasts with 69%—slightly lower—in the social rented sector, so we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about that. It is of course important that accommodation is of a high standard, which is why many local authorities have developed accreditation schemes, and in some cases licensing schemes, to deal with the problem.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
20. What steps he is taking to protect green belt land.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
The draft national planning policy framework is unequivocal in continuing the protection of the green belt. By abolishing the previous Government’s regional spatial strategies, we are removing the top-down pressure on councils to take away the green belt in 30 areas across England.
Karen Lumley
My constituents in Hanbury, a small village near Redditch, are facing a proposed development of over 400 homes, which would considerably change the nature of the village. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that their rights will be protected under the framework and that due consideration will be given to their concerns?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot comment on the particular situation to which she refers, but she should be reassured about the new powers set out in the framework. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), quoted from the legal bible on planning, the planning encyclopaedia. It states, “The most impressive of the sections in the NPPF is that on the green belt.” As a précis of PPG, it states that, “it could not be bettered, in particular in respect to inappropriate development. It would certainly be inconsistent with the policies herein contained for there to be any significant encroachment of built development on the green belt.”
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
21. What plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities to deal with unauthorised development.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The Localism Bill includes five provisions aimed at strengthening local planning authorities’ powers to tackle unauthorised development. These include restrictions on the use of retrospective planning applications when an enforcement notice has been served and the ability of councils to take action against unauthorised development that has been concealed deliberately.
Lorraine Fullbrook
Does my right hon. Friend agree that unauthorised developments have created tensions between Travellers and the settled population and consequently created community dysfunction?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. The Traveller community has managed to live side by side with the settled community for many years, but recent changes in planning law and recent reliance on human rights have created a number of difficulties. We will be issuing some revised guidance very soon, which will complement the Localism Bill.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Last week I spoke at the conference on supporting local communities after August’s disgraceful riots. Money is already reaching local firms, but at the request of councils we are extending the deadline for the high street support scheme until after Christmas in order to ensure that even more firms can be helped.
I have a meeting with Louise Casey, who is leading a new troubled families unit in my Department. Such families cost the economy more than £8 billion, and they have been failed by up to 20 overlapping agencies.
This morning I represented Her Majesty’s Government at the memorial service for Sir Simon Milton. His influential voice will be greatly missed, and the Prime Minister in a written tribute said:
“A gentle and modest man, he earned the respect and admiration from politicians of all political colours and from the communities he served so diligently.”
He will be greatly missed.
Sarah Newton
Repatriating council houses, as well as their rents, will be positively welcomed by tenants and enable Cornwall to build much-needed new council housing, so will the Secretary of State assure me that plans to change the self-financing of council housing are on track to be delivered in April next year?
Mr Pickles
I know my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in council housing and has been a substantial champion of it. Yes, indeed, that reform is part of the coalition agreement, and, although it has taken some while to negotiate, once it is delivered we will be able to distribute debt throughout the country and place authorities in a much better and stronger position. I know that it enjoys support across the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words about Simon Milton?
As a direct result of a decision taken by the Secretary of State, the most deprived 10% of single-tier councils will see their spending power reduced by almost four times as much as the least deprived 10%. So far, he has failed to justify that choice of his. Will he now explain to the House why he thinks that it is fair?
Mr Pickles
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he will be extremely comfortable, and we will do our best to increase his comfort as the months go on.
The answer is very straightforward. The previous Government made a number of decisions to attack the most deprived areas by removing measures such as the working neighbourhoods fund. They left no provision, so it was up to us to put in some provision to help the most needy. In addition, we have ensured that under those schemes the most needy authorities receive more than the least needy authorities.
Hilary Benn
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but an answer to the question would have been even nicer, so let me try another one.
In the Secretary of State’s speech to the Conservative party conference this year, he promised new safeguards for playing fields. In fact, he is scrapping Labour’s planning policy guidance in a way that
“significantly weakens the current protection on sports facilities”—
not my words, but those of Sport England. Why is he doing that, and will he now revise his national planning policy framework to put that protection back in?
Mr Pickles
I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to the job, but he is very distinguished and should at least have done his homework. He knows perfectly well that that is certainly not the case. We are having very constructive discussions with Sport England about planning policy, and those protections will be there.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T2. What are the Government doing about empty homes and, in particular, homes above shops as a way of easing pressure on the green belt?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We now have some 700,000 empty homes, of which over 300,000 have been empty for more than six months, and it remains a key priority of this Government to bring them back into use so that some of the 1.7 million families on council house waiting lists and the many more who would like to purchase their homes can do so.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
T3. Will the Secretary of State confirm the really startling figures from the first quarter of the operation of the new homes bonus, which show that new home starts went down by 18% compared with the same period last year, and that residential planning permissions went down by 23% compared with that same period? If he can confirm that those figures are correct, will he tell us what plans he has to revise the mechanisms of the new homes bonus?
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Every question from the Opposition seems to involve an attack on the new homes bonus, which will pay the same amount as last year—nearly £200 million—for new homes started, in addition to another sum which may well be similar again, and in addition to an additional £20-plus million for the affordable housing element of the new homes bonus. The House needs to understand whether or not the Opposition support a bonus being paid when new homes are built.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
T6. Does the Minister agree that the key to opening up public sector procurement opportunities for small and micro-businesses is to ask local authorities to ensure that companies that are experts in their fields are not effectively excluded by the use of consolidated contracts that favour larger businesses that might be a jack of all trades but a master of none?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point, because this is precisely why we are working with the Local Government Association on its local procurement programme. The programme is looking in particular at what are sometimes described as micro-lots, which are used as a means of breaking up a large contract into smaller bundles, which are specifically designed to be more accessible to smaller firms and providers.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T4. Even though a five-star dinner at the Savoy, which was paid for by the lobbyist Bell Pottinger, had in attendance at least one firm that had an application in with the Secretary of State’s Department, he says that he has no reason to register it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because that day he was eating not as a Minister but as a private person. If we are to have a robust, transparent system of lobbying, does he not think that that loophole needs to be closed, so that we do not have to guess on which days Members are eating privately and on which they are eating ministerially?
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted to hear the question, but the registration of Members’ interests is undertaken by Members in their capacity as Members, rather than as Ministers. I suspect that there will be a correspondence or exchange subsequently, but that is my understanding of the position.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T7. Southend council is facing a sensitive planning application to build a hospice on green belt land. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to local residents that that would not create a precedent for more building on the green belt?
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot comment on that particular application, for reasons that he understands, but I think it has been clear from our exchanges today that our determination is to protect the green belt through the national planning policy framework, and to take away the threats that are placed on local councils to remove it.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T5. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and a strong supporter of the British Legion, I am concerned to ensure that returning service personnel receive the strongest possible support. Why, therefore, did the Minister admit on 10 February that his Department had done nothing to assess the housing needs of that group?
Grant Shapps
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady intended to suggest that I had made that comment, but let me reassure her that I have held a returning forces summit to talk about and act upon those people’s rights to get into new-build homes and to get to the top of the waiting lists. I can further tell her that it is my intention to ensure that they have No. 1 priority when we launch the tenancy directions in a week or two. It is the absolute priority of our Department to ensure that returning personnel get every advantage when it comes to new homes.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T8. With reference to planning policy, what measures are the Government going to introduce to ensure that councils can encourage businesses to thrive and prosper, and encourage new ones to come to their area?
Mr Pickles
This is happening in relation not only to our planning policy but to the change in the way local government is financed. We have heard some discussion about the new homes bonus, and we are changing and repatriating the business rate. We are also working alongside business in the new enterprise partnerships, rather than dictating to it as the previous lot did.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Greater Manchester is set to lose up to 500 firefighters during this Parliament. How can it be right that Greater Manchester fire service faces a two-year funding cut of 9% when Essex and Cheshire will enjoy an increase of 2%?
Robert Neill
The fire distribution formula is based essentially on a needs element, which in turn looks at the pressures on the fire authority, including risks and issues that arise from being urban. In fact, as I said in response to an earlier question, I increased the weighting given to urban factors within the formula. Larger authorities often have the greatest ability to deal with shared services, joint operation and better procurement. The spending power reduction takes account of reserves and council tax, and always remains significantly less.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
T9. Many companies in my constituency are finding it hard to cope financially at the moment. What action will the Minister take to boost local enterprise and local business in Kent?
Mr Pickles
I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted with today’s announcement of the regional growth fund expansion in east Kent, including the funding of small and medium-sized enterprises. This supports delivery of critical infrastructure to provide jobs, and at £40 million it is one of the highest awards. I am delighted that the regional growth fund is helping investor technology, and we are seeing the start-up of a local enterprise partnership at the Sandwich site to deal with those questions relating to Pfizer.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that when the working neighbourhoods fund was created, local authorities in Bolsover and Chesterfield provided lots of apprenticeships in north Derbyshire. Unless that working neighbourhoods fund is continued through 2012, those apprenticeships, which are like the song and dance of one of his ministerial colleagues, will be gone. What will he do about that?
Mr Pickles
Before the hon. Gentleman gets into his version of the two step, let me tell him that the former Labour Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), announced the ending of the working neighbourhoods fund, which ended in March. We found some transitional relief, so if the hon. Gentleman is interested in dancing, I suggest he do a tango with his right hon. Friend.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Wiltshire council continues to spend eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money on redundancy payments. Will the Secretary of State back last year’s Audit Commission recommendation that councils should publish details of such severance payments within a short, set time period?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Controversially, developers in Rochdale wish to build 600 houses on the site of what was the world’s biggest asbestos factory. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), say why, during a recent party political visit to Rochdale, he held a private meeting at the site with the council’s head of planning, which excluded everyone else, including long-standing local community campaigners?
Robert Neill
All meetings are dealt with appropriately through the codes. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that in any planning application all matters must be dealt with entirely appropriately and transparently.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Time and again, my constituents complain about the effects of garden-grabbing on the character of local neighbourhoods. Will my hon. Friend assure me and the House that planning reforms will protect residential gardens, and stop inappropriate development in future?
Greg Clark
I certainly will. We have already changed the definition of brownfield sites so that gardens are not included and no local authority is obliged to build on gardens if it does not want to.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
How many jobs and businesses will be created as a result of the enterprise zone being set up on Teesside?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman seems to scoff at the idea. Having being in Teesside, it seems to me that job prospects are considerably enhanced. Frankly, he should get behind that, and not criticise it.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Great Yarmouth last week and seeing our enterprise zone at first hand. With the announcement then of businesses already signing up to an enterprise zone, and today a signature to the memorandum of understanding with Scottish Power for our port and outer harbour, does he agree that such working together by local authorities and businesses will see the growth of real jobs through enterprise zones?
Mr Pickles
I was very impressed by what I saw in Great Yarmouth, which has within it Nelson ward—the fourth most deprived ward in the country. What impressed me was people’s determination. Great Yarmouth had an opportunity, about 30 years ago, to become the Aberdeen of the south, and with the move towards carbon capture and similar moves on energy it has an opportunity to become a major driving force within the United Kingdom.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my interests in the register?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Notting Hill Housing Trust, a housing association, is reported to be marketing overseas some of the homes that it is currently building? Although it may be understandable for private builders facing the very serious crisis in selling properties to do this, is it not totally unacceptable, at a time of chronic need for housing for British people here in this country, for a housing association to be selling homes overseas? What is the Minister going to do about it?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long history in housing, and I will certainly undertake to look into the subject that he has raised. Let me mention something else that has come to my attention. A lot of people who are in council houses have second homes, and they rent out their main home or the council home. That is another scandal that I am sure he will appreciate our bringing to an end.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I very much welcome the establishment of the new national social housing HomeSwap website. Is it not a shame that the shadow Housing Minister describes it as a “gimmick”, particularly since his party destroyed the last one?
Grant Shapps
The opportunity for people in social housing to be able to swap homes in exactly the same way as in the private rented sector, or indeed for home owners, is absolutely invaluable. The scheme says a lot about this Government’s intention of ensuring that social mobility applies to all. It is a great pity that the Opposition spokesman criticised it, given that it will give people the opportunity to move for social reasons, family reasons, and, of course, work.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Government have made much of localism. Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate that local people and Lewisham council can prevent further betting shops in Deptford high street, given that we already have eight betting shops and four pawnbrokers? Will he revise the Use Classes Order 2010?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Lady rightly takes up the cause of her constituents, as do other Members across the country. We are taking this very seriously, and we will have more to say about it during the weeks ahead.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Minister with responsibility for localism believe that Government, and indeed local government, websites can provide an invaluable way of allowing ordinary people to express their point of view? If 100,000 people were to express a point of view, does he think that they should be listened to? A simple yes will suffice.
Mr Pickles
I hope that we are a listening Government, and I hope that my colleagues in local government are listening councils.
Feed-in Tariffs
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the Government’s proposals to reform feed-in tariffs.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Since the feed-in tariffs scheme started, it has been successful in encouraging people up and down the country to get involved in local, clean green energy generation. Solar photovoltaic has led the way, and more than 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity. It is a very attractive technology to install, driving forward the coalition’s ambitious, decentralised energy agenda, but let us be clear: the current returns now available on solar PV investments, funded by energy consumers through our energy bills, are unsustainable. Falling PV costs mean that returns are at least double those originally envisaged for the scheme. This does not provide value for money to consumers. If we do not act now, the entire £867 million budget for the current spending review period would be fully committed within the next few months. That would limit the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs.
We are therefore consulting on new tariffs for solar PV installations. Owing to the urgency involved, we propose that the new tariffs would apply to all new installations that become eligible for FITs on or after a “reference date”, which we propose should be 12 December. We are also seeking views on other proposals, including one to strengthen the link between feed-in tariffs and energy efficiency. It cannot be right, and it is a fault of the system that we inherited, that we subsidise renewable energy generation on energy-inefficient buildings.
We are determined to secure the continued success of feed-in tariffs through sustainable growth, not boom and bust. We are consulting on new tariffs for solar PV to secure the FITs budget in the interests of all eligible technologies and to bring greater coherence to the Government’s ambitious policies to green Britain’s homes.
Caroline Flint
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for forcing the Government to come to the Commons today. With thousands of jobs and businesses at risk, it was rather a surprise that the Government wanted only to issue a written statement. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change could not spare the time to be here.
Today’s announcement is yet another example of a Government who are out of touch, are cutting too far and too fast, and have no plan for jobs and growth. Last year, the solar industry employed 3,000 people in 450 businesses. Today, it employs 25,000 people in 3,000 businesses. With growth flatlining everywhere else, today’s announcement threatens to strangle at birth the solar industry. It is a kick in the teeth for families who want to do the right thing by investing in solar. The new proposals guarantee that lower-income households will lose out, as fewer firms offer the lifetime deals that are currently available, and that solar will be available only to the well-off.
The Minister claims that installation costs have fallen by 30%. That is partly, I would argue, because of the mass, bulk investment in this new industry. If that is so, why have the Government reduced the tariffs by more than 50%? With a new rate of 21p per kWh, how many jobs and businesses have been put at risk? The UK has installed only 3% of the solar energy installed in Germany in the past two years. Is that the level of the Government’s ambition—3% of German productivity?
The Minister claims that the current scheme could add £26 to domestic electricity bills. The fact is that this Government’s failure to stand up to the powerful vested interests in the energy industry has led to £175 being added to bills in the past six months alone.
Will the Minister tell us why, when the consultation is not due to finish until 23 December, the cut-off point for eligibility under the existing scheme is 12 December? What does he say to people who have already commissioned domestic solar power systems and paid a deposit, but who, through no fault of their own, will not manage to install, certify and officially register them by 12 December?
Labour started the process of feed-in tariffs and we remain proud of it. It may have needed adjustment as costs fell, but the coalition has messed around with it repeatedly, given out mixed messages and left 25,000 workers in a high-tech industry of the future facing the dole. In opposition, the Conservatives promised a more ambitious scheme; today’s announcement is just another broken promise.
Gregory Barker
This is rather extraordinary, because there has only ever been one substantive vote on feed-in tariffs in the House of Commons. Everyone on this side of the House voted in favour of feed-in tariffs. The right hon. Lady and all her hon. Friends voted against them. Will she apologise because the last Labour Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into setting up a feed-in tariff system? Not only that, but they so begrudged it that they set up the worst scheme that they could imagine. The amount of detail that was wrong and the scandalous way in which it was set up by the now Leader of the Opposition were disgraceful. The faults that we are rectifying were created by the previous Government.
The right hon. Lady says that we are out of touch. We may be out of touch with the solar lobby, but we are not out of touch with energy bill payers. She says that they are groaning under a £175 increase, but she wants to put that up. If we did not act now, consumers would face massive increases in energy bills. Today, she has come to the House with a different face on and she does not care about the cost that she proposes to add to energy bills. If energy bills go unchecked, it would add around £1 billion a year—that might be small beer to Opposition Members, but Government Members understand just how much strain energy consumers are under.
The right hon. Lady talks about the level of ambition. We know that had the previous Government had their way, there would be no ambition, because there would be no feed-in tariff scheme. The only reason we have a feed-in tariff scheme is that the Labour Government were defeated in the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives united.
The new tariff that we are proposing to pay is on a par with the tariff paid in Germany. Across Europe, the cost of solar subsidy has been falling. It is a real shame that the right hon. Lady is rushing to make partisan points rather than engaging in a sensible discussion on how we get the best value for money out of the feed-in tariff scheme. We have £867 million. We want it to be spread as widely as possible; she wants it to be enjoyed by the lucky few. Bumper double-digit returns of 10% or 15% for those lucky enough to install panels is disgraceful when people are lucky to get 1%, 2% or 3% at the building society. The Government are recalibrating the return on feed-in tariffs to the level—similar to 5%—that was originally intended. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is the one who is out of touch.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asks why eligibility will start from 12 December. It is very simple. Were we not to do that, and were we to announce a change now and leave the current arrangements in place until next April, there would be a massive gold-rush, and the entire budget for feed-in tariffs—the entire £867 million—would be gone by then. The last people from whom we should take lessons on how to manage a budget are Labour Members.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As someone who thinks it is very important that we get lower energy bills, I welcome any move in the right direction. Will the Minister tell us how much his proposals might knock off the bill, and will there be other measures to get the price down further?
Gregory Barker
This is saving money rather than knocking money off the bill, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely determined to ensure that green policies deliver real value for money. Unlike the Opposition, we are engaged not in some sort of illusion of green never-never land, but in the realities of what will deliver savings to consumers now, and real green jobs and growth. It is that rather than wishful thinking that informs our policy making.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
What are the implications for housing associations, such as Peabody, which by providing solar energy in my constituency is helping the very poorest in the country to cut their energy bills?
Gregory Barker
That will depend on the assumptions that the housing association has made of the rate of return that it will get. If it worked on the basis of the rate of return that was originally intended for the scheme when the right hon. Lady was in the Department—that is, around 5%—it will have absolutely no problem in going forward. If it has based the rate of return on the inflated rate that we have seen this year as a result of the dramatic fall in prices—conservative estimates are that the fall in costs is 30%, but others, such as Bloomberg, say that it is up to 70%—and if it is assuming a double-digit rate of return, it will struggle to finance the scheme.
However, I would say to the right hon. Lady, who I know is committed to this agenda, that we must see this stage of feed-in tariffs as building the foundations of a decentralised system that includes a large element of solar. However, even given the high costs of solar, at 21p it will attract the highest level of any subsidy of mainstream technologies. At that level, we cannot simply give an open cheque for unfettered deployment.
Mr Speaker
I listened with the very closest and most intense interest to the answer by the Minister, but if we could have slightly pithier answers from now on, it would aid us all greatly.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The requirement for participants in the scheme to achieve a certain energy efficiency will work against people in rural houses with solid walls, who will find that difficult to achieve. Will the Minister say something about those people, who are often in fuel poverty?
Gregory Barker
Yes, we want much greater integration in the Government’s various policies, certainly the ones that we inherited. We think that before anybody does anything they should improve the energy efficiency of their home. That obviously presents particular problems for people in rural areas, which is why the green deal will include a substantial element of annual subsidy through the energy company obligation, which will particularly help those with solid walls and in off-grid and rural areas.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that the installation and registration deadline for the existing tariff is 11 days prior to the close of consultation, will the Minister confirm whether it is a new Government policy to consult on things despite having already fixed a deadline? If, on the other hand, the consultation finds that the deadline is inappropriate and the Government reach that conclusion after listening to the public, what will they do about those who fall into the gap in the meantime?
Gregory Barker
This is a difficult issue. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are trying to save the budget. If we were to leave this scheme open until next April, as we had originally intended—although we said that we would act if there was an urgent need, and there is—there would be a run on the fund. The cut-off date will be 12 December, but people will not get a reduction in tariffs until April. It is complex. It is driven by the fact that there is a run on the budget, and we are acting responsibly to preserve the budget for lots of other consumers and to ensure that it does not just disappear in the next few months.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Will the Government explain how our policies compare to those in Europe where feed-in tariffs have also become unaffordable?
Gregory Barker
Of course, in socialist Spain we have seen boom and bust writ large, with the entire solar tariff scheme collapsing, causing a complete run in confidence. Elsewhere across Europe, we have also seen massive falls in solar prices. The more nimble, smarter tariff schemes have adjusted down their tariffs. We aim to get ours on a par with something similar to that in Germany.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Proven Energy, a firm in my constituency, went bust because of the inadequacies of the planning regulations for small wind energy. For that reason, the 55 people now on the dole do not accept the Government’s proposition that they are the greenest Government ever. What evidence can the Minister give me that today’s announcement will be any different from previous commitments and that this is not just empty rhetoric with no substance?
Gregory Barker
It will not be a surprise that I disagree strongly with the hon. Gentleman. We are the greenest Government ever. This is the Government who have put £3 billion into a green investment bank; who have cut their emissions by 13.5%, despite Opposition Members saying that it was not possible; and who are backing green energy and have an ambitious plan for a whole range of technologies, and who are not one-club golfing.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the House that Members who were not here at the start of this exchange should not expect to be called?
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I understand the necessity of ensuring a sustainable scheme, but will the Minister assure me that the voices of small companies such as C. Gascoigne, a family-based electrical installation company in my constituency, will be heard as part of the consultation and that it will not be left just to the big companies to set the policy?
Gregory Barker
Absolutely. It is because we value the work of small and medium-sized enterprises and smaller companies that we do not want many of the larger companies simply to gobble up the whole budget within months. We will be listening carefully to SMEs and trying to provide a sustainable pathway that they can build on.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I believe that the Minister is aware of Brighton energy co-op in my constituency, which uses investment for local people for community-owned solar panels. The project’s director is deeply concerned about the impact of these new proposals. Will he offer a stay of execution for community projects with planning permission so that they can get up and running and not be bound by the December deadline?
Gregory Barker
One of the faults of the scheme that we inherited from the Labour Government was that there was no way of recognising within the tariffs any sort of community scheme. One way in which we will reform the scheme will be to consider creating a special tariff for community schemes, which were totally ignored in the system set up by Labour Members.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the House that anyone on the existing feed-in tariff will not see it reduced?
Gregory Barker
Absolutely; these changes do not apply to anybody already claiming the tariff.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been campaigning for those off the gas grid. Many people who do not have mains gas pay the highest winter fuel costs; is there a possibility that those who have moved over to PV will be looked at specially? Is there a special discount for people who do not have mains gas?
Gregory Barker
There is no special discount for those off mains gas, but obviously the counter-factual makes the offer even more attractive for them. I would encourage those such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are off-gas not only to look at solar PV, but to look at the renewable heat incentive and the renewable heat premium payments, which are already out there, and to see whether they can apply for some of the vouchers for the range of technologies that will help them with their heating, which will form a much larger proportion of their annual energy bills than electricity.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about community schemes. May I urge him to look closely at this issue? In my constituency, Wadebridge renewable energy network—which I believe he is aware of—is looking hard at the scheme, which could have huge benefits as the money is reinvested to deliver more carbon reduction schemes across our communities.
Gregory Barker
We are keen to encourage community schemes wherever we can, but we have a budget to manage and it is clear that demand far, far outstrips supply, particularly with the current, inflated subsidies. We are therefore trying to recalibrate the scheme and put it on a sound footing, to ensure that the money will be available for years to come to support exactly the sorts of schemes to which my hon. Friend refers.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Given that cost is the main criterion, why have the Government not reconsidered the costs of nuclear power, which are ballooning? Is it not true that the coalition has been taken over by the bad science loonies of global warming denial?
Gregory Barker
That is absolute rubbish. There is no subsidy for nuclear power.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I share people’s concerns about the suddenness of the change and the effect on individuals and organisations that were already planning solar installations between December and April and had budgeted appropriately. One example is Ridgefield, a new primary school in my constituency. Will the Minister consider carefully whether exemptions could be made for deserving cases such as that?
Gregory Barker
I am afraid it is just not possible to make exemptions in such a system. We need to drive down the cost of solar. We will achieve that by ensuring that people do not price to the tariff but are incentivised to bring down costs. We need to ensure that the fall in costs internationally is passed on to consumers and that the industry does not continue to price to the tariff.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As we see this Government’s credentials as “the greenest ever” crumbling before our eyes, where is the Secretary of State?
Gregory Barker
This may come as a surprise, but we have a team on this side of the House. I have been leading on this issue, and the Secretary of State is very happy for me to do so. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not said pejoratively, but I have noticed that whenever the Minister is in the Chamber, Opposition Members seem to get very wound up and excited. I do not know whether it is his fault that he winds them up or their fault that they allow themselves to be wound up, but the House needs to calm down a little.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I appreciate that something had to be done about the overly large tariff subsidies, but Electrical and Testing Services in my constituency is worried about the speed of change. What advice and guidance will my hon. Friend give to small businesses so that they can get through the transition period without having to lose any staff?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to look to the interests of small businesses, many of which were feeling slightly excluded, because of the speed with which larger firms were gobbling up the budget. It is because we want to preserve the budget over the longer term that it will be more sustainable for smaller businesses. However, I would recommend such businesses to look not just at solar PV, but at integrating a range of technologies into their offer—in particular, energy efficiency—and at how they might offer services for the green deal.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Feed-in tariffs should be about more than just solar. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses that are working on innovation and other technologies to compete and to provide a wide range of technologies for people to chose from, particularly when we get into the green deal?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The danger was that solar, which was already taking more than 90% of the feed-in tariff budget, would take the whole lot. There are a lot of other micro-technologies out there that I want to see supported, such as micro-hydro, micro-combined heat and power, small-scale wind and small-scale biomass technologies. There are lots of different technologies that we need to come into the system and that also need fair funding. There are, of course, opportunities in the comprehensive reviews to look at the support for other tariffs, and we may even consider raising them where they act as an insufficient incentive to bring on those other technologies.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister may be aware of a recent research paper produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which estimates that solar produces three times as much carbon per kWh as other renewable technologies such as wind and nuclear. Why are we subsidising solar more than the others?
Gregory Barker
I am not aware of that particular paper, but I have to say that I remain a fan of solar. The issue is about the cost of solar. The fact is that it currently attracts four times as much subsidy as any other form of renewable generation. It is not viable to have a mass roll-out of that technology when costs are still that high. We need to bring the costs down. When we get to that point, we will see a mass roll-out in the UK—but not before costs have been brought down further.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister has not answered one important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—that he has buckled under pressure from the big six energy producers. Is it not the truth that they make money out of selling electricity and they do not want competition?
Gregory Barker
That is why, unlike the previous Government, we are bringing forward transformational proposals as part of our electricity market reform. We have already had one Energy Bill in this Parliament; another will be along shortly.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I fully appreciate that the previous Government intended to reduce feed-in tariffs at some stage. However, what assessment does the Minister make of the effect of this announcement on small and medium-sized enterprises that have flourished in installing solar PV over the past couple of years?
Gregory Barker
They have flourished only really in the last few months. The rate of deployment doubled between September and June. We are seeing an extraordinary bubble that has grown over the past few months. Of course, these enterprises will see their order books reduced relative to the past few months, but we need to put them on a sustainable footing. A lot of people in the industry have raised such concerns privately with me. Anyone who talks to solar producers knows that they realise that there needs to be responsible and sustainable growth, not a quick burst.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
What about the 100 jobs lost and the effect on 4,000 households in Stoke-on-Trent as a result of what seems to be retrospective legislation through consultation? Surely the Government should do the right thing and allow at least those applications that are in the pipeline not to be affected so severely by any change in tariff.
Gregory Barker
It is our judgment—it is a matter of judgment; I do not pretend that we have it absolutely right—that the 12 December cut-off date is a fair assessment of how long it will take those currently in the system to get through to deployment. That is why we landed on that 12 December cut-off date, but I appreciate that there might be individual exceptions to that rule. I say to the hon. Lady that this is about creating a sustainable future. The Labour party accused me earlier in the spring of butchering the solar industry, since when deployment has trebled.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Small companies based in and around my constituency are concerned as they feel that they stepped up to the plate as the Government asked them to do, and created growth, businesses and jobs—yet they now face an uncertain business model going forward. Will the Minister agree to meet me and small business owners in this industry in my constituency to discuss the practical impact of these changes?
Gregory Barker
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, but he must understand that the one thing that would be absolutely wrong would be to encourage these firms to rush forward in a burst of growth knowing that the money would run out in a matter of months. A sustainable pathway for growth is what they need.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a day when the Government are saying that they are in favour of jobs and growth, I find it extraordinary that the Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box and criticising Labour Members for arguing for small businesses which have invested on the basis of Government policy. These businesses will be completely shafted in six weeks’ time by his decision not to implement a satisfactory stable investment framework. What impact does he think his decision today will have on future investment in the solar industry in the UK?
Gregory Barker
I find this scaremongering and doom-mongering from Labour Members to be absolutely reprehensible. We are taking the scheme back to the same rate of return as when it was launched 18 months ago. We are simply trying to reduce the bubble created by the ineffective scheme set up by Labour. We believe in a sustainable path for growth, not in boom and bust like the Labour party.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the cost of solar installation has fallen by 30% in less than two years? If that is the case, is it not right for feed-in tariffs to be adjusted accordingly?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is right, and in fact the cost of some systems has fallen by much more than 30%. Bloomberg estimates that the cost of some of them has fallen by more than 50%—indeed, by up to 70%. This is not a United Kingdom phenomenon; prices have tumbled spectacularly throughout Europe. However, because of the ineffective system that we inherited from the Labour party, there was no way in which tariffs could keep pace with that.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The last fast-track of the solar feed-in tariff was derided because nothing—I repeat, nothing—changed as a result of the consultation. This consultation will end after the date of the start of the new scheme. May I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, what impact assessment he has made in relation to the number of community schemes that are currently in progress but will not proceed as a direct result of his proposals and the 12 December deadline?
Gregory Barker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it was he who accused me of butchering the industry after the last review. Since then, deployment has trebled. He was wrong earlier in the year, and he will be spectacularly wrong again. He will know that because of the way in which the system was set up under the—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will calm down slightly, I will answer their question. Perhaps they will allow me to get the words out.
The fact is that the way in which the system was constructed—[Interruption.] I am trying to give the answer. Because of the way in which the system was constructed, there is no way of rewarding community schemes. There is no tariff for communities. There is no way of distinguishing between a City hedge fund manager and a village hall because of the way in which the system was constructed by the last Government. We will try to change that so that we can specifically recognise community schemes, and we will consult on that work.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I must declare an interest. We recently had solar PV installed on our roof. The people next door saw it, and they now have it as well. I understand that the scheme has been a victim of its own success, but how confident is my hon. Friend that the change in tariffs will not cut off the growth of, and interest in, solar PV as a source of renewable energy in other households?
Gregory Barker
Obviously there is a difficult balance to be struck, and I know that many firms will find it difficult to navigate the system, especially in the short term. I must make it clear, however, that it would have been wrong to do nothing, and to allow the whole budget to be burnt through in a matter of months. Had we done that, the industry would have been looking at oblivion, but now, thanks to timely intervention, it can look at a sustainable pathway to growth.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What would the Minister say to the work force and management of Kingspan, a firm in my constituency that manufactures solar panels and solar cells? A representative of that firm told me on the telephone this very morning that the effect of the Minister’s decision on pre-order contracts will cost it £12 million between January and April next year. Is that the way to improve manufacturing industry in Britain?
Gregory Barker
What I would say is that we intend to reduce tariffs to levels comparable with those in Germany, which has the highest level of renewables deployment in Europe. We are lowering tariffs to encourage market competitiveness. Kingspan is a great company that manufactures a range of products, not least insulation products, which will benefit from a boom as a result of the roll-out of the green deal between now and 2020.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I note the need to recalibrate and safeguard the budget, but does the Minister agree that it is important to encourage local councils to create the right framework for investment in a package of energy-saving measures?
Gregory Barker
Absolutely. We must get away from the silo culture that concentrates exclusively on solar PV, on the technological flavour of the month, or on one or two types of intervention. We need an holistic approach to energy measures, the most important of which is energy efficiency and the least important the generation of electricity. The right hierarchy consists of energy efficiency, then heat, then renewable electricity, and local authorities are key partners in that regard.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister said at the solar photovoltaics conference last Friday that he had not come to kill solar PV tariffs. Does he accept that these appalling policy lurches—two in the past three months—are killing the solar industry’s future, as was reflected by all those present at that conference? Will he now review the time scale for the most recent lurch, and at the very least extend it so that those who currently have contracts up to when there was originally going to be a review can carry out that work? Otherwise, no one will ever believe anything that he says about any tariffs in the future.
Gregory Barker
I am afraid the Labour party’s credibility on this issue is ripped to shreds. It said in the spring that the industry would be butchered, since when deployments per month have trebled.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Has the Minister had the opportunity to examine other countries around the world that have cut the feed-in tariff to see what impact it has had? For example, has he considered the Labour Government in New South Wales, which slashed the cost of the feed-in tariff to a third of its original value and set a cap on it for the very same reasons that he has given today?
Gregory Barker
Around the world, sensible Governments worried about energy bills are taking similar steps and introducing similar measures. Germany, which has the largest renewable deployment in the European Union, has a similar level of feed-in tariff for solar.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned a silo culture, yet the Government are cutting feed-in tariffs, which are creating British jobs in companies such as Romag in my constituency. At the same time, they are providing regional growth fund money to companies to import Chinese panels to be assembled here and then sold on as British. Is that a deliberate policy to put at risk British jobs, or it is just sheer incompetence?
Gregory Barker
We are very supportive of excellent companies such as Romag, and we want to see more advanced manufacturing in this country. However, £867 million is the budget, and we have to ensure that it lasts and is sustainable rather than all being blown in a few months.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I appreciate that the Minister understandably wants to defend his budget, but further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and bearing it in mind that the policy will be implemented before the end of the consultation period, may I plead with him to keep the matter under review and come back to the House before 12 December to explain where he has reached at that point? Will he keep the cut-off date under review, with the intention of perhaps extending it?
Gregory Barker
No, I am afraid that that would deliver the most terrible uncertainty to business. It has to be clear that there is a cut-off date. We mean what we say, I am afraid.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we cannot consider the matter in isolation. In the light of his Government’s decision to betray the good faith of all those who have invested in the solar panel industry on the basis of feed-in tariffs, how will the Government now convince any potential investors in UK manufacturing that the Government can be trusted to stick to policies that encourage manufacturing, to avoid the immeasurable damage that the lack of that investment would cause?
Gregory Barker
That sort of hysterical response does very little to help the industry. The fact is that the feed-in tariff scheme was set up to provide a return in the region of 5%. Now, 18 months on, we are recalibrating the scheme to provide a return in the same region. Everything else is a bubble. The hon. Lady’s constituents’ energy bills pay for the scheme, and we cannot simply waste energy bill payers’ money.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Pensioners in nearly 200 council bungalows in the Dearne are set to benefit from new solar panels free of charge. That scheme, which was put together by Barnsley council and Berneslai Homes, is at risk from the Minister’s announcement this afternoon. He has told the House that without these changes, he is worried that solar panels will become available only to the lucky few. Is not the truth that, with the changes, they will become available only to the wealthy few?
Gregory Barker
Basic maths would inform the right hon. Gentleman that the lower the tariff, the wider the money can be spread. If there is a very high tariff, the finite amount of money that we have can go to only a few people. The lower the tariff, the more people can benefit. It is basic maths.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members know that I like to accommodate urgent questions very fully, but today’s business faces substantial time pressure so I am afraid that we must now move on.
Points of Order
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it very clear on a number of occasions that Government announcements should be made first to this House. Over the weekend, there were a number of stories in the media, complete with quotes from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, about the contents of today’s written statement about council tax on empty and second homes, which was made available only in the last hour and a half. This is the second time in a week that Communities and Local Government Ministers acting in this way has given rise to a point of order. Do you think such actions are acceptable and, if not, what can be done?
Mr Speaker
I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I shall look into the specifics of this case, and in particular into what he has just said about attributed quotes. Secondly, let me reiterate a point that, as he rightly observes, I have made on innumerable occasions: it is a matter of straightforward courtesy and parliamentary propriety that statements of policy should first be made to this House, not elsewhere, and not by nods and winks or by leaks. I hope that is clear.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a statement on the eurozone crisis. As the Prime Minister has now returned to the country, many people would have expected him to come to the House today to give his report on the recent summit, and especially on the proposals for the creation of a two-tier Europe. To my knowledge, this is the first time that the Prime Minister has not appeared before the House in such circumstances. Will you take such steps as are necessary to urge him to do so on this vital question that affects not only this House but the whole of the country?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member with 27 years’ service in the House, so he will know better than most of his parliamentary colleagues that whether Ministers make statements—and if so, when—is a matter for Ministers, not the Chair. However, through making his point of order, he has made his point, which may possibly have been his intention.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make it clear that the topical question that I asked earlier about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was about the ministerial code, which was altered last year, and which
“obliges ministers to declare all hospitality accepted in a ‘ministerial capacity’ and all meetings with external organisations”?
If that means that a Minister can decide, on an unknown basis, whether he is meeting someone in a ministerial or a personal capacity, it makes a nonsense of that alleged improvement.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and let me level with him: when he asked his question in DCLG questions, it was not clear to me—perhaps it should have been; perhaps the fault was mine—that the question was framed around the Minister acting in his ministerial capacity, with reference to the relevance of the ministerial code. It was because I thought as I did at the time that I ruled as I did. However, since then the hon. Gentleman has come along with, from my point of view, further and better information. I am grateful to him for explaining the point, and I hope he will accept my response in the spirit in which it is intended. It is always a dangerous enterprise to joust with somebody who has written a book about how to be a Back Bencher.
Mr Speaker
Yes, and a good one as well, as the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) helpfully points out, albeit from a sedentary position.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday morning, I discovered that my substantive oral question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the impact of levels of bank lending on small and medium-sized businesses, which had been accepted by the Table Office and drawn first in the shuffle, had been removed from the Order Paper at the instigation of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which claimed that it was a Treasury responsibility. I was informed by the Table Office that I had been written to by the Department on Monday evening. I regret to inform you that neither my constituency office, nor my Westminster office received any such letter. Neither was I e-mailed or contacted by telephone by the Department, with the result that the first I was made aware of the question being transferred was through its absence from the Order Paper on Thursday morning and my subsequent inquiry at the Table Office.
I was most grateful to be able to catch your eye during topical questions, Mr Speaker, but the behaviour of the Department raises real concerns about the high-handed way in which the Government are treating legitimate questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. Can you offer any advice on how Departments should behave in such circumstances in future to ensure that the fundamental democratic right of this House to hold the Executive properly to account is protected and that Members are treated with the courtesy they should expect when raising matters on behalf of their constituents? Have you received any indication from the Business Secretary regarding his intention to come to the House to make a statement on why he is no longer prepared to answer for the Government’s record on bank lending, although he was prepared to respond to such questions as late as June?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The short answer to his question is that of course transfers are a matter for the Department concerned, but the Department that makes a transfer of a right hon. or hon. Member’s question should do so at the earliest possible stage and should accept responsibility for directly notifying the Member well in advance of the fact of that change. Failure to meet that test is a discourtesy, both to the hon. Member and to the House. I think it is helpful, and probably not entirely coincidental, that as the hon. Gentleman has raised this important point of order, he has done so in the presence of the Leader of the House, who I know will have such communications with his colleagues as are necessary to secure an improvement in conduct.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance on whether the Secretary of State should come to this Chamber to answer urgent questions, such as the one we heard on feed-in tariffs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not mean to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman in any way, but it was obvious where his question was headed. The short answer is that the choice of Minister to respond to an urgent question is exclusively a matter for the Government. Members can have an opinion about it, and they may have wanted Mr Secretary Huhne to be here this afternoon as opposed to Minister Barker, but that is a judgment entirely for the Government. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, ever since Edward II was removed by Parliament as King, the royal succession has been a matter for the whole of Parliament—for both Houses—to determine. I wholly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has gone off to Australia and announced that he is going to bring in some changes in respect of the royal succession, but he has not brought them to this House first. In particular, he has referred to one element of this—the matter of the male preference primogeniture—but has made absolutely no reference to the issue of how the succession should be dealt with in relation to Catholics and marriage to Catholics. Will you make sure, in so far as you are able, and as previous Speakers have done when such matters have arisen, that this issue is brought to the Floor of the House, either in the form of a statement or by some other means so that we can all inform the Prime Minister exactly how we approve of what he has done and how we would like him to go further?
Mr Speaker
I have no idea what my predecessors did or did not do in relation to comparable matters, and the history books would have to be studied by me with some intensity and speed in order for me to answer that point made by the hon. Gentleman. But his wider point I take, and he has registered it—I think that was probably his main purpose for today. Wherever the Prime Minister is, there is a real prospect that the verdict of the Voice of Rhondda will be made known to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman rather pessimistically chunters from a sedentary position that he thinks that that is unlikely, but he should live in hope; we all attach importance to his words.
If there are no further points of order, we will move on to Mr Secretary Clarke. We have been saving him up.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I have been fascinated by the proceedings while I have been waiting to move the motion. I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on Consideration of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to—
(a) provide for measures against the payment or receipt of referral fees in connection with the provision of legal services,
(b) create a new offence relating to squatting, and
(c) amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc).
The motion seeks to widen the scope of the Bill in order to provide for measures to be introduced on the payment of referral fees, on the creation of a new criminal offence relating to squatting and to amend the law that governs the use of reasonable force for the purposes of self defence.
I hope that this debate will be focused on the resolution and therefore be a short procedural debate. Obviously, there are points of substance to debate in the three areas that we are bringing into scope, but the obvious time to debate those issues is when we reach them in the course of your selection of amendments, Mr Speaker. We are all anxious to debate other measures in the Bill, for which we will have three full days on Report, so I think we should deal quickly with procedural matters and get on to the substance.
On sentencing, quite a lot will come tomorrow which I look forward to debating. I am being attacked from the right and from the left—that is the story of my life—but I regard all those attacks as entirely misconceived and I hope to answer them tomorrow. More importantly, today we have a lot of amendments on the Order Paper regarding legal aid and it is important that we get on to consider their merits on the Floor of the House in the light of debates in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the House will be satisfied if I merely explain why we are introducing measures on these three topics and bringing them to Floor of the House rather late in the day, on Report.
Referral fees are a familiar subject and have been discussed on the Floor several times in recent months. Since they were introduced—or since the ban on solicitors’ paying referral fees was lifted—in 2004, they have increased very rapidly and have contributed to an unwelcome increase in personal injury cases in our courts. They have tended to encourage the introduction of speculative claims and have certainly raised the cost of contesting litigation. The reason we have waited until Report to introduce amendments on the subject is that the proposals have been out to consultation for a few months and the consultation closed only recently. Even during the consultation we were under pressure from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to do something about this issue; I entirely agreed with the points he made and the Government are now responding.
On squatting, the Prime Minister announced on 21 June that we were again about to consult briefly on the possibility of introducing a criminal offence of squatting in the Bill. The consultation closed on 5 October. Anyone who has suffered from the presence of squatters in their property knows the distress and misery they cause. We have restricted the new criminal offence to residential properties precisely to avoid opening up the wider debate that might have ensued on squatting and I am not aware of any strong reaction to what we are doing. Existing laws provide some safeguards for property owners, but our making squatting in residential buildings a criminal offence will provide rather greater protection in circumstances where the harm caused is most severe. Again, I am not aware of much objection in principle to those measures. Personally, I have always found it difficult to see the difference between taking somebody’s car and taking somebody’s home. There is a need for a criminal offence.
Finally, the Prime Minister also announced on 21 June that we would put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted. We think that further action on self-defence is necessary to reassure members of the public that they are allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties against intruders or others.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
How will this law differ from the common law right to defend property and the existing law on self-defence under which one can use proportionate and reasonable violence to defend oneself?
Mr Clarke
I will address that when we reach the amendments in two days’ time—[Interruption.] Well, that is exactly where the Labour Government were two years ago. We are attempting to clarify the law and reassure people that the use of reasonable force is indeed legitimate in English law. The main thing it deals with is the fact that there is no duty to retreat when facing a dangerous or threatening attack, but we will discuss that when we come to that part of the Bill. If that was a fundamental change in the law, I would probably face objections to its introduction on Report. It is an attempt once more to build up public confidence in the perfectly reasonable right people have to use legitimate force when defending themselves and their property.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I happen to be sympathetic to all three things the Secretary of State is trying to do, but surely he must take account of the fact that the procedures of the House, which he is trying to bypass, provide that there should be a general discussion on the principle of doing something, followed by a detailed discussion in Committee of how it can be done and then an opportunity to make further amendments on Report if necessary. Does he not have to mount quite a strong case that that is unnecessary in these circumstances?
Mr Clarke
The case I am making is that there are essentially no surprises here, because Members have been perfectly well aware of the proposals for all three subjects. They have been debated widely and consulted on, and we are introducing them in a form that I do not think adds a great deal of controversy to the Bill. As we all know, the Bill is very large and included some very important elements. These three subjects are relevant to what we are trying to do to the justice system. The right to self-defence was in the coalition agreement when the Government were formed, so everyone knew that we would return to it, and the Prime Minister announced it again in June. Banning referral fees was in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on reform of civil litigation costs, which we are already acting on, as far as no win, no fee arrangements are concerned. We delayed making proposals on referral fees because we were waiting for the Legal Services Board to give its opinion following consultation. We have been consulting on squatting, as I have said. The inclusion of these subjects is hardly surprising. All three have been referred to and debated on the Floor of the House, so I hope that it will agree to extend the scope of the Bill.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). There is plenty of time to debate this, it was well heralded and is not a great departure. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well with it.
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that we should move on to the important debates on legal aid today. I hope that the House is genuinely satisfied that these are three sensible subjects that are closely related to reform of the justice system and will allow us to widen the scope of the Bill, as I propose.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I begin my reassuring the Justice Secretary that we will not divide the House on the motion? We accept that the next three days should be spent discussing the substance of this very important Bill. Over the course of the next three days, the Opposition will submit contributions to demonstrate how out of touch the Government are in this area.
I am afraid that this procedural motion shows that they are also incompetent when it comes to seeking to pass legislation that they feel is important. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), mentioned, none of the matters outlined in the motion—self-defence, squatting and referral fees—was unknown to the coalition Government when they began consultation in May 2010. There have been three separate Green Papers and lots of discussion, debate and consultation. As the Justice Secretary is well aware, No. 10 decided back in June to take over responsibility for the Bill, and at the 11th hour the focus groups told them that these are the measures that might win them some support. He is being attacked not only by the left and the right, but by No. 10.
We do not object to the procedural motion to bring the three things he has referred to into the debate, and I am sure that the Justice Secretary will see over the next three days that we will support some of the measures he has talked about, but it leads one to question why the Government, who for 13 years lectured us on process and procedures—colleagues have just intervened to take about the importance of process on the context of Europe—think that it is not important to discuss these things and consult community groups and stakeholders about the importance of these measures. I am sure that the other House will be watching this debate and the way the Government are seeking to make legislation on the hoof at the 11th hour.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise to make a few brief comments. First, I welcome the fact that the Government are making proposals to tackle referral fees, which are a scandal and an irritant. Secondly, I welcome what I believe will be clarification of when reasonable force for purposes of self-defence can be used. Finally, the Secretary of State said that he was not aware of any representations having been made on squatting, but Crisis clearly has concerns about the measure’s potential to criminalise those who squat in residential properties that might have been empty over a long period. I hope that when we debate the matter in more detail, it will be made clear that there is not going to be a dragnet that draws in everybody irrespective of how long a property has been empty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry to say to the Secretary of State that I wholly deplore the use of this procedural device, because we have a very good, established system in this House of three Readings, Committee and Report, with gaps in between so that people can consider the amendments that have been passed and consider whether other amendments should be tabled so that Opposition Members or Back Benchers can look at what the Government have proposed and suggest amendments of their own in good time. None of that is possible in this situation.
If the measures were for some emergency, I might understand why the Secretary of State had made such a suggestion, but he has suggested absolutely no emergency in relation to any of the three issues today. In fact, his argument, in so far as I can understand it, is that basically, “Nobody really cares about this stuff; it’s all agreed on by everybody”—[Interruption.] If he is seeking to intervene, I am happy to give way.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I share the hon. Gentleman’s sensitivities about the scope of a Bill being widened in the ordinary course of events, but I have already explained how all three things have been canvassed. There has been consultation—indeed, it stopped us introducing them at an earlier stage—and, as he well knows, the pressure on parliamentary time is such that quite a lot of rather worthwhile criminal justice reforms are not enacted for years because no one can find a slot in the legislative timetable for them—[Interruption.] There are details, and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke a moment ago, raised a particular detailed point, which will be heard here, and then in the upper House, about exactly what limits there might be on residential property, but this is a sensible process and we should not be sticklers at the expense of worthwhile reform.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene on his intervention, but his basic argument is, “This is just for the convenience of Government”—and for no other reason.
In relation to reasonable force, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, in so far as I could see it, was that basically, “It isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference, so why not just let it go through?” When Ministers say, “We have to change the ordinary processes for the Government’s convenience, and we know we can do it because we have a majority—by definition, because we are the Government,” we almost always end up with bad legislation, as it is not sufficiently scrutinised. It certainly happened when we sat on the Government Benches, and I am absolutely certain that it will continue to happen now.
Chris Bryant
Precisely, and it is a bad idea to add to a Bill that is already pretty much a Christmas tree Bill a few more baubles at the last stage before it reaches Third Reading. It is a fundamental mistake and a bad way of proceeding, and I can tell from the body language of the Secretary of State and Lord High Chancellor that he is a little embarrassed about coming forward in this manner—
Chris Bryant
If Secretary of State is not embarrassed, as he now suggests, he has gone down in my estimation.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said that all these matters have been extensively debated, but it is one thing to debate a matter in its general application and principles but quite a different matter to look at the wording on the page when it actually comes to legislation.
As I understand the rules of this House, given that we have not yet carried the motion before us, no amendments to which the Government have referred can possibly yet have been tabled. So, they will be tabled tonight and appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, and consequently we will not be able to table amendments to those amendments until after that. I can see the Clerk saying “No, no, no”, so perhaps I have got that completely wrong—[Interruption.] He is nodding now, so I hope that hon. Members will feel free to ignore the last part of my speech and remember everything I said at the beginning of it, and that they will oppose this ludicrous process.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I want to add briefly to the intervention that I made earlier. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been quite honest about the fact that all Governments get into this kind of situation, including the one of which he was a member, when he exercised responsibility for the conduct of the business of the House. He has made some sound points about the lack of an adequate amending procedure for material introduced at this stage. I can see that there has been extensive public discussion on all three of the issues, but the Government ought to find a way of ensuring that the House has a proper legislative process.
There are a number of ways in which that could have been achieved in this case. The Government could have put down their initial plans in the content of the Bill or by amendment in Committee, making it clear that, if the consultation led them to believe that the proposals should not be proceeded with in that way, they would accept that at a later stage. Alternatively, parts of the Bill could have been recommitted by a recommittal motion, to allow a couple of Committee sittings to deal with those matters. We ought to be very cautious about a motion that contains the word “notwithstanding”, because that means that the procedures that the House has set in place to ensure proper consideration are not being observed in this case. That is why I pressed the Lord Chancellor to provide a strong defence of what he was doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 209 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 29 June 2011 (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in three days.
3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
TABLE | |
|---|---|
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
Amendments to, and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 1. | 10.00 pm on the first day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection, life sentences, extended sentences and the release and recall of extended sentence prisoners. | 6.00 pm on the second day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to referral fees; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fines on conviction in magistrates’ courts. | 8.00 pm on the second day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to squatting. | 10.00 pm on the second day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 1 (other than Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 1); new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 2; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; amendments to Parts 3 and 4; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | 6.00 pm on the third day |
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on the third day.
I wish to declare, for the purposes of this motion, Report and Third Reading, all relevant disclosures made in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the ministerial register. In particular, I mention any interest that I may have as a non-practising solicitor who has not received any payment under the legal aid scheme, and my brother-in-law’s ownership of two claims management companies in which I have no financial interest. May I also declare any interest I may have in the insurance sector? My investment holdings are in the hands of a blind trust, and although I do not know what they are, I know that they did include—and therefore might possibly still include—a minority share in the Lloyds Djanogly Family LLP and various other insurance and financial shareholdings as declared by me in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of this Parliament.
I will briefly introduce the motion. First, I wish to thank the Committee members, many of whom are here today, for the robust debate in Committee and the detailed scrutiny that they gave to the Bill. I look forward to their continued input to the debate over the next three days, which I am sure will be as comprehensive and informed as it was throughout our proceedings. In the 18 Committee sittings, we made excellent progress through this very significant Bill. We managed to consider all 119 clauses and 16 schedules without the use of knives or too many late sittings, and we still managed to finish early on the last day. Given that the Opposition called 47 Divisions, that was a particularly impressive achievement.
There are some considerable Government amendments to get through, and I accept that it is unusual to be adding new topics to a Bill at this stage, but the Justice Secretary explained the reason for that in the previous debate. However, three days on Report will provide adequate time to debate the amendments thoroughly. It is unusual to have three days on Report—indeed, this is the first time that this Government have made three days available for debate on Report. I hope that the additional time will be seen as reflecting our ongoing commitment to the thorough scrutiny of the Bill, and that it will be welcomed by all Members on both sides of the House. We have inserted a few knives—namely, on the second day—to ensure that we have proper time to debate the Government’s new clauses on extended determinate sentences, referral fees, fines, self-defence and squatting. I believe that the motion gives the House plenty of time to debate these matters thoroughly, and we look forward to the forthcoming debate.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his declaration of interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about a Christmas tree Bill with baubles being added all the time. The Bill has 120 clauses and 18 schedules. At the eleventh hour, as the Christmas tree is being cut down to be taken to the other place, more baubles are being added: 17 Government new clauses, five Government new schedules and 84 Government amendments. During debate today, tomorrow and on Wednesday, many important issues of substance will arise, which our constituents believe are worthy of debate before a vote: domestic violence; clinical negligence; social and welfare law, including unemployment, debt and welfare housing; the abolition of indeterminate sentences to protect the public; the change in the laws relating to life sentencing and to referral fees; the criminalisation of squatting; the clarification of the law on self-defence; and the new extended determinate sentences. There are also changes in the law relating to disclosure of information, knife crime and bail.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
On knife crime, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend saw the Lord Chancellor’s helpful and entertaining evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs when he seemed to reject the idea of mandatory sentences for knife crime for those aged under 18? That was changed within 24 hours. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need sufficient time to debate that important change? We welcome it, but it would be good to know what is behind the Government’s thinking.
Sadiq Khan
I underscore the important contribution from my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee. When we discuss knife crime on Wednesday, we will also discuss legal aid, litigation funding and costs, sentencing, bail, and release and recall of prisoners. The suggestion that we can have anything like the substantive debate that our constituents demand is folly.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
To assist the right hon. Gentleman in his preparation for the debate on knife crime, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee will recall that I was particularly hostile to mandatory sentences for young children. The Order Paper includes an amendment tabled by the official Opposition on mandatory six-month sentences for 12-year-olds and above. I do not think anything I said to the Select Committee should encourage the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) to think I will agree with him when we come to that subject.
Sadiq Khan
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so happy to have a debate, why is he so scared? Let us have proper time for the debate. Let us set aside time for it, and discuss the matter. Let us not have knives in the programme motion. Why is he running away? Let us have the debate, at any time, in any place—[Interruption.] We have no choice but to press the programme motion to a Division. It is important that the other place sees what happens in this Chamber. The Government claim that they want debate, but when it comes to important issues of huge significance to our constituents, what do they do? They run away.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
We should recognise that the Government have been unusually generous in providing more time for Report and Third Reading than I remember under any other Labour or Tory Government. There may be Government amendments that are significant in content and import, but it is partly up to us to ensure that we proceed expeditiously.
As there is a motion on the Order Paper to allow the end of the debate to be put back a bit, would the Government be sympathetic to doing that if we could get through all four groups of amendments by extending our proceedings slightly by, say, half an hour? The last group includes important matters of substance that I hope we reach, because it is important to debate them.
Mr Djanogly
The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentioned various changes that have been proposed by the Government and the longer Bill that has resulted. We are not denying that, and that is why we have provided the third day. It was good to see the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) recognising that. The right hon. Member for Tooting says, “Any time, any place,” and that is today, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Question put.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:16 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move amendment 10, page 99, line 11, leave out from ‘where’ to first ‘for’ in line 13 and insert ‘—
(a) the services are provided to the individual, or
(b) the individual has died and the services are provided—
(i) to the individual’s personal representative, or
(ii) ’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 11.
Amendment 91, page 103, line 3, after ‘family’, insert ‘or other intimate’.
Amendment 93, page 103, line 4, at end insert
‘or where an allegation is made that B has been abused by A or is at risk of being abused by A’.
Amendment 23, page 103, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
‘“abuse” means any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.’.
Amendment 92, page 103, line 35, leave out ‘physical or mental abuse’ and insert
‘any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)’.
Amendment 74, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
‘(10) For the purposes of this paragraph, evidence that A has been abused by B or is at risk of being abused by B may consist of one or more of the following (without limitation)—
(a) a relevant court conviction or police caution;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant had injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence;
(h) an undertaking given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation; or
(k) other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses).
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, no time limit shall operate in relation to any evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under paragraph 10.’.
Amendment 94, page 104, line 25, leave out ‘(“A”)’.
Amendment 95, page 104, line 27, leave out ‘other than A’.
Amendment 96, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1A) Civil legal services provided to an adult in relation to proceedings for financial relief in respect of a child who is the subject of an order or procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).’.
Amendment 97, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1B) Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings in which the court is considering giving a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances).’.
Amendment 98, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1C) Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings arising out of a family relationship involving a child in respect of whom a court has given a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances); and “family relationship” has the same meaning for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it has for the purposes of paragraph 10.’.
Amendment 99, page 105, line 42, leave out ‘to a child’.
Amendment 100, page 105, line 43, leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 101, page 106, line 1 , leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 102, page 106, line 3 , leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 83, page 108, line 44 , leave out sub-paragraphs (5), (6) and (7).
Government amendments 55 to 59.
Amendment 113, page 112, line 5 , at end insert—
‘Immigration: victims of domestic violence and indefinite leave to remain
24A (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual (“I”) in relation to an application by the individual for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom or a claim by the individual to a right to reside in the United Kingdom, on the grounds that—
(a) I was given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period as the partner of another individual present and settled in the United Kingdom, or had the right to reside in the United Kingdom as the partner of another individual, and
(b) I’s relationship with the other individual broke down permanently as a result of the abuse of I by an associated person.
General exclusions
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
Specific exclusions
(3) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include attendance at an interview conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State with a view to reaching a decision on an application.
Definitions
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, one individual is a partner of another if—
(a) they are married to each other,
(b) they are civil partners of each other, or
(c) they are cohabitants.
(5) In this paragraph—
“abuse” means any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.
“associated person”, in relation to an individual, means a person who is associated with the individual within the meaning of section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996;
“cohabitant” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (see section 62 of that Act);
“indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom” means leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971 which is not limited as to duration;
“present and settled in the United Kingdom” has the same meaning as in the rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“right to reside” means a right of residence established under Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.’.
Government amendments 60 and 61.
Amendment 145, page 112, line 11, at end insert—
‘(1A) Civil legal services provided to an individual for a matter arising out of any rule laid down under section 1(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 making provision for family members to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the family member of a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection.’.
Government amendments 62, 13, 14, 63, and 15 to 18.
Amendment 103, page 7, line 35, at end insert—
‘(7) But the Director must determine that an individual qualifies for civil legal services where the services relate to a matter falling within paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and—
(a) the individual has been admitted to a refuge for persons suffering from domestic abuse;
(b) the individual has obtained medical or other professional services relating to the consequences of domestic abuse, or
(c) an assessment for the purpose of possible mediation of a family dispute has concluded that the parties need not engage in mediation as a result of domestic abuse,
and in this subsection “domestic abuse” means abuse of the kind to which paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 relates’.
Mr Djanogly
This rather substantial group of Government and Opposition amendments concerns legal aid for family and immigration matters, including domestic violence issues, as well as certain technical amendments to the Bill. I shall begin with a group of technical Government amendments, before moving on to the family and immigration ones.
Government amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 amend paragraphs 3 and 33 of part 1 of schedule 1 in order to ensure that funding can be granted to the personal representative of a deceased child, vulnerable adult or victim of a sexual offence who wishes to pursue a civil claim for the benefit of the estate. The amendments are necessary because the Bill, as currently drafted, would limit legal aid to the child, vulnerable adult or victim personally. Where that individual dies, it is clearly right that legal aid should remain available to that individual’s personal representative to pursue a relevant claim on behalf of their estate. It is not necessary to make equivalent changes to other paragraphs in part 1 because relevant paragraphs do not exclude claims being brought by a personal representative. For other paragraphs, the case would either fall away with the death of a claimant or there would be another party who would be equally able to bring the claim.
Government amendments 15 to 18 relate to vetting and barring under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and applications relating to disqualification orders under sections 31 and 34 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The amendments are technical and seek to ensure that funding for advocacy is provided in the relevant tribunal or court for these types of cases. In our consultation paper, “Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, we announced our intention to retain civil legal services for section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, which provides for a right of appeal to the upper tribunal against a decision to keep someone on a barred list from regulated activity relating to children or adults. The consultation paper provided that we would continue to fund those types of appeals to the upper tribunal on the basis that inclusion on a list would have a significant and lasting impact on the life and livelihood of an appellant who might have been included on the list in error.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Minister made an assessment of the amendments’ impact on organisations in Coventry such as the citizens advice bureau and the law centre?
Mr Djanogly
I expect the amendments to be generally well received.
The Bill currently refers to funding for advocacy being available in the first tier tribunal, and amendments 17 and 18 correct that position by making available funding for advocacy for appeals to the upper tribunal. Amendments 15 and 16 serve a similar purpose but in relation to sections 31 and 34 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Appeals under section 31 are to the Court of Appeal, rather than the first tier tribunal, and funding for advocacy for such appeals is already covered by paragraph 2 of part 3 of schedule 1. Appeals under section 34 are to the High Court, and funding for advocacy for such appeals is already covered by paragraph 3 of part 3 of schedule 1.
I now turn to the family and domestic violence amendments, almost all of which have been debated in Committee already. I would like to reiterate why we are taking most private family law cases out of the scope of legal aid. The cost of legal aid, as it stands, is, we believe, simply unsustainable, and legal aid resources need to be focused on those cases where legal aid is most needed. Accordingly, for most divorces, child contact applications or ancillary applications to carve up family assets, legal aid will no longer be available. We believe that it is right to encourage families, where appropriate, to resolve their disputes without going to court. We want to prioritise mediation, which can be cheaper, quicker and less acrimonious than contested court proceedings. Legal aid will, therefore, remain available for mediation in private law family cases, and we estimate that we will spend an extra £10 million a year on mediation, taking the total to £25 million a year.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that in many cases where people are separating or divorcing, there is an imbalance of power, whether financial or emotional, and that mediation is simply not suitable for many such cases?
Mr Djanogly
I certainly accept that there will sometimes be an imbalance, and in relation to court proceedings themselves, we are proposing other measures—the ability for a judge to give interim orders, for instance—aimed at redressing that imbalance. However, I also accept the hon. Lady’s suggestion that mediation might not be suitable in every case, such as those involving domestic violence. Legal aid will remain available for private family law cases where there is evidence of domestic violence or where a child is at risk of abuse.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I want briefly to read to the Minister what my constituent Lucy Abell has written to me:
“I work with single parents every day in my job…and know how desperately vulnerable a lot of people are when they are going through an acrimonious separation. The outcomes of children and families are very dependent on what happens during this time, and I find it incredible that the Government thinks these changes will save the government money in the long term.”
She works for Gingerbread and sees such people all the time. She is convinced that what the Government are doing will be terribly damaging for children of those single parents.
Mr Djanogly
I am not entirely sure whether the right hon. Lady is talking about all cases of divorce or partners separating, or just those where there is domestic violence. However, I can tell her that in 90% of cases where there is a separating of the ways, the couple will reach an agreement. We are therefore talking about the remaining 10%. What we are saying in terms of policy is that for basic divorce—if divorce can ever be basic—people should not rely on legal aid for carving up the family assets or settling contact issues. However, I want to make it clear that funding for victims of domestic violence who seek a protective order will remain available.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is it not also important to point out that the family courts have great difficulty dealing with contact issues, many of which are naturally unsuited to such treatment? Frankly, it is not very easy for a court to sort out arguments about whether a child can go to the scout group on a Friday night or whether they have to be with the other parent.
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I can tell him and other hon. Members that it has become clear to me, from my many meetings over the last year and a half with mediators and lobby groups such as those already mentioned, that in the vast majority of cases the parties are better off sorting out their problems together with the help of the mediator. For the most part, mediation is empowering. In most cases, the best way forward is for people to be able to sort out their own futures and those of their children without being told what to do by a judge, and that is what the Government support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I want to ask the Minister about cases where domestic abuse or violence per se is not present, but where conflict between the parents none the less makes it simply impossible for mediation to work effectively. In the interests of children, will the Minister consider extending legal aid in those circumstances, so that where a mediator knows that mediation simply could not work, the parents will still receive advice?
Mr Djanogly
The Government have changed the law through a pre-action protocol. The position from this April has been that where a divorce application is made, the parties have to see whether mediation is appropriate, as has been the case with publicly funded divorce cases. That does not, I hasten to add, mean that the parties have to go to mediation; however, they have to be assessed to see whether mediation is appropriate. I can tell the hon. Lady that the initial findings are very positive indeed. We have adequate mediators, with more than 1,000 mediation units around the country, and all are reporting a significant upturn in business, which is a positive outcome.
Kate Green
I agree with the Minister about the desirability of mediation wherever it can work best for all the parties. We would all like appropriate mediation to be used as much as possible in such cases, but will he clarify what he just said? Where a couple is found unsuitable for mediation because of the conflict between them, but where violence or abuse is absent, will they be able to access legal aid?
Mr Djanogly
I am afraid that the hon. Lady misunderstands the nature of mediation. In normal circumstances, it is not for the mediator to sit in judgment on the individuals who turn up for mediation. That happens in the assessment. The mediator should explain to the individuals the purpose of mediation and it is for the individuals themselves to decide whether mediation is appropriate. If violence was involved, the mediator might suggest that, in those circumstances, mediation is not appropriate. If domestic violence is involved, the Government believe that legal aid should be provided.
Mr Djanogly
I shall give way one more time on this point—to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).
Mr Cunningham
I want to be helpful to the Minister. Can he clarify how the amendments on legal aid would apply, for example, to rape crisis centres such as the one we have in Coventry? I am not too clear about how that will be affected.
Mr Djanogly
The Government are supportive of crisis centres. We have increased our provision for them. The amendments do not in any way affect the issue one way or another. That is a separate policy item.
Mr Djanogly
I really must make some headway. If the right hon. Lady will give me a few minutes, I might allow her to intervene again.
We will continue to provide civil legal aid where a person is applying for an order for protection against domestic violence, as with a non-molestation order or an occupation order. We will also continue to waive the financial eligibility limits in these cases. We will still spend an estimated £120 million a year on private family law, including on domestic violence, after our proposed changes. This includes funding for about a quarter of the private family law cases that currently receive legal aid to go to court. We expect to continue to fund them where domestic violence or child abuse results from those cases.
Amendments 92 and 23 would put parts of the definition of domestic violence used by the Association of Chief Police Officers on the face of the Bill in paragraph 10 of schedule 1 in place of the existing definition of abuse. Identical amendments were debated in Committee. The existing definition of abuse used in the Bill is a broad and comprehensive one, explicitly not limited to physical violence. It is used elsewhere in paragraph 3 of schedule 1, which provides for legal aid to be available in relation to abuse of a child or vulnerable adult, and paragraph 11, which provides for legal aid to be available for a person seeking an order to protect a child at risk of abuse. Any consideration of the definition in one paragraph should not be undertaken entirely in isolation from the others—lest confusion should result.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Minister explain why a different definition is being used here from that used in other Home Office and Ministry of Justice documents? A lot of concern has arisen among women’s organisations that there is an agenda here; we would love to know what that agenda is.
Mr Djanogly
If the hon. Lady will allow me to get on, I will clarify precisely that.
The definition should also be seen in the light of the Bill’s structure and the purpose of the paragraph in which it appears. Paragraph 10 reflects the underlying policy of ensuring that a party to private law family proceedings who has been subjected to domestic violence by the other party and is likely to be intimidated or otherwise disadvantaged in presenting his or her case should, as a result, be able to have access to legal aid. It does not provide that any individual who has been the subject of, or who is at risk of being the subject of, abuse as defined in that paragraph will qualify regardless of what evidence of abuse might exist. Not every such individual will be intimidated or otherwise disadvantaged in the way the paragraph is intended to address. It establishes a description of legal services and whether an individual qualifies for those services in any specific case. It requires that an individual not only falls within the category in paragraph 10, but meets the criteria to be established in regulations made under clause 10.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
We raised with the Government a couple of months ago the possibility of seeing the regulations in draft before reaching this Report stage. Many Members feel that that would have aided our consideration of these provisions. Why has the Minister not produced those regulations?
Mr Djanogly
Because the Bill and relevant clauses are still going through the House and still have to go through the other place. The regulations will be produced once the Bill comes into law.
Those criteria will set out the specific requirements on evidence of the fact of abuse or the risk of abuse. The definition of abuse itself is therefore only a preliminary part of the picture. In that sense, it might be argued that it makes little difference whether definition takes one form or another arguably rather similar form. However, we are still not convinced that the definition should be changed in the way suggested in the amendments.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does the Minister not accept that the fact that the definition is not specific has the potential to create some uncertainty, and that uncertainty, especially at the beginning of court proceedings, will create even more hardship for the victim, which may well lead to litigation in itself? Is it not possible to be more precise, so that people need not worry about what is and what is not acceptable?
Mr Djanogly
I shall be discussing that in a little more detail, but I would answer my hon. Friend’s more general point that the definition could make things harder for a court by saying that the court will in any event have to take a view at some point
Mr Djanogly
If my hon. Friend will let me finish, I will allow her to intervene again later.
The reference to “any incident”, for example, might be read as securing legal aid for any person who could point to some sort of incident regardless of whether it was serious or minor, such that the victim would not generally feel inhibited about pursuing litigation against the other party. That would not reflect the underlying intention, nor would it be the effect in practice if the regulations required certain forms of proof. The touchstone for whether a party obtains funding must be whether the abuse was such as to inhibit their ability to present their case against the other party. The circumstances that will be accepted as evidence of the abuse will turn on the application by courts, prosecutors and other agencies of their existing criteria. It is when the courts and others have determined that the level of the abusive conduct is such that protective action or prosecution is necessary that legal aid will be available.
Joan Ruddock
Given that the purpose of all this is to save money, I must assume that the definition in the Bill means that the Minister expects women, or occasionally men, who would formerly have pursued such domestic violence cases not to pursue them, and not to be eligible. Has he made an estimate of the likely reduction in legally funded cases?
Mr Djanogly
I am happy to confirm that this particular definition is not directly related to saving money. It is there because it is a definition that works.
Amendment 23 goes beyond amendment 92 in referring also to the relationship between those involved. It would cover
“intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.”
This part of the amendment is superfluous, because it duplicates sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 10 of the schedule. The sub-paragraph relies on the definition of associated persons in the Family Law Act 1996, which is wide, and covers the relationships set out in the amendment and more.
Amendment 91 also concerns the relationship between those involved. The Bill provides for legal aid to be available to victims of domestic violence for matters
“arising out of a family relationship”.
The amendment would change the phrase “family relationship” to “family or other intimate relationship”. It is unnecessary for the same reason as amendment 23. Paragraph 10(7) of the schedule defines a family relationship as one between persons who are associated with each other. The definition of “associated persons” in the 1996 Act, on which that paragraph relies, includes two people who
“have or have had an intimate personal relationship with each other which is or was of significant duration”.
The wording of the amendment therefore appears to add nothing.
Amendments 103 and 74 both set out a range of forms of evidence that would be accepted as demonstrating domestic violence for the purpose of qualifying for legal aid in private family law cases. Very similar amendments were debated in Committee, and in this case I can say to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that there would be economic consequences. We want genuine victims of domestic violence to have the benefit of legal aid in such cases, when they would be disadvantaged by facing their abuser as the other party. However, during consultation we have heard many concerns that the proposal in the amendments could lead to a rise in unfounded allegations, and we want to guard against that.
Susan Elan Jones
Organisations such as the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Women’s Aid declare that they are very concerned about the Government’s proposals, so why does the Minister think he is right and they are wrong?
Mr Djanogly
Because I and the Government consulted at some length on the proposals and received a lot of positive responses. As a result of that consultation we broadened the definition concerned, so we have listened. Indeed, we have tabled a further amendment today in relation to immigrants to broaden it even further.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I hope the Minister accepts that, although amendment 74 and other amendments would enlarge the evidential tests, they would still require a degree of evidence to be given. That evidence may not come from such limited places as he wants, but it may be from GPs or women’s refuges. Yet he is saying that he cannot accept such evidence, because it would be part of “unfounded allegations”. Is he suggesting that those organisations collude in false allegations?
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Gentleman makes a frankly ridiculous comment. He mentioned GPs, and of course a GP is qualified to tell whether someone has been subject to violence. However, they are not always well qualified to tell whether someone has been subject to domestic violence, because they may not have seen the circumstances in the home and may be looking only at the injury of the party coming to their surgery. The Government are looking for objective evidence.
Mr Slaughter
I would like the Minister to respond to my question. As the tests in question are evidential tests, not subjective or self-referred, does that support his point about false allegations? Evidence from GPs is commonly used to support cases in criminal trials, including sometimes when a woman is unwilling to give evidence herself because she is intimidated or in fear.
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Gentleman makes the exact point that I would have made in response to him. Evidence is used in a trial, but the GP does not make the decision, he gives evidence. We see the trial as being the objective evidence, and that is what we suggest in the Bill.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes proper points about the need for courts to make findings of fact. Does he accept, however, that there is a potential problem with regard to undertakings? In proceedings in which undertakings could be a way of sorting out the problem satisfactorily, those advising the parties involved could prejudice their clients’ ability to obtain legal aid in future if domestic violence rears its ugly head again. Will he look again at how we can manage those circumstances so that people are not put in that potentially prejudicial situation?
Mr Djanogly
I am happy to consider the particular circumstances that my hon. Friend mentions on the subject of undertakings, but again we are talking about a situation that does not involve an objective test. It would be down to the word of the two people making the undertaking. In certain circumstances that may be correct, but in others it may not.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I worked with Women’s Aid for 16 years, and the Minister is taking us back decades by perpetrating myths about domestic violence that we thought we had seen the end of 30 years ago. Does he not understand that women who are subjected to domestic violence are, by definition, captive victims and there is no one else in the room? To say that they are not going to be believed is taking us back decades. Will he look at this again?
Mr Djanogly
Everything the Government have said, and every action we have taken, shows that we take domestic violence extremely seriously. To some extent, the hon. Lady and other hon. Members are approaching this issue from the wrong direction in that they begin by addressing domestic violence, but that is not the right starting point. The starting point for the Government is that we are removing legal aid for private family law, but we are keeping it for domestic violence, as that is of the utmost concern to us. My point, however, is that we need to have objective evidence of domestic violence so that we target taxpayers’ money on genuine cases where the victim needs assistance because they are intimidated or otherwise disadvantaged by the fact of facing the abuser in the proceedings.
Mr Djanogly
I shall make a little more progress first.
The forms of evidence that will be accepted for this purpose are not set out in the Bill. Instead, they will be set out in regulations under clause 10. We believe it is appropriate to set out these detailed provisions in secondary, rather than primary, legislation as it can be amended to respond to particular issues that may arise during the operation of the scheme.
In the consultation, we suggested what might be the forms of evidence of domestic violence, and we listened to the views expressed on that in response. As a result, we have widened the range of forms of evidence, and, furthermore, only one of the forms of evidence would be needed. Legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence in private family law cases where one of the following criteria is met: where a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction against the other party is in place or has been made in the last 12 months; there is a criminal conviction for a domestic violence offence committed by the other party against the applicant for funding, unless the conviction is spent; there are ongoing criminal proceedings against the other party for a domestic violence offence by that party against the applicant for funding; the applicant for funding has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference as a high-risk victim of domestic violence, and a plan has been put in place to protect them from violence by the other party; there has been a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party, giving rise to a risk of harm to the victim.
Kate Green
Will the fact that there is, for example, a non-molestation order be taken as evidence of suitability for legal aid in family proceedings, and will legal aid be available to enable a victim of domestic violence to get such an order?
Mr Djanogly
Yes, it will be. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, which has come up in consultation and has often been misconstrued. For such individuals, legal aid will be provided for the application for a non-molestation order, for example.
It might be helpful if I give an idea of the prevalence of these forms of evidence. About 24,100 domestic violence orders were made in 2010, about 74,000 domestic violence crimes were prosecuted in 2009-10 and there were 53,000 domestic violence convictions. Further, about 43,000 victims of domestic violence were referred to multi-agency risk assessment conferences in the 12 months to June 2010.
Helen Goodman
Surely the Minister can see that there is a 21,000 gap between the numbers of those prosecuted and those convicted? Surely he is also aware that the Crown Prosecution Service goes ahead with prosecutions only when there is a reasonable expectation of success in the case? Surely, therefore, he can see that we are not dancing on the head of a pin, as we are talking about 21,000 women every year?
Mr Djanogly
Those numbers may overlap to some extent; in other words, someone might not have been prosecuted as there may have been a civil injunction, or perhaps a multi-agency risk assessment conference made the decision.
The forms of evidence we intend to accept will meet a high standard of objectivity. We are concerned that many of the additional forms of evidence suggested in the amendments would rely on the word of those involved and would provide an incentive for allegations where none currently exists. Let me make it clear that I am not questioning the integrity of genuine victims. However, during the legal aid consultation many people were concerned about providing an incentive for unfounded allegations, and the Government share that concern.
Mrs Grant
Post-separation violence is very common in domestic violence cases. I am concerned that there is a 12-month time limit on the gateway criteria for family law matters, which means that if the violence occurs after that period many highly vulnerable women and children could fall through the net.
Mr Djanogly
That relates to amendment 74. I am going to deal with it and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the answer I will give her.
Accepting self-reporting without objective evidence would prevent us from effectively focusing assistance on victims of domestic violence who were unable effectively to present their case against the other party because of the history or risk of abuse by that party. Both amendments refer to evidence from professionals in a variety of roles. I explained that we have widened our criteria so that legal aid will be available where the victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk-assessment conference as a high-risk victim of domestic violence and a plan has been put in place to protect them from violence by the other party. Such referrals can be made by a range of professionals. Furthermore, a finding of fact in the family courts that domestic violence has occurred will trigger legal aid, and a court will be able to assess any relevant evidence.
Amendment 74, to which my hon. Friend referred, would prevent a time limit from applying to any evidence. We have said that a 12-month period, where relevant, will apply. We consider that 12 months will be an appropriate period to protect victims and to enable them to deal with their private family law issues. However, if the criteria were to arise again—for instance, if a second protective injunction is made—the time period would start again. It is also important to remember that legal aid will remain available for exceptional out-of-scope cases where the failure to provide such funding would amount to the breach of an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights, particularly article 6.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the Minister explain how the individual achieves the finding of fact in a family court in order to trigger legal aid if they cannot get legal aid to take proceedings in a family court?
Mr Djanogly
The answer is that they can get legal aid to take those proceedings.
Amendment 93 would provide for legal aid to be available for any party in a private family law case who has been the subject of allegations of domestic violence or the risk of domestic violence. We debated an identical amendment in Committee. In considering whether alleged perpetrators should receive legal aid in these cases it is important to remember that we are seeking to protect the most vulnerable in society. Alleged perpetrators would not necessarily fall into that category in the way a victim of abuse would. Furthermore, allegations would not meet the test of clear, objective evidence that would otherwise apply in these cases. Accepting such an amendment would be likely to cost tens of millions of pounds in savings, without achieving the objective of targeting legal aid on those most in need.
I turn to the other amendments relating to private law children cases, such as disputes about custody, where a child is at risk of abuse. These are amendments to paragraph 11 of schedule 1, which provides for legal aid to be available in such cases for the party seeking to protect the child, where there is objective evidence of the risk of abuse. Again, identical or near-identical versions of the amendments were discussed in Committee.
Amendment 96 would provide for applications for financial provision for children to be in scope for legal aid where the child is the subject of one or more of the measures listed in sub-paragraph 11 (1) of schedule 1. The list of orders in that sub-paragraph is intended to cover orders and procedures used to secure protection, and it includes orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, which may be used in that way, including contact and residence orders. The effect of amendment 96 would be that applications for maintenance or other financial provision for a child would be in scope whenever a contact or residence order has been made in relation to that child, regardless of any need for protection. The original legal aid proposals were silent on the issue of children at risk of abuse in private law children cases.
We have listened to the concerns raised during the consultation on this point. For example, one party might be seeking an order to bar an abuser from unsupervised contact with a child. We agree that child protection is of paramount importance and we recognise that it would be difficult for the protective party to act in person in cases of potential complexity and heightened risk to the child requiring prompt and clear action. This is a separate rationale to a situation in which the adult has been subject to abuse such that he or she cannot be expected to represent themselves against their abuser.
We do not consider that cases concerning financial provision are of equal priority and nor do they raise the same issues. Financial matters are of lower objective importance than child protection and we would not expect the protecting party to encounter the same level of complexity—still less risk—or need for urgent protective action in a case about financial provision. Furthermore, the person presenting the risk of abuse might not be the other party in the financial provision proceedings. Although protecting a child from abuse is clearly of high importance, it is not appropriate that in a case for financial provision, which is a separate matter from the consideration of protective measures, a distinction should be drawn between maintenance for children considered at risk of abuse and maintenance for other children.
Amendment 97 would bring into the scope of legal aid the entirety of any proceedings in which the court was considering whether to direct the local authority to investigate the circumstances of the child. Under section 37 of the Children Act 1989, the court may make such direction if it appears that it might be appropriate for a care or supervision order to be made. The amendment appears to be unnecessary and, in any event, goes too far. Under paragraph 1 of the schedule, legal aid will be available for public family law cases such as care and supervision proceedings, as at present. We believe that the state should ensure that families are able to challenge decisions made by public authorities about the provision of care for children.
Directions under section 37 of the 1989 Act are considered to be public family law matters for legal aid purposes because they relate to care and supervision orders under paragraph 1(1)(b) of schedule 1. Funding is therefore available in relation to section 37 issues. There is no reason, in principle, why a case could not be adjourned briefly in such a situation to allow the parties to seek a legal aid lawyer for the section 37 issue if that were warranted. Providers are able to use devolved powers to grant immediate funding in emergency situations, subject to means and merits-testing.
Amendment 98 also references section 37 directions and would bring into scope any private family law proceedings that involve a child in respect of whom a direction under section 37 of the 1989 Act had been given, regardless of the outcome of that section 37 investigation. That is a broad proposition that I do not think can be justified.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I ask why the Minister is discussing amendments that have not been selected by the Speaker? He seems to be referring to amendments 98 and 97.
Mr Djanogly
Amendments 94 to 102 have been selected.
Under amendment 98, a section 37 direction, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, would trigger funding for all parties in any private law family proceedings in which the child was involved. A section 37 order in itself does not mean that the child is at risk of abuse. The local authority staff could conclude, once they had completed their investigation, that the child was not at risk and that no further action was needed. If the local authority concluded that action was needed, it would put a child protection plan in place. As I have said, legal aid will be available in private law children cases in which a child is at risk of abuse for a party seeking to protect the child where there is objective evidence of the risk of abuse. A child protection plan will be accepted as objective evidence in criteria that will be set out in regulations under clause 10. That means that if a local authority put such a plan in place, that would trigger funding for the party seeking to protect the child.
Providing for legal aid to be available for any family proceedings involving the child, as amendment 98 would do, would mean that legal aid would not be targeted on proceedings about protection of the child, but could be available for proceedings that might not concern protection at all. For example, a case about financial relief for the parents could be covered if an application were made for financial relief for the child. Given that the words “involving a child” do not give much indication of how closely the child needs to be concerned, it might even be that a case between the parents about a matter that did not directly concern the child was included.
Amendment 98 would also provide for legal aid to be available for all parties to the proceedings. We intend to target funding on the protecting party. Where a party is not the person taking action to protect a child from abuse, the same level of importance and risk would not apply.
Amendments 94 and 95 would also widen the availability of legal aid under paragraph 11 beyond the parties seeking to protect the child. That would mean that legal aid would be available for the other party in private law children cases where a child is at risk of abuse. As I have explained, we decided to keep those cases in scope for the protecting party because protecting children from abuse is paramount. Where a party is not the person taking action to protect a child from abuse, the same level of importance and risk would not apply.
The tests we wish to use to determine the availability of legal aid in these cases are designed to be as objective as possible and to minimise the risk of false allegations. The tests are: where there is a criminal conviction or ongoing criminal proceedings for a child abuse offence; where a local authority has put a child protection plan in place to protect the child; or where there is a relevant finding of fact by the family courts that child abuse has occurred. They will provide clear and objective evidence of the risk of abuse. However, if the particular facts of an individual case mean that failure to provide legal aid for both parties would be likely to result in a breach of the individual’s rights under the Human Rights Act or European Union law, exceptional funding would be available.
I turn now to amendments 99 to 102, which seek to retain legal aid provision for all parties in private family cases where the court has made a child a party to proceedings. Identical amendments were debated in Committee. The Government intend to retain legal aid for a child who is a party in these circumstances. However, as we made clear in Committee, we do not accept that, where a child requires representation, adult family members should as a matter of routine also be given legal aid. There are a variety of reasons for a child to be a party, and not all will involve the complexity of a case. In cases where a child is represented, it does not follow that the case will necessarily be so complex or that the child’s involvement will render the case so complex or difficult as to require representation for all parties.
By their nature, some of the cases will be complex, and we recognise that in some circumstances people will be unable to represent themselves, but we think that those cases will be the exception. The exceptional funding arrangements will ensure that legal aid will be available where required. A failure to provide legal aid in cases where people genuinely could not represent themselves would be likely to breach an individual’s right to legal aid under the Human Rights Act or EU law.
I turn now to the immigration amendments, which include technical Government amendments, Government and Opposition amendments relating to domestic violence immigration cases and other amendments seeking to widen the scope of legal aid for refugee family reunion matters and immigration judicial review cases. Government amendments 61 and 62 will amend paragraph 25(1) of part 1 of schedule 1 to correct an omission in the meaning of asylum in the Bill. That will ensure that persons who make a claim to enter or remain in the UK based on the EU qualification directive are eligible for legal aid. Government amendment 60 will make a similar change to paragraph 25 to cover claims based on article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which sets out the right to life. Although most claims for asylum will be made on the basis of the 1951 refugee convention or article 3 of the European convention on human rights, the amendment will allow funding for cases involving execution and the death penalty; serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict; and unlawful killing.
Government amendments 55 to 58 clarify the wording of paragraph 17(7) of part 1 of schedule 1 with regard to the exceptions from scope to the exclusion of certain types of immigration judicial review proceedings. Amendments 55 and 56 will amend paragraph 17(7)(a) to clarify that the exception applies only to a judicial review of a negative decision in relation to an asylum application where there is no right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against the decision. Amendments 57 and 58 will amend the exception in paragraph 17(7)(b) to add a reference to section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 94 allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate on a number of different grounds, for example when an asylum claim is clearly unfounded. The certificate prevents an appeal to the first-tier tribunal being brought while an individual is in the UK. The amendments clarify the position and ensure that the policy is given effect.
Amendment 83 seeks to maintain within legal aid civil funding certain immigration judicial review cases that are very likely to be without merit. We debated an identical proposition in Committee. These are cases that either have already had a hearing on the same, or substantially the same, issue within a period of one year, or are judicial reviews of removal directions where there is less than one year between the giving of the direction and determination of the decision to remove. In response to our legal aid consultation, the Judges Council highlighted the large number of immigration judicial reviews that were without merit and, in effect, clog up the system. Only a minority of those would receive legal aid. As we made clear in Committee, the Government’s view is that it is wrong in principle for such cases to remain within the scope of funding.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
In the analysis of the evidence of the number of cases that actually had used judicial review to have another review that then turned out to be supported in the courts, does the Minister have actual figures to justify his blanket removal?
Mr Djanogly
We do have figures, but I do not happen to have them with me. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with figures. Most judicial review cases are funded privately rather than through legal aid, however, and I say that because I have seen the figures, and one needs to know that to understand them.
Government amendment 59 would amend part 1 of schedule 1 to bring domestic violence immigration rule cases into the scope of legal aid, as I announced to the Public Bill Committee on 19 July.
Government amendment 63 would amend part 3 of schedule 1 to ensure that civil legal aid was available for the advocacy of such cases in the first-tier tribunal. Advocacy will also be available in the upper tribunal by virtue of paragraph 14 of part 3.
Under the domestic violence immigration rule, someone on a spousal visa, which is valid for a limited period of time, and whose relationship has permanently broken down as a result of domestic violence, can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. As I said in Committee, we accept that these cases are very unusual and different from other immigration cases, given the real risk that without legal aid spouses will stay trapped in abusive relationships for fear of jeopardising their immigration status. The trauma that they may have suffered will often make it very difficult to cope with that type of application, and they are also under time pressure, because they have only limited access to public funds to avoid destitution, so for those reasons we seek to make these amendments to schedule 1.
Amendment 113 adopts the same wording as the Government amendment I have just discussed, but with two differences—one that I am happy to look at further, and one that I think is unnecessary. First, the amendment would include within the scope of funding, civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to a claim by the individual to a right to reside in the United Kingdom, as well as an application for indefinite leave, when their relationship had broken down permanently as a result of domestic violence. EEA nationals and their spouses or partners, if from a third country, have a long-term right to reside in the UK if they are economically active or able to support themselves without becoming an unreasonable burden on public funds.
The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 make provision for third country nationals in such relationships to remain in the UK—that is, their right to reside can continue—if their relationship breaks down as a result of domestic violence. The application is different for those people who apply under the domestic violence immigration rule for indefinite leave to remain. The rules that apply are different. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will be pleased to hear that we are looking further at such cases.
Amendment 113 seeks to replace the definition of abuse adopted in the Government amendment and used elsewhere in part 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill with the definition of domestic violence used by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The existing definition of abuse used in the Bill is a broad and comprehensive one, explicitly not limited to physical violence, and it would cover mental as well as physical abuse, neglect, maltreatment and exploitation. Indeed, it would not exclude from scope any of the types of abuse covered by the definition used by ACPO. Furthermore, the proposed definition of abuse would cover intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender and sexuality. That part of the amendment is superfluous, as the proposed Government amendment relies on the definition of associated persons in the Family Law Act 1996, which is a wide one that would cover the relationships set out in the amendment, and more. The second change proposed in amendment 113 is therefore unnecessary, but we will look at the first. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by that.
Amendment 145 seeks to bring family reunion cases back into the scope of legal aid, at a cost of about £5 million a year. Those cases involve a person who has been granted asylum or refugee status and who sponsors the applications of their immediate family to join them. They are immigration applications, rather than asylum ones, and they are generally straightforward. The UK Border Agency guidance on these cases sets out the presumption of the granting of an application if the relevant criteria are met. The evidence required, such as marriage and birth certificates, should not require legal assistance to collate. The entry clearance officer may, on occasion, ask for DNA testing to prove the family relationship, but that testing would be free of charge to the applicant. These cases should not require specialist legal advice, and it is not therefore necessary for them to remain within the scope of civil legal aid.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My office handles a lot of asylum and immigration cases, and of course some of them are entirely straightforward, as the Minister has suggested. Does he accept, however, that some family reunion cases are definitely not straightforward? They might involve a child being in a different country from the mother, or someone not having a passport. There could also be real issues involved in proving the relationship. Will he look again at the opportunity for some cases—I am not arguing for the generality—to be eligible for legal assistance?
Mr Djanogly
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that some immigration cases are complex, and I think that the point that he has raised is one for me to look at after today. I will do so, and I will come back to him on that.
On the basis of everything that I have just set out, I therefore urge the House to support Government amendments 10, 11, 13 to 18 and 55 to 63. I also hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be reassured by what I have said about the other amendments.
Mr Slaughter
I shall try to be a little briefer than the Minister—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I was about to say that I was going to make some preliminary remarks, but the last time I did that they went on for three hours. I shall address my comments almost exclusively to amendment 74, which stands in my name. The Opposition also fully support amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which deals with the related matter of domestic violence. I give notice that we hope to press amendment 74 to a vote later this evening.
The Minister was slightly dismissive when he said that a number of the amendments on domestic violence had been dealt with in similar terms in Committee. They were indeed, and they were dealt with in some of the Committee’s most heated sittings. He has again shown a rather dismissive manner today, although Labour Members gave him a very clear expression of what they think of the Government’s attitude in the Bill to domestic violence. Perhaps he needs to get out more to see what is happening in the real world.
At 1 o’clock today, for example, the Minister could have attended the launch in Committee Room 8 of “Legal Aid is a Lifeline”, in which women speak out on the legal aid reforms. This report on domestic violence was produced jointly by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Justice for All. He could have heard the stark, moving testimony of women such as Jenny Broomfield and Sam Taylor, who were—let us make no bones about it—the victims of attempted murder by violent partners who, in at least one case, continued to stalk and pursue them for many years. They find quite abhorrent the Government’s attempt to restrict the criteria to 12 months, which amendment 74 seeks to change, and to restrict the terms of domestic violence. Those women relied on legal aid, in its current form, to get residence for their children, to find a safe place to live and to obtain a separation from their violent partners. They believe that, without it, their plight today would be much worse than it is.
Earlier this afternoon, the Housing Minister launched a very good report by St Mungo’s entitled “Battered, broken, bereft”, one of the leading findings of which was that 35% of women who have slept rough left home to escape domestic violence. It shows double standards and hypocrisy for the Government to cut provisions to tackle domestic violence on the same day in the Commons Chamber. I urge the Minister to listen to voices such as that of the Mayor of London, whose briefing for this debate states:
“The Mayor would like assurances that women who have experienced domestic violence will not be barred from legal aid due to their having a lack of evidence.”
I would also like the Minister to listen to organisations such as Gingerbread, which states:
“Many individuals experiencing violence do not report that violence to the police or seek an injunction via the family courts. This is for a variety of reasons, including lack of faith in the justice system and fear that instigating proceedings would escalate violence. The evidential criteria in the Bill do not reflect the pathways that victims of domestic violence take to find help and support. The eligibility criteria must be broadened to include other forms of evidence such as evidence from a specialist domestic violence support organisation, health or social services.”
Those are the voices that the Minister should be listening to, as well as those that he hears in the Chamber today. So far, he has not done so.
Joan Ruddock
Is my hon. Friend aware that many victims of domestic violence have a great sense of shame, and feel that they cannot reveal through a legal procedure and third parties what is happening to them? None the less, they want to take legal action to get out of the relationship, but they might be so demoralised, afraid and intimidated that they cannot do so without proper assistance.
Mr Slaughter
My right hon. Friend is right. Only 40% of women who suffer domestic violence report it at all, and many go for years without reporting it. They certainly do not have the wherewithal to report it when they are imprisoned not only by violent relationships but by economic circumstances and by having to care for their children. That is what I meant when I said that the Minister does not live in the same world as those victims.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I have here a report from a local newspaper. Kay Atwal, a reporter on the Newham Recorder, describes the lives of women she has met, saying:
“Your mail is opened by your in-laws, you can’t call your family or friends and you are not allowed out of the house. Your days are an endless round of cooking, cleaning and clearing up punctuated by threats and criticisms. And hanging over you is the constant fear that you could be deported from Britain if your husband divorces you.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that women such as those could well be affected by the changes that the Government are making today?
Mr Slaughter
We all have similar cases in our constituencies, and I am sure that the Minister must have, too. Those are the people to whom he should be listening.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that women who are particularly fearful will not go to formal sources of support such as the police, and that, when they do pluck up the courage to go for advice, they are much more likely to go to a women’s agency or a domestic violence specialist? Does he agree that it is regrettable that the Minister is not prepared to take evidence from such bodies?
Mr Slaughter
I will come to that later in my speech, but it was exactly the point that I tried unsuccessfully, as so often, to raise with the Minister in my intervention. In the amendments, we accept the evidential basis, but we are seeking to broaden it to include exactly the sort of organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. Last time I checked, at least 21 right hon. and hon. Friends supported amendment 74, some of whom wish to speak in the debate, and we have other important debates this evening, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.
According to the Home Secretary’s November 2010 publication, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, 1 million women a year experience domestic abuse in Britain. When those women make the decision to leave their abusive partners, often quite suddenly, they need care and expert legal help to escape safely and, if they have children, to ensure their safety too. For more than 60 years, family legal aid has provided that expert legal assistance, helping millions of people, mainly women, to escape violent, abusive and sometimes life-threatening relationships.
In November last year, the Government announced consultation on their plans to reform legal aid. As the Minister said, they plan to take family law out of the scope of legal aid, except when domestic abuse has occurred, but reason that making domestic violence the “gateway” to legal aid will also create an incentive for false claims of domestic violence. So they proposed a limited range of objective proof of domestic violence that would need to be presented before legal aid was granted.
Five thousands groups and individuals responded to the Government’s consultation, and almost all were opposed. As a result, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced a partial U-turn, adding to his list of evidential criteria. In the revised list, legal aid will be granted when a victim has obtained a civil injunction or criminal conviction against her abuser. We welcome that additional criterion, but fear that it is insufficient. Research has shown that, whereas more than half of women have suffered some form of domestic abuse during their lifetime, only a minority ever apply for injunctive release or report the abuse to the police. Women who, for whatever reason, do not want to go through legal proceedings, whether because of fear or simply because they are unwilling to relive the abuse again and again during the judicial process, will be disfranchised by the Government’s plans.
Legal aid will be granted when a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference—a MARAC—as the Minister confirmed today, or domestic violence must have been established as fact in the family courts. MARACs are a great success, but they are typically used for very serious cases. The final criteria that the Government allow are especially perverse, given that legal aid will not be available to obtain a finding of fact in the family courts. The Minister may say that that is not the case, but that is what the Bill seems to say. As such, the Government’s plans to remove family legal aid, except when a narrow and onerous range of objective proof is present, will place thousands of vulnerable women at considerable risk. That is why women’s groups, practitioners and the Opposition continue to harbour deep concern.
Labour’s amendment seeks to widen the evidential criteria of domestic violence to ensure that as many victims as possible receive help, while retaining the Government’s decision to limit private family legal aid to victims of domestic abuse. In doing so, we have tried to come to a joined-up, comprehensive view of the evidential criteria for domestic abuse that already exist in various Departments. The Government’s statement of intent, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, recognises that violence against women requires a focused and robust cross-government approach, underpinned by a single agreed definition. The Opposition entirely agree, as do the courts.
The recent Supreme Court case, Yemshaw v. London Borough of Hounslow, reinforced the courts’ view that there is but one definition of domestic abuse, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has promulgated that definition. The evidential criteria for domestic abuse are not currently set out in the Bill, but they are set out in the response to consultation. The Government plan to promulgate the evidential criteria by order, which is why I fear that the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is insufficient by itself. We entirely support her amendment, but mine would go further in placing the evidential criteria into primary legislation.
The criteria in my amendment are an amalgamation of the objective criteria for ascertaining whether domestic violence has occurred from the Government’s response to consultation and the UK Border Agency’s criteria used in immigration cases. The amendment would do nothing more than unify best practice across government by ensuring that we have one singular evidential definition of domestic violence, much as the hon. Lady’s amendment would ensure that we have one singular descriptive definition of domestic violence.
The sort of evidence that my amendment would allow is as follows:
“a relevant court conviction or police caution…a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction…evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence…evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party…a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim”.
I suspect that, so far, the Government are broadly with us, but what I sought from the Minister and did not obtain, is the reason the following evidential criteria are inappropriate:
“a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries…a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant has injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence…an undertaking”—
the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is not in his place, but he raised this point—
“given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse”.
I hope that the Minister has read the Law Society’s comments—he may be familiar with practice in the family courts—that many more matters are dealt with by way of undertaking than by way of trial process. Excluding undertakings from his criteria makes it not only logistically more difficult, but almost certain that the trial process, with all the inherent difficulties of inflaming the situation, will be the norm rather than the exception.
Mrs Grant
On a point of clarification concerning the undertaking, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) raised, an undertaking is a legally binding document. It is signed by the parties and usually sealed by the court. It is a solemn promise that is given to the judge. If it is breached, the person who breaches the order can commit on it, so it is specific and clear, and eminently acceptable in my opinion to be part of the criteria. Having been a domestic violence and family lawyer for the past 23 years, I am worried that the exclusion of undertakings from the criteria will create a perverse incentive not to dispose of a matter at the earliest opportunity, but to continue with the litigation from fear that further problems may come out of the woodwork, which, as family lawyers, we believe are coming in the future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that.
Mr Slaughter
If he wishes, I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me, and to reply to the hon. Lady, or he may wish to deal with the matter subsequently. I have nothing like her experience, but I have had the experience many hundreds of times of explaining undertakings and their seriousness to clients. She is absolutely right. In law, there are clear differences, but in practice the effect of an undertaking is the same in relation to perpetrators as the outcome of a trial in terms of the penalties available against them. Excluding undertakings is a huge and glaring omission from the Bill.
The other criteria are
“a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence…a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation…or…other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses.”
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
On paragraph (j) of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I can see where he is heading, but would that require a state registry of domestic violence organisations to exist so that they could be validated in order to put in a claim legitimately?
Mr Slaughter
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he is over-complicating matters. He is also missing the central point, which is that our issue is not, as the Mayor of London’s appears to be, with self-referral or with the Minister’s point about false claims, but with the scope for evidential support. We believe that organisations, whether they be medical or domestic violence organisations should be sufficient to be regarded as evidence, just as they often are in trial processes.
Ben Gummer
I am genuinely trying to helpful, though I know that the hon. Gentleman might find that difficult to believe. All his other examples—general practitioners, hospital doctors, undertakings from a court, social services departments—are instruments of the state, as it were. I would be happy for many organisations in my constituency that support women in a domestic violence situation to give evidence to a court, but that does not mean that all organisations that claim to speak for women should be able to do so.
Mr Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman is being a little pernickety. It is a practical reality that in many cases voluntary organisations, which have vast experience of supporting women, will be providing that support, not only in an emotional and a practical sense but in an evidential sense.
Sandra Osborne
Does my hon. Friend agree that many women go backwards and forwards to the likes of Women’s Aid time and again and do not disclose it to anyone else—including, often, their GP—and that had it not been for such organisations, the problem would not have been addressed as it has, although it has been totally undermined, as an assessment of a societal problem, by what the Government are doing today?
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experience.
Contrary to the Government’s guidance, the amendment would not limit the time since which such evidence was generated to a year. I am not seeking to derail the Government’s intent but merely to ensure that they live up to their own aspirations—to utilise a single agreed definition of domestic violence and to ensure that those who suffer domestic violence get access to requisite public services. This ought to be uncontroversial, yet the Government have so far resisted our submissions on all points. This is the last opportunity for this House to make a difference on the Bill. This is critical if we are to protect women—it is mainly women—who are victims of domestic violence.
It is not just me who is saying this. The Women’s Institute is demanding changes, as are Rights for Women, End Violence Against Women, and some Government Members. In Committee, Members were whipped—some unwillingly, I am told—to vote against these amendments. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is not in her place, because after the Committee she told the press:
“We’re not happy about the changes in legal aid…we’re fearful they will affect women who are separating from husbands. We’ve identified that as a problem.”
She is right about that. I ask her and the hon. Member for South Swindon, and other Members who have genuine concerns about this—I am sure that that goes for Liberal Democrat Members as well—to join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby later this evening, when will we have a chance to vote for a practical, joined-up, consensus-based solution on domestic violence
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
In Committee, our debates on domestic violence were among the most heated, because of the seriousness of that offence. In my own borough, 40% of violent offences relate to domestic violence. I know that the Minister is aware of the difficulties that arise for women who are experiencing domestic violence—admitting that it is taking place in the first place, giving evidence, and so on—and I am sure that he appreciates the challenges that they face. I know that he will have looked carefully at amendment 74, tabled by the Opposition, which seeks to widen the definition of domestic violence.
I should like briefly to speak to amendment 23, to which I have added my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), highlighted her concerns about the discrepancies, or perhaps lack of consistency, in the definitions of “domestic violence” that are being used. Despite the Minister’s response, further clarification is needed on why different definitions are appropriate in different places. He will have heard Members on both sides of the House express concerns about undertakings, in particular. That point has come across very strongly today, as it did in Committee.
I do not want to detain the House further, because other Members want to speak and there are a large number of amendments relating to domestic violence. I hope that some progress will still be made on this issue, if not through an immediate response from the Minister, then perhaps when the Bill reaches the Lords.
Helen Goodman
As the Minister said, we debated this issue in general at some length in Committee. I shall speak in support of amendments 23, 74 and 96 to 98.
A central concern is the narrow and restrictive definition of “domestic violence” that the Minister is putting into the Bill. Once again, we have heard remarks from him that demonstrate his lack of understanding and his lack of sympathy for people in this situation. He said in Committee, and he said again today, that his criteria
“all avoid self-reporting and involve a significant level of state intervention.”
That is indeed the case. The problem is that in taking that approach, he is treating women as if they are not adults capable of self-reporting. That is why many Labour Members feel that he is taking us back 30 years. He said:
“We are concerned that to include admission to a refuge in the criteria would be to rely on self-reporting”.
He said that he is
“not persuaded that the medical professionals would be best placed to assess whether domestic violence has occurred”
even though
“they may witness injuries”.
He said that he does not believe that, in themselves, allegations of domestic violence are objective. He said, as he said again today, that the tests he wishes to use
“are designed…to minimise the risk of false allegations.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2011; c. 359-64.]
That is a problem. If his objective is to minimise the risk of false allegations, then his objective is not to maximise the support that women need.
Following the extremely concerning debate that we had in Committee, on 8 September I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is responsible for issues relating to women and equalities. On 25 October, I finally received a reply, in which she says:
“You make the point that the definition of domestic violence used in the Bill is much narrower than the ACPO definition. My understanding is that the definition of “abuse” in the Bill is a broad one…We have been assured by the Ministry of Justice that the definition used would not exclude, for the purposes of legal aid and private family law cases, any of the types of abuse covered by the definition used by ACPO.”
This letter is quite extraordinary. She goes on to say:
“The Government is clear that objective evidence will be needed to ensure that legal aid in private family cases is focused on those who may be intimidated and unable to assert their rights as a result of domestic violence or the risk of harm by the other party to the proceedings”.
Her reliance on the assurances from the Ministry of Justice that its definition is the same as that used by ACPO leads me to ask two questions. First, what is the point of a Minister for Equalities who does not check with the rest of the world what is going on? Secondly, did the Minister tell her that his definition was the same as the ACPO one, when everybody knows that that is not the case?
The Minister for Equalities could easily have listened to the Bar Council—not, one would think, a wild group of left-wingers who are determined to promote a feminist picture of the world. One would think that she might have listened to it. It wrote to many Members this week.
Mr Djanogly
It is the case that the ACPO definition and the definition in the Bill are broadly similar.
Helen Goodman
Broadly, yes, but not precisely—that is the problem. About an hour and a half ago, the Minister accused hon. Members of dancing on pinheads. He is now the one who is doing that. We have demonstrated that under his definition, some 20,000 victims of domestic violence will not get legal aid each year who would get it currently. That is the problem.
I remind the Minister of what the Bar Council is saying:
“The narrow definition of domestic abuse, which is more restrictive than that used by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers and will limit legal aid to victims of certain ‘types’ of abuse”.
It states that there are:
“Excessively narrow referral mechanisms for victims of domestic abuse, who will not be eligible for civil legal aid if, for example, they have been admitted to a refuge but have chosen not to bring proceedings against their abusive partner”.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s impact assessment shows how narrow the definition is? Is this not yet another attack on women by this Government?
Helen Goodman
It is indeed. We heard that from the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who made some excellent interventions. We see once again that the Ministry of Justice is at a severe disadvantage because it has no women in its ministerial team. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The Bar Council is also concerned, as are many hon. Members, about the impact on children, referring to:
“The decision to exclude most adults in private family law cases from the scope of legal aid, even in cases of significant difficulty involving legally represented children, which may result in children alleging abuse being cross-examined by the alleged abuser.”
The problem is that the Minister is so determined to use a definition that he believes is watertight that he is ignoring the reality. The reality is that most women experience 20 episodes of violence before they report it to the police. By insisting that only a report to the police followed by various court actions is required for legal aid, the Minister is condemning more women to suffer domestic violence in silence.
Simon Hughes
I will speak briefly on amendment 145, which the Minister has addressed and on which I asked him a quick question. If I may, I will amplify that point.
My point is not about the important matter of domestic violence, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has spoken about and on which there is continuing concern across the House, but about the families of those who are rightfully admitted to this country as refugees or beneficiaries of humanitarian protection. Many Members, including me and my neighbour the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), encounter such cases routinely in their constituency surgeries. This is not an irregular occurrence in our work.
Somebody who is granted the ability to stay in this country as a refugee because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or their political opinion, or somebody who is given humanitarian protection because they are at risk for some other reason, might have applied for their family members to come with them as dependants or their family members might have made separate, parallel applications. In such cases, their family members can be dealt with in the same way.
However, we all know that when people come here as refugees, they do not often do so in an orderly way as a family. It might be that one family member comes here from one country and other family members from another. For example, when Sierra Leone had its civil war, people fled from it with some ending up in Gambia and others elsewhere. It might be that one family member comes at one time while another is left in a refugee camp. It might be that other family members had disappeared when the application was made. It might be impossible for the mother, the wife or the daughter to make an application at the same time. It is those cases that I am concerned about.
I accept that often there are straightforward applications that do not have complications, but sometimes there are significant complications and we need to ensure that people are not disadvantaged because they cannot match the state in argument.
Joan Ruddock
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed my neighbour and we share such cases. Perhaps I can help him by giving an example. I am dealing with a woman at the moment who has advanced cancer. She has children and has the right to be here, and she is trying to get her husband to join her. She tried to make the application alone, but got it all wrong and the state said no. She does not need me giving her a bit of advice, but proper legal assistance to make her case speedily and accurately. She would not get that under the future arrangements.
Simon Hughes
The right hon. Lady gives a good example. It is often people with difficult personal circumstances who have such problems. They might be here and unwell or dying. They might be literally on their own in this country. All the evidence shows that if we want people who come here as refugees or for humanitarian protection to integrate, the best way to achieve that is for their family to be here to give them support; often that is intergenerational support.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mrs Moon
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an increasing difficulty for the people he is describing is that they have to make a telephone call to see whether they are eligible for legal aid? We are talking about people who might have poor command of the English language. The people they talk to are not trained lawyers. They will no doubt get their stories, their dates and everything mixed up. That will, yet again, make it impossible for people to get the legal help and advice that they need, even when their case is totally justified.
Simon Hughes
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I, along with others, have tabled an amendment on telephone access that we will come to later. This is one of the matters on which I have had a significant number of representations from law centres and people who deal with such work. I understand her point and agree with it.
It is often not possible for family members to claim asylum because they are not in the UK. They therefore do not get the benefit of legal aid.
The UK Border Agency often requires evidence of the relationship. That is not surprising and it is perfectly proper. People are asked to undergo DNA tests. Spouses are asked to produce evidence of their marriage. That might be straightforward, but it might not be, either in law or in practice.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. At the Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary gave a completely misleading example when she said that in one case somebody was found to have family rights because of a cat. Does he agree that such things do not help in these debates?
Simon Hughes
It might or might not surprise the hon. Lady to hear that I was not at the Conservative party conference. I can mischievously go one step further and say that I was on an official visit to India at the time, so if she will forgive me, I cannot comment on the conference because I did not even see it. I understand where she is coming from. Such sensitive issues are often capable of being misrepresented by our constituents and by public opinion at the tabloid end of the press. However, if my family had undergone such trauma, I would want the support of the country in which I had sought refuge.
I shall briefly add a last few facts, and I pay tribute to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which provides a good support system for all who deal with this sort of work. First, 61% to 66% of refusals are overturned on appeal. The evidence, therefore, is that people win such cases not occasionally, but regularly, even if they need to come through the system on appeal.
Secondly, the situations of the applicants often seriously compound their difficulties in making the application or pursuing an appeal. Family members could be in hiding, or they could be in a country where they have no lawful status. They too might have faced or fled persecution. The remnants of the family might be isolated, in hiding or shunned. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, they could be in dire financial straits. For such people, making phone calls, let alone international ones, would be impossible. The chances of a person in Shatila refugee camp, for example, having the cash or ability to make international phone calls to establish their rights to join their family in the UK are minimal. Camps are not geared to dealing with individual international applications for family reunion—they are just not an appropriate context for that.
Evidential demands could be substantial and protracted. People might need witness statements from other relatives, who could be in this country or another one, which might not be the one where the applicant is. Family members often have to be traced and communication is sometimes slow. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford made the point that submitting the application correctly so that it gets through the system is not easy.
However good the immigration judge is, a litigant in person in those circumstances, who might have poor English and who might be only a recent arrival, and who might be worried and traumatised by their history, might not be in a good position to make an effective case in front of the court. In any event, the judge cannot, by definition, see the other family member, because they will not be here. The judge cannot hear evidence from them or others from whom he may need to hear.
I hope the Minister understands. Those are real cases, and I hope I can appeal to the sympathy and understanding of colleagues in the Department. If somebody can come here as a refugee or on humanitarian grounds, the logic must be that their immediate family should be able to come with them. That is the expectation of the international agreements that we have signed, which the Government should understand.
Joan Ruddock
The right hon. Gentleman makes an utterly compelling case—I agree with it totally and I wish to vote for the amendment, so I trust that he will press it to a Division.
Simon Hughes
In one sense, the right hon. Lady makes an absolutely reasonable proposition. I am determined that we will win this argument, but I will wait to see what the Minister—[Interruption.]
Simon Hughes
No, it is not pathetic at all. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that there are four groups of amendments and that we have until 10 o’clock. The Opposition Front Benchers want to press their amendments to a Division, as do other colleagues, including me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope the Minister will be helpful—[Interruption.] No, he originally indicated following my intervention that he was willing to look at the case again. I am determined to win that case. Whether we can win it today is not entirely in my hands. I hope that that is helpful, and I look forward to the right hon. Lady’s continued assistance in ensuring that we win the argument.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
With respect to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), that speech was absolutely breathtaking. I have a high regard for him, but in this instance, his colleagues in Committee did not issue a single word about this and many other important humanitarian issues. I do not know which audience he is addressing, but no work whatever was done by his colleagues in Committee—I was there.
Simon Hughes
I know the right hon. Gentleman was there. As I understand it, this issue was not debated in Committee and no amendment on it was tabled by either Government or Opposition. That is why I am raising it now.
Mr Llwyd
Later on, I shall speak to my amendment that partially deals with this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman might wish to join us in the Lobby if I press it to a Division.
I want to be as quick as I can, because other hon. Members wish to speak and we have a lot of work to get through. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is tempted to press amendment 74 to a Division, I will encourage my colleagues to follow me into the Lobby.
I should like to speak briefly to amendments 91 to 102, 83 and 103, which are in my name. I listened carefully to the Minister when he referred to amendment 91. He said that the words “or other intimate” are not necessary, which I accept. They probably are otiose, and therefore that point has been dealt with. I dare say that much of what the Justice Secretary will say tomorrow on self-defence will also be otiose, but that is another debate for another day.
Amendment 92 would broaden the definition by removing the words “physical or mental abuse” and replacing them with
“any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)”.
The Minister knows that many people wrote to right hon. and hon. Members and we heard lots of evidence on a subject that has exercised many in the Chamber this evening just as it exercised those in Committee. I have begun to question whether pre-legislative scrutiny is worth anything, because if we get hundreds of pieces of evidence from informed bodies, people at the sharp end and practitioners, and then decide to do little or nothing about them, the process is brought into disrepute.
Amendment 93 would insert the words
“or where an allegation is made that B has been abused by A or is at risk of being abused by A”
to line 4 of page 103. Paragraphs 10 and 11 to schedule 1 provide for legal aid for the alleged victim in family cases involving domestic violence or child abuse. However, they do not provide for aid for the adult against whom the allegation is made. The amendment would bring the alleged perpetrator back within scope. That might sound strange, but I shall explain the thinking behind it in a moment.
Amendment 96 would insert the words:
“Civil legal services provided to an adult in relation to proceedings for financial relief in respect of a child who is the subject of an order or procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)”,
and amendment 97 would add the words:
“Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings in which the court is considering giving a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances)”.
In responding to points made earlier, the Minister said that the section 37 investigation could well amount to nothing. However, such investigations are not taken lightly. They are always instigated on basic evidence, and caring for that child is not a routine matter, but an extremely important one.
Amendment 98 would add
“Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings arising out of a family relationship involving a child in respect of whom a court has given a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances); and “family relationship” has the same meaning for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it has for the purposes of paragraph 10”
to line 39. That would bring within scope both proceedings leading to an order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 and all subsequent steps in family proceedings after a section 37 order has been made. It would also ensure that the person against whom allegations of abuse are made is brought within scope.
Amendments 100 to 102 are consequential amendments. Their purpose would be to amend paragraph 13, which provides legal aid to child parties in cases that come under the relevant parts of schedule 1, but not to adult parties. That provision will result in unrepresented adults being forced to cross-examine expert witnesses and, in many cases, even the child concerned. The amendments would therefore bring adult parties in such cases within the scope of legal aid provision.
Amendment 103 relates to the director of the Legal Services Commission. We debated in Committee the role of the commission, the independence, or not, of the director in arriving at decisions and the question of whether those decisions will simply be cost-driven. The amendment is designed to deal with those issues. It states that
“the Director must determine that an individual qualifies for civil legal services where the services relate to a matter falling within paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and—
(a) the individual has been admitted to a refuge for persons suffering from domestic abuse;
(b) the individual has obtained medical or other professional services relating to the consequences of domestic abuse, or
(c) an assessment for the purposes of possible mediation of a family dispute has concluded that the parties need not engage in mediation as a result of domestic abuse,
and in this subsection ‘domestic abuse’ means abuse of the kind to which paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 relates”.
The intention is self-evident.
I declare an interest at this late stage in my remarks. I practised family and criminal law for 15 or 16 years as a solicitor and for an equal number of years at the Bar, so I have some understanding of how the family courts work and would therefore gently admonish the Minister: the word “custody” went out of favour about 12 years ago—but that is by the bye. My background in this area of law leads me to believe that these changes might well have a devastating effect on families and, even more importantly, children. Both, of course, are closely interrelated: if it is disastrous for the family, it is obviously additionally disastrous for the young child as well. What is more, I believe that the Government’s decision to press ahead with a weakened definition of “domestic abuse” will result in many women—for it will be overwhelmingly women—entering into court proceedings alone and without legal aid funding.
Mrs Moon
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is that we are coming from different directions? For Opposition Members, the priority is the protection of women and children who have been abused, who are facing abuse and who live in fear of their lives. For Government Members, the priority is saving money.
Mr Llwyd
I have to agree with the hon. Lady, and I would pray in aid another point about the more general civil cases where litigants in person will be 10 times more prevalent in courts than they were previously. That is simply to save money, but actually it will not save money. Instead, it will increase pressure on courts and court time and will be a complete disaster—a dog’s breakfast. It is worth remembering that 40% of magistrates and county courts have been closed and that the Ministry of Justice was looking for a 40% decrease in its first budget—that is rather convenient. However, I have no doubt that she is right, and it grieves me that money comes before the welfare of young children. We are talking about knife crime, juveniles going on the wrong side of the law and so on, and the Bill will do nothing to address that. Instead, I fear that it will make matters even worse, although I hope that I am wrong.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case about the impact that the Bill will have not just on women suffering domestic violence, but on children in that situation. Does he agree that there is a significant risk not just that it will not save money for the MOJ, but that it will result in increasing costs across Departments, for social services as a whole and for the future of our society, leaving children in those difficult situations?
Yasmin Qureshi
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the criminal courts accepted many years ago that in criminal cases defendants could not cross-examine victims on matters such as sexual offences? To take away that right in the civil courts, where people are facing equally harrowing situations, is completely wrong and would be at variance with the criminal courts.
Mr Llwyd
Yes, and I wonder about the quality of the evidence coming out of that flawed process.
I was assisted in drafting amendment 93 by the Bar Council, which has said that the effect of preventing such distressing and costly consequences is worth looking into urgently. Amendments 94 to 102 relate to proceedings involving children’s welfare. As the Bar Council has said:
“It is not understood why, under Schedule 1, the provision of legal aid is limited to proceedings relating to the children, and not the associated financial remedy proceedings. The child’s economic welfare is important in abuse cases; particularly given the higher incidence of abuse in low-income households.”
Amendments 96, 97 and 98
“would have the effect of bringing within scope…proceedings leading to an order under the Children Act 1989 section 37…and…all subsequent steps in family proceedings once a section 37 order has been made. They would also ensure…that…the person against whom allegations of abuse are made is within scope.”
Amendments 94 and 95 are consequential amendments.
The Minister said in Committee that cases involving financial provision are not a priority for legal aid. I firmly believe that all private family cases should be retained within the scope of legal aid. It is difficult to overestimate the damaging effects on children caught up in untidy, bitter and lengthy disputes. Protecting the interests of children is at the heart of amendments 99 to 102. As the Bar Council has said:
“Paragraph 13 provides for the provision of legal aid for the child parties in cases which come under subsection (1)(a)-(e), but not for the adult parties,”
which, as I have said, will
“result in unrepresented adults being forced to cross-examine expert witnesses and, in many instances, the child concerned.”
Amendments 99 to 102 would have the effect of
“bringing within scope the provision of legal aid for adult parties in such cases.”
I want to talk briefly about amendment 83, my final amendment, which deals with judicial review. I thank the Immigration Law Practitioners Association for its help in briefing me on this amendment. We know that immigration-specific exclusions have been made. In their Green Paper, the Government set out a robust defence of judicial review and the need for retaining legal aid in such cases, saying:
“In our view, proceedings where the litigant is seeking to hold the state to account by judicial review are important, because these cases are the means by which individual citizens can seek to check the exercise of executive power by appeal to the judiciary. These proceedings therefore represent a crucial way of ensuring that state power is exercised responsibly.”
None the less, the Government have compromised their position in immigration cases. My amendment 83 seeks to rectify that anomaly. In explaining why immigration cases are to be exempted from legal aid for judicial review claims, the Government say that they have drawn on the response to the Green Paper by the senior judiciary, who raised concerns about unmeritorious judicial reviews, but in so doing the Government have ignored three key aspects of the judiciary’s proposals.
First, the judiciary’s proposals were advanced only on the basis that
“careful further consideration would need to be given”
before the proposals that the Minister is now pushing could be taken up. However, no consultation has been held on those proposals. What is more, the judiciary also advanced their proposals on the basis that, in principle, legal aid should be available for appeals before the first-tier tribunal. However, the Bill removes legal aid in such non-asylum appeals. Finally, the proposals were advanced on the basis that legal aid should not generally be excluded, but instead be available where a positive decision was made in favour of granting legal aid in any individual case—for example, because the judge decided that it had merit. However, the Bill removes legal aid for such immigration cases, regardless of the merit of any individual case. All in all, this is a sorry state of affairs.
The Government seek to justify the new exclusions for judicial review in immigration cases by stating that public funding is not merited in cases that have
“already had…one full oral hearing,”
yet the provisions exclude legal aid even where there has been no oral hearing. The Government have effectively reversed their position that holding the state to account was of especial importance—hence the need to retain legal aid for judicial review. As a consequence, legal aid will not be available to hold the state to account at any stage, because immigration applications and appeals are also being removed from the scope of legal aid—a Catch-22 situation, or perhaps “Kafkaesque” would be a better description.
To remind ourselves, the changes will affect cases involving non-asylum claimants who face removal from the UK, and therefore from their families, homes and communities. Such claimants include trafficking victims receiving rehabilitative care and treatment; British children and spouses facing permanent separation from their parents or partners; children who have lived in the UK for many years—sometimes all their lives—facing removal to countries that they have never seen and do not know, and where they do not speak the language; adults who have lived in the UK for many years, and sometimes decades, facing removal to countries that they do not know; and victims of torture and other trauma who are no longer at risk of persecution in their home countries, but who are reliant on professional care and treatment.
The position now advanced by the Government is not supported by their stated principles or by the position advanced by the senior judiciary, and would leave a powerful agency of the state—the UK Border Agency—free from effective judicial oversight when exercising powers to remove people from their families, homes and communities, including where doing so will harm their welfare, health or life prospects. For those reasons, sub-paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of paragraph 17 of schedule 1 have no place in any legislation with any regard for human rights or humanitarian issues.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to my amendments 23 and 113. I shall be brief, because we have much business to get through, but let me say at the outset that I support Labour’s amendment 74. However, I still want to speak to my amendment 23, because I am yet to hear anything from the Government to explain why there is such resistance to ensuring that the definition of “domestic violence” set out in the Bill reflects the working definition currently used across Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and by the UK Border Agency.
In a debate earlier this month, the Minister for Equalities assured me that the Government had
“not sought to change the accepted definition of domestic violence. We are including all forms of domestic violence, physical and mental, in legal aid criteria.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 136WH.]
That commitment is incredibly important to thousands of women in my constituency who have experienced physical and emotional violence, as well as those who have suffered sexual violence, and to all women across the country who desperately need legal aid to try to protect themselves from domestic violence. However, I fail to understand why, having made that commitment, the Government are using a definition of abuse in the Bill that departs from the current, widely accepted definition. My fear—and that of many campaigners working on the issue, including the women’s institute, Rights of Women and Gingerbread—is that using a different definition will weaken protection for women and result in legal aid being unjustly denied in some domestic violence cases.
In the debate on 12 October, the Minister for Equalities pledged to continue to support the robust cross-departmental approach to tackling violence against women and girls—a position also detailed in the Government’s strategy, published last year. However, surely having the same definition of “domestic violence” in use in all relevant legislation and across all Departments is the cornerstone of a joined-up approach. Problems can arise for women if a robust cross-departmental definition is not adopted. For example, in the case of Yemshaw v. London borough of Hounslow, the local authority refused to recognise Ms Yemshaw as homeless as a result of domestic violence, because, although she had been subject to emotional, psychological and financial abuse by her husband, she had not experienced physical abuse. Not until the case reached the Supreme Court was Ms Yemshaw recognised to have experienced domestic violence and thus deemed to be eligible for housing assistance. I appreciate that the definition in the Bill addresses mental abuse, but the key point is consistency. Responding effectively to domestic violence relies on clarity, uniformity and consistency. There is a perfectly good definition already in widespread use, so let us include it in the Bill. If not, may we please have a much more rigorous response from the Government about why not?
Let me say a few words about amendment 113, the purpose of which is comprehensively to preserve legal aid in immigration cases for a person subject to domestic violence. It is also designed to highlight the inadequacy of Government amendment 59, which fails to provide legal aid for a specific group of individuals, namely those subjected to domestic abuse whose immigration status is dependent on their partner, where they have not been granted limited leave to remain for a probationary period at the end of which they may apply for indefinite leave to remain.
In July, the Minister undertook to bring forward a Government amendment that would bring immigration cases involving domestic violence within the scope of clause 10. Of course that is welcome, as was the Minister’s undertaking to consider the first part of my amendment 113, which he made when he got up to speak quite some time ago. What I would love to know from him is exactly when and how he is going to consider it. We are now in the last few days of debate on this really important Bill. At this stage, for Ministers to say that they are going to consider provisions in some unspecified way is simply not sufficiently reassuring.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
There is another element in the situation to which the hon. Lady refers. Indeed, I have more than one constituency case where the individual being abused comes, as members of their family have told me, from a culture where such attacks are never reported to the police and these women are expected to suffer in silence. In many instances, these are elderly women.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which raised a really important point. It underlines the fact that we need from the Government a fuller explanation of exactly how they are going to consider the first half of amendment 113.
Let me finish by saying that the people I have particularly in mind are victims of domestic abuse who are not necessarily probationary partners. They might be a partner of someone with limited leave or of a person exercising European free movement rights. Although they do not fall within the domestic violence immigration rule, they might well face the very same problems as those who do. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how he intends to take forward the concerns raised in amendment 113 and that have been mentioned by other Opposition Members tonight. I very much hope that he can offer some serious reassurance for the future.
Kate Green
I speak in support of amendment 74 and endorse many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about her amendments. I shall add a couple of points about the definition of domestic violence and abuse and say a little more about the appropriate role of mediation.
We are all at a loss to understand exactly what distinction the Minister is drawing between the definition given by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the definition in the Bill. He variously says that there are differences and that different standards are required in cases where an investigation is taking place rather than action in court. Then he says that there is not much difference and he described the definitions earlier as broadly similar. Frankly, I think this definition is simply all over the place. That matters significantly, because it will put extra uncertainty and pressure on victims of domestic violence and abuse at precisely the time when they do not need to be uncertain. They have become brave enough to speak up and pursue their case, but it is not clear whether they will be covered by the scope of legal aid.
I am particularly concerned that the Minister seems to be putting in an extra hurdle for women who are victims of domestic violence but who are nevertheless able to make a case that they should be in receipt of legal aid. They can make an application saying that theirs is an exceptional case. They will presumably have to go to the new decision-making authority set up in the Bill, but we have no understanding of how that will be done, how much delay it might cause or what sort of evidence will be required to get access to exceptional funding to bring a case. All that is left unclear and simply adds further pressure and difficulty for victims of domestic abuse.
Amendment 74 is designed to be more precise about some of the evidential factors that should be considered. I would like to respond to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) when he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) whether it would be helpful to have some sort of national register of agencies, from which such evidence could be received. I am sure that that will not be of any great attraction to the Minister, but the UK Border Agency is already well placed to accept evidence from such voluntary sector and third sector agencies. That provides a model that could apply here.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and made the point better than I did. Of course, the UK Border Agency accepts evidence from GPs, which the Minister appeared to pooh-pooh in his earlier comments.
Kate Green
Indeed, the Minister was more concerned to avoid the number of false allegations that he seems to regard as the major difficulty with domestic abuse cases. Opposition Members are far more concerned about the protection of vulnerable victims and believe that that should be the first and overarching priority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Finally, I want to say a little more than I was able to raise in interventions about the use of mediation. Of course we all want to see mediation used wherever it is appropriate and possible for separating couples to reach agreement through that route. We also know, however, that one thing that is particularly damaging to children is conflict. If there is a high degree of conflict, it is unlikely, even if domestic violence or abuse is absent, that mediation is going to be effective or can possibly work.
We are therefore again a bit puzzled about the Minister’s intentions on the use of mediation. I think he said earlier that the requirement was not to undertake mediation but to go through a process whereby it would be determined whether mediation was suitable for a separating couple. Then he said that there would be no compulsion on people to accept mediation. Well, that is certainly true, but if there is no other form of help or assistance available, it is very much a Hobson’s choice.
Can the Minister see any scope for extending access to legal aid to those small number of cases where there is a high degree of conflict and perhaps no abuse or violence as such, but where the conflict would certainly be damaging to the well-being of children? What assessment has he made of that? What does he consider might be the extent of such cases? Has he any idea or any calculation? What consideration has he given to the impact on children and will he look at ways to offer particular protection to children from the very harmful effects of conflict, which we all know to be the case?
Sheila Gilmore
I have an interest to declare, as I have worked as a family lawyer and predominantly in legal aid over many years. I have been involved in many cases, some of which involved domestic violence and some not. The Minister seems obsessed with the notion that people might make false claims to get legal aid.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no statistical evidence to show that reports of false allegations of domestic violence are any higher than they are for any other crime where people are potentially making false allegations?
Sheila Gilmore
As far as I am aware, there is no such evidence. What the Minister has in mind is perhaps just an untoward result of his own legislation. I am not doubting that there will be many false accusations to be made here, but by ruling out legal aid for family cases and making the only route to it the ability to jump through the domestic violence hurdles, perhaps a situation is being set up, which might lead to that happening. It is an unnecessary consequence of a decision that has already been made to take legal aid out of family cases.
One might sometimes get the impression that legal aid is something for which lots of people qualify so that it has become a big problem in this country, but it is already the case that many people do not qualify for legal aid on financial grounds—even to get protection from domestic violence or to get the occupancy of their own home and the exclusion of a violent partner from it. Many people who already suffer the additional difficulties caused by relatively low incomes and small assets do not qualify, and even in cases of domestic violence the availability of assistance is limited.
The Bill could have another untoward consequence. Those advising people who have experienced domestic violence are likely to feel obliged to encourage them to take legal proceedings to establish the fact of the violence, regardless of whether such action is essential to their protection at that time. That will enable those people to jump through the hoop and qualify for legal aid for wider purposes, involving, for instance, what happens to the matrimonial home, what happens to the children and what happens in relation to other financial matters—issues that are extremely important to many women. Thus the potential for more litigation will be created. When applicants who would otherwise have qualified for legal aid do not do so, what will happen to the savings that we are told will be generated if additional, potentially non-essential, actions are brought?
In an intervention earlier, I asked a question to which I did not receive a satisfactory answer. The Minister said that a finding of fact in a family law case involving domestic violence would enable people to jump the hurdle, but I am not sure what kind of case he was referring to. An application for protection or for an injunction would be covered, but how will people gain access to the family court to secure that finding of fact if they cannot obtain legal aid in the first place? I do not agree with the suggestion that the Bill will widen the scope for qualification for legal aid.
I was concerned by some of the language used by the Minister. It reminded me strongly of things that I thought had ended. I remember that the police often used to say that women made up these stories, because it was not uncommon for women to report violence to the police and then “retract” their allegations. The police would say, “He will have his feet back under the table by tomorrow, so there is no point in doing anything.” That demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the nature of abusive relationships, and of the pressures that were frequently placed on women to go back or take their men back—pressures exerted, sometimes inadvertently, by children whose mothers tried to put their needs first, or by other family members saying, “You have made your bed and you had better sleep in it”, or “Are you doing the best thing for the sake of the children?” That is not to speak of the financial and other practical pressures that may be imposed.
Mrs Moon
All too recently the Government wanted to give anonymity to male rapists. Now women who face domestic violence will not receive the protection that should be offered to them. The Government are failing to take account of what we know about the implications for women and children who, having experienced domestic violence earlier in their history, end up in the criminal justice system. Is it not the case that they do not understand what happens to women and children—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions.
Sheila Gilmore
I agree with my hon. Friend. Earlier speeches gave us the impression that we were retreating to a previous position, and that much of the ground that many of us thought we had gained might be lost. That would be highly regrettable, and I hope that it is not the case. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reconsider his opposition to our amendment.
I was heartened to read in the Sunday papers that members of the minority party in the coalition were up for a fight on these issues. I hope that that was not just more Sunday paper grandstanding, giving a false impression to many campaigners and others who have been hoping against hope that the Government will see reason.
Mr Buckland
It is a pleasure to contribute to the Report stage of the Bill. As a Government Back Bencher, I sat through and took an active part in the debates in Committee. They were comprehensive and dealt with many issues, not least the definition of domestic violence and the proposed criterion by which applicants may in future be able to benefit from representation via legal aid. I make no apology for having expressed, in an earlier intervention, what I considered to be reasonable concern about the application of the criterion. However, I think it important for us to bear in mind that the debate is not about the rights of women as against an approach that would deny them those rights.
Although Opposition Members have made some excellent contributions, one intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the Government’s approach to the granting of legal aid to vulnerable people. No one is suggesting that there should be an end to legal aid for victims of domestic violence. Far from it. The Government are saying that there should be that protection, there should be that level playing field, and there should be that intervention. People who have been victims of domestic abuse—I prefer that term, because I consider it to be a wider and fairer definition—may be women or men, and they come from a variety of backgrounds. Such abuse knows no social or economic division.
I speak on the basis of nearly 20 years of experience, having prosecuted and defended in cases in which domestic violence was a factor. It is, perhaps, appropriate for me to chart from my personal experience as a criminal legal aid lawyer—although, as I have not practised in civil legal aid in recent years, I have no particular relevant interest to declare—the evolution of the courts’ approach to domestic violence. I remember the days when the phrase “It’s only a domestic” was used to describe these scenarios. That was wholly unacceptable, wholly wrong, and, according to our present standards, archaic. We have come a long way since those unfortunate days, and the courts have rightly been brought face to face with the realities of violence in the home.
Having met hundreds of victims of violence and abuse, I know that many of them do consider themselves to have been victims of domestic violence in the first place. They are people who were involved in a loving relationship, many of whom harbour the hope that they may return to their abusive partners. They are confused and vulnerable. Many are caring for children who have witnessed, or have been a party to, what has happened in the home. They do not know where to turn.
Giving evidence in court is a tremendous ordeal for such people, and many of them do not go through with it because they see it as a way of reliving their experiences in the home. The level and variation of their vulnerabilities is quite complex. I think, for example, of women who, having nowhere else to turn, go to refuges such as the one in south Swindon, in my constituency, which provides an excellent service for vulnerable women and their families. They are not mentally in a position to start immediate proceedings, whether those proceedings constitute a complaint to the police or the instruction of a solicitor. At that stage, when they come to the refuge, they have nowhere else to go and are literally in a state of desperation. They are not mentally prepared for the ordeal of having to go to the authorities. We must bear that in mind when considering the test applied to the finding of fact.
I know that the Opposition had that matter in mind when drafting amendment 74. I have looked very carefully at their proposal, and I sympathise with the motive behind it. Some of it has merit, but there are problems with it because it would not cure the particular mischief that Opposition Members have said could happen. None of us wants there to be any artificial inducement for people to claim that there has been domestic abuse when it has not happened, and my concern is that the amendment would not shut the door on that problem. The Government are right to identify that potential problem, and it was mentioned time and again in the consultation to which the Minister referred.
Glenda Jackson
With all due respect, I am having difficulty following the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He seems to be basing it on the belief that the Government’s desire to find fact is central and essential, yet he has already stated that many women who suffer severe domestic violence are in such a mentally discombobulated state that they find it impossible to speak to the authorities. We have all read recently of scandalous cases in which the authorities have markedly failed to protect women, even though the facts have been written in capital letters. Will he clarify his argument?
Mr Buckland
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am happy to do so. We agree that when a woman presents herself at a refuge, there can be an element of discombobulation, to use the hon. Lady’s word. However, there comes a time—perhaps in a matter of days, or even longer in the case of particularly vulnerable victims of domestic abuse—when, with the support and help of professionals in the refuge or elsewhere, they are able to make a complaint. They can make a complaint to the police, in the form of either a telephone call or attendance at a police station with support, or they can get help from a solicitor and give them instructions to bring a case for a civil injunction or an ouster order. That has to follow. My point was that it is unfair to expect women to make a complaint immediately, in the hours that follow their departure from home. That is also true in many other contexts.
I think the hon. Lady and I would agree that, in the case of rape allegations, the rather worrying aspect in the past was that the victim was often asked, “Well, why didn’t you go to the police immediately?” We know that that is not a good argument when it comes to serious offences such as rape, which can take days, months or years for people to report. The point I am seeking to make is that there has to be some complaint procedure in the end.
Proposed sub-paragraph (10)(k) in amendment 74 uses the term
“other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse”.
I know it is difficult to choose a precise phrase that sums up what the amendment’s proposers would regard as a sound basis of fact, but that term is open to too much interpretation when it comes to determinations on the granting of legal aid.
I think the proposers of the amendment are perhaps on sounder ground in proposed sub-paragraph (10)(h), which mentions
“an undertaking given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse”.
If there is any criticism to be made of that, it is that it is perhaps drafted a little too precisely. Many undertakings given to courts in relation to domestic abuse include not just non-approach but other prohibitions regarding particular conduct, contact and other aspects of the mischief that is the subject of the proceedings.
It is important that we consider the particulars of the matter, because when parties come to court with a claim relating to domestic abuse, there is quite rightly an impetus for compromise. The parties represented by solicitors or counsel rightly see whether proceedings in the form of evidence given and tested before a judge can be avoided by undertakings being given. “Undertakings” is a legal word for promises given by one or other party regarding future conduct. In fact, in many cases both parties make promises not to behave in such a way as to cause future strife. That is laudable, and it has been the practice in the civil courts for many years. It saves court time, it saves victims of domestic abuse having to undergo the trauma of giving evidence, and it looks to the future by trying to draw a line under the sins of the past with regard to the conduct of people who have been in a relationship involving domestic violence.
Let us put ourselves in the position of a solicitor or legal adviser who has to advise a party to such proceedings before any decision is made about the giving of undertakings. I see a problem occurring, because if undertakings are not to qualify for the purposes of obtaining future legal aid in domestic violence cases, solicitors will have to advise their clients that, if they accept undertakings, that could prejudice any claim for legal aid.
That worries me, for two reasons. First, it could provide a perverse incentive for more litigation, which could result in fewer undertakings being given and a concomitant loss of court time and increase in expenditure. Secondly, it would place legal advisers in a very difficult position when it came to the giving of proper advice. Solicitors or barristers should be there to give advice based on the evidence in the case, rather than on any future contingency that may or may not occur.
Could there not be a way through that problem by parties in the case, through their legal representatives, inviting the judge who presides over the proceedings to indicate his or her view of the strength of the evidence? If there were an injunction in which the parties were minded to accept undertakings, the judge might say, “In this particular case I think there was very strong evidence that could have supported the granting of an injunction.” The legal representatives could then use that if there were any future domestic abuse leading to a legal aid application. I urge the Government to consider that potential solution to the problem, as I believe it could help not only the parties in a case but those who advise them legally.
This debate should not be about whether one party or another is sound on domestic abuse. The truth is that there is a welcome and proper consensus about the seriousness of the incidence of domestic abuse in our society. Politicians, the police and all agencies are determined to stamp it out, intervene prior to violence taking place and deal with the root causes of why one partner in a relationship should choose to abuse the other, whether emotionally, financially, physically or otherwise. This debate is not about whether we believe domestic violence is a problem; rather, it is about how the criteria are set. It is therefore a rather narrow debate, and it deserves more mature reflection than some Opposition Members have thus far given it. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not consider 20 years of experience of actually dealing with domestic violence cases to be important, because I would like to think that those of us who have dealt with victims of domestic violence have a contribution to make, and I bitterly resent any Opposition suggestion—especially in sedentary interventions—that I am deliberately prolonging these proceedings. I am not doing so, and if that accusation is repeated, I shall raise a point of order.
Glenda Jackson
In the hon. Gentleman’s argument—and, more centrally, in the Government’s argument—no consideration is given to the possible consequence that what I regard as a crime may lose that classification of criminality, depending on whether the sufferer is or is not granted legal aid. Surely that is a very dangerous road for us to go down.
Mr Buckland
I am, as always, grateful to the hon. Lady because she makes measured contributions, and I shall respond to her point. A distinction must be drawn between the scenario in question, which is a civil legal aid scenario, and the concern that she expresses about the potential decriminalisation of what I agree is a serious crime. The tests are different; as the hon. Lady knows, the evidential tests are different, and, if anything, the evidential hurdle would be higher in the criminal scenario.
I have some sympathy with those Opposition Members who said that a uniform definition of domestic violence, not just in the legal context but across the whole activity of Government, would be welcome and a step forward. The Association of Chief Police Officers definition is largely sound, although I do have one criticism of it: it does not mention children. Domestic violence can, of course, be directed towards, or be conducted in the presence of, children. The restriction to adults alone is therefore perhaps a deficiency, and all of us, as legislators and campaigners, should reconsider that.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is important that we do not think of this issue only in terms of the relationship between a husband and wife, because domestic abuse can also occur in other circumstances, such as where people take in an elderly parent. That may seem a good idea at the time, but subsequently events might take a different turn and the elderly parent may therefore also become a victim of abuse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has only recently entered the Chamber, and he ought not to have intervened so soon. It is, of course, up to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) to decide if and when to take interventions, but may I remind Members that they ought to make sure they have been in the Chamber for some considerable time before seeking to make interventions?
Mr Buckland
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about elder abuse. It often occurs in a domestic scenario, and we, as policy makers, should also consider it when setting out a unified cross-Government definition of domestic violence.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made the valid point that in the past the police did not take domestic violence seriously. Does he agree that there is currently a problem in that the police often do not take elder abuse seriously, and often avoid getting seriously involved in such cases because it is not a specific crime?
Mr Buckland
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am sure that he will have come across appalling instances of the mistreatment of relatives when reading the contents of his mailbag and inbox—as, indeed, we all have. In that scenario, the police often face the same difficulty that confronts them when dealing with cases involving vulnerable, and often young, women who are the victims of domestic violence: the complainants—the victims—are often not in a position to provide clear evidence. Because of their vulnerability or their age, they are seen as a soft target who might crumble if put under pressure in court. That is why it is incumbent upon all of us to consider different mechanisms in which their particular vulnerabilities can be accommodated so that the truth will out.
Sheila Gilmore
I would like to know where the hon. Gentleman’s speech is going. This debate is about the fact that legal aid is being withdrawn for family actions except in very limited circumstances where there is domestic abuse. Fascinating though this discussion of elder abuse is, I do not understand where we are heading.
Mr Buckland
I am sorry the hon. Lady takes that view. I listened to her speech very carefully, and I was glad that she eventually returned to the topic under discussion because, with respect, I must say that at one point she was addressing an entirely different scenario. That may still exist in the imaginations of some Opposition Members, but it has largely disappeared from the imaginations of the occupants of the Government Benches, on which there is consensus among the parties.
I make no apology for dwelling at length on this issue. It deserves careful consideration at this stage of our deliberations on the Bill, and I would like their lordships to ponder what has been said about it. I therefore bitterly resent the suggestion that I am deliberately padding out my remarks.
This issue should be addressed by Ministers not only at the Ministry of Justice, but at all other Departments with a direct role in domestic policy—such as the Department of Health and the Cabinet Office. They must all think very carefully about the benefits of a unified definition of domestic abuse and what that can bring, not only to the workings of Government but to all victims and potential victims. Unless we get a grip on the root causes of this problem, the House will return to it year after year, and there will be not only constituency examples to ponder, but a general and depressing pattern of abuse in the home.
I have carefully considered Opposition amendment 74 and, as I have said, it is not without merit, but although it has been drafted carefully in some respects, it does still leave the potential for mischief, which we must avoid when addressing the granting of public funds.
I am sure the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said on both sides of the House, and that he will go away and consider the important points that have been raised. None of us wants to see a scenario whereby genuine victims of domestic abuse lose out and end up being exposed to situations such as those outlined by Members both in this debate and in Committee.
These issues should not be the subject of political knockabout because they involve real people who have suffered real harm, and who continue to be at risk. It is for those reasons that I have played what I hope has been a constructive part in this debate.
Ben Gummer
As ever, it is difficult to disagree with even a scintilla of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has said. As in Committee, we have had a constructive debate on this subject, and especially so on this occasion as so many contributors on both sides of the House with experience of dealing with domestic violence have spoken.
I am perfectly happy to concede that my experience and understanding of the issue under discussion is very limited, but ever since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2010, shocking case after shocking case has been laid before me in my surgery, and I have seen the work done by the various institutions in my constituency that deal with domestic violence. I was not a specialist in this area before, nor would I be able to lecture some on the Opposition Benches on it, so the intervention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was particularly important in saying that we had come a long distance on how the police and agencies deal with domestic violence, and it is important that we do nothing to retard that.
With that in mind, I find it surprising that the tone of some contributions would suggest that on this issue there was division along political lines—one Bench against another. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who cannot be here today because she is in hospital, has campaigned against domestic violence, especially violence against women, for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has not only sat on the bench recently dealing with cases where domestic violence had been an issue in the criminal court, but prosecuted and defended on that matter. It therefore behoves hon. Members, particularly some on the Opposition Front Bench, not to shout and hurl insults at Conservative Members who wish to give a detailed and reasoned explanation of their views, and not to suggest that there is political division between us on the matter of domestic violence.
I remind Labour Members that the Government are going to produce a comprehensive strategy on tackling domestic violence shortly. I look forward to seeing it and I hope that it will draw together the various threads that we have heard about in today’s debate. That needs to happen because one part of government does not speak to another, just as parts of local government and the local police force do not speak to one another, as all of us will have found locally time and again.
One example will suffice in that regard. It concerns the most horrendous attack on a constituent whose husband had been released from prison on licence. Even though there was a multi-agency public protection arrangement—MAPPA—protocol set up around this gentleman, the attack was revealed only because of a revelation made by the six-year-old child of my constituent in their primary school. The school had never been involved in the MAPPA discussions about this offender, even though, had it been, the abuse would have been identified some weeks beforehand. I hope in highlighting this to say that the impression that we can solve the problem of domestic violence via legal aid and the courts —I know that this was not all Members, but the impression was given—is fundamentally misconceived.
We will deal with this problem—this will be a very long haul—only if we take a cross-governmental approach, and not one led by what happens when things get to court, let alone when they get half way through. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) correctly said that women who report to the police have typically had 20 incidents of assault prior to that moment. We need to deal with things before then. The suggestion that we must be able to solve all this in the definition of the domestic violence protocols within this legislation—
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is not the issue whether the victims can have access to the solution? This is not about the state or the Government solving it. For many victims, it is only through getting legal aid in order to get an injunction or similar that they can solve the violence they face.
Ben Gummer
Again, the hon. Lady speaks with far more experience than I on this matter, and I was getting to her point. I am merely suggesting that the idea that we can address all these problems of domestic violence through an overheated politicised discussion about where the Government are heading on this Bill not only misses the point, but will damage the cause at hand.
On amendment 74, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, I return to the point I made in my intervention. I regret the fact that he said that I was being pernickety, because many of the things that he is driving at have reason and substance behind them. However, there is a problem if we include, within a list of organisations that would help women to report, a general definition of
“a domestic violence support organisation”
without providing clarification about the efficacy of that organisation.
Mr Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that that definition is perfectly acceptable to the UK Border Agency, as are the others. It is a composite of definitions acceptable to Departments, so that is a rogue point. May I add that he is doing no service to this House by padding out this debate, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) did, when we have several other serious debates to come? If the Conservatives are afraid to debate social welfare legal aid, they should say so. Otherwise he should get on with it and allow the House to debate these important amendments tonight.
Ben Gummer
Again, I regret what the shadow Minister has said. On several occasions, I have sat through three hours of speeches from him in Committee—
Ben Gummer
That was one speech. On several occasions, we had three-hour speeches where points were recycled and regurgitated without use to the legislative process. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman claims that I am padding things out, as I hope that I am addressing points not yet raised in this Chamber. I am going to do so briefly. I feel I should do so, as although I am happy to admit that I am not someone from a legal background and that I do not have a previous interest in this area of domestic violence, I have the experience of sitting in the Public Bill Committee and understanding the arguments put both by the Opposition and the Government in this difficult area. I speak as a layman and I hope to offer my support to points made by Members on both sides of the House.
On amendment 113, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we face a small issue about whether people from the European economic area are caught within this legislation. It will cover only a small handful of people, but the inevitable consequence of missing it out—if that happens—is that there will be some travesty and miscarriage of justice precisely in a case where someone falls through the gap. I hope that the Government will carefully examine that suggestion in the first half of the amendment.
I also fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said about undertakings. I have heard much evidence from people practising in this field who give a reasonable argument that a counter-productive eventuality of this Bill is that, if undertakings are excluded, it could end up greatly prolonging cases, and not only to the detriment of litigants: it would also affect the costs of the court. I hope that his constructive and sensible suggestions, which come with considerable experience of sitting on the bench and acting as counsel, will be taken up by the Government as the fair-minded suggestions that they are.
More broadly, we have a problem on self-reporting. I hope that hon. Members, especially Labour Members, will bear me out on this. Anyone who has contact with the family courts and who talks to family judges will know about the impact that allegations of child abuse have had in private law cases. In the opinion of many counsel and judges, in the past few years, allegations of child abuse have increasingly been made far too readily when no substance is behind the claims. It would be unfortunate if, under the new regime, allegations of domestic abuse and domestic violence were made as a precept to gain legal aid, because that would devalue the claims other people make completely legitimately. That is what is happening in the courts at the moment with allegations of child abuse. Several judges have remarked to me that so often is it claimed that one party or another has committed child abuse, it is beginning to numb the senses of the judges hearing those cases. It would be wrong if a similar situation were to arise with this new regime. The Government must therefore phrase the definition of domestic violence very carefully.
I hope that the Government have heard the concerns of Opposition and Government Members, such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, those that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has voiced on several occasions, and those raised today by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). I can hear from the way in which the Minister has been replying that he understands that some sort of uniformity would be desirable across government and that some recognition of the problems of encapsulating a definition within the Bill will be made here or in another place.
The Opposition went into the last election saying that they would seek cuts to legal aid and that promise has been reiterated both by the Leader of the Opposition, in January, and the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting on the Front Bench, on several occasions. However, in Committee, the shadow Minister tabled dozens of amendments, some of which were, by his own admission, contradictory and many of which were culled from the handouts given by lobbyists, which extended considerably the Committee’s deliberations when we could have been discussing the meat of the proposals as we have tried to do today. He came to the House with a new amendment having denied the Public Bill Committee the ability to consider properly many of the issues that we should have discussed.
Ben Gummer
As ever, I am pleased by the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention because he highlights an inconsistency in the Opposition’s argument. They cannot say on the one hand that the Government are not listening and that the legislative process does not work—he said earlier that the pre-legislative system was not working—but on the other, when amendments are made, that the Government are either committing a U-turn or not listening. I do not understand how the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile those two statements.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Gentleman was waxing lyrical about the absence of time to discuss Opposition amendments, but his party is equally to blame in that we have not even had sight of their amendments. At least the Opposition amendments were available to be seen before today; we have not even seen the amendments that are the subject of today’s announcement. That is the point I am making.
Ben Gummer
The right hon. Gentleman misses my point about the Public Bill Committee. There are many issues that needed to be raised that we could have fleshed out at greater length, but the Opposition tabled so many specious amendments, many of which were completely contradictory—largely in the name of the shadow Minister, not that of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is shaking her head—that we did not get to the meat of some of the issues in the amendment we are debating. Had we been able to discuss sub-paragraph (10)(j) of amendment 74, which the shadow Minister has tabled, we might have been able to improve the Opposition’s amendment so that it could be acceptable to Members on both sides of the House. Instead, we have an amendment that was tabled a couple of days ago with aspects that clearly would not hold up to further legislative scrutiny. It is a pity that we did not have that discussion in Committee instead of discussing a series of amendments, some of which I doubt the shadow Minister had even read before he started speaking to them.
Putting all that aside, a principal issue for me is that many of the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister in Committee would have committed his party to spending increases costing £245 million, but whenever I or other members asked whether the Opposition had any alternative spending plans, they told us to look at the Law Society’s plans. Unfortunately, the Law Society has had to revise its plans, which were found wanting.
Ben Gummer
I am just coming to that if the hon. Gentleman will listen.
When they table amendments, the Opposition have a duty to explain how their changes would be paid for and what balances would be made elsewhere in the Bill, but so far we have had nothing to substantiate how they would do that, and neither do we have any idea how their changes would fit into the general pattern of the Bill. I cannot therefore vote for their amendment or that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—amendment 113 —as neither is complete and nor have they been properly discussed.
In conclusion, I hope that we can continue our proceedings without trying to politicise the issue of domestic violence. I hope we can discuss the precise provisions in the Bill without throwing what I feel have been intemperate and sometimes misjudged accusations at one side purely because they happen to disagree with the assertions put by the other.
Mr Djanogly
First, let me confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and other hon. Members that I have listened carefully to the debate, which has been informed and varied. A significant number of general and more specific issues have come up in our deliberations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that the debate has, in some ways, become too polarised given the significant agreement and consensus among all hon. Members about the need to counter domestic violence.
Given the number of issues to address, it is hard to know where to start, but I shall begin with the definition of abuse, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The accusation is that the definition of abuse in the Bill narrows the scope of legal aid in comparison with ACPO’s definition. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill weakened the definition of abuse. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that the definition in the Bill does not require physical abuse. Both the ACPO definition and the Bill definition are very broad and embrace abuse that is not physical, and it is difficult to see what description of behaviour in the ACPO definition would not be covered by the broad description of physical or mental abuse used in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I said in Committee that to widen the definition of domestic violence would induce self-reporting. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich was heading towards saying, that confuses the definition of abuse, which determines scope, and the criteria for an individual to qualify. The definition of abuse in the Bill is broad and it is difficult to see how it does not cover that which is covered by the ACPO definition. Neither definition says anything about how abuse is to be evidenced.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon injected a sense of balance into the debate and I noted his condemnation of archaic and unacceptable language. I think we can all agree on that.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Bill and ACPO definitions of domestic violence. To put an end to this issue, let me say that if any right hon. or hon. Member can write to me with a specific, concrete example of abuse that would be covered by the ACPO definition but not by the definition in the Bill I will give the issue serious consideration.
Kate Green
I am not going to give the Minister an example of that. If he is so sure that there is such an overlap, why not use the ACPO definition?
Mr Djanogly
I look forward to the hon. Lady providing her reasons why that should be the case.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made a significant number of points for his significant number of amendments, most of which I covered in my preliminary remarks, and I do not intend to go over them all again. However, he mentioned two particular points that I did not cover, so if he does not mind I will concentrate on those.
It is not clear that amendments 92 or 93 would widen the category of services described in paragraph 10 significantly or at all. The definition of abuse used in the Bill is intentionally broad and not limited to physical violence, but it embraces physical or mental abuse. Abuse is stated to include sexual abuse and abuse in the form of violence, neglect, maltreatment and exploitation, but it is not limited to those examples. Therefore, we believe that it is sufficiently flexible to cover cases of genuine abuse, as is the intention. Both amendments refer to physical and mental abuse, which are already explicitly referred to in the Bill’s definition. Additionally, they refer to threatening behaviour, violence and emotional abuse, which are clearly within the scope of physical and mental abuse and so are unnecessary and add nothing to the breadth of the category.
Further reference is made to financial abuse. It is not entirely clear what that would cover outside the context of serious cases where the treatment of one party by the other in relation to the family finances amounts to physical or, in particular, mental abuse, which would include neglect, maltreatment and exploitation in the Bill’s definition, where it is clearly within the definition of abuse in the Bill. Where the financial abuse does not amount to or form part of physical or mental abuse, it could be argued that the amendment would widen the gateway beyond what might be ordinarily understood as abusive behaviour, but in a way where the effect is unclear. For instance, there is no special reference to financial abuse in the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 to protect against domestic violence or in case law, in contrast to emotional or psychological abuse, so it is questionable what it would add in this regard.
However, the amendment also stipulates that any incident of abuse would suffice to come within the category. On one construction, that would make no difference since the existing definition does not require a course of conduct, but on another construction it might be argued that the explicit reference to any incident could be read as a fetter on the power to define what would be accepted as sufficient evidence of abuse through secondary legislation. That is because the type of evidence acceptable will reflect a certain degree of seriousness. For instance, a family court will not generally make orders relating to minor, one-off incidents, although it will do so in appropriate circumstances, such as a course of conduct of trivial incidents adding up to something more serious.
It is not clear that any challenge to secondary legislation requiring forms of evidence that in themselves are unlikely to arise from minor, single incidents would have any prospect of success, but the risk cannot be entirely ruled out. Were it impossible to prescribe the forms of evidence proposed to date, we estimate that the consequent opening up of eligibility would at the very least double the cost of the domestic violence gateway to £130 million per annum.
The part of amendment 23 that refers to violence or abuse
“between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”
is superfluous, since it duplicates the effect of paragraph 10(7), which sets out that for the purposes of the paragraph there is a family relationship between two people if they are associated with each other. That “associated” has the same meaning as set out in part 4 of the 1996 Act, where it is defined very widely and covers a range of relationships no less wide, and in some instances wider, than the ACPO definition.
Amendment 93 would widen the domestic violence gateway so that legal aid would be available for the potential victim in private family law cases where there has been an as yet unproven allegation of abuse, or of the risk of abuse. It would make the gateway extremely wide and, in effect, would mean that self-reporting would have to be accepted as sufficient evidence of domestic violence, making any other evidentiary requirements redundant. It would be difficult to limit very far the forms of evidence of an allegation of abuse, or of the risk of abuse, that would be accepted. We estimate that that would at the very least double the cost of the domestic violence gateway to £130 million per annum.
The amendment refers to allegations that person B has been abused by person A. In paragraph 10 of schedule 1, it is person A who is the victim, and person B who is the abuser—the other way around. However, the amendment does not change the opening proposition, which is that the services are provided to person A. This appears to have the perverse consequence that if the proven abuser, person B, alleges that the proven victim, person A, was the abuser, person A would qualify more easily for legal aid as they would then have to give as evidence only an allegation by person B of abuse or the risk of abuse. That is almost certainly a drafting error, but if it is not, and the intention is instead to ensure that legal aid would be available where either party might be the victim of abuse, that would be unnecessary.
In relation to amendment 97, the intended effect is unnecessary because section 37 proceedings are public law matters and it would be possible, in private law proceedings, for a court that is considering a section 37 order to adjourn so that the parents, if they are not already represented, may have access to legal aid and representation under the public law heading. The actual effect is rather wider. However, the amendment would bring the whole of family proceedings, such as proceedings for residence and contact with children, into scope where the court considers making a section 37 direction, rather than simply consideration of that point. Again, this may be a matter of defective drafting, but if so the entire amendment would be superfluous.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether an adjournment would introduce a delay in protecting a child. We would expect a court to adjourn a hearing only if it considered it safe to do so. The only way to avoid the potential of being a section 37 direction being made at a hearing involving unrepresented parents would be by providing legal aid for all private law children cases, which we believe would be a disproportionate response. There is already the potential for section 37 directions to be made in cases involving litigants in person under the present system, but as I have said, legal aid is available and will be in future to challenge such a direction.
A significant number of comments were made in relation to amendment 74. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) indicated that he will want to press it to a Division, so I will spend some time on it. I agree that it is an important matter. He said that he understands our intent. Does he understand that we need to have savings in legal aid? I am not sure what he meant when he said that he understands our intent—[Interruption.] He says that he will address that in a later debate, but I think that it is quite an important issue. In contrast to what he said, his right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State recognised in an article published only this morning that
“cuts need to be made”.
Looking at the amendments tabled by Opposition Members, I cannot see where those cuts will be made. We have had a little look at what they are proposing. The estimated costs of the Opposition amendments are: £20 million in debt matters, £5 million in employment matters, £15 million in housing matters, £25 million in welfare benefits matters, £10 million in clinical negligence matters and £170 million in family law matters. The total is £245 million. The taxpayer deserves to know where the money for that will come from.
Let me address the actual effect of amendment 74. To set out in the Bill the circumstances as specified in the amendment that should be accepted as evidence of domestic violence for the purposes of legal aid for the victim in a private family law case would mean that those circumstances, but not those that the Government intend to accept as evidence of domestic violence, would be set out in primary legislation. The Government would therefore have no power at all to amend those circumstances through secondary legislation. They would be in addition to any circumstances set out in secondary legislation for providing appropriate evidence of abuse. We expect that significantly more cases would receive funding if the circumstances set out in either amendment were accepted as evidence. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and others mentioned their concern about the issue of incentives for false allegations of domestic violence, but we received a significant number of responses to the consultation that expressed concern that there might be a rise in unfounded allegations of domestic violence, and the respondents expressing such concerns included the Law Society and the Bar Council.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is concerned that there might be a rise in unfounded allegations of domestic violence, but does he accept that if his proposals go through there will be an increase in the number of women who are victims of domestic violence and unable to access legal aid?
Mr Djanogly
No. Our proposals are aimed at ensuring that those who are subjected to domestic violence are kept within the scope of legal aid.
Many hon. Members have said, “Shouldn’t any incident of abuse trigger legal aid?” Some have said that we should limit it, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith has put in certain but, given his amendment, not very many limitations. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East accused me of being obsessed with false claims. I am not, but we need to appreciate that such a provision would have serious financial consequences, as it would lead to funding in cases in which the abusive behaviour, although unacceptable, might be very marginal.
Clearly, a single incident of abuse can be very serious, but a single one-off incident of non-physical abuse, such as angry and upsetting words spoken during an argument, can be relatively minor, because they have no real effect on the victim’s ultimate ability to face the other party in proceedings.
On amendment 74, specifically, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) asked whether we would accept undertakings given in civil proceedings as evidence of domestic violence, and I will look at that issue further. The Government’s current position is that a person can give an undertaking, for instance not to be violent towards family members, without admitting to domestic violence, meaning that undertakings may be given in cases where domestic violence has not taken place. We do not think that undertakings would provide sufficiently clear objective evidence that domestic violence has occurred, but we shall look into that further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald also asked whether the fact that the definition of abuse is not specific will make its use more difficult in court, but the definition in the Bill will not be used in proceedings for domestic violence orders under the Family Law Act 1996. There is no definition at all of domestic violence in the 1996 Act, but the courts have experienced no difficulties, so neither the Bill’s definition nor the ACPO definition will be used in such proceedings.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith discussed a finding of fact in a family law court, and he asked how people would get legal aid in that context. They will not get legal aid to bring the case, as legal aid will be triggered only when the court has made a finding of fact, but an applicant will be able to submit written evidence of any abuse if relevant to proceedings, and a judge will be able to intervene to prevent inappropriate questioning.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, made a series of points about the specifics of amendment 74, so let me deal with those, including what would be accepted from various people as evidence in order to qualify for domestic violence. Accepting police cautions would be inconsistent with our proposal to include in the criteria “criminal convictions unless that conviction is spent”, as simple cautions are not convictions and become spent immediately.
A harassment warning is notice that a complaint has been received by the police; it is not considered to be proof that an offence has occurred, and police are not obliged to investigate the allegation. We therefore do not consider that harassment warnings would provide sufficiently clear objective evidence that domestic violence has occurred.
Sir Alan Beith
What that 61% success rate on appeal demonstrates is a bad decision-making system. Ought not the Minister be more sympathetic to the Justice Committee’s view that Departments that make their decisions so badly that they generate large numbers of successful appeals should be penalised, perhaps even to the extent of contributing to a fund for the advice agencies that help the people who are affected?
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. High levels of successful appeals perhaps show that too many cases are going before the tribunals in the first place. The other day, I saw a figure of about 80% for special educational needs tribunals, which was not very impressive either. I can also tell him that I am personally engaging with Ministers in the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education with the specific intention of getting them to work with the Department of Justice to improve their initial decision making. I am pleased to say that they are all are working with us, and that they want to make the system better. This is a matter of significant concern to me, not least because I would like to see fewer appeals relating to my Department coming through the courts and tribunals.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about domestic violence, immigration and legal aid. She also talked about people who fall outside the domestic violence immigration rule, such as EEA nationals. As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at cases of EEA spouses who have suffered dramatic abuse. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned immigration judicial reviews. I think that he accused the Government of putting appellants into a Catch-22 situation because legal aid would not be available for immigration appeals or for some judicial reviews. I can tell him, however, that people will still be able to appeal immigration decisions themselves and, as is often the case at the moment, they will still be able to get legal aid for a subsequent judicial review, as long as it is not on exactly the same or substantially similar issues, or on a removal direction. As I said earlier, we are making various exceptions to the exclusions, which will include ensuring that, when there has been no possibility of an appeal, legal aid will remain for judicial review.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised various points about immigration, and I will write to him about those. He specifically mentioned children, as did other hon. Members, so I shall briefly address that point. In most immigration cases, a child’s interests are represented by their parent or guardian. Most cases in which a child is unaccompanied involve an asylum claim, and legal aid will remain for those cases as at present. Unaccompanied children with an asylum or immigration issue would have a social worker assigned to them, whose role would include helping the child to gain access to the same advice and support as a child who was permanently settled in the UK. They could also offer assistance with filling in forms and explaining terms, and give emotional support. Legal support in such immigration cases may be found, if needed, from law centres and from pro bono legal representation. The Refugee Council provides services for separated children, which can include litigation friends.
A number of hon. Members asked how we justified plans that could disproportionately affect women. That question has also been asked in relation to disabled people, ethnic minorities and people who live in rural areas. The equalities impact assessment, published alongside the Government’s response to consultation, sets out our analysis of how the reforms will affect people with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010. We have identified the potential for the reforms to have a greater impact on some groups, but we believe that those impacts are proportionate, and justified by the need to meet our objectives, including the pressing need to make savings from legal aid. We are also keeping discrimination claims relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 within the scope of legal aid, which we consider will make a significant contribution to the fulfilment of our public sector equality duty.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about the removal of legal aid in many family cases, which she said would remove access to justice from many people. She asked how that could be right. Legal aid will remain available for family mediation and private family law cases, including private law children and family proceedings and ancillary relief proceedings. We want to encourage more use of such mediation. In ancillary relief cases, courts will be able to make orders for payment against a third party or a party who has the means to fund the costs of representation for the other party. Removing costly and often unnecessary legal aid does not mean removing access to justice. Litigants in person already feature in the justice system. Judges and magistrates currently assist litigants in person without compromising their impartiality, and we expect that to continue.
Finally, I was asked whether we expect all cases to be resolved through mediation. As I said earlier, the answer is categorically no. Cases involving domestic violence and child abuse, and emergency cases will still not be required to go through mediation. In addition, exceptional funding will be available when necessary for the UK to meet its international and domestic legal obligations via a proposed scheme for excluded cases. On that note, I rest my case.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd
I beg to move amendment 80, page 99, line 21, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 85, page 110, line 18, leave out ‘other than clinical negligence’.
Amendment 143, page 110, line 18, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.
Amendment 86, page 110, leave out lines 28 to 30.
Amendment 142, page 110, line 32, at end insert—
19A (1) civil legal services provided in relation to Clinical Negligence.
(2) In this paragraph clinical negligence means breach of duty or care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services)’.
Amendment 88, page 111, line 4, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.
Amendment 132, page 118, line 27, after ‘negligence’, insert
‘with the exception of clinical negligence’.
Mr Llwyd
I will be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak and, crucially, we need to get to the social justice provisions. The purpose of amendment 80 is to bring clinical negligence back within scope in cases involving abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult. Amendment 88 is designed to retain specific provision for tort and damages claims engaging European convention rights, and extending provision to cases involving clinical negligence. Amendments 85 and 86 are consequential, and cover the abuse of a position of power by a public authority. They would specifically provide for cases involving a particularly serious variety of public wrongdoing and would remove the exclusion of clinical negligence cases in such a context.
Taken together, the amendments reflect my concern, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, about the huge gaps in protection of the vulnerable that will come about as result of implementation of the exceptions to funding by legal aid. What is perhaps most concerning in such instances is that individuals will come up against the state during proceedings. People involved in cases of clinical negligence by a public authority are, by definition, at their most destitute. Frequently, parents or other family members will bring cases against public authorities resulting from traumatic injuries sustained by their children and their relatives.
As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said in Committee:
“the inequality of arms is never more obvious than when an individual comes up against a decision made by the state”.––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2011; c. 327.]
That is because the state will always have access to full and expert legal advice, and will often have a team of lawyers at its ready disposal. That is even more ironic when we consider the stark fact that the state should have a responsibility to ensure that every individual has the means to hold it to account. I said that on Second Reading, and I do so again. In the reforms, the Government seem to have lost sight of that all-important state duty to support the vulnerable, as well as to protect them.
The Minister said in Committee that there is often a viable source of alternative funding for cases of clinical negligence through contingency fee arrangements. That sounds all right, but is not as simple as it sounds. What about the people who, on entering into such an arrangement with solicitors, would not be able to afford a policy to cover them for the initial necessary medical examinations? I know that some ground has been given on that, but I would be grateful to hear more. For many parents, for example, contingency fees cannot be the answer since they do not have the money up front to buy a policy to provide cover when making an arrangement with solicitors. Indeed, very few firms would take on a clinical negligence case on a no win, no fee basis because of the complexity and specialism involved in this area of civil law.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious charge against public authorities, and indeed those who represent them, by suggesting that they obfuscate and withhold evidence in circumstances where their disclosure obligations are very clear under the civil procedure rules. Can he put some flesh on the bones and substantiate his allegation?
Karl Turner
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is often the public policy of these authorities—certainly, in my experience, the national health service—to delay? I could not provide any examples either, but in my experience, they do delay.
Mr Llwyd
That is the point. Unless and until there is full disclosure at the very earliest point, these cases will be drawn out until the evidence is available. Everybody knows that any case against a health authority has to rely on expert evidence, and it is impossible to have that without experts’ reports from the health authority. This is the conundrum facing people who are often two, three or four years down the road and still no nearer to a conclusion. That is exactly the position that many people report, and that is why lots of these cases are, as we hear, high-value cases.
Stephen Phillips
The hon. Gentleman will obviously have absolutely no doubt about the bona fides of the charges that he is effectively laying at the doors of the national health service and others, but does he ascribe the position to problems with management or to seeking to protect individual medical practitioners? The two seem to me to be very different.
Mr Llwyd
I would speculate and say that it is probably to do with management rather than protecting individual practitioners, but I cannot give any assurances on that. What I am saying here today is common knowledge out there; it is not a new allegation that I have dreamed up just to try to grab a headline at this late stage. [Interruption.] To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question honestly, I do not know, but I would guess that it is a management issue, because whenever there is a claim, it is reported to management immediately—on the very first day, I expect.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
If it is a management issue, then that, as we have seen in the Public Accounts Committee, goes to the issue of accountability and governing structure. Should not the hon. Gentleman therefore be focusing his remarks on how those issues are tackled rather than trying to perpetuate an ever-increasing legal aid bill, which amounts to fixing the symptoms of the problem rather than addressing its cause?
Mr Llwyd
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will go back to my script; he may be interested to hear this part because it deals with the point that he rightly makes. If there were a duty on responsible bodies such as health authorities immediately to come clean with evidence, there would probably have been no need for these amendments because we would not be in the position that we are in. Side by side, on a parallel basis, we need to ensure that all health authorities, and any public bodies, are responsible in their dealings with the public; that goes without saying.
There are about 1 million adverse occurrences or accidents in the NHS every year, and about 10,000 lead to action being taken against the NHS. It is, therefore, a big area of law. In the earlier debate, the point was made that 66% of immigration appeals succeed because the initial decision was bad. In this instance, there would be far fewer long, drawn-out cases if all health authorities and public bodies were under a duty to disclose fully and urgently, and there would not be the astronomical costs that some of these cases result in.
Stephen Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman’s remarks are addressing supply, not demand. He is not addressing why there are so many clinical negligence cases, nor why the insurance that is charged is going up exponentially. There are existing rules for special severance payments for whistleblowers but, as was found in the National Audit Office’s report in 2005 and the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations in 2006, there is still a problem in the way whistleblowers are tackled in the NHS and in the way such cases are dragged out. That is a failure of the previous Government. It is to that failure that he should address his remarks; not to the fact that we continue to fix a problem that is growing exponentially year on year.
Mr Llwyd
The number of cases each year because of accidents or negligence has not really increased. It has been around the 10,000 mark for many years. There has not been a sudden rise in specious claims in this area. This is not a growing market. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I agree that we should ensure that there is far better practice.
Such cases are capable of being resolved far earlier and without recourse to litigation. Medium-sized cases are often resolved by the hospital or health authority without resorting to litigation, and that is fine. However, in large cases, such as where a child is brain-damaged at birth, there is no appetite from either side to settle it in the hospital. Such cases are often extremely expensive because the child’s life has been ruined for their entire existence. That is why I raise these matters.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will make a contribution because I know that he, too, has been campaigning on this issue. I will confine my remarks to those few points.
Tom Brake
I rise to make a few brief comments, particularly in relation to amendment 132, which appears in my name.
I have been ably supported by Action against Medical Accidents, which campaigns on the issue of clinical negligence and for a statutory duty of candour in relation to accidents in the NHS. If there was a statutory duty to confirm, at the outset, that an accident had taken place, it might ensure that many cases involving the NHS, which can drag on for many years, were brought to a much earlier conclusion. If, as was suggested earlier, it is management who get in the way of resolving such cases, they would not be able interfere to the same extent to delay proceedings—if, indeed, that is what they do—if confirmation that an accident had taken place was given at the outset.
I will focus on legal aid representation in relation to medical negligence. I welcome the confirmation we have been given that £6 million or £7 million of the £16 million that is currently spent on legal aid for medical negligence will be retained under the “Exceptional Funding” heading. The sum that is being discussed is therefore in the order of £10 million. Although we have received assurances that exceptional funding will be able to deal with many of the intense cases with which Members are familiar, such as cases of babies who have been seriously injured at birth, the question remains: which cases will not be funded once that £10 million is withdrawn from legal aid for medical negligence cases?
Given that the Government have a significant budget deficit to address and that this measure is part of that programme, I do not want to come empty-handed when it comes to saying where additional funding could come from if the Government were to restore that money. Later on, we will debate amendment 144, which is in my name. It would introduce a presumption against sending people to prison for a prison sentence of six months or less. The organisation that has done the calculations suggests that that could save the Government up to £400 million a year. That might be a slight or even a gross exaggeration of how much money could be saved, but it would be not unrealistic to expect that savings of the order of £10 million would be achievable if the Government were to look kindly on that amendment.
Medical negligence is high-profile. It might affect a relatively small number of families, but when it does, it does so dramatically.
Karl Turner
Does the right hon. Gentleman want his amendment to be pressed to a Division?
Tom Brake
My colleagues and I will get used to interventions of that nature, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am expecting some reassurance from the Minister that the Government do not have a closed mind. Even if we cannot make progress in the House, there could be opportunities in another place to do so. I am just putting down a marker for the Government that they should entertain that idea.
Stephen Phillips
As I understand it, amendment 132 relates to medical negligence within the scope of the European convention on human rights, which is excluded from legal aid in the Bill. If it is a probing amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the sort of cases he has in mind? I cannot envisage a case involving convention rights that would involve medical negligence.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, even if he has identified a flaw in my proposal. The funding available for legal aid in cases of medical negligence deals with the serious cases with which Members will be very familiar, such as obstetric accidents. However, I am seeking clarification from the Minister, because although some of the funding for dealing with such cases will still be available through exceptional funding, some of it will no longer be available. I am seeking confirmation from the Government that all very serious cases will be addressed through the exceptional funding route. I hope it will be possible for the Government to identify additional funding to address the funding gap for any remaining cases, as I have done in amendment 144.
Karl Turner
I rise to speak to amendment 142, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I think that that is the correct pronunciation of his constituency, but I apologise to him if it is not.
The amendment would put clinical negligence back into the scope of legal aid. The Bill will exclude many important areas of law from the scope of legal aid entirely, all of which deeply concern me.
Stephen Phillips
May I say what an enormous pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and to commend at least some of his comments to my colleagues, particularly to those seeking the promotion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox)? I make no comment about any other Queen’s counsel on this side of the House.
There is undoubtedly a fundamental problem with civil legal aid. The simple fact is that to bring cases for which legal aid is available to trial in this country costs more not only than it does in civil law systems that do not recognise the extensive discovery that we have here in England and Wales and in other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, but more than it costs in other common law jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia and in other jurisdictions that have essentially inherited our legal system. That fundamental problem is one with which, because of the deficit we were left by the last Government, this Government have had to grapple. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mouthing something from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene, I am happy to allow him.
Mr Slaughter
I felt that the hon. Gentleman was about to get into a long peroration that would be more suitable for a Second Reading debate. I was simply reminding him that the amendments we are debating are about clinical negligence.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful, but I see Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair this evening. I am sure that if I am out of order at any stage, he will upbraid me. I do not need any lessons from the hon. Member for Hammersmith about how to speak in this Chamber or indeed about the remarks I intend to make tonight. [Interruption.] The simple fact of the matter is—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think Mr Slaughter needs to calm down.
Stephen Phillips
I am extremely grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The simple fact is that these amendments, which seek to reverse the Government’s position that clinical negligence should be removed from the scope of the exceptions in the Bill, have to be considered against the background of the current position as it prevails in relation to civil legal aid. If that point has escaped the hon. Member for Hammersmith, it is not one that has escaped me or, indeed, my hon. Friends. I remind him that it was the manifesto commitment of his party that Labour would have reformed the civil legal aid system if they had formed the next Government.
In those circumstances, we come to the particular context of these amendments and of whether it is appropriate to remove clinical negligence from the scope of legal aid and leave the gap to be picked up in two ways. I am sure that the Minister will make it clear in his concluding remarks how that gap will be picked up. At this juncture, I should say incidentally to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East that I have made no representations at all to the Minister about this Bill, although I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s earlier observations. The Government believe that that gap will be filled in two ways. First, the exceptional funding that the Bill makes available will pick up many clinical negligence cases that would otherwise have attracted legal aid funding from the Legal Aid Board. That may satisfy some, and it may deal with part of the problem.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. and learned Gentleman makes very good points. I tried to say that there should be a twin-track approach. In my perception, there is a problem with regard to the administration of health authorities and full early disclosure, so he is absolutely right. However, I still say that there should be more than just a basic safety net in awful cases such as when somebody is a paraplegic upon birth.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations, but he may be eliding two matters. The first is the unavailability of legal aid for what we might call cases in the middle—neither the severe cases that will be picked up by the exceptional funding arrangements or CFAs, nor the cases in which solicitors and counsel will be prepared to take the case on and earn their money well down the line. I agree that that middle group of cases is the difficult group, but as well as the CFA arrangements mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, one must consider whether those cases are likely to be picked up and run with by the legal profession. My judgment is that they are.
Never having done a clinical negligence case, and having no expertise in those cases at all, I base that judgment partly on my experience of the position as it prevails in many jurisdictions in the United States, where of course no state or federal funding at all is available for civil cases. A legal profession has grown up in which attorneys have had to educate themselves about which cases they should be prepared to take. They consider which cases are worth taking forward, but also those that they believe have merit from a perspective of social justice and ensuring that there is access to justice for all.
Having worked with many attorneys across many jurisdictions in the United States, I can tell the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that there are attorneys who take cases that they suspect will lead either to a settlement, out of which they will get very little or nothing, or to an eventual loss if they have to take the matter to court. They consider that part of their professional obligation.
I hope that both limbs of the legal profession in this country will come to appreciate that we owe an obligation not merely to try to make money out of the practice of law, but to do what we all did when we first came to the law—have a burning sense of justice on behalf of our clients, so that they are properly represented whether or not we believe them, whether or not we think their case is meritorious and certainly whether or not we think we will make money out of it. I hope that that deals to a large extent with the right hon. Gentleman’s points. I am, of course, as concerned as he is that there may be a group of cases in the middle that will somehow fall through the net. If that is the position, we may have to revisit the issue later.
Stephen Phillips
With the leave of the House, I was about to make my final few remarks.
Sir Alan Beith
I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend; I thought he had concluded his speech.
Stephen Phillips
The amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) addresses schedule 1 and the non-exclusion of clinical negligence cases in the context of convention rights. As I have informed the House more often than, perhaps, I ought, I have never conducted a clinical negligence case. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker tells me that the House has taken that point on board, and I am pleased it has taken at least one of my points on board.
Notwithstanding the Government’s insistence on the exclusion of clinical negligence in this context, I find it difficult to envisage any circumstances in which a case could be brought under the convention that engages this part of the law. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend addressed that point adequately—or, indeed, at all—when I intervened on him earlier, but he has said that this is a probing amendment that may have to be debated further in another place. At present however, I remain perplexed by the amendment.
Tom Brake
My hon. and learned Friend highlighted a flaw in the drafting of the amendment, but in his contribution this evening he has identified the group of cases that gives me some concern: the group of middle cases, as he described them. He has, I think, suggested both that he also has concerns in this regard and that the Government may need to address the matter in future.
Stephen Phillips
It may be an area the Government have to come back to. The amendment would change schedule 1 and, specifically, the cases for which civil aid is, and is not, available in the context of breaches of convention rights by a public authority. It addresses the convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, a piece of legislation of which the House will know I am not greatly enamoured. Clinical negligence is itself defined in paragraph 20(6) of the schedule, and the amendment suggests that civil legal aid should continue to be available in cases where a breach of convention rights is asserted in the context of clinical negligence. Although I think the Human Rights Act is bad law, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the convention might be used and legal aid ought, in any event, to be available.
I therefore do not support the amendments, as they are unnecessary and misconceived, and the Government will have my support tonight.
Sir Alan Beith
I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for having misinterpreted—and for perhaps leading you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to misinterpret —his meaningful pause, which sometimes occurs when senior counsel are delivering their well-chosen words, and which led me to think he had finished his speech.
I commend the members of my Committee who have brought this issue to the attention of the House: the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). The current system reveals many shortcomings in dealing with matters of this kind. I can recall a case, which went on for many years, of a young man who was brain damaged for life because he was not provided with proper recovery following an operation after a road accident. It was only when I managed to drag some information out of a health authority that the third firm of solicitors involved sued the second firm of solicitors for its professional negligence in allowing the matter to run out of time when a claim against the health authority would have been successful had it been undertaken with that information in the first place. These very difficult matters frequently involve the kind of cases that most of us are concerned about tonight: lifetime injury cases with very high care costs for those involved. My understanding is that when it comes to recovering costs from people who have been awarded damages in these circumstances, they will be recovered not from their damages for care, but from the other aspect of damages; a provision that the court has made for someone’s lifelong welfare ought not to be affected.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I think I am unique in this House in that I have had a great deal of experience in clinical negligence and have practised for the best part of 12 years almost exclusively on behalf of claimants. I have conducted well over 100 clinical negligence cases, against a multitude of general practitioners, hospital trusts and the like. They were primarily insurance-backed or conditional fee arrangement cases, although some of them were occasionally legal aid cases. I believe that, in the great tradition of the Government, I have still been unpaid for some of that work, notwithstanding the fact that I have not completed any work as a lawyer since I was elected in May 2010. So I should declare an interest in that I believe I have some legal aid fees outstanding, not that I am pressuring the Minister in any way to beat a path to my clerks and my chambers to pay the bill.
I should also declare an interest as a former lecturer and a member of Action against Medical Accidents—AvMA. I have written extensively on this area and am a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I have given instructions to a multitude of different hospitals up and down the country, assisting them on how they can avoid clinical negligence claims. I was retained as counsel for several hospital and trust institutions, advising on how to avoid these claims and how to move forward. I should also declare an interest in that I am part of the team pushing for a culture of openness and have met the hon. Member who so very helpfully saved my life in May, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). So I have also conducted an in-depth study of the NHS over the past six months in a way that I did not expect when I was first elected.
My final declaration is that I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who occupies part of a seat that I fought in 2005 of the Lleyn valley and peninsula in what was Caernarfon. I know that he is an outstanding MP and barrister and I have great respect for the points that he makes, as I do for the submissions and proposals of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner).
Let me address the proposals of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd regarding the duty to come clean. It must surely be the case that NHS authorities should come clean at an early stage and I endorse some of the comments that were made about this being something to be addressed not so much in the Bill as in the NHS’s culture and approach. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) about this, and I have a copy of an article that I wrote for an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers publication on this exact point. In my experience there is ample evidence of isolated examples of an NHS trust deliberately defending a claim on an ongoing basis in the hope that the relevant individual goes away. That is a serious allegation to make, but it is not just me who says it—cases have been reported. I recommend very highly the amazingly well-written edition of APIL PI Focus, volume 20, issue 3, which I co-authored, which addresses that particular point.
Stephen Phillips
I make it clear for the fourth time that I have no experience in this area, and I have no doubt that such cases exist, but are they not exactly the sort of case that the civil procedure rules were introduced to deal with? Judges have powers to ensure equality of arms and if defendants behave badly they ought to be punished accordingly.
Guy Opperman
I totally endorse that point and such defendants are punished accordingly, particularly in the punitive elements of costs when they are assessed. There are punitive factors that my hon. and learned Friend as a judge would know one is able to impose in a civil court whereby—[Interruption.] I accept that he is not a civil judge—it shows. There is an ability to punish the offending NHS institution or doctor, but the fair point that has been raised and must be addressed is that the powers that would exist to a civil judge, were my hon. and learned Friend to be one, would arise quite far down the track in civil litigation and not at the outset. I come back to the legitimate and fair point that we should address this issue to NHS trusts and particularly to two types of individual, including, first, to chief executives. Regrettably, there are examples of a failure of leadership by chief executives because, clearly, they are mindful of their budgets and they do not like the idea of a culture of openness in which mistakes are admitted. In those circumstances, whether implicitly or directly, efforts are made to suppress litigation against NHS trusts.
The second group of individuals who should be involved is doctors and consultants. Because theirs is such a hierarchical profession, instead of having a culture of openness in which mistakes are readily admitted, there is, sadly, from time to time—I have professional experience of this—a failure to admit mistakes. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will sadly and tragically have discovered—and I have been involved in several such meetings—there is a post-operative debrief within the health service.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
This is not really my field, but I know from my constituents that a large number of them who have experienced difficulties in the NHS are extraordinarily concerned about the lack of transparency and the weight of expertise against them, because they are not, of course, particularly skilled in that area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the big problems we need to address, as I hope we are doing in the Bill?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will not deal with it in any great detail—I mean no disrespect to him—because I wish to go back to the point I was making. We must have a system within the medical profession that allows its members to start to accept that it is perfectly understandable that mistakes are made, because they are human beings, and that there is insurance to cover such matters when they take place. With the best will in the world, that should be accepted. That recognition, however, does not exist to the degree that it should.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that that phenomenon is unique to the medical profession? Does it apply to many other professions, including his former profession, the legal profession, where mistakes are not openly broadcast and are dealt with internally, often unofficially, rather than publicly?
Guy Opperman
I did not expect to be attacked by my own side for my former profession. I agree that we all need to accept that when we make mistakes we should own up to them, and that goes for politicians, too.
In fairness, I should speak to the amendments. Surely the point is that there should be a statutory duty of candour in the health service, and that is what is missing. If it needs any encouragement, I know of three separate reports that deal with it: the Levinson and Gallagher report, “Disclosing Harmful Medical Errors to Patients”; the Robins report in the Law Society Gazette; and “Why do patients complain?”, from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. All three reports, and reports from across the world—there is good evidence in Australia and New Zealand—show that where there is openness and admission of blame, the amount of litigation subsequently goes down, rather than up. For nine out of every 10 clients I saw as a professional barrister practising on clinical negligence, the first two questions they asked were: “Why did they not apologise?”; and “What will be done to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else?” Nine out of 10 clients would fully understand that no doctor gets up in the morning and makes a mistake deliberately. They understand that it is because they are making clinical errors under intense pressure. In that respect, those are the things that need to be addressed by the Health Secretary, rather than in the Bill.
Mrs Laing
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between mistakes made by his profession, which is also my profession—I speak to him with sympathy—and those made by the medical profession is that in the case of the latter the consequences can be truly tragic and cannot be put right? Therefore, there must be some mechanism that is open, understandable and available to the public as a whole to try to help when something goes tragically wrong and affects a person’s life.
Guy Opperman
With respect, there are ways forward on those issues, not least the idea of a joint report to be completed by a defendant and the claimant together. It would be easy for the Health Secretary to address that by ordering individual chief executives, particularly in relation to cerebral palsy cases, to provide an independent expert’s report assessing the birth. If that happened, litigation would go down, as would the funding to the taxpayer, and we would have speedier and better resolution of these issues. I regret to say that those sorts of things have been said by a number of Members in both Houses in the past and no one has addressed it. However, I stress that that is a matter for the Health Secretary, rather than one that arises out of the Bill.
I am conscious of the time and want to address the other points that have been made; I apologise that I did not do this on Second Reading, but clearly I could not be present in the House at the time. I accept entirely the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East about the fear of the loss of legal aid, and I will address individual children’s cases, in particular, in a moment. The fear of the loss of legal aid is not something that is new to the legal profession, or in relation to negligence or the practice of personal injury law. Those same issues arose throughout the 1990s and 2000 in relation to the Woolf reforms, and many of us who were practising barristers at the time were concerned that individual litigants would be unable to go to the personal injury courts or elsewhere and bring litigation. With no disrespect to the submissions made, the matter has not been resolved, and on this particular issue conditional fee agreements have without question filled the gap. They have been extremely successful—some, including certain Ministers, would say almost too successful—at filling the gap where legal aid previously existed.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not absolutely sure in my mind, so the hon. Gentleman might wish to indicate, whether he was intending to allow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) to have a brief opportunity to speak. I do not know whether he was intending it, but if he is I am sure he will be approaching the conclusion of his remarks.
Guy Opperman
I am grateful for the advice and assistance, Mr Speaker, and I will conclude in approximately one and a half minutes—
Guy Opperman
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation—from his usual sedentary position. If he had taken more exercise, he could have stood up to say it.
In broad terms, will complex cases concerning children be subject to exceptional funding? That is the first point that the Minister needs to address.
The second point that I ask the Minister to take away with him is whether, in a complex child case and, particularly, in cerebral palsy cases, a joint or an independent report could not be commissioned, so that there is an assessment at that stage of whether there is a case to answer. If there is a case to answer, the obtaining of legal aid would clearly follow thereafter; if there is not, the matter would not proceed.
On that quiet note, and with apologies to the sedentary hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), I resume my seat.
Mr Buckland
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who speaks from professional and personal experience on these matters. I am profoundly grateful to him for his candour and passion. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), a fellow practitioner from Wales, who has considerable experience of these matters.
I rise to reinforce some of the points that have been made about some aspects of the proposed reforms. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that it is difficult to define an exceptional case. By the very nature of the category that the Legal Services Commission uses to deal with exceptional cases, they are indefinable. I accept that he will therefore find it difficult to assure us categorically that all cases that cause proper concern—particularly the complex cases involving young children who have had difficulties at birth—will be covered by the Government’s proposals.
We are right to raise these concerns. Clinical negligence cases are somewhat unusual in that the expenditure is incurred at the beginning. The firms of solicitors dealing with such cases are often not the big firms that live in the City of London, but the firms of partners who have developed a degree of experience in such cases and who understand how to relate to the families of people who have suffered from alleged clinical negligence. However, such firms do not necessarily have the resources to enable them to spend lots of money on the preliminary medical investigations that are essential in preparing the ground in such cases.
I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who, in his excellent speech, raised the possibility of producing a joint report, at the beginning of each case, for the NHS—the defendant—and the claimant. That is a good point to make, but we are not in that position yet; we are still in an adversarial position. My deep worry is that a lot of cases will go without the necessary representation or help because those firms do not have the resources to dip into their pockets and to pay the thousands of pounds that are needed to prepare a case for making a claim.
I speak from experience, having served as a member of a funding review panel for some 10 years, and having dealt with appeals made by solicitors against the refusal or revocation of legal aid certificates in cases of clinical negligence. It would be wrong to say that a carte blanche exists at the moment. Even now, it is not easy for solicitors to satisfy the Legal Services Commission. I want to ask the Government to think carefully about the observations made by Members on both sides of the House, and to hesitate before seeking to implement the full thrust of these proposals.
There are several ways of dealing with this question. The first would be the full retention of legal aid for such cases. Another would be its retention for those aged 18 or under who are making claims against the NHS for clinical negligence. A further option would be to allow the provision of legal funding for initial advice and assistance in the preparation of reports before the commencement of any proceedings. Such an option would not cover representation, but it would deal with the preliminary stages. I ask the Government to consider those alternatives very carefully. I know that this matter will be hotly debated in another place, where I am sure full account will be taken not only of what we have said here tonight but of any observations that are made there.
Mr Djanogly
Let me first set out the scope of what we are talking about. Clinical negligence spend through legal aid in 2009-10 was about £17 million, consisting of around £1 million for legal help and around £16 million for representation. Closed-case volumes for legal representation in clinical negligence in 2009-10 were just over 2,300. It is estimated that removing clinical negligence from scope will save around £17 million per annum on legal help and representation, taking account of the exceptional funding regime and the estimated income from the supplementary legal aid scheme. Continued spend of £6 million through exceptional funding of the £16 million currently spent on representation in clinical negligence is foreseen. NHS figures for 2010-11 show that 82% of clinical negligence cases, where the funding method is known, were funded by means other than legal aid. That is the current situation.
The NHS Litigation Authority figures for 2010-11 show that of 2,002 legally aided claims, some 718 were claims for children, which represented 36% of claims funded through legal aid. Annexe B of the Government’s impact assessment on the reforms to conditional fee agreements sets out estimated savings of £50 million to the NHS Litigation Authority as a result of abolishing recoverability of success fees, and after-the-event insurance premiums.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
On the impact assessment, have the Government assessed how many children who would previously have qualified for clinical negligence aid will no longer qualify when the changes go through?
Mr Djanogly
That is hard to say, because it depends on the extent to which children will come within the scope of exceptional funding, but we believe that the figure for exceptional funding will be £6 million, and that a significant proportion of that would be related to children’s claims. I will return to that.
The figure does not account for the NHS Litigation Authority paying after-the-event insurance premiums for policies covering the cost of expert reports in some cases. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made that point very well. Based on figures published by the compensation recovery unit on claims settled, clinical negligence cases made up just over 1% of personal injury claims in 2010-11.
While Opposition Members were speaking, a thought came to my mind. Clinical negligence forms about 1% of the wider personal injury market. The last Government ended legal aid for personal injury claims, except in relation to clinical negligence. I am looking for help from Opposition Members because it is bizarre to hear them defend their position with such vehemence and conviction when their party scrapped 99% of this category. Let me develop the point.
Labour Members seem to be saying that if a drunk driver hit someone and caused brain damage, the injured person would not get legal aid. But if the same victim were brain-damaged to the same extent by a negligent doctor, they seem to be saying that that person should get legal aid—[Interruption.] If I have missed something, I am all ears. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) may want to explain why I am wrong. The Opposition must find some consistency in their position.
Mr Djanogly
The injured person could make a claim, but so could the person who suffered clinical negligence. The point is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that the position is inconsistent.
We recognise that many clinical negligence cases involve serious issues, but for most a conditional fee agreement will be a suitable alternative to public funding. According to NHS figures for 2010-11, 82% of clinical negligence cases, where the funding method is known, were funded by means other than legal aid. That is the current position. We therefore consider that legal aid is not justified in such cases, and that our limited funding would be better targeted at other priority areas, such as those involving physical safety, liberty and homelessness. However, we have proposed an exceptional funding scheme to ensure that some individual clinical negligence cases will continue to receive legal aid when failure to do so would be likely to result in a breach of the individual’s right to legal aid under the Human Rights Act 1998 or European Union law.
In considering whether exceptional funding should be granted, we will take into account the client’s ability to present their own case, the complexity of the matter, the importance of the issues at stake, and all other relevant circumstances. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), our impact assessment estimates that we will continue to spend some £6 million of the £16 million that we currently spend on representation in clinical negligence cases.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make, but there is still great concern among my hon. Friends about what help will be available for vulnerable young children who have experienced harm as a result of medical negligence. Can he help us to understand that?
Mr Djanogly
As I have said before, we estimate that the vast majority of the £6 million will be for complex and lengthy cases that concern cerebral palsy, brain-damaged children or adult paralysis. We believe that no-win conditional fee agreements will still be available to fund these claims in the new regime. In addition, our reforms provide for a power allowing recoverability of after-the-event premiums in clinical negligence claims to help cover the cost of expert reports in complex clinical negligence cases. We have also announced plans to implement qualified one-way cost shifting in clinical negligence cases, which would mean that claimants would not be at risk of paying their opponents’ costs, as is the case with legal aid. Where CFAs are not available, the exceptional funding scheme will allow funding to be granted in individual excluded cases where the failure to provide funding would be likely to result in a breach of the individual’s human rights.
Neil Carmichael
CFAs are awarded in circumstances where the parents will be in a state of considerable grief, or at least have a huge amount of concern, about the well-being of their child, so will there be a sensitive enough arrangement for making the awards and assessing the circumstances?
Mr Djanogly
Indeed. As is currently the case, the solicitors awarding the CFA would have to look at the merits and decide whether they wanted to proceed with it. Obviously, the person has to want to instruct the solicitor and the solicitor has to want to take the case; it would cut both ways.
There have been a lot of comments about what assessment has been made of the effects on the NHS of removing clinical negligence from the scope of legal aid. In response to a parliamentary question, the Department of Health indicated that
“the potential effect on the national health service of removing clinical negligence from the scope of Legal Aid will be cost neutral.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 1231W.]
In annexe B of the impact assessment on the reforms, we estimate savings of £50 million to the NHS Litigation Authority as a result of the abolition. My officials are in ongoing consultations and discussions with the NHSLA and stakeholders about how the commissioning of expert reports can be improved so that, for instance, joint reports can be commissioned wherever possible. This, in turn, would help to encourage early notification of claims.
One particular aspect of clinical negligence cases is the significant up-front costs involved in obtaining expert reports. Following consultation, the Government are seeking a tightly drawn power in the Bill to allow the recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums in clinical negligence cases. The details will be set out in regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who lent us the benefit of his considerable experience in the clinical negligence field, made some important points in this regard.
We have to make some difficult choices about legal aid, and we need to focus our limited resources on those who need it most.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify whether eligibility will be income based or based on the child’s condition, vulnerability or need?
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend’s point goes back to children and their eligibility on the basis of income. A certificate is issued in the name of the minor or the patient and it is their resources that are assessed in the normal way, not those of the litigation friend, children’s guardian or guardian ad litem who is bringing or defending the proceedings on their behalf.
However, in family cases where the applicant for funding is a child, the resources of a parent, guardian or any other person who is responsible for maintaining him or her, or who usually contributes substantially to his or her maintenance, are required to be treated as his or her resources unless, having regard to all the circumstances, including the age and resources of the child and any conflict of interest, it appears inequitable to do so. The applying solicitor should submit appropriate means forms for the child and parents or others responsible for or contributing to his or her maintenance or, more usually in the first instance, explain in the application itself why non-aggregation of means would be appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case, having regard to the position of each of the parents or others on the issues in the case and the party status of the child.
Where children have sufficient understanding to decide that they want to seek an order in family proceedings for themselves and actually start proceedings, there may be no conflict with one or both parents and it may be reasonable to take the means of the parents, or one of them, into account. However, where a child is joined as a party in ongoing proceedings by an order of the court, the assessing officer is likely to accept that the party status of the child justifies non-aggregation.
I hope that that answers my hon. Friend’s point.
Guy Opperman
On the tricky issue of cerebral palsy among children, would the Minister consider persuading NHS trusts in all such cases, of which there are not many, to commission an independent report as a first step, before any application for legal aid is made?
Mr Djanogly
My response to that applies more broadly than to just cerebral palsy. We believe that the NHS Litigation Authority should more frequently take the initiative in the preparation of reports. Where possible, there should be joint reports, not least to help cases along more swiftly.
Our approach means that public funding will not be available for each and every claim involving a public authority, but it will be available for the most serious cases and to address serious abuses. Most claims for damages will be removed from the scope of legal aid because we have sought to focus our limited resources on cases where the client’s life, liberty, physical safety or home is at risk. Therefore, we do not consider that most claims seeking financial compensation from public authorities merit public funding. However, the Bill ensures that legal aid is available for the most serious damages claims that concern an abuse of position or power, or a significant breach of human rights by a public authority.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
That is the third time that my hon. Friend has referred to human rights. It is as if he was deliberately rubbing salt into the wounds. Members would prefer it, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, if money was available for medical negligence cases, rather than for human rights cases.
Mr Djanogly
I am referring to human rights mainly in relation to exceptional cases where the money would indeed go towards satisfying someone’s medical negligence claim.
Other claims will be excluded from scope and alternative sources of funding, such as conditional fee arrangements, may be available for meritorious claims. I confirm for my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that we always have an open mind on these issues. I am happy to engage with him as the Bill progresses.
Mr Slaughter
It is good to hear the Minister talking about possible future concessions in this area. To be fair to him, he has always said that the Government’s aim is to protect the most vulnerable. How does he square that with the fact that he has orchestrated the talking out of the main group of amendments today, which affects many of the lowest-income and most vulnerable people in this country? Why are we not getting on to talking about other areas of social welfare law? Is it to protect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), whose law centre is losing all its funding? Is it to protect the Minister’s coalition allies from withdrawing—
Mr Djanogly
I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends and to some of his hon. Friends this evening, in what has been a very informed debate. We have heard some expert contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who started by saying that he had acted in 100 clinical negligence cases. I do not think that there has been any time wasting at all—not nearly as much time wasting as when the hon. Gentleman held a three-hour debate on the first group of amendments on the first day in Committee.
Mr Slaughter
We spent the first 10 minutes of this debate talking about the Minister’s declaration of interests, which was very substantially overdue. All I would say to him, as a last contribution, is that many people will be watching this debate tonight, particularly in another place. They will draw their own conclusions from his unwillingness to debate those issues.
Mr Djanogly
I hope those many people will be as unimpressed as I am by what the hon. Gentleman just said.
Let me address the interaction of legal aid and the Jackson proposals, which was mentioned by three or four hon. Members. In addition to reforming legal aid, the Government are introducing fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. During the consultation on his recommendations, concerns were raised about the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence cases. Those reports can be expensive and we need to provide a means of funding them to ensure that meritorious claims can be brought by those who cannot readily afford to pay for them up front. That is why, in making changes to the CFA regime, we are making special arrangements for the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence claims.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East suggested that victims of clinical negligence who take their cases on CFAs will lose their damages in legal fees. As recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, we are reforming CFAs because of the high costs introduced by changes that were made by the previous Government in relation to the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance. Lord Justice Jackson recommended that there should be a cap on damages in personal injury cases that can be taken in lawyer success fees—the cap should be 25% of the damages, not including damages for future care and loss. The Government have accepted that recommendation, so that victims of personal injury, including from clinical negligence, will have their damages protected under CFAs.
The Civil Justice Council is looking at some of the technical aspects of implementing the Jackson recommendations. I spoke with it on this issue only this morning, when I also attended a conference on issues such as how the 25% cap will work to protect damages.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal would be fairer if the Government were not introducing the Jackson reforms, and asked why we were implementing both at the same time. We are considering all those major changes together and in the round. At the same time as seeking to make savings from the legal aid budget, we are taking forward those priority measures that were recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, to address the disproportionate and unaffordable cost of civil litigation. It is essential that those proposals are considered at the same time. The current CFA regime, with its recoverable costs, causes a significant burden on, for example, the NHS. Withdrawing legal aid for clinical negligence without reforming CFAs could increase that burden significantly.
The hon. Gentleman said that claimants in severe injury cases are more likely to be disabled and frail and so forth, and being unable to bring proceedings—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is not quite enjoying the studious attention of the House that I feel sure his words warrant.
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked how such cases can be excluded from scope. We consider that CFAs are a viable alternative source of funding to legal aid. CFAs are more readily available in clinical negligence cases than in cases for other types of claim that are currently funded under legal aid. We therefore consider that legal aid is not justified in such cases, and that our limited funding will be better targeted at other priority areas.
It was also said that such claims are not just money claims, and that damages ensure quality of life for the claimant for the remainder of their lives, and hon. Members asked how it can therefore be right to exclude them. Legal aid is currently available to those who qualify financially and who have suffered negligent medical treatment to seek damages from any type of public or private medical practitioners. Although those are claims for monetary compensation, we consider that they often raise very serious issues, especially when the damages are required to meet future needs. Some litigants will be vulnerable because of disabilities that result from negligent treatment.
We were then asked how the Government could expect CFAs to make up the shortfall, given that they would not be available in a large number of cases, such as those involving long-term impairment. Our legal aid proposals would ensure that particular cases in which it might be difficult to secure a CFA continue to receive legal aid where the failure to provide such funding was likely to result in a breach of the individual’s rights.
Mr Llwyd
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Amendment made: 11, page 99, line 36, at end insert—
‘“personal representative”, in relation to an individual who has died, means—
(a) a person responsible for administering the individual’s estate under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or
(b) a person who, under the law of another country or territory, has functions equivalent to those of administering the individual’s estate;’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Amendment proposed: 92, page 103, line 35, leave out ‘physical or mental abuse’ and insert ‘any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)’.—(Mr Llwyd.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
Order. When a Member is announcing the result of a vote, the House really must be calm and listen. That is only polite.
Amendment proposed: 74, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
‘(10) For the purposes of this paragraph, evidence that A has been abused by B or is at risk of being abused by B may consist of one or more of the following (without limitation)—
(a) a relevant court conviction or police caution;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant had injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence;
(h) an undertaking given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation; or
(k) other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses).
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, no time limit shall operate in relation to any evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under paragraph 10.’.—(Mr Slaughter.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a few short minutes, the Serjeant at Arms leaves the service of this House. What mechanism exists for the House to show its affection and respect for someone who was not only the first female Serjeant at Arms, but quite simply one of the very finest holders of that office?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, in his ingenious point of order, has not merely posed the question but furnished the House with the answer. He has identified that mechanism and paid his tribute, and it has rightly been received with enthusiasm and respect. I hope the hon. Gentleman and the House are satisfied.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 8, 9 and 10 on Justice, Procedure and Public Accounts together.
Ordered,
Justice
That Mrs Helen Grant be discharged from the Justice Committee and Nick de Bois be added.
Procedure
That Andrew Percy be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Karen Bradley be added.
Public Accounts
That Justine Greening be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Miss Chloe Smith be added. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Jarrow Crusade (75th Anniversary)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this debate at this very special time in Jarrow’s history. The great town of Jarrow still strongly symbolises the fight for work, dignity and respect, even 75 years after the march took place. That certainly was not the intention of the marchers at the time, however. All that they knew was that their town had been murdered by a cartel of businessmen who, backed up by the Government of the time, had closed the shipyard and thrown 70% of the town on to the dole.
The idea for the march came from a local man called Davey Riley, who persuaded first the local Labour party and then the town council that the town needed to take its case to London to persuade the Government of the day to bring jobs back to Jarrow. That is where the politics ended. The town council, which was composed of all the political parties and people from various backgrounds in the town, resolved unanimously to support the march and give it the backing of its citizens, from the bishop to the businessman, so that it could be a success.
The march caught the imagination of the people of Jarrow straight away, as it did with the rest of the public as it travelled south to London. Two hundred men were selected to march, and a petition was signed by 12,000 townspeople. With the backing of the local council, local businesses and the local clergy in Jarrow, the men set off on their 300-mile crusade. As was well documented, the march did not have the backing of the Government at the time. Disgracefully, it did not get the backing of the Labour leadership either. However, it did enjoy the support of the public wherever it went on its journey.
The men marched military style, as most of them had been in the Army in the past. With the famous Jarrow banners held aloft and the mouth organ band in the lead, they raised the hearts and spirits of everyone they came across during those bleak days of the depression. They delivered a message of hope for the people who needed hope, right across the country, at that time. To ensure that all went well en route, the then Labour agent, Harry Stoddart, and the Tory agent, Councillor Suddick, proceeded before them to ensure that the sleeping and eating arrangements were in place.
Of course, we all know what happened when the men reached London. Their pleas for work were ignored, and they were sent home with a pound in their pocket to pay for their train fare. When they got back to Jarrow, they found not only that their dole had been stopped but that the dreaded means-test men were waiting at their front doors. We all know the history: work did come back to Jarrow a few years later, when the Government saw the need for rearmament in the face of Hitler’s menace and the horrors of war.
Even today, though they failed in their attempt to help the town, the marchers are remembered worldwide. In Jarrow, the story of the crusade is passed down from father to son and from mother to daughter. In the town, we have displays, statues and murals, and streets and a pub named after the march. We have had a chart-topping song, and we have even had beers named after the march and the marchers.
If I had a pound from everyone I have met in the Palace of Westminster who, when I said I came from the town of Jarrow, asked “How did you get here? Did you walk?”, I would be a wealthy man—perhaps even wealthy enough to qualify for Mr Cameron’s Cabinet. I should also like to clarify that there were 200 marchers. Judging by the number of people who have claimed, over the years, to be a descendant of one of the marchers, anyone would think that there had been 2,000 of them, rather than 200.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Coming from a nation of marchers, and having marched for many noble causes, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that 200 men walking 300 miles with 12,000 signatures on a petition could serve as a lesson for our society, and also for this Government?
Mr Hepburn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to points that I think he will agree with.
That is a brief history of the march to commemorate this great occasion. It would be wrong not to draw lessons from the great example of those men, because parallels may be drawn between those bleak times in the ’30s and today. First, there is no doubt that lifestyles today have improved vastly compared with the ’30s, but people today still live in fear of unemployment. Those without a job face a hopeless task in trying to find work; those with a job are worried sick about losing it. With nearly 3 million people out of work, and the economy becoming ever bleaker day by day as we read the newspapers and hear the economic news, people are becoming desperate.
In this day and age, people should not live in fear of the evils of unemployment. After the second world war, the country had massive debt and its infrastructure was in ruins. Soldiers who had fought side by side, with mutual respect, with people of different military ranks, different social status in society and different backgrounds, came back determined that never again would the country go back to the days of the Jarrow march, and the haves and have-nots. We built a welfare state that is the envy of the world, and we looked ahead to a future in which mass unemployment would be a thing of the past.
As it was then in the post-war era, the real challenge for the Government today is to have an economic policy in which the interests of the community and people, not the short-term interests of the bankers and financiers, come first. In the wake of the banking crisis, when more than 90% of the people of this country are experiencing the same worries and fears about losing their house and savings, now is the ideal time to bring about change for the better, just as happened with consensus after the second world war. But no, instead we are returning to the same old Tory values of us and them, and a return to the pessimism of the ’30s when the Government’s only answer to people’s pleas for work was unemployment in a divided society.
As we have seen from the spirit of the St Paul’s protesters and the young people who today are marching from Jarrow to London in a replica of the Jarrow march, people will not sit back and accept from the Government the treatment that their ancestors received. I take my hat off to those protesters, who have been criticised for their demonstrations. If anyone embarks on a peaceful protest or demonstration to highlight the plight of other people in the world, we should support them, as we did in various places through our foreign policy on Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
Secondly, it is little known that at the time of the Jarrow crusade there was a march by blind people, and it set off in October 1936 at the same time. Conditions for disabled people have improved vastly since the ’30s. Then, the fear was the famous—or infamous—and dreaded means test. Today, there is a parallel. The unfairness of the work capability test has been highlighted by disability groups throughout the country, and I am pleased that the Minister has commissioned a report into that. If that report identifies errors in the present system of assessing people’s mental and physical disabilities, the Minister should review all past cases assessed by Atos Healthcare when mistakes may have been made.
Finally, what is happening to the public sector now is what the cartels did to Jarrow in the 1930s. The public sector grew up following the Beveridge report when people in authority said, “Never again will we go back to the bad old days.” Public services were set up to look after people’s welfare, and they are doing a good job and delivering good services, whether in health, education or the police. Despite their success, they find themselves being carved up at the very time when the country’s top executives are receiving 50% pay rises, and a salary of £1 million is considered in some circles as low.
Being a “Jarra” lad—I was brought up and educated there, and have lived there all my life—I have always been inspired by tales of the Jarrow march. I was privileged to know some of the marchers before they passed away, and the lesson I learned from them is simple. The Government should heed the history of ordinary people standing up for their dignity because, as in the case of the Jarrow crusade, even if people’s pleas are ignored now, they will be heard in the end.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) for his success in securing the debate and for the eloquent way in which he has referred to what was undoubtedly an important moment in the history of this country. Looking back over the course of the past 150 to 200 years, there have been different groups of individuals and different moments at which the social history of this country has been changed—events such as the actions of the Tolpuddle martyrs and the rise of the Chartist movement. I would classify the Jarrow marchers as being very much part of that tradition. They undoubtedly had an impact on the way that this country thinks. It may not have been an immediate impact, but it has been lasting. It put the hon. Gentleman’s town on the map internationally as a place from which people rightly draw inspiration. I pay tribute to him and to the people of Jarrow on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the march.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we live in a different world today. Although we live in tough times, the stark, bleak environment in which many of those people lived is not the world in which people live today. We have a welfare state that we all agree is an essential part of providing a safety net for those who fall on tough times, including those who lose their jobs. I absolutely agree with him that it is a tough thing, in any circumstances, to lose one’s job. Unemployment is a difficult process for any individual to go through.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, as in the 1930s, we need a realistic plan for jobs and growth?
Chris Grayling
We face a different challenge from that of the 1930s, but I accept that we need a plan for jobs and growth. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to continue my remarks, I will go on to talk about what we are doing about jobs and growth.
I very much accept the principle that unemployment represents a real challenge and difficulty for individuals. It is, and rightly should be, at the top of the agenda of any Government at any time, but particularly at a time such as this when we are feeling the chill winds of a very difficult international economic situation and dealing with some of the biggest financial challenges seen in the peacetime history of this country. At the same time, we must not and will not forget the real human impact of unemployment, and we will do everything we can to tackle it.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) for securing this debate. The Minister says that these times are different from the 1930s. Does he agree that the impact of the current recession is particularly hard felt in the north-east, where youth unemployment has increased by 18% in the past year? Does he have some hope to offer, particularly for the north-east?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely I do. If the hon. Lady listens to the interviews I give at the time of the monthly unemployment figures, she will know that I always look to the north-east first. It represents the biggest employment challenge in the UK, and it is, should be and will be a priority for this Government. I welcome today’s announcements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about investment in manufacturing and research and development in the north-east through the regional growth fund. Ironically, given the comments of the hon. Member for Jarrow about what took place back in the 1930s at the time of the march, the disappearance of such a large section of the private sector in the town of Jarrow makes it of paramount importance to us that we work in every way we possibly can to rebuild, re-energise and re-dynamise the manufacturing sector in the north-east. It is from that part of our economy that the future prosperity of the north-east will come.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on this fascinating debate and on his superb speech. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that the regional growth fund that he mentioned allocated the largest proportion of its funds to the north-east region?
Chris Grayling
I do indeed. That is an indicator of the priority that this Government place on the north-east. It is a part of the country that, as we all accept, faces real challenges, and we want to do everything we can to help. Moving slightly down the country geographically, I was particularly gratified when the steel plant in Redcar was rescued and put back on the straight and narrow. I am delighted that steelworkers in Redcar are moving back into employment. That is the kind of change that I want to see in the north-east—a resurgence of the manufacturing sector.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) for securing this debate. Ellen Wilkinson, who was involved in the march and who was the MP for Middlesbrough East before being the MP for Jarrow, remarked at the time that the private sector investment that brought Jarrow back to its full manufacturing glory happened because there was public-led investment first.
Chris Grayling
I hope that today’s announcements of public funding to provide grant support to manufacturing, research and development, and infrastructure investment not only in the north-east, but in other parts of the country, will play their part in achieving the goal that we all share of growth in the private sector and unemployment coming down in the north-east.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) for securing this debate. Is it not true that the regional growth fund is only a third of what it used to be under the regional development agencies?
Chris Grayling
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by it being a third of what it used to be, because this is a new initiative. We are targeting money specifically at investment in manufacturing and research and development. I must say that some of the examples from the regional development agencies were pretty poor. I have seen examples from the north-west of misjudged investments and strategies. I believe that targeting grant support specifically on projects that will create jobs in the short term in the north-east and elsewhere is the right thing to do.
Chris Grayling
I will give way one more time and then I must make some progress.
Grahame M. Morris
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on securing this important debate. There are important parallels with what is happening today. Is it not a travesty that we do not, in effect, have a regional policy? The abolition of RDAs has taken us back not to the 1980s, but to the 1960s. The regional growth fund is a complete misnomer because any part of the United Kingdom, even wealthy areas in the south and south-east, can bid for its support. We do not have regional policy now, so we are left to the vagaries of God and good nature.
Chris Grayling
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because I think that the creation of the local enterprise partnerships gives a much better and more localised focus to economic developments. It avoids the situation whereby, for example, a regional development agency in the north-west is trying to form a judgment on whether it should focus on the two great cities of Liverpool and Manchester, rather than having the decisions about those cities taken in Greater Manchester and on Merseyside. A localised focus for regional development is the right approach.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on securing this debate. Secondly, I would like to bring the Minister back to the north-east. The north-east had an excellent regional development agency. When I was privileged to serve as a business Minister in the last Labour Government, I saw examples of One North East’s work with Nissan and Hitachi, which secured massive investment in the north-east. The regional growth fund has taken responsibility away from the north-east and given it to a centralised system run from the south-east. That is entirely inappropriate.
Chris Grayling
Having looked at the list of investments that are being made today, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of great pleasure to hon. Members such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) to see the north-east receiving such a large proportion of the fund. That is right and proper, because what I want to see above all else is jobs being created and unemployment coming down in the north-east. That is a goal that we all share.
Chris Grayling
I will just make a bit of progress and then I will give way.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) asked me about the economic strategy and he made a fair point. In my view, we have to focus on jobs, growth and high-quality back-to-work support for the unemployed. I appreciate that this is a point of difference between us, but it is my view that a central part of rebuilding economic prosperity in this country is dealing with the deficit that Labour Members left behind. The reason why I say that is straightforward: if we were not dealing with the deficit and if we were not seen to be bringing our public finances under control—
Chris Grayling
Let me finish. If we were not doing those things, we would be facing the economic uncertainties that we see right now in other European countries. Does anybody seriously believe that if we were in that economic position, we would be seeing private sector organisations willing to invest and create jobs? Private sector jobs have been created in this country over the past 12 months. Had we not set about dealing with the deficit, unemployment today would be higher, not lower.
Mr Hepburn
It is fascinating that when the Prime Minister is in the Chamber and has the Tories sitting behind him, all he has to do is talk about how Labour left them the debt and they all howl, but when he goes away and talks to audiences who are more distinguished or more educated in finance, such as the IMF and Europe, he starts talking about the world crisis. The fact is that after the second world war, we had a bigger proportion of debt than we have now, yet we built the welfare state and a full employment economy. We did not have the whinges from the Tories that we have now, which are merely excuses for their policies.
Chris Grayling
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I are not going to agree on that point, but he simply has to look around at the rest of Europe to see the consequences of over-borrowing, unsustainable debt and large budget deficits. This Government have set about the task of dealing with that problem, which is the path to economic stability.
Alongside that, we of course need measures that are designed to support the growth of business. That is why we have cut corporation tax and why we are providing additional incentives through corporation tax for investment in intellectual property. It is also why we have modernised and reintroduced the enterprise zone model in a number of places in the north-east, which is a further positive step for the area. We are seeking to deregulate in areas such as health and safety and employment law not because we want the wrong thing for employees in this country, but because the evidence is that a more flexible labour market is a better way of creating an environment in which jobs are created.
Grahame M. Morris
The message from Government Members is that this economic crisis is built on debt, but the point of view of some of us is that the debt crisis results from a financial crash that was not made here in Britain. However, whether the economic crisis is because of famine, war, debt, corruption or ineptitude, surely we require some kind of growth strategy. Your argument that we cannot possibly get out of the debt crisis by incurring more debt simply does not hold water. Whatever the cause, we must get growths and jobs, especially in my area.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I would just point out that I am not offering any argument at all.
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to understand that it is unsustainable for a country to borrow £1 in every £4 that it spends, which was the situation when the previous Government left office. If you did that with your household income, Mr Speaker, you would rapidly discover that you were in severe financial difficulties. Britain is no different. We must get our financial position under control, or we will see unemployment rise higher than it would otherwise.
Alongside the need to pursue a strategy of getting the finances in order and of targeting support at enterprise through enterprise zones, tax reductions and the changes that we have set out today, we must provide much better support for the long-term unemployed to get them back into the workplace. The introduction of the Work programme, which across this country today provides specialised back-to-work support for the long-term unemployed—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) calls out, “No jobs.” The truth is that each week, even in difficult economic times, Jobcentre Plus is taking in around 90,000 vacancies. They are estimated typically to be only around half the total number of vacancies in the economy. Therefore, over the next 12 months, in Britain as a whole, the best part of 10 million people will move into new jobs. My goal, and the goal of the Work programme, is to ensure that as many of those jobs as possible go to the long-term unemployed. I do not want those people left on the sidelines, and I do not want them struggling for years on benefits, unable to get back into work.
The hon. Member for Jarrow mentioned the work capability assessment, which was introduced by the Labour Government. We have improved that with a view to ensuring that it is a more reflective process, and that we take into account the very real needs of the most severely disabled. Crucially, our improvements are also about helping people with disabilities to get back into the workplace. That is an essential part of turning their lives around and an essential part of a smart social policy for this country, which is essential.
My message to the hon. Gentleman is this: we understand the challenge that unemployment represents. His town has made a great contribution to raising the importance of unemployment for Governments of all persuasions over the past 75 years. He should take credit for the work that his town did then and has done since. We will do everything we can to ensure that, in 2011, we have a smart strategy to deal with unemployment, to help people not just in Jarrow, but right across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Economic Growth
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government announced in April the outcome of the first round of the regional growth fund and at the same time launched round 2, bidding for which closed on 1 July.
I am pleased to announce today the outcome of that second round. Round 2 proved to be equally popular as round 1, attracting 492 bids for a total of £3.3 billion. The independent advisory panel, chaired by Lord Heseltine considered all these bids over the summer and made their recommendations to Ministers. Given the high number and quality of bids received, Ministers were only able to approve the very best bids that offered the greatest value for money and I am pleased to announce the outcome of this process today.
In total, the Government have made conditional allocations in this round, subject to due diligence, of the remaining £950 million. There are 119 successful bids announced today. Discussions are ongoing with a further 10 bidders about their projects. More importantly, the public investment in these projects and programmes is expected to generate nearly £6 billion of private sector funding. Overall these investments will directly support the creation or safeguarding more than 37,000 jobs. In addition, over a further 164,000 jobs in related supply chains and local economies will be created and safeguarded by the success of these projects and programme.
These conditional allocations of Government investment are supporting dynamic and innovative projects and programmes that will generate new jobs the length and breadth of England. In round 1, the RGF elicited a 5:1 ratio of private sector investment. In round 2 this has increased to 6:1. The increased proportion of private sector leverage in this round is a clear demonstration of how the challenge of the regional growth fund has acted as a catalyst for the private sector to invest in sustainable and balanced growth.
The successful bids will now be subject to a due diligence process, as with round 1 bids. These due diligence checks establish whether the Government are confident that the organisations awarded conditional offers are able to deliver on the proposals in their bid. A list of the successful bids is attached to this statement, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is also available from the BIS website at: www.bis.gov.uk.
The Government remain wholly committed to our agenda of generating growth and I am pleased that today’s announcement takes us further towards our goal of delivering a stable, well-balanced economy that creates sustainable private sector jobs and strengthens communities.
Successful bids list from Round 2
Note—Although 119 bids have been successful the list below includes beneficiaries who were part of a package bid (a bid with two or more beneficiaries). Furthermore, a small number of bids have not been included in the list due to, for example, commercial sensitivities. Details on these bids will be made available after due diligence.
East Midlands and South East Midlands: 1,400 direct jobs, 7,800 indirect jobs.
Druck Limited
University of Leicester
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd
Derby City
Usha Martin UK Limited
Federal-Mogul Friction Products Limited
Disley Tissue Ltd
North East: 8,500 direct jobs, 17,000 indirect jobs.
Process Technologies Division of Johnson Matthey PLC
Tioxide Europe Limited
Fine Industries Limited
Wellstream International Ltd
Cummins
Eutechnyx Limited
AKS Precision Ball Europe Limited
Darchem Engineering Limited
Kromek Limited
Dyer Engineering
Raisco Limited
Hiatco Ltd
Bignall Lubritec Ltd
BLS Electronics Ltd
Permoid
Carlton & Co
Tinsley Special Products Limited
Vantec Europe Limited
Able UK Limited
PD Teesport Limited
Zegen (Wilton) Limited
TeraVerdae BioWorks Ltd
Northern Pinetree Trust
Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster Limited (NEPIC)
Rettig UK
Aesica Pharmaceuticals Limited
Piramal Healthcare UK Ltd
Shasun Pharma Solutions Ltd
Precision Hydraulic Cylinders (UK) Ltd
International Pipeline Products Limited
Greencroft Bottling Company Limited
Propeller (GB) Ltd
Jarrow Brewery
Omega North East Ltd
Hydram Engineering Ltd
HE Woolley Ltd. (The Company)
John Harrison (Stockton) Limited
Pearson-Harper Ltd
Mediaworks UK LTD
Responsive Engineering Group Limited
Newcastle University
Gateshead College
Riverside Flooring LTD
Calsonic Kansei Sunderland Limited
Unipres (UK) Limited
ThyssenKrupp Tallent Limited
Heerema Hartlepool Limited
TRW Systems Ltd—Peterlee
Narec Development Services Limited (NDSL)
North West: 7,800 direct jobs, 39,500 indirect jobs.
University of Liverpool
Harpscreen(GB) Ltd
Pirelli Tyres Ltd
Phoenix Court Blackburn Limited
Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Limited (“Gilkes”)
Crown Speciality Packaging UK Ltd
Redx Pharma Ltd
Double R Controls Limited
C&C Baseline Ltd
Standish Engineering Ltd
Ronfell
Double R Controls Ltd
North West Aerospace Alliance
Sefton Council
Eldonians Group Limited,
Energy Coast West Cumbria Ltd
The Listen Media Company LTD
The Greater Manchester LEP
Siemens plc
Diodes Zetex Semiconductors Ltd
Ferguson Polycom Limited
Salford City Council
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (“TMBC”)
Economic Solutions Ltd
Pochin Developments Limited
Keepmoat Homes Ltd
Regenerate Pennine Lancashire Limited
Lucite International UK Ltd
Bentley Motors
DI UK
HMG Paints Ltd
Burnley BC
Pilkington United Kingdom Limited
Getrag Ford Transmissions
South East: 7,400 direct jobs, 22,300 indirect jobs.
Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership
Southampton City Council
The East Kent districts of Canterbury, Dover, Shepway and Thanet
Vestas Technology UK Ltd,
Luton Borough Council
Lotus Cars Ltd
South West: 5,300 direct jobs, 17,600 indirect jobs
Universal Engineering
Mulberry Company (design) Ltd
DTR VMS Ltd
Airbus Operations Ltd
Geothermal Engineering Ltd
The Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP
City of Bristol College
North Somerset Council
West Midlands: 3,900 direct jobs, 29,800 indirect jobs.
LNX Distribution Limited
Zytek Automotive Ltd
Aeromet International Plc
Alamo Manufacturing Services (UK) Limited
Herefordshire Council
Moorland & City Railways Ltd.
Sunsolar Energy Limited
Birmingham Post
Caparo Precision Strip
Angle Ring Holdings Limited
Thomas Dudley Limited
NDC Polythenes Ltd
Pargat & Co Limited
Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration Ltd
Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council
Advanced Engineering Supply Chain
Steelite International plc
Ceram Research Ltd
Trac Group Limited
Yorkshire & Humber: 3,000 direct jobs, 13,700 indirect jobs.
SEW Eurodrive UK
Cummins Turbo Technologies
Surgical Innovations Ltd
BOC Ltd
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
University of Sheffield—AMRC
Sirius Minerals, Plc
Leeds City Region
North Lincolnshire Council
Wakefield Council
City of Bradford MDC
Sheffield Forgemasters International Limited
Stainless Plating Limited
T&N Plastics Limited
600 UK Ltd
RoadTankers Northern Ltd
Heights Ltd
Hindle
VTL (Europe) Ltd
i-plas Products Ltd
Halifax Rack and Screw Cutting Co Ltd
Treves UK LTD
Severn Unival Ltd
Other bids—national: 200 direct jobs, 16,500 indirect jobs
Fredericks Foundation
VisitEngland
Creative England
Santander UK plc
Local Government Finance
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I am today publishing a consultation paper entitled “Technical Reforms of Council Tax”. It follows, in part, from the local government resource review’s commitment to consider what flexibilities local authorities should have to help keep overall council tax levels down. It discusses a series of practical proposals which will help hardworking families and pensioners with their council tax bills.
Its proposals for discussion include:
Giving councils the flexibility to reduce or remove council tax relief on second homes and empty homes, allowing councils to use the money to keep overall council tax bills down and/or spend on improving front-line services. These flexibilities would potentially allow for a £20 reduction in the bill for a typical band D property in England. Getting empty homes back into use will increase housing supply and tackle property blight. Councils can already reduce the second homes discount to just 10%—we propose giving councils the local discretion to charge the normal rate of council tax. The job-related second homes discount (where someone has to live in a dwelling because of their job) would be unaffected. Indeed, our Government have increased the help the armed forces scheme gives for service personnel towards council tax. There is nothing morally wrong with second homes, but special tax relief at the expense of ordinary homeowners is difficult to justify. I believe local taxpayers would welcome the prospect of having a lower council tax bill than would otherwise be the case as a result of empty homes no longer being given favoured tax treatment.
The paper also consults on the empty homes premium for long-term properties announced by Ministers in September. I would note that there are no plans to change the rules on council tax relief currently available in respect of properties left empty because a person has moved into a hospital or care home, has died, or has moved to provide care to another. These are special circumstances. Moreover, councils will be encouraged to use their existing powers to apply discretionary discounts in cases where homes are empty due to other justifiable circumstances—for example, hardship, fire or flooding.
Giving local residents a new right to pay their council tax bills in 12 monthly payments, rather than 10 instalments over a year. This will make it easier for local taxpayers to manage their payments, especially those on fixed incomes like pensioners.
Encouraging the greater use of electronic billing by allowing the associated documents that have to be supplied in hard copy with council tax bills to be provided electronically instead. Local taxpayers would still have a right to hard copy documents, for free, on request. Utility companies routinely offer discounts for customers who pay by e-billing and direct debit, and this is something I am keen to promote for council tax.
Ensuring there are no increases in the tax liabilities of homes as a result of domestic scale photovoltaic solar panels being installed by a third party supplier under a “rent a roof” scheme. These changes will avoid the imposition of a “sun tax” and the need for inspections of homes with solar panels.
Reviewing the circumstances in which giving a self-contained (“granny”) annex its own council tax liability and banding is appropriate; this is a very complex area of legislation, but I appreciate that there has been some public concern that the current regime is unfair on some homeowners.
These practical improvements complement our other reforms to council tax: cancelling the council tax revaluation which would have forced up bills for millions of homes; working with local councils to deliver a two-year council tax freeze; and giving local residents a new right to veto excessive council tax increases. It contrasts with the last Administration who doubled council tax.
A copy of the consultation paper is available in the Library and on my Department’s website.
Feed-in Tariffs
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Today I am publishing a consultation paper on proposed changes to feed-in tariffs (FITs) for solar photovoltaics (PV). The consultation will close on 23 December 2011.
Since the FITs scheme started it has been successful in encouraging people up and down the country to get involved in local, clean green energy generation. Over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity, and this is just the start of a move towards a far more decentralised local energy economy—an economy in which homes, businesses and communities are empowered to generate their own energy, and in which low-carbon innovation helps sustain green jobs at a critical time for our economy. A sustainable FITs scheme has an essential role in delivering that vision.
However, the green economy does not exist in a vacuum and it is important, particularly in the current climate, that our approach to public subsidy is responsible and results in the widest possible deployment. To date, solar PV has been by far the most popular technology with consumers. We know that the costs of an average PV system have fallen by at least 30% since the FITs scheme started (and we are aware of reports that the global costs of PV modules have fallen by as much as 70% since 2008). This is resulting in returns for investors in solar PV that are simply not sustainable and, without action, could result in the spending envelope for the scheme rapidly being breached.
Today’s consultation document therefore focuses on addressing the budgetary problem and proposes reducing the tariffs for solar PV. Full details of the proposals are set out in the consultation document. The headline is that we are proposing that the generation tariff for PV installations with a total installed capacity of 4kW or less will be reduced to 21p/kWh, which our modelling indicates should deliver around a 4.5% rate of return. We are also proposing reductions to the generation tariffs for PV installations above that level and up to 250kW. These changes are vital if we are to ensure a lasting FITs scheme.
We are proposing that the new generation tariffs should apply from 1 April 2012 to all new solar PV installations which become eligible for FITs on or after an earlier “reference date” which we propose should be 12 December 2011. Installations which become eligible for FITs before the reference date will not be affected and will continue to be eligible for the current generation tariffs.
The consultation also seeks views on two other changes to the FITs scheme for solar PV. First, the introduction from 1 April 2012 of new multi-installation tariff rates for aggregated solar PV schemes. These are schemes where a single individual or organisation owns or receives FIT payments from more than one PV installation, located on different sites.
A final but crucial proposal in this package is to strengthen the link between FITs and energy efficiency by introducing a new energy efficiency requirement for FITs for solar PV. The new requirement would apply to all new solar PV installations which become eligible for FITs on or after 1 April 2012 which are attached or wired to provide electricity to a building. If the building does not meet the energy efficiency requirement the installation would receive a lower FITs rate of 9p/kWh.
This consultation is the first of two on the comprehensive review of FITs that was announced at the start of the year. We will be publishing a separate consultation around the end of 2011 which will consider other aspects of the scheme including the tariffs for other FIT technologies. It will also consider proposals to make the FITs scheme more intelligent and responsive to change, improving the system that we inherited from the previous Administration to remove the need for stop start reviews and provide greater transparency, longevity and certainty to the industry.
Winterbourne View
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I promised to update the House about ongoing activity in relation to Winterbourne View private hospital and other facilities for people with learning disabilities.
Since I announced that Winterbourne View had closed and that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had published its compliance report on Winterbourne View on 18 July, the CQC has inspected another 23 Castlebeck Care services in England. Its inspection reports were published on 28 July and are available on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk. While half of these services were compliant with safety and quality requirements, the CQC had more serious concerns about four locations and has taken further action in relation to these. Two of these homes, Rose Villa and Arden Vale, closed in August.
In June, CQC announced a programme of unannounced inspections of services for people with learning disabilities following the abuse uncovered at Winterbourne View. CQC has now begun this programme of inspections of 150 hospitals and care homes which is looking at a sample of services for people with learning disabilities similar to those provided at Winterbourne View.
The CQC inspection programme will assess how well people with learning disabilities experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights; and whether they are protected from abuse. As at 24 October, inspectors had visited 27 locations and are in the process of considering the evidence.
As in the case of CQC’s review of the 23 Castlebeck services, where CQC finds that a service is failing to meet the safety and quality requirements, it has powers to take appropriate action which include demanding improvements, issuing a formal warning notice or in the most serious cases closing down a service.
CQC will publish reports for each location setting out its findings and a national overview in spring 2012. A second phase of the review will use the learning from phase one to look at a sample of other registered services covering alternative models of provision for people with learning disabilities.
The results of the CQC inspections programme will feed into the wider Department of Health review of the lessons from Winterbourne View. We are still gathering evidence from the serious case review and the NHS serious untoward incident review, and taking the views of organisations and individuals on how services for people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour can be improved.
While these reviews and inspections are ongoing we are taking action to address emerging issues. For example, CQC have amended their whistle-blowing policy. Where issues for local management are highlighted in the NHS review, they will be developing actions plans to deal with this.
Ministers will publish and report to Parliament on the Government’s response to their findings.
I will continue to update the House on further developments.
European Account Preservation Order
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Government have today decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposed regulation creating a European Account Preservation Order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.
The aim of the Commission’s proposal is to establish a self-standing European procedure for a protective measure to freeze the bank accounts of debtors in cross-border cases. The Government welcome the Commission’s objective. It supports measures which make it easier for both businesses and citizens to resolve disputes and enforce judgments across borders. Many of those who responded to the Government’s recent consultation on this proposal also welcomed its aims and agreed with the Commission that a procedure which made it easier for claimants to take protective measures in cross-border cases would be useful to both individuals and businesses in helping them to recover debts.
However, the consultation also revealed a number of significant problems, in particular a widespread concern that there was a lack of adequate safeguards for defendants. Issues highlighted included that the threshold for obtaining an order was too low, that there is no requirement for the claimant to provide any security to compensate a defendant for losses suffered from the wrongful grant of an order, and that there should be more discretion for courts when deciding whether to issue an order or the amount for which it should be granted.
Given the apparent ease with which an order might be obtained fears were expressed about the possible dangers posed to companies which were in the process of restructuring or rescue where the freezing of a bank account could undermine the rescue and make insolvency more likely.
Concerns were also raised about the burdens the proposal is likely to place on both the Government and banks, in particular through the provisions of access to information on bank accounts.
Although the Government have decided that the UK should not opt in to the proposal now, it intends to participate fully in the negotiations with the hope that sufficient changes will be made to enable a post-adoption opt in.
Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House giving details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We remain deeply grateful to all of our service personnel who have served, or are now serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We wish once more to express our sincere condolences to the families of those service personnel who have given their lives for their country in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in particular the six service personnel who have died since our last statement. Their families, and all the bereaved families, will remain in our thoughts.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, the Oxfordshire coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 21 October 2011.
To supplement this statement I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses, outlining the status of all cases and showing the date of death in each case. The tables also provide information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.
Our Departments will continue working closely together to improve our processes. We will continue the Government’s support for coroners who are conducting inquests into operational deaths, and we are grateful to them and their staff for their dedicated work. We wish to express our thanks to all those who provide support and information, both throughout the inquest process and afterwards.
Since October 2007 both Departments have provided additional resources for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, as prior to 1 September 2011 repatriation of service personnel took place at RAF Lyneham. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests. As I confirmed in the last statement, we are also providing additional resources to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, as repatriation ceremonies for those killed on operations overseas now take place at RAF Brize Norton, within his district.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement there have been 18 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A total of 498 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 15 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In three further cases, no formal inquest was held. In two of these cases the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident. In the third case, where the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland, it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry.
Open inquests
Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan
There are currently 61 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and one inquest is yet to be opened. Eighteen of these involve deaths in the last six months. The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 18 of the remaining open inquests, and 34 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. Hearing dates have been set in 12 cases.
There is one remaining open inquest into deaths from operations in Iraq.
Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Nine inquests remain to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. Five hearing dates have been set. The remaining four cases will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.
We shall continue to inform the House of progress with the remaining inquests.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth, Australia, which took place from 28 to 30 October. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Ministers of State (Lord Howell and Lord Green) also attended.
Her Majesty the Queen opened the meeting in her role as Head of the Commonwealth.
The Government believe strongly in the relevance of the Commonwealth and its networks, and the role that it can play in global issues of the day. It is unique in that it brings together a diverse range of countries, economies, and a predominantly young population looking to the future. In our programme for government, we expressed commitment to strengthen the Commonwealth to promote democratic values, development and prosperity.
The UK strongly supported the work of the eminent persons group (EPG) and the Commonwealth ministerial action group (CMAG) to make the Commonwealth more effective. Leaders adopted a series of reforms, the most significant in recent Commonwealth history, to ensure the organisation can better protect its core democratic values, and retain its credibility on the global stage. This included agreement on CMAG reform and to have a Commonwealth charter. Thirty of the 106 recommendations of the EPG were adopted at Perth. Discussions of the others will continue, and Foreign Ministers will meet again during 2012 to conclude these discussions.
Leaders welcomed Rwanda to its first summit as a full Commonwealth member and noted South Sudan’s application for membership. Ongoing interest in membership further demonstrates the continued relevance of the Commonwealth and its role supporting democratic development in members and applicant countries. In this regard, leaders urged the interim Government of Fiji, currently suspended from the Commonwealth, to restore democracy without further delay, respect human rights and uphold the rule of law. Leaders also looked forward to the conditions being created for the return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth and encouraged the parties to implement the global political agreement faithfully and effectively.
Leaders noted the threat that climate change poses to security, prosperity, and economic and social development and committed to advocacy leading to legally binding outcomes at the UNFCCC conference in Durban and beyond. They also urged the G20 to take the necessary steps to address current economic instability and to take concrete steps to put open trade, jobs, social protection and economic development at the heart of the recovery.
To mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, and as a gift to the Commonwealth people, Leaders welcomed the establishment of a Queen Elizabeth diamond jubilee trust. This will support charitable projects and organisations across the Commonwealth, focusing on areas such as tackling curable diseases, promotion of all forms of education and culture, and other Commonwealth priorities. It will be funded by private donations and voluntary contributions from Governments.
To strengthen the Commonwealth’s ability to meet the development needs of member states, leaders agreed the Perth declaration on food security principles and discussed the inherent development challenges facing small, vulnerable states.
I believe that the outcomes achieved in Perth will help reinvigorate this unique organisation. The Commonwealth can help contribute to the UK’s foreign policy and trade objectives not just through the intergovernmental links, but also through its networks of civil society and professional associations. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a speech to the Commonwealth people’s forum, made clear the UK’s desire to see homosexuality decriminalised and the death penalty abolished across the Commonwealth. Lord Howell and Lord Green both addressed the biggest Commonwealth business forum to date, which will lead to increased intra-Commonwealth trade, and trade with the UK. Ministers also engaged with participants of the Commonwealth youth forum—tomorrow’s leaders and the future of the Commonwealth.
Leaders noted the decision made in 2009 that Sri Lanka would host the 2013 summit, Mauritius in 2015, and welcomed Malaysia’s bid to host in 2019. As host of CHOGM, we shall look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to upholding Commonwealth values of good governance and human rights. A key part of this will be addressing long standing issues around accountability and reconciliation after the war.
Copies of the concluding communiqué and the reports of the eminent persons group and the Commonwealth ministerial action group have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Separately at Perth, the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed in principle that we should modernise the Act of Settlement with regard to the rules of royal succession. This will set in motion a historic process to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the provision that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown. A copy of the agreed wording will also be placed in the Libraries.
Grand Committee
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, moves the Motion that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of both statutory instruments, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. In the case of the first statutory instrument, further proceedings in the Chamber will need to be tabled for further action to ensue. In the case of the second statutory instrument, the Motion to approve the draft regulations will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
I further remind noble Lords that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee should consider these regulations, SI 2011/2200. I thought that it would be worth while to have a discussion about these regulations—which I think have now technically come into force—because they will be used, as far as I can see, to establish at least two of the bodies which we know about arising out of the Government’s legislative programme. Indeed, my first questions are: how many more, which and when?
The first instrument concerns the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board as a special health authority as a result of the legislation that is before the House right now and which we will be discussing in the Chamber tomorrow. The second instrument concerns the establishment of a research organisation as a result of the Public Bodies Bill and the proposed abolition of the Health Protection Agency and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I think that the order will also be discussed in due course.
My first question to the Minister has to be this: do the Government have further proposals to use this legislation in order to set up more and new special health authorities, and if so, which ones, where and when? Will we see orders, for example, to establish special health authorities for the new sub-national bodies that David Nicholson keeps referring to? Will those bodies have formal status in legislation and will that be done by order?
I turn now to the substance of the regulations, and while I am not going to take very long, I have some questions to ask. One of the key issues is the removal of the restriction that prevents chairs, non-officers and officer members of strategic health authorities from being appointed to more than one strategic health authority at a time, a rule which I think is entirely reasonable. What has changed so much that a chair could or might want to serve, or indeed where it might be desirable for them to serve, on a special health authority as well as a strategic health authority? Do the Government propose to establish so many special health authorities that that could become a problem? For example, would it be possible for someone to be the chair of a strategic health authority that exists now, a member of another strategic health authority and a member of a special health authority as those bodies emerge? Apart from anything else, I would like to know whether those individuals would be paid for doing all those different jobs, and how much that is likely to cost. Is that envisaged as the purpose of this order?
Moving forward, what happens to the strategic health authorities in this process? Where are all the authorities going to be? Are they going to be sucked up into the sub-national bodies, and are they therefore going to be special health authorities? Is that going to be done slowly or will it all happen in one go in 2013? How will the new chairs and members of special health authorities be appointed, and by whom? Will there be an independent element in what happens in the appointments procedure—will it be open to public scrutiny or will it just be done by the Secretary of State? Will that be on the public record? How much will they be paid, for how many days and what will their jobs involve? Does the Minister expect or envisage that there may be a clash of interests as this policy develops?
As we head towards 2013, special health authorities—these sub-national bodies or whatever they are to be called—may bring forward and carry out the work of the national Commissioning Board. What will happen in those areas where you have members on the sub-national bodies and on the strategic health authorities? There may be discussions between the two about where the policy goes and there may be clashes of interest. I am thinking about things like the developing role of commissioning and the clinical commissioning groups, and the role and powers that strategic health authorities have had in the past to drive forward, for example, stroke strategies or support for cancer networks. Where does the Minister see those? What happens if somebody who had responsibility for them in a strategic health authority now serves on one of the other bodies and there is a clash of interest over where the resources are going and how they will be supported? How could that be resolved? I am thinking in particular about things like failure regime, reconfigurations, training and workforce planning. As the Minister knows, that is an important role of strategic health authorities. Who will be the arbiter if there are those sorts of clashes of interest about the new structures as they move forward? Would it be the Secretary of State or the NHS Commissioning Board?
There are a variety of questions, some of which it may not be possible to answer now, but which will have to be looked at as we move forward and if the proposals to establish more of these special health authorities are carried through with the different roles. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this debate on the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. As she pointed out, we will gather in Committee several more times this week to review the impact of a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Government and challenged by the noble Baroness.
I believe that the combination of these statutory instruments provides security to hard-working NHS staff to maintain the continuity and quality of services that patients need at a time of considerable pressure. We cannot forget that the NHS has been challenged to make up to £20 billion in savings over the next three and a half years, which will be reinvested back into front-line patient care. Alongside this, we are seeking to move to a more autonomous and locally accountable patient-centred NHS, focused on improving outcomes for patients. That is the background although—in reply to the points made by the noble Baroness at the beginning of her speech—I make it clear that this order has nothing directly to do with the establishment of the two special health authorities, the NHS Commissioning Board Authority and the Health Research Authority, as special health authorities. We will debate both tomorrow.
The effect of the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011 is to allow the clustering of strategic health authorities and to provide greater flexibility among the non-executive and executive community to take up other board level posts in the health sector during the transition period. The 10 strategic health authorities have been clustered into four: NHS North of England, comprising North East, Yorkshire and the Humber and North West; NHS Midlands and East, East Midlands, East of England and West Midlands; NHS South of England, South West, South Central and South East Coast; and NHS London, which will simply encompass the existing strategic health authority.
That does not change the current structure of the NHS. There are still 10 strategic health authorities with the same boundaries which exist as legal statutory bodies. We have just simplified the governance of the strategic health authorities in order to sustain structural stability and reduce management costs. To do that, the Government are using powers that exist in legislation previously scrutinised by your Lordships' House. The correct procedures were followed in making appointments to the new clusters which complied with both the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ code of practice and employment law, as appropriate. The posts are time-limited and will be disestablished when strategic health authorities are abolished—if the Bill goes through the House and becomes law—on 31 March 2013.
Each cluster board now comprises a chair, up to eight non-executive directors, four executive directors with voting rights and up to five other non-voting executive directors who lead and scrutinise the decisions of each of the constituent SHAs within the cluster. Clustering SHAs, as we have already done with PCTs, supports the delivery of the £20 billion NHS efficiency savings through significantly reducing the cost of NHS administration—a commitment of both this and the previous Government. The creation of SHA clusters is a step towards that. PCT and SHA management costs increased by more than £1 billion since 2002-03, a rise of more than 120 per cent. It would not be possible to make savings on the scale required while retaining the administrative superstructure of PCTs and SHAs.
In addition to the pressing needs that I have outlined, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the transition to the new system of working in the NHS—subject to the passage of the Bill—supports the integrity of the health service, as well as continuity of accountability and minimised disruption to those working hard to deliver and maintain high-quality services on the front line.
In the current system, SHAs have a key role to play in ensuring the quality and safety of services, in driving performance and delivery, including safeguarding the cash limit and in responding to the QIPP challenge. SHA managers have done a commendable job in delivering that agenda. That is in part why the Government's response to the Future Forum report extends the life of SHAs to the end of March 2013. Until then, SHAs will retain their statutory responsibilities and remain accountable for delivery and transition. Given the context of major change, with new leadership starting to take up roles in the system, it is critical that strong SHA leadership teams continue in place to provide the right focus on delivery and ensure effective accountability.
Clustering provides resilience and alignment for the future. Already, a number of senior posts in SHAs are either not filled or are being covered through interim arrangements. That is not sustainable for a 17-month period, and the position is likely to deteriorate further over time. The risk posed by SHA atrophy is therefore too great, and clustering for greater collective resilience over the next 17 months is an essential response.
Sir David Nicholson has announced that the initial sub-national arrangements of the NHS Commissioning Board will mirror the geographical footprint of the SHA clusters. To give the board a greater sense of having a stake in the future, there is a strong argument for moving early to future geographical footprints. The Government are moving swiftly with those arrangements, drawing on the lessons learnt from PCT clustering, which show that once a decision to cluster is made, it is better to implement the changes quickly. It is also important to embed these arrangements before winter to reduce the impact of the extra operational pressure that the health service is put under at this time.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present for the opening part of the debate. I have just a couple of questions to put to the Minister. The first relates to the appointments to these very large bodies. Four bodies now cover the whole country, which is half the number of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy of some centuries ago; they cover very wide geographical areas. I wonder whether the noble Earl can indicate what steps are being taken to strike a geographical balance for the executive and non-executive appointments so that local knowledge across these very wide regions is reflected to the best degree possible—it is of course not completely possible, given their size—in the new arrangements.
The second question relates to the issue of scrutiny and the extent to which, if at all, the new bodies will be subject to the scrutiny of local authorities’ health scrutiny committees under the existing framework. I am not sure the extent to which they would want to pursue that, but there may be cases when they would, and of course geography may play some part in that. It would certainly be welcome if the Minister could be clear that, in principle, the new SHAs, pending the creation of the new special health authorities, will be subject to the scrutiny process.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions as well. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this issue with a statutory instrument.
I am delighted to hear that some form of the SHAs will continue in the interim period—I think that they have, on the whole, done a very good job—and that there is a real sense that they can continue to play a significant part in the transition. It looks very much like, with the clustering, we are making a clear transition from where we are to where we are going. I, for one, would not object in the least to their remaining like that.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The first is whether he envisages that the regional offices of the NHS Commissioning Board—which, admittedly, we have not yet passed through Parliament—are likely to be very closely aligned to where the strategic health authorities are. Obviously, there is a lot to be said for continuity.
The noble Earl also mentioned the need for flexibility, on which we could not agree more. Perhaps I may ask specifically whether one could raise the question of March 2013 not being a final date. There has, as we know, already been some softening of the original timetable as a result of the Future Forum and the listening exercise, which I think was broadly very much welcomed, partly because it enabled the new system to keep some of the quite distinguished and very experienced staff from the past. The noble Earl had the kindness to say that one of the problems is how one maintains experienced and well qualified staff. The more the transition can copy the strategic health authority structure, the more likely it is that we will be able to retain some of those very qualified and experienced staff. We know that quite a few of them have been lost and that the NHS could do with not more being lost. Is there any prospect of greater flexibility about the timetable, which was strongly supported by the Future Forum?
The second question is a more specific one about SHAs. As the noble Earl knows, SHAs have a large part in education and training, which is still a major area of uncertainty until the education and training legislation comes forward. Under Regulation 2.2 of the 1996 regulations, there was a specific commitment that where a strategic health authority contained medical or dental schools, a member of the authority would come from that background. They specifically stated that he or she should come from the background of education in the medical or dental school that was part of the strategic health authority. Will that be respected in the new circumstance? That would clearly be helpful in addressing future education and training issues.
My last question is a broader one about the Government’s feeling that there was no need for an impact assessment. I confess that I am a little worried about that, because the clubbing together of membership has certain possible impacts. Lastly, as the noble Baroness properly mentioned the issue of the involvement of HealthWatch, will there be an insistence that at least one member of the cluster should be someone with a background on the health and well-being boards—in other words, representing the HealthWatch interests—in the decisions of the new cluster groups?
Let me say loud and clear that all of us regard the cluster groups as a good development; I did not want to quarrel with that. Our questions cluster around the cluster, rather than concerning the cluster itself.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I will add to the points raised hitherto. I welcome the emphasis on continuity, but I wonder whether there is an opportunity to think whether we are closing the door completely on appointing new non-executive directors. We are moving into a new world with a new mindset and culture. If we are going to retain non-executive directors currently in situ in SHAs, will that opportunity be lost? I should like that to be clarified.
We must not lose sight of the fact that these are enormous organisations geographically. From one end of Cornwall to the other end of Kent is further, distance-wise, than from London to Edinburgh. There are issues about representation on boards. There must be complete understanding of the different issues in metropolitan, rural and urban settings. That will be critical for any board.
Also, does the noble Earl have any figure for what the savings in management costs might be? I seem to remember that when this was done for PCTs and they were all enlarged to become coterminous with local authorities, management savings were promised but not delivered. What is the size of the savings that we hope for? Have the Government factored in the risk with all of this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions, which I will try to deal with in order. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the extent to which the new bodies will be subject to local authority scrutiny. There is no change to the existing arrangements for scrutinising SHAs. All 10 SHAs still exist. They must meet their duties as set out in legislation.
The noble Lord also made a good point about geographical representation, geographical balance and the spread of local knowledge. What we tried to achieve with the ring-fenced competition, to which I referred, across the geographical boundaries of each cluster was to arrive at a point where we had as much geographical representation as was practicable. The chairs of individual SHAs who were not appointed as cluster chairs were invited to become vice-chairs so that corporate knowledge could be preserved.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister, and everyone else, for taking part in this short but extremely useful debate. The Minister started out in his introduction by saying that this is all being done in the context of the £20 billion Nicholson challenge. However, I am certainly not convinced that setting up double structures will help the delivery of that particular challenge. I accept that there has to be some clustering of strategic health authorities because, as the Minister said, the clusters are a response to atrophy and, I would add, demoralisation among the staff. On the one hand, everyone who has spoken said what valuable institutions strategic health authorities are and what a valuable job they do. On the other, there is an acknowledgement from the Government that there is a danger of atrophy here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, that poses risks. Those risks need to be addressed.
I will read what the Minister said, but I am still unclear whether the clusters will cease to exist in 2013 or whether they will become the national Commissioning Board’s sub-national instrument for delivery. Perhaps we will need to address that question tomorrow when we look at the NHS Commissioning Board. The issue of conflict of interest is potentially real and the Government will need to think about it as the process moves forward. When two mechanisms are in place for delivering healthcare in an area, conflicts of interest will need to be looked at. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised some important points, particularly about HealthWatch. As I listened to her I thought, “I wish I had thought of that myself”—as I usually do when she speaks.
I am still not sure about the accountability of the national Commissioning Board. We will address its accountability at a national level, but I am also worried about the accountability and transparency of the clusters were they to become the sub-national boards for the national Commissioning Board. That is a bigger issue than we can possibly deal with here, but I am adding them, as it were, to the agenda of issues to be addressed as we move forward.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today relate to the registration of providers of NHS primary medical services with the Care Quality Commission. The effect of the regulations is straightforward. It defers the registration of most providers of NHS primary medical services by 12 months, until April 2013. The registration of a small number of out-of-hours providers of such services will still go ahead in April next year, and the commission has started the process of registering these providers.
As the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission has a key role in assuring the public and people who use services that health and social care providers of “regulated activities” meet certain requirements. In order to be registered, providers must meet a series of essential safety and quality requirements on an ongoing basis. Where a registered provider fails to meet these requirements, the CQC has a range of enforcement powers that it can use to bring a provider back into compliance. In the case of the most serious failings, the CQC is able to cancel a provider's registration, which would result in the provider's closure.
The Committee will be familiar with some of the criticisms that have been levelled recently at the CQC, in particular that the number of inspections of providers that it carries out has fallen to unacceptably low levels and that it failed to respond appropriately to serious service failings, most notably in the case of the appalling abuse of residents at Winterbourne View, a hospital for people with learning disabilities.
The Government attach the highest importance to the role of the regulator in carrying out its statutory functions in an efficient and effective manner. The regulations before us are part of the process of how we and the CQC respond to these issues. Deferring the registration of around 9,000 providers of NHS primary medical services will give CQC additional time both to improve the registration process for this tranche of registrants and to increase the compliance activity of providers that are already registered with it.
Implementing the new registration system has required the Care Quality Commission to register around 21,000 providers already, bringing in, first, NHS providers; then independent sector healthcare providers and adult social care providers; and then independent ambulance and primary dental care providers. This has been a major programme of work for the CQC, which it has carried out well. However, given the scale of the task, it is perhaps not surprising that the number of compliance inspections carried out by the regulator fell. The current timetable set in regulations brings providers of NHS primary medical services into the registration system in April 2012. This would bring in around 9,000 additional providers and includes GP practices, out-of-hours primary medical care providers and some NHS walk-in centres.
Although we remain committed to the registration of providers with the CQC and are confident that this will provide effective levers to tackle providers who deliver sub-standard care to patients, we have reconsidered the timing of registering the majority of these providers in the light of the challenges that the CQC has faced. Following a consultation that came to an end in July, and engagement with key stakeholder representatives, we have decided that providers of NHS primary medical services who provide out-of-hours care to patients who are not registered at their practice will be required to register with the CQC as planned from April 2012.
Out-of-hours services tend to treat unfamiliar patients in unfamiliar surroundings and see a higher proportion of vulnerable patients with urgent care needs that are often more complex than those generally found in daytime general practice. As such, there is a more pressing need to register these services than other NHS primary medical services, which is why we are forging ahead with the registration of this group of providers. All other providers of NHS primary medical services will now be required to register in April 2013. The regulations before us amend the regulated activities regulations in order to achieve this delay.
In parallel with our consultation on the proposed changes, the CQC has reviewed its registration process, looked at streamlining its registration systems, and is increasing its scrutiny of providers that it already registers. Consultation responses made clear that a streamlined process would be welcomed. I am pleased to assure the Committee that the commission is taking steps in this direction. On the registration process for primary medical services, I am informed that the CQC is overhauling its online application process so that providers will be able to start completing the application sooner than in previous application rounds. The website will contain full information on the registration process and will provide updates on the progress of an application and how long it is anticipated that it will take for key decisions to be made. The CQC will also put in place a central team to handle applications, avoiding the risk of the registration of NHS primary medical care providers impacting on the CQC’s ability to monitor the compliance of other registered providers. Noble Lords may recall that there were delays in registering dental practices earlier this year due to the volume of Criminal Records Bureau checks required. The CQC is considering a different approach, which I am assured will go a long way to resolving these problems.
The CQC will engage with providers of medical services over the coming months to ensure that they have a clear understanding of what registration will entail and how compliance with the registration requirements will be assessed. The CQC’s compliance inspections have been increasing steadily since the spring. and I am confident that the delays proposed and the arrangements the commission is putting in to handle registration in April 2013 will allow this to continue and be sustained.
Looking beyond initial registration, the CQC is also proposing changes to strengthen and simplify its regulatory model. Importantly, the commission is planning to increase the number of inspections that it carries out. These proposals would see all registered providers of hospitals, social care providers and independent healthcare providers being inspected at least once a year, with primary dental care providers inspected at least once every two years.
I hope that the Committee will be reassured by the progress that the CQC is already making to improve its registration processes and to increase its focus on compliance and inspection. The delay to the registration of providers of NHS primary medical services that we are considering today will allow the commission the space and time that it needs to move further in this direction more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his remarks about the regulations. I must admit that when I read the words:
“These Regulations may be cited as the … Regulated Activities … Regulations”,
I felt as if I was participating in a Marx brothers’ movie, as you wonder which part relates to which. However, behind the regulations lies a very important human story. I want to focus my comments and questions on some of those issues. The Minister referred to the fact that in respect of NHS primary care services there is clearly a risk that the problems which the Care Quality Commission faces now could still apply in 2013. Apart from simply delaying the requirement to register again, has the Minister any other contingency plans to deal with the capacity problems in the CQC?
A human-issue story concerning out-of-hours services relates to the report that the CQC wrote arising out of the Daniel Ubani case, where the real risk posed to patient care from out-of-hours services was apparent. I would like the Minister to spell out how the small number of—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn until 4.29 pm, taking note that the Clocks in the Room are an hour fast.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I have received a warning that I must not repeat myself, so I shall try to start from where I left off, which was highlighting the CQC report on out-of-hours services arising from the Daniel Ubani case, which highlighted that we have a nationwide problem. Delaying the requirement to register for a further year means that a lot of the issues that need to be addressed by proper monitoring of compliance will not be.
My other questions relate to which organisations are covered by the regulation. The estimate was about 230 organisations. Does that include the co-operatives such as SELDOC, established in south-east London? Is it simply those organisations separate from GPs? There is an issue about high-risk out-of-hours services stemming from provision within GP services by the use of locums employed directly. I would appreciate clarity about the risk assessments. What concerns me most is that within a 12-month period, the Care Quality Commission will be required to get in to 9,000 organisations, but the Government have given it 12 months to deal with about 230. Having been on the commission’s website and seen the processes and procedures, and the advice being given to primary health services, I think we have a difficult job ahead of us.
I leave my remarks to those few specific points. On the extension of out-of-hours—I must not say out-of-office services, that is my trade union background coming out—the flexibility of the provision of services by primary health services is most important. People are reverting to organisations that do not have their medical records or knowledge of their conditions because they have to work and cannot get to a surgery within its opening times. I know from personal experience that even booking a medical appointment can be extremely difficult. You have to do it within a particular time frame. With those concerns, I leave my remarks.
Baroness Jolly
I should like the Minister to clarify one point. Out-of-hours services providers need to register a year early if they are not in the practice of treating patients from outside their area. Can the Minister clarify the situation regarding itinerant or travelling workers? Where I come from, huge swathes of people come in to pick strawberries, daffodils or whatever. They certainly do not register. I am not clear whether the out-of-hours providers would treat them as temporary residents. What is the case in those circumstances? Would GPs who currently provide services in Cornwall in a co-operative be required to register a year early?
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I, too, have a couple of questions. I very strongly support my noble friend's question about itinerant or temporary workers. In addition to the people about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, spoke, there is also the Traveller community, which does not stay permanently in a single place, as we know from the Dale Farm episode. I am very concerned—I am sure that others in the Committee are, as well—about the position of mobile workers whose life involves moving from place to place, and about where they will be picked up by the providers.
My second question concerns the position of out-of-hours services. The General Medical Council has raised many concerns about out-of-hours providers who are not familiar with the English language, let alone some of the other languages that we have in this country. Will there be additional requirements for out-of-hours service providers above the basic medical requirements that they will have to meet?
I should know the answer to my third question, but I confess that I do not. However, I am sure that the Minister does. When providers are registered, are the lists of those who are registered made available to local HealthWatch committees, local authorities and Parliament? That is very important. Transparency is almost invariably the best form of inspection.
Finally, with regard to the CQC, we all know—as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said—that it has been under heavy pressure. My question is: will the practice of non-notified inspections, as well as notified inspections, continue? I note that the Secretary of State referred to this just a couple of weeks ago in respect of the investigation of complaints about the treatment of elderly people when he called on the CQC to do an immediate inspection.
I have one final point. I do not expect the noble Earl to reply if he does not want to. The most effective form of inspection is by protecting whistleblowers. All of us are aware that whistleblowers are a very effective form of informal inspection. It was whistleblowers who came up with the terrible Winterbourne story. Are there any means of protecting whistleblowers, especially among NHS staff, from being forced into retirement or sacked? Among all possible forms of inspection, NHS staff are most likely to be able to alert the system too bad or poor standards. Have we given consideration to the possibility of protecting whistleblowers among NHS staff? I am sure that our colleague from the trade unions would be sympathetic to that idea.
Earl Howe
My Lords, noble Lords asked number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, focused in particular on the capacity of the CQC to fulfil the remit that we gave it. He questioned its ability to register 9,000 providers in 12 months. He will not be surprised to hear that we asked the same question of the CQC. We were assured that it is well placed to do that. It has registered 21,000 providers since April 2010. As I mentioned earlier, it is streamlining its processes to achieve the registration of primary care providers. However, the registration of primary dental care providers and independent ambulance providers in April 2011 highlighted the need for the CQC to make improvements to the registration process. In the light of that, we believed that it was preferable to delay registration by a year, during which time the CQC would be able to modernise and streamline its processes and tools so that the process runs more smoothly and is less burdensome both for providers and the CQC itself.
One of the main purposes of deferring the registration of providers of primary medical services was to provide the CQC with the space to improve its systems. We considered walk-in centres in this context. We perceived that there was a serious risk of capturing a significant number of providers under the definition of an NHS walk-in centre. We have concluded that rather than risk overburdening the CQC with a large number of applications in 2012, we will postpone the registration of these providers for 12 months. We believe that this will provide the CQC with the necessary breathing space. The CQC is already contacting those providers who it believes will need to register in April 2012 in order to start the registration process. The CQC will also work with other providers of NHS primary medical services and their representative organisations to identify and develop proposals to streamline the application process that will apply to those who are required to register in April 2013.
The noble Lord also asked me about the CQC’s resources. Each year the CQC agrees its business plan and financial allocation with the Department of Health. The CQC’s financial position is then kept under constant review during the financial year. The Department of Health has now agreed a business case submitted by the Care Quality Commission requesting approval to recruit additional compliance inspectors and compliance managers in order to undertake more frequent inspections. This approval has been given as part of the ongoing 2012-13 finance and business planning round and the CQC’s indicative revenue budget for next year includes sufficient funding to allow the CQC to recruit the additional 229 full-time equivalent compliance inspectors and the additional 19 compliance managers that it requested.
As I indicated earlier, we considered whether there were different risks in the provision of out-of-hours care to justify registering providers of those services ahead of providers of other NHS primary medical services. The case of Dr Ubani has been mentioned, which is very pertinent in this regard. Many respondents expressed the view that there were strong reasons for us to register these providers next year. While there is little concrete evidence to demonstrate that there are greater risks in the provision of these services, we believe that there are material differences in the type of service they provide which justify their earlier registration. As I indicated earlier, some of the differences revolve around the fact that often out-of-hours services practitioners treat unfamiliar patients and see a higher proportion of vulnerable patients with urgent care needs, sometimes with more complex needs. That persuaded us that there was a more urgent case for registering those providers before the others.
The noble Lord made the very good point that in primary care nowadays an increasing range of services are provided. That is why the previous Government approached the question of regulation in the way that they did. Instead of defining scope in terms of organisational settings; for example, hospital and care homes, there is a list of regulated activities for which registration is required. This means that regulation is based on risk of harm to those receiving the care or treatment rather than inflexible organisational structures.
This system of registration is flexible so that it can adapt to new and innovative service models. Basing the scope of registration on activities rather than settings means that regulation provides the same level of assurance wherever people choose to access care or treatment. In other words, legislation describes what providers must do, not how they must do it.
My noble friend Lady Jolly asked me a number of questions, in particular, about itinerant, travelling workers and how they are treated. The fact that a primary care provider accepts patients temporarily will not itself trigger registration from 2012. Those patients are likely to be temporary residents if they seek to access GP services in a particular area. I will write to my noble friend to clarify that, because I am sure that there are detailed issues within that question and I do not want to mislead her.
My noble friend Lady Williams also picked up that point and asked me about language requirements on out-of-hours providers. The language requirements are currently picked up under the system by which PCTs commission out-of-hours care. It is not open to the GMC, when registering a doctor who is registered abroad, to language-test that doctor, but employers clearly have a duty to ensure that any doctor employed in an out-of-hours service is capable of communicating with patients. The employer should ensure that patient needs in an area are being appropriately met by those who are charged with looking after them out of hours.
My noble friend also asked whether the list of registered providers will be available to local HealthWatch and to Parliament. I am advised that the list is available on the CQC website. Some bodies require notification, and HealthWatch England will be part of the CQC, if Parliament approves our plans, so there will be an automatic route of communication between the CQC itself and HealthWatch England.
My noble friend also asked me about whistleblowers. NHS workers are currently protected by whistleblowing legislation. The CQC is a named body under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which protects whistleblowers. We are very keen that there should be no deterrent to whistleblowers. It was obviously concerning to see a case reported last week where a whistleblower was put under pressure by colleagues. We are looking at the implications of that case very closely. I cannot say more to my noble friend at the moment on that.
House of Lords
Accidents: Costs
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to reduce the cost to United Kingdom society of home and leisure accidents.
Lord Jordan
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of RoSPA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to improve the health of the population through reforms to the health and social care systems, and cross-government policies that support health and safety. These will contribute to reducing the costs to society of accidents, including those caused in the home and through leisure activities.
Lord Jordan
I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Will he acknowledge that in contrast to other priorities in public health, accident prevention is the only topic that still does not have a lead body? Does he accept that that is a massive gap, considering that accident prevention and home and leisure accidents cost the National Health Service £5 billion a year? Will he give an assurance that the Government will treat this as a matter of urgency by directing Public Health England to a programme of national strategic accident prevention as a mandatory feature in all local public health plans?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work as president of RoSPA and, indeed, to the work of RoSPA itself. He may recall that the public health White Paper that we issued some months ago—Healthy Lives, Healthy People—as well as the update that we issued, specifically lists accident prevention as one of the key areas of responsibility. That to my mind is par excellence an area where local authorities will be able to make a difference with their new public health responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Bill. They will be able to work with organisations like RoSPA and professional groups such as health visitors to improve safety in their areas. We look forward to working with them on those programmes, should they choose to prioritise them.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, while declaring an interest as deputy president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I warmly applaud my noble friend’s commitment to the way in which we have restored at long last accident prevention as one of those key objectives. Will he please do a little more by setting the agenda on the right way forward to stop the sort of problem just referred to by the noble Lord?
Earl Howe
There is no question but that accidents in the home and in leisure contexts are a serious issue. It so happens that the UK has a very good record compared with some other European countries, but we can never be complacent on this. Some very tragic accidents occur, particularly to children, that we must bear down upon. Again I pay tribute to the work of RoSPA to prevent accidents with looped blind cords, which can often be a hazard to children. NICE has published accident guidelines relevant to home and leisure situations and also guides focusing on home safety and road design. It is that realm of public health that we hope NICE will focus on more and more as the years go by.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gas Safety inquiry into carbon monoxide poisoning, whose report is being published today. Do the Government recognise that carbon monoxide poisoning currently costs the country about £178 million in total; that the protection of putting up a carbon monoxide alarm in each home in Britain for a year would cost less per home than a cup of coffee at a motorway service station; and that lives would be saved if carbon monoxide alarms were readily available? If the Government considered removing VAT from them, it would give a very strong message that everybody must protect themselves.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness has highlighted a very serious and important problem. She will know that in the European Union context the Commission has focused very strongly on products that may prove unsafe if sold wrongly or if manufactured or fitted wrongly. The kinds of safety incidents that she refers to could well fall into that category and work is ongoing in that area. However, I take on board the figures that she has so graphically supplied and will feed them back to my department.
Lord German
My Lords, the 1968-71 experiment with moving the clocks around produced some evidence about accidents. In the current debate, since we all enjoyed an extra hour in bed yesterday, I wonder whether there is any concrete evidence about the reduction in accidents that moving the clocks around supplied, given that in 1968-71 we were also introducing the drink-driving laws that somehow compounded the evidence that was provided for us.
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises a point that we have often debated in this Chamber. He is, of course, right that single/double summer time would put clocks one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in winter and two hours ahead in summer. Any change to the current system of British Summer Time would have wide-ranging implications, and those implications would have to be carefully considered in all parts of the UK, probably, in terms of the costs and benefits associated with them.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the revised blueprint of Healthy Lives, Healthy People now includes accidental injury prevention. Can the Minister confirm that that would therefore be a new responsibility added to those that public health authorities will be taking up? Has that been costed and will extra funding be available for local authorities and the new public health authorities to deliver on it given that, if they are successful, they will be saving a great deal of money?
Earl Howe
As the noble Baroness knows, much will depend on the priorities that individual local authorities set. This is subject to further engagement because it is early days, but accidental injury prevention is listed as one of the areas that local authorities could focus on. To my mind, they should be warmly encouraged to focus on accident prevention as there are so many levers at their disposal to make a difference in this area.
Scotland: Referendum
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McAvoy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions the Prime Minister has had with the First Minister of Scotland regarding a referendum on Scottish independence since the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has had discussions with the First Minister of Scotland on a range of issues.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his Answer—I think. Does he agree with me that one thing is now certain; there will be a referendum in Scotland on the issue of separation at some point in the future? The Government seem lost for a definitive policy on this issue. Does he agree that it is essential that such a referendum on separation be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, with everyone entitled to put their point of view without being attacked for holding a point of view? Finally, does he also agree that it was totally reprehensible for a First Minister of Scotland to use public resources to attempt to undermine an eminent professor who had expressed doubts about the principle of separation?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand that the First Minister of Scotland had to apologise to the Scottish Parliament last week for making that error. More fully, I totally agree with the noble Lord that if there were to be a referendum it should be fair and impartial. To that I would add another word—clarity. There is no purpose in having a referendum in Scotland unless the question is very clearly understood by the people of Scotland so that the result can equally be interpreted with clarity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that privately the First Minister has been threatening government Ministers that if we constitute a legally conducted referendum campaign in Scotland, he will make it his business to boycott that referendum and to prevent the police and other services from seeing that it is carried out? Is the First Minister not getting a bit too big for his boots?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the First Minister of Scotland has been threatening UK government Minsters. If it were true, however, that he would seek to frustrate a referendum in Scotland that had been legally and rightly established by the Westminster Parliament, it would be the most extraordinary event. Surely the first person who should whoop for joy if there were to be a referendum on the issue of separation in Scotland should be the First Minister.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Can the Government confirm whether they have conducted any research into the year-on-year implications for jobs in Scotland of investment decisions that might be affected by the prospect of a referendum and the prospect of independence? The First Minister talks of an independence referendum perhaps in 2015, with no certain date or timescale. Will the Government consider making representations to ensure that the uncertainty that that creates is minimised by bringing forward the date to as soon as possible?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord brings a lot of experience to this whole subject. I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland himself has laid six—there could be many more—questions to the First Minister for Scotland on the whole issue of what independence means, so that we can have the clarity that I alluded to in the first Answer.
Lord Howarth of Newport
If a referendum on Scottish independence produced a yes vote, would it not then follow that the size of the House of Commons would be reduced and that the House of Commons would be weakened? What bearing does the noble Lord the Leader of the House think that that would have upon the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament, especially if there were to be an elected second Chamber?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I admire the way the noble Lord gets the question of an elected second Chamber into virtually every question he poses, but even for me that is far too hypothetical for me to join him.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Does my noble friend accept that it is in the interests neither of Scotland nor of the United Kingdom for this issue to drift on unresolved throughout the rest of this Parliament? Is it not now time for the Government to take a decision not only on the future calling of a referendum—their proper role in this union—but on the proper information for the electors about what the consequences would be?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend on the question of information. As far as timing is concerned, it is true that doubts about Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom create uncertainty not just for the people of Scotland but for those who wish to invest, to trade, to do business and to live in Scotland. All these things need to be taken into account before a decision is taken on a referendum.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, in the spirit of clarity, will the Leader of the House indicate whether the Government have a view on whether the Scottish Parliament can competently call a referendum on constitutional change in Scotland, and if so, what that view is?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the fundamental principle that we believe applies is that matters concerning the union of the kingdom are a reserved matter.
Lord Nickson
My Lords, in the tragic event that there was a referendum and the people of Scotland voted for a separate state, what is the Government’s view on what currency they should adopt? Is it a possibility that it might have to be the euro instead of sterling?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, certainly one of the questions that will be raised—and is continually raised—with the First Minister of Scotland, is what currency would exist within the British Isles if Scotland were no longer part of the United Kingdom. At this stage is it is very difficult to answer.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, is the First Minister of Scotland seeking to emulate Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not going to follow my noble friend down that route. However, these are important matters. Ultimately the people of Scotland will need to decide whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or to break up one of the most enduring partnerships and one that has suited the people of Scotland economically and culturally more than anything else I can think of.
Elections: Registration
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the implications for the accuracy of the electoral register of the provisions of the White Paper on individual electoral registration.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, our intention in bringing in individual electoral registration is that the implications will be entirely beneficial. The Government are funding research to understand the current level of accuracy of the electoral register that will help us to understand better the way in which to move to individual electoral registration and what impact it will have. The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the maximum number of people remain on the electoral register during the transition to individual registration and that the accuracy of the register is improved.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am slightly concerned when I read all the academics and psephologists on the subject, who believe that we are going to fall from best in class, from 92 per cent accuracy to the low 60s. Would the Minister be even slightly concerned if that were the outcome? Would our society be becoming bigger or smaller?
Lord McNally
I would be extremely concerned if that was the outcome. Let us remember that the party opposite, when it was in government, started to raise the issue of individual registration—and even passed legislation—because, for the first time certainly in my lifetime, the integrity of the voting system was starting to be called into question. That is the origin of the exercise that we are undertaking, on which I hope we will have all-party support.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, does the Minister accept that it really is necessary to carry out a thorough, door-to-door, face-to-face canvass in order to ensure both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register? Does he accept that failure to do so not only threatens the integrity of the democratic process but could also cause problems for people trying to obtain credit? Credit agencies check that people are on the electoral register to ensure that they can have credit, and failure to maintain the register in this way could mean that people are denied credit and businesses are unable to supply goods and services. That would be damaging to the economy and to social mobility.
Lord McNally
That is an interesting point. If I may return to the central point of the question, yes, doorstep canvassing plays a vital role in ensuring that registers are complete and accurate. That is why in both 2014 and 2015 door-to-door canvassers will be used by electoral registration officers to ask people to register to vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, last Wednesday the Minister denied that there had been a collapse in electoral registration in Northern Ireland when this system was introduced. Can I change the word from “collapse” to “fall”? Was there a fall, and by what percentage?
Lord McNally
It is of no use for the noble Lord to say “Ah!” as if he has found out something wonderful and unknown. I admitted that there had been a fall—yes I did—and what I went on to say is that both we and the Northern Irish had learnt lessons from that exercise and the mistakes made. I went on to say—and I hope my noble friend behind me has an opportunity to say this—that we all used to make the “Vote early, vote often” jokes about Northern Ireland, but people are now going across to Northern Ireland to study their success in getting people on the voting register. That is to their credit and is something that we are trying to learn from.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, does the Minister agree that bogus registrations are probably the largest avenue for fraudulent voting, that this has been a major problem in England for decades and that it is long past the time that it was cleared up and we got a more honest register—which I am happy to say we now have in Northern Ireland?
Lord McNally
I am pleased to have that confirmation from my noble friend. Yes, I make the point again that that is exactly why the Labour Government raised this issue because, perhaps a little complacently, we got used to the idea that this kind of thing did not happen in England. We found out the hard way that that was not true. What we are trying to do—I emphasise this again—is to bring forward a process which is thorough and which will deal with some of the concerns that have been raised, and then move forward to a register that will have full public confidence.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
Will the Minister agree that, if the further developments that the Government are considering—including voluntary registration rather than compulsory registration—are brought forward and passed, then all the exchanges about improving the register and getting a more accurate register will be for nothing, because we will get a much smaller register and a much less representative democracy?
Lord McNally
This is where I hope that we can call on the experts in all parties to stop those misleading statements. I made clear last Wednesday that we have always had voluntary registration in this country, and that we are not—whichever party is in power, I suspect—going to bring in compulsory registration. But we will bring in a system that will encourage people to complete their civic duties by registering to vote. Rather than throwing barriers in the way, I suggest that all parties, NGOs and others get down to making this system as foolproof as we can, and then get people to register to vote. We can prove by this exercise that some of those fears are groundless. My right honourable friend Nick Clegg and my honourable friend Mark Harper are open to suggestions and are engaged in discussions, and we will do the best that we can.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, what impact might the opportunity to vote for an elected second Chamber have on voluntary voter registration?
Lord McNally
I think that it would have them flocking to register in their millions. The opportunity and the excitement that that would generate would be almost boundless.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer about voluntary registration, but I do not entirely understand it. As I understand it, it is compulsory to register at present—if only it also were to vote—and if one does not register to vote, I think that one can be prosecuted. My main question concerns local authorities: I wholeheartedly agree with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with which the noble Lord agreed. Can he assure me that local authorities will have the requisite amount of resources in order to ensure that they can undertake door-to-door registration?
Lord McNally
Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. On voter registration, the compulsion is for the householder to register the household and not for the individual voter.
Lord McNally
I suggest that noble Lords talk to some of the many experts on electoral registration. There is, always has been and always will be a difference. Voting is voluntary; the registration by households is compulsory. I suggest that noble Lords look it up.
Population: United Kingdom
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the increase in the population of the United Kingdom since 1945; and how many square miles of countryside have been used for (a) housing, and (b) industrial development, since that date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, since 1985, the population of England has increased by an estimated 5.2 million people. In the same period, around 170 square miles of countryside has been used for residential development and around 30 square miles for industrial development.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, since 1945, the population has increased by about a third and the weekly wage has increased from £3.90 to about £400. In recent times, in each year, nearly four square miles of undeveloped land has been built on for housing and industrial development. Should we not use more of our brownfield land for housing and industrial use?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that each Government have attempted to use brownfield sites and brownfield land before anywhere else. A great deal of brownfield land has already been developed. There is consideration as to whether that is better used for housing within central town areas or whether there is a better boost to growth if it is used for industry or commerce. By and large, brownfield land has for the past number of years been used primarily before anything else.
Lord Tope
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the figure she gave us just now includes land for which development consent has been given but never implemented? Does she agree that if priority is given to the implementation of such consent to the use of brownfield sites, as she has just said, and to the use of other land which none of us would think has any environmental value, there really is no need for the countryside to feel further threatened?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I cannot say whether what I have said includes such land. With regard to the development of land, we have always protected green belt and looked to see that greenfield land is not used before brownfield land is developed. I hope that that answers my noble friend’s question.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, as Huckleberry Finn might have put it, land is finite? Should not some council of wise men and women now determine exactly how much land should be set aside for non-cultivation, how much should be dedicated to biofuels and how much for the production of food? If such a body were to adjudicate, what would be the Solomonic principles on which it would allow the situation to be determined?
Baroness Hanham
I hope the noble Lord is not expecting a reply to that question in those terms. To some extent, land is divided up just as this country is. There is agricultural land; countryside land, which is not used for housing; and land in cities. It is interesting that at the moment 13 per cent of land—1.6 million hectares—is green belt; 25 per cent of England is in a national park or an area of outstanding national beauty; and the area of England—around 13 million square hectares, just over 50,000 square miles—is divided up into greenfield land, green belt, city development and other uses. Where Solomon comes into this or whether there should be an organisation or group to spread out the land and say what it is used for is not on the radar at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the introduction of a new planning system has not been without controversy. In particular there are concerns that, where local development plans are not up to date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development could lead to largely unfettered development. What assurance can the Minister give us about transitional provisions to cover and protect those situations where local plans are not fully up to date?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there has been quite a lot of misinformation in the media about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. That presumption originated in 1947. It was then turned into the plan-led approach in 1991, and the presumption has been there all along.
With regard to the presumption now coming through from the Localism Bill, where plans are not up to date, as the noble Lord knows—we have had plenty of discussions about this—the expectation is that local plans must be brought up to date as quickly as possible in order to make sure that development is carried out within the right parameters. Where those local plans are not up to date, the policies set out in the national planning policy framework will provide a robust framework for making decisions and safeguarding the things that matter to people, such as the green belt and areas of physical flooding.
We have discussed the transition over many weeks, and all I can say at the moment is that the need for some transition is well understood.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant documents: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 October.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am afraid that this may take a little longer than expected, the order having been considered previously in Grand Committee. Unfortunately, at the time of the Grand Committee consideration, noble Lords did not have available to them the results of the consultation on the order and consequently were not then able to give the order the scrutiny it deserved.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a couple of points raised in the consultation that the Government have not addressed. First, given the peculiar importance of credit unions in Northern Ireland, are the Government intending to address the issue raised in the consultation of whether an office of the FSA or a successor organisation should be established in Northern Ireland? This is clearly a sensitive issue in the Province, and it ill behoves the Government simply to ignore it, as they do in this document.
Secondly, I am unclear about the Government’s position on question 2(a) of the consultation on whether the Northern Ireland Assembly would retain legislative control of credit unions in Northern Ireland. As the Government acknowledge, considerable concern was expressed about the loss of Northern Ireland influence over an aspect of financial life that is very important in the Province but less so in the rest of the UK. Could the Minister please clarify the Government’s position? Again, in the consultation document the question was simply ignored. As a corollary to this last point, what are the Government doing to ensure that no adverse effects are felt in Northern Ireland from the legislation on credit unions passed in this House on Thursday, 20 October? That legislation allowed businesses to assume up to 10 per cent of the share of the capital of a credit union and eliminated the role of the common bond as the basis of a credit union.
How will the Government ensure that credit unions in Northern Ireland do not, in some cases, become dominated by local business members, with the potentially unfortunate impact on investment decisions, particularly when the credit union considers investment in the local community? How do the Government intend to monitor the impact of the loss of the common bond in Northern Ireland credit unions, when it is evident that the common bond has played an important role in the unique character of the credit union movement in the Province?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords who did not take part in the discussion in Grand Committee on 17 October, it is perhaps worth explaining that this statutory instrument transfers responsibility for regulation of Northern Ireland credit unions to the Financial Services Authority. It implements a policy decision of the previous Government announced in March 2010—which has the support of all three main parties—the outline of which is the subject of this statutory instrument. There will be further instruments dealing with the detail of the transfer and a number of the consequentials arising from that.
It is unfortunate that the consultation issued by the previous Government in March 2010, having said that the decision had been taken that regulation would transfer to the Financial Services Authority, slipped into a consultation about how this is best achieved and what other associated action should take place. Those matters will be the subject of further statutory instruments in due course and it is unfortunate that there was one somewhat confusing question that could have been taken as touching on the statutory instrument before us today. I regret that. Had I known that that question was there, we could have had the consultation responses out earlier, even though it was not intended that the previous Government’s consultation should have anything to do with the business before us today.
On the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the question of the FSA and the allocation of its resources to offices is a matter for it. The responses on this point were linked to concerns about what the regulatory regime was going to entail and the FSA has worked hard to address those concerns by carrying out visits to Northern Ireland and answering questions from the credit unions.
As to the common bond and possible domination of local businesses, as we discussed in Grand Committee, the credit unions do not feel that this issue will be a threat. Of course, along with seeing how the credit unions sector generally across the United Kingdom develops—it is prospering and the Government wish to see it do so—it is one of the many factors that the Government will continue to have in view. The matter does not touch directly on this instrument, but it is relevant to the whole of the credit unions sector across the United Kingdom.
The other points will be the subject of ongoing work by the FSA following another consultation that the FSA and the Treasury had issued, which closed last week and which will be the subject of further statutory instruments in due course.
Lord Sassoon
This instrument deals with the basic decision, announced jointly by the noble Lord’s Government and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, that regulation, which is the subject of this instrument, should pass from the DETI to the FSA. That is what this does. It does not relate to any matters other than that. The decision had already been taken in advance of the consultation the noble Lord is questioning.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Minister used the word “discussion” to describe Grand Committee on 17 October. That is rather stretching the definition of that word. It was a tetchy performance by the Minister, who was clearly deeply embarrassed that a consultation which had been initiated in March 2010 and completed several months ago—indeed, before the summer break—was actually published only on the morning of Grand Committee, and no efforts were made at all to ensure that those noble Lords who take an interest in Treasury Affairs were aware of the existence of this document before we discussed the order.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I really do not accept the construction of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, over this. If the previous Government had not published a rather confused consultation in March 2010, which slipped in a question that they said in the introduction to that consultation was already decided policy, none of this confusion and this opportunity to create some great mountain out of a procedural molehill would have arisen. We had a vigorous debate. We looked at all the key matters in Grand Committee in the proper way—all the matters I expected to be raised were properly covered in the discussion. A sequence of statutory instruments is due to come forward in the coming month. We needed this one out of the way. There is another consultation, as I have already explained, which closed last week that will inform the other statutory instruments. They will come forward under the normal procedure that is appropriate to them. An enormous amount is being made of next to nothing. If I had been aware of the confusion that had been laid in the previous Government’s consultation on this, of course I would have ensured that the responses were out. I regret they were not. Nothing was held back.
Pensions Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:18 - Division on amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 1A disagreed.
“6th January 1954 to 5th February 1954 : 6th May 2019
6th February 1954 to 5th March 1954 : 6th July 2019
6th March 1954 to 5th April 1954 : 6th September 2019
6th April 1954 to 5th May 1954 : 6th November 2019
6th May 1954 to 5th June 1954 : 6th January 2020
6th June 1954 to 5th July 1954 : 6th March 2020
6th July 1954 to 5th August 1954 : 6th May 2020
6th August 1954 to 5th September 1954 : 6th July 2020
6th September 1954 to 5th October 1954 : 6th September 2020””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 1B, 1C and 1D.
However, before I discuss the amendments, I wish to place on the record my appreciation for one of the department’s officials, Evelyn Arnold, who is retiring after 36 years in the department. In fact today, by some coincidence, we are here on her final day. I am sure that with many an ex-DWP Minister present today noble Lords will share my thanks as we bid farewell to Evelyn and, I hope, to this Bill.
Today we have a further opportunity to discuss what has proved to be the most contentious aspect of this Bill. I hope on this occasion we may emerge with something like consensus. All sides of the House accept that projected average life expectancy has increased significantly since we agreed in 2007 to raise the pension age to 66 by 2026. The latest projections published only last week confirm that with no change to the 2007 timetable, men retiring at 66 in 2026 would receive their pension for an additional 18 months and women for an additional 19 months.
This demonstrates the very challenge we are facing, for we have been on quite a journey with this clause. That we have this opportunity further to debate the Government’s transitional arrangements is to no small extent due to the considered and thoughtful arguments made during our debates on Clause 1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for tabling the alternative timetable, which has continued to reappear both here and in another place. However, it is £11 billion—and this fact will remain irrespective of the number of times that the proposition is tabled, since £11 billion is simply too much, even in terms of the inflated figures that we quite often bandy around when debating the heady world of pensions.
I pay sincere tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who recognised that this sum of money is too great a burden for the system to bear and sought to propose an alternative timetable at a fraction of the cost. Her suggestion provided a more reasonable financial cost while assisting those most affected by the original Bill timetable. Our amendment takes her amendment as the starting point and provides the same notice for the first women affected by a one-year rise, five years and four months from Royal Assent. Our amendment smooths the rise from 65 to 66, taking six months longer than we originally proposed, and provides a revised pension age for men and women born between 6 January 1954 and 5 October 1954. It benefits a similar number of people—about half a million, under the noble Baroness’s amendment, and around 485,000 under ours, although in the case of our amendment nearly half of those are men. That is because we equalised the pension ages first before starting the rise to 66. We have found that there was no alternative to equalising first that would not risk breaching the European equal treatment directive by delaying equalisation beyond the date that we set ourselves in 1995. That is why men will also benefit—but that is, of course, incidental to our primary goal, which is to mitigate the impact on those women who would otherwise face an increase of more than 18 months.
We have listened, we did reconsider, and we have done what is right for these women and the country—and it has not gone unnoticed. Michelle Mitchell, the director of Age UK, welcomed the Government’s amendment, saying that Age UK appreciated that,
“it is a significant financial commitment from the Government at a difficult time. This will give a much needed six-month respite to all the women who would have had to work an extra two years”.
Although Age UK would have liked the changes to go further, it has none the less acknowledged that the Government have listened to concerns. In its briefing sent to noble Lords for this debate, it said:
“We ask all Members of the House of Lords to support the government amendment to Clause 1 of the Pensions Bill”.
These are not my words but those of Age UK.
The issue has never been whether the original timetable is to be brought forward. The issue is about the precise timing and whether it is appropriate to rewrite the timetable, set more than 15 years ago, for levelling the pension ages at 65, to bring about 66 in 2020. We have always been clear on the matter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that,
“we are committed to the state pension age being equalised in 2018 and rising to 66 in 2020”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/11; col. 51.]
These amendments do not alter our timetable for pension age equalisation and maintain our original intention to implement the rise to 66 in 2020, but we have reduced the impact of our original plans by up to six months for those facing the biggest increase. This is what we call a compromise.
This transitional arrangement has a significant price tag attached. Net spending on pensions and benefits will increase by £1.1 billion compared to our original proposals over the two years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Under our amended proposals, we will therefore deliver £30.6 billion of savings. This is not small change that falls down the back of the sofa, but vital savings for the long-term fiscal sustainability of our economy. We must not forget the bigger picture. Savings are not just important but necessary. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has some very helpful forecasts. They show that by 2060—50 years’ time—age-related public expenditure is set to increase by more than 2.5 percentage points of GDP, with the largest proportion of spend on older people being on health and state pensions. This 2.5 per cent is the equivalent in today’s economy of £40 billion.
The point I am making is that it is tough to save money and this country faces a significant near-term challenge to do so. It was suggested by some Members in another place that the public sector net debt of £1.4 trillion in 2015-16 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility is so monumental that £10 billion or so here or there will not make much difference. I would like to think that in this House we take a more realistic view. With figures like this, even £1 billion is an important sum of money to spend, and this is only one-tenth of the cost of the proposals advanced by noble Lords opposite.
The fact is that the fiscal impact of their amendment falls on six years not 10 and within that period—2016-17 to 2021-22—nearly £2 billion would need to be found in 2018-19 and nearly £3 billion in each of the years 2019-20 and 2020-2021. In the context of the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, ours is the fiscally responsible approach.
I accept that some will continue to argue that our amendment does not go far enough. However, I would urge noble Lords to reflect upon the process that has got us to this point. Noble Lords scrutinised the Bill many months ago and the Government listened to concerns. The elected House has had its turn, as is the process, and has responded with these amendments, which balance the concerns of those women most affected with longer-term fiscal responsibility. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord McKenzie of Luton
As an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, leave out from “House” to the end and insert, “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 1 and do propose Amendment 1B as an amendment in lieu and Amendments 1C and 1D as consequential amendments”.
““6th April 1955 to 5th May 1955 : 6th May 2020
6th May 1955 to 5th June 1955 : 6th July 2020
6th June 1955 to 5th July 1955 : 6th September 2020
6th July 1955 to 5th August 1955 : 6th November 2020
6th August 1955 to 5th September 1955 : 6th January 2021
6th September 1955 to 5th October 1955 : 6th March 2021
6th October 1955 to 5th November 1955 : 6th May 2021
6th November 1955 to 5th December 1955 : 6th July 2021
6th December 1955 to 5th January 1956 : 6th September 2021
6th January 1956 to 5th February 1956 : 6th November 2021
6th February 1956 to 5th March 1956 : 6th January 2022
6th March 1956 to 5th April 1956 : 6th March 2022””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I join the Minister and start by sending best wishes to Evelyn Arnold. We worked together, on and off, on pensions for at least a couple of years through some very interesting and challenging times. I thoroughly respect the expertise that she brought to that process and I wish her well in retirement.
The amendment gives us an opportunity, as the Minister identified, to revisit the changes to the state pension age, which we debated when considering the Bill. We can do this in the light of the Government’s amendments, which made some modest changes to what they originally proposed. Modest they may be, but it would be churlish not to give them at least a modest welcome and in doing so to pay tribute to all those who campaigned to press for changes to the original measures.
The position is as follows. Prior to the Bill, the state pension age for women was due to rise from 60 to 65 over the decade to 2020, so that it equalised with the state pension age for men. This was provided for by legislation in 1995 under the previous Government. The Pensions Act 2007 increased the state pension age for both men and women to 66 between 2024-26, to 67 between 2034-36, and to 68 between 2044-2046. There was political consensus around these measures. The Bill changed all this by equalising the state pension age earlier, in November 2018, and by completing the increase to age 66 for men and women by March 2020. As we discussed previously, these changes will have caused some 500,000 women to have their state pension age increased by more than one year, with approximately 300,000 experiencing an increase of 18 months or over.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendments offered to us by the House of Commons and against any further amendment thereto. In doing so, I speak as one of the instigators of the initial expressions of concern in this House, which were taken up so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others, and have led to the kind of compromise that the Minister has offered us today. It is a compromise; it is not perfect and certainly not what everyone wanted. However, the alternative would be unconscionable and unachievable.
The Minister has had to labour in devising this scheme with the aid of tremendous care and iteration. He has had to operate under two major constraints. The first, which he has set out more clearly than anyone else could have, is that of cost. I shall turn back to that in a moment. The second is the equal treatment directive. Although the measure of generosity or beneficence that he has been able to offer is welcomed by members of the male gender, the directive has attenuated some of the things that he would have done—if he had not been constrained by it—for persons of the female gender, who initiated the element of concern. He has had to live with that.
I say that as the author of an amendment that the Minister briskly dismissed in Grand Committee by pointing out that it would, somewhat beyond my intention, have been likely to incur an Exchequer cost of some £6 billion, which would have been out of court to the expenditure that he has been able to undertake on it. However, the Minister has done the right thing. In particular, I emphasise the importance of having a sound and viable medium-term strategy. It is quite easy for us, even those who are more expert in the public finances than I currently am, to look at issues in the deficit reduction programme without realising or acknowledging that it is equally important that we should have a credible medium-term financial stance; and that we should show that we are prepared to keep a rein on rising expenditure. The Minister has been able to soften that slightly but he has not been able to take away the constraints.
The Minister also had a third area to think about: how we should deal with this. I am very glad that the Government have not come back with a compromise that was a kind of lash-up—another set of discretionary concessions for a limited number. That would have been better than nothing, I am sure. However, as I advocated in Committee, he has come back with what I call an architectural solution: delaying the full impact of these changes, rather than just a series of slightly unfortunate and perhaps awkward-in-precedent changes.
I have one final point for the Minister. In praising him for his measure of controlled beneficence, I also remind him that it will be equally important for long-term assurance—given the longevity factors that are not really in dispute across this Chamber; we understand how people’s longevity is rocketing—that it may be necessary to return to some of the long-term milestones and a further increase in the pension ages. When that happens, future Ministers will not be constrained by the equal treatment directive because we will have got to parity before we start. However, I would not like anyone here to feel that that issue will have to go away unattended indefinitely.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank the Minister, particularly for his amendment. However, I want to emphasise that the real winners here are the half million or so men and women who are going to get their pensions earlier than they would have done without this amendment. I was not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who felt that this was very unjust, but I congratulate the noble Lord because he recognised this with great sensitivity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that this is a compromise and that there were various constraints. It is not what we all wanted; it has not gone as far as we would have liked, but there were constraints that made that very difficult.
I tried in the amendment that I put forward to do something about what those of us who tried to change things we saw as a tremendous injustice to 300,000 older women—those who found they had to wait an extra 18 months or even more to get their pensions and 33,000 who had to wait an extra two years. Now, because of this amendment, 245,000 of those women, and a similar number of men, will see their pension age reduced between one and six months. It was not all that some of us, including Age UK, would have liked, but I am pleased to support the amendment as a victory for common sense and I thank the Minister for his sensitive approach.
With regard to going further, at this stage I just hope that no further changes will occur without due notice to everybody concerned and appropriate time for people to prepare for a huge change in their circumstances. That is very difficult to cope with at that stage in one’s life—particularly for women, who find it hard to get into the job market at all at that age or even to remain in the job market. I very much support what the Government have done, and thank the Minister again.
Lord German
My Lords, I also add my congratulations to the Minister and the Government for recognising what was the most important part of this Bill—certainly the most controversial part. When it left this House it left it unamended but, if one had taken the temperature of your Lordships’ House, it would have been quite clear that the Government had to do something to ameliorate the problem which was so well put in very many amendments. The Government have listened, and taken on board that message. They went away and came up with a compromise for which we have to be grateful. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who put down the amendment that paved a way, in a sense, for the sort of direction that the Government have adopted; it might have cost another £1 billion, but, as they say in musical terms, it was close enough for jazz.
The key issue here is that we have to recognise that, though the Government have taken this on board, it will mean a substantial improvement for women who might otherwise have been expected to work for an additional two years. As we have heard, these changes will cost £1.1 billion and affect 250,000 men and just under 250,000 women. I do not regard that as a sticking-plaster solution. It has not been put in place simply to hold the breach in the dam. Another part of the Age UK statement says that it is a big step forward. It states:
“We can’t emphasise enough the great achievement”—
the great achievement—
“that this change represents as it will cost the government £1 billion in lost cuts to expenditure”.
In fact, it will be just over £1 billion.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the Minister for the work that he has done in regard to this very complex matter. At the same time, I belong to the generation that has benefited extraordinarily from the provisions that have been made by the state and I have no worries about my pension. I am very conscious that this is an issue if not of gender justice then certainly of fairness. I recognise how difficult it is when that has to be balanced against finance, but many decisions that we make in government often demonstrate that money is spent on things that do not have quite the same moral imperative as this issue.
Noble Lords will be aware of the public pressure in respect of this matter—some will have seen the advertisements in Westminster Tube station. Perhaps we should remember that the Prime Minister himself has said that he is uncomfortable with these proposals. I recognise that there can be no universal panacea but I genuinely believe that, this being an issue of fairness, we must consider whether the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, can be supported.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the efforts that he has clearly been making and I am grateful for the changes that have been brought forward in the other place. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Prime Minister was made somewhat uncomfortable by all these protests and has perhaps looked rather deeper into the effects on the generation with which we are concerned.
I, too, am still very concerned about the age group which is most severely affected. The people in that group entered employment as far as they were able with their caring responsibilities. We should not forget the cost to the public purse of bringing up children—in an orphanage, say—if their parents do not look after them. We all know that it is mainly mothers who carry that responsibility, and that has definitely had an effect on the amount of time that they have been able to devote to whatever employment has been within their reach. Therefore, we still have a duty towards this group of women.
I accept that £11 billion is a lot of money, but there have been complications over equality and I would still like to see more done for this group. I would regard it as fair, just and proportionate if this group were given a full year. Although I should have liked to go along wholeheartedly with what the Government have achieved, I am sad to say that, with my background knowledge from many years of fighting for equality of opportunity and much greater equal treatment for women, I do not think that what the Government are proposing has gone far enough.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I recognise that amendments have been made by the Government but I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. This is not an argument against raising the state pension age. It is not even an argument against accelerating the increase in the state pension age in the face of rising life expectancy to achieve the long-term sustainability that was articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I frequently heard the quote from the noble Lord, Lord Turner, but if one gives it in its totality, he went on to say that he would also have been more radical on state pension.
As for my own situation, in 2004 I travelled the country attending public events and platforms telling people at a time when it was most unpopular to do so that the state pension age would have to rise not once but consistently. I have no difficulty in articulating the case for the need to respond to rising longevity. However, this is an argument about the manner and timing of this particular increase, which fails to take account of the need to give people sufficient time to adjust their lives and their planning for the increase. It means that a particular group of older women will disproportionately bear the burden of achieving these savings. That will happen for five simple reasons.
First, they will have lower state pensions for legacy reasons on the treatment of carers. Secondly, they will have lower private pension savings because of their economic and social position and the past incidence of gender discrimination. Thirdly, they are more likely to be undertaking caring responsibilities and less likely to be in the workforce. Fourthly, they will have lower incomes. Fifthly, they are less able to mitigate the loss of the income in the limited time available. The debate is about this particular increase, its manner and its disproportionate impact. It is not a challenge to the intellectual analysis of what you need to do to respond to rising longevity over the long term.
Those five reasons provide the essence of why the policy on this increase upsets people. It is seen as unfair. Consistently surveys show that women believe that coalition policies are seen as particularly harmful or harsh to women. We hear organisations such as the Women’s Institute articulating these concerns. At the weekend the Daily Mail highlighted the results of a Harris Poll survey showing that government support among women is slipping away. These proposals are an example of why that is so. They are very real in their impact on ordinary women. There are others, such as the change to the tax credit system, child benefit and childcare to name but a few. Yes, tough decisions have to be made. I do not disagree with that at all. But that mantra cannot be used to justify policies that consistently and disproportionately impact on women, particularly those who are carers and on low or moderate incomes. Until that is recognised there will be many more surveys revealing views of women similar to those reported by the Daily Mail at the weekend.
To get back to the point that I made in opening, the amendment of my noble friend Lord McKenzie—I know him well and we discuss these things frequently—is not a challenge to the need to respond to increasing longevity or the fact that accelerating the increase in the state pension age is part of that. In fact, the amendment does accelerate the increase in the state pension age compared with the existing proposals, and no doubt we will come on to look at ages 67 and 68. The amendment concerns the unfairness of the manner of this increase on a particular group of women for the reasons that I have laid out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Like the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie, I, too, pay a very warm and genuine tribute to Evelyn Arnold. When, back in 1997, I was trying to put women’s pensions on the political agenda, I remember being told by one Minister in the then Government—we were preparing a Green Paper on pensions and I wanted a chapter on women’s pensions—that they did not think there was anything to write about, so they did not want the chapter, but Evelyn was always a wise, staunch and fair support in ensuring that whenever we considered pensions, we ensured that the gender filter was put up in ways that were appropriate to the pension issues we faced. All of us who have been at the receiving end of her guidance are warmly appreciative of it.
We all appreciate the moves the Government have made so far. We all absolutely understand the dilemma that the Minister believes he faces: that he cannot go any further because in his view the equality directive, requiring equal treatment between men and women, takes precedence over the need to be fair to this group of women in particular. He is seeing the one against the other and believes that protecting women, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie argued in his eloquent opening speech, would mean that the rise in men’s pension age would be delayed and therefore that the cost is unaffordable. Also, goes his legal advice, we should treat men and women equally on pension age, even though through most of their working lives they have had very unequal treatment and experiences.
One of the things that struck me going into government after being in local government was that whereas local government lawyers sought to enable you to deliver your policy objectives, central government lawyers were charming, but conservative and often unhelpful, and the more unhelpful they were, the more charming they were. Discussing the equal treatment directive over the weekend with a solicitor friend who specialises in the equality directive, his immediate response was that this is “gold-plated conservativism”. The Minister said that if we tried to follow the principle in the original amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Greengross—to separate the timetable for women from that for men, which would deliver an objective we could all share and produce most of the savings that the Government want—it would risk breaching the European directive. He did not say that it would do so, but that there would be a risk. My solicitor friend told me that, on the contrary, it is for member states, not the EU or any other body, to determine the timetable for equalisation. The advice I was given was that there is no good reason why we should not pursue this detachment of women’s equalisation from men’s in the way that my noble friend’s amendment would allow as a fallback if we cannot defer men’s pension age along with that of women.
I think the Minister still has time to be brave. I think he has gone some way, and we understand the pressures he is under and appreciate what he has done so far, but what is the risk? If the advice I have received does not hold up, then women will be no worse off than they are now, but the Government, this House and women out there will know that the Government have made their best endeavours to deliver a fairer deal for women. If it does hold up, and I think there is a reasonable case that it could, some of the poorest women will have been treated fairly and decently. We know that at the moment women are carrying the burden, as my noble friend so rightly said, of benefit cuts, job cuts and public service cuts and many will now face extra conditionality—which appals me, actually—under universal credit. We have to come back to that because too many women will not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with the new burdens that the Government are putting on them at the time that they face the cuts agenda that the Government are also introducing. That is unfair. It is about political choices. I need only remind the House of the up to £8 billion that goes on the additional cost of higher rate tax relief for pensions to realise that there are still plenty of choices if the Government choose to make them or seek them.
I support my noble friend’s amendment warmly. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will consider the original purport of the compromise amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I understand where the Minister is coming from and am grateful for even that which he has done, but we should go further, and could go further, at reasonable cost, by deferring the equalisation issues until after we have protected women who are at the receiving end of most of this Government’s most savage cuts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking with the expertise and knowledge that we have grown accustomed to in this Chamber. I am particularly grateful for the mathematical expertise of my noble friend Lord German.
As I have already mentioned, the Government have acknowledged that the original timetable was too harsh on some women and have amended this. We have listened. We have amended. This is the very point of the legislative process. The elected Chamber brought forward and agreed Amendments 1 and 2 after significant and lengthy debate. Due consideration has been paid to the issue and I believe that we have reached an agreeable and responsible conclusion.
Indeed, I confess that I am slightly perplexed. We find ourselves considering a timetable that has already been proposed and defeated in a vote by both Houses. We appear to be back at square one. This should not be the case. The Government have reconsidered their original proposal and brought forward a reasonable amendment. Yet, the noble Lord opposite has still reinserted his familiar friend. I feel that we have offered a hand here and the noble Lord, like Beowulf, treats me like Grendel and tries to rip my arm off.
We have heard many of the issues today, but we have been here before and the facts have not changed. We are still talking about an £11 billion reduction in savings that the Opposition are proposing. In terms of fiscal sustainability, I hope that noble Lords can agree that this is simply not feasible.
Several issues have been raised and I want to touch on some of them. One that is of great concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Drake, in respect of the burden on women who are carers. Only around 3 per cent of women in the 55 to 59 age group are currently entitled to carers’ allowance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
There are 6 million carers and only about 500,000 of those qualify for carers’ allowance because of the very high hurdles: you have to care for at least 30 hours per week for one person in order to receive the carers’ allowance for somebody who is on middle or higher rate DLA. Those are very tough hurdles. Very many other women—hundreds of thousands—are, I know, actively caring in ways that do not permit them to be full time in the labour market or build a pension, but they do not meet those very high hurdles.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we do not have the figures on more informal care; we do not know how many are in this age group. That is not broken down—I certainly do not have the figures to hand. I am providing the figures for the women most affected with full-time caring responsibilities.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Could the Minister answer the point that I was trying to make concerning the earlier period in women’s lives, when they were caring? That also will have had a huge effect on their capacity to find employment; certainly these days it is not an easy task.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am plucking the figures slightly from my memory, but I am fairly confident that the number of women in this cohort who have already retired is 4 per cent. I know that there are arguments about how many are part time or full time and adjusting their lives, but that gives you a context for that particular issue. Of course, our concerns for the women that the noble Baroness has just described have driven us to make this amendment. That is our concern as a Government, to take away what we regarded as too harsh a provision and to offer up this amendment.
I would like to spend a little time on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the charm of our lawyers, which she has obviously experienced rather more than I have. We have spent a lot of time with the lawyers on this issue and we have not just accepted the first or even the second proposition from them. As noble Lords will acknowledge and realise, we have spent a lot of time—many months—on this particular amendment and we are confident that there are significant levels of risk in doing it the way proposed by the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which was to try to concentrate on the group of women alone. Trying to tough it out would expose us to the risk of the European Commission bringing infraction proceedings, which clearly would be unwise. If we were found in breach, we would at a minimum have to rectify the pension position for those already affected and leave the pension position for many people in limbo for several years as proceedings made their way through court. Clearly we could also be fined; the fine could be substantial and it is very difficult to put any kind of estimate on it.
My noble friend Lord German asked about future changes to the pension system. We are still considering responses to our consultation paper, which were in general very favourable to making a major reform along the lines of the single tier. We are aiming to bring forward our proposals in due course. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the future. I am grateful for the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Drake, about what is to happen in future. There was broad agreement in this House that increasing life expectancy needs to be reflected in the state pension age. I think this House acknowledges that the state pension age needs to rise so that we have a sustainable state pension system which fulfils its primary purpose—to provide a decent threshold income in retirement. Following our recent consultation, A State Pension for the 21st Century, we are currently considering how best to achieve this. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on my amendment. I will comment first on the Minister’s response.
I agree that there is broad agreement on the need to have changes to the state pension age that reflect changes to longevity, and that they must be sustainable. However, part of that judgment surely has to be the notice periods that people are given—that must be part of the equation. But otherwise, even taking account of that, we have a consensus on that issue.
The noble Lord responded to the noble Lord, Lord German, in respect of future changes to the pension system, and we still await that. The noble Lord, Lord German, tends to hide behind the prospects that come from that in defence of everything that the Government do. The noble Lord said that he was perplexed because this proposition has been defeated twice; he is absolutely right, it was defeated, and quite narrowly last time, but there is more joy in heaven and earth over a sinner who repents. Here is the Minister’s opportunity to do that.
My noble friend Lady Hollis made a telling point about the equality directive, if one listens to what the Minister said. She also made a point, for example, about higher rate tax relief. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I think, said that we wanted a medium-term strategy as well as a short-term deficit reduction strategy. I absolutely agree with that. Our proposition is that these issues of whether it is £30 billion or £20 billion should be very much part of that consideration of the medium-term strategy, together with issues such as the costs of tax relief, rather than to isolate and look at a juxtaposition of two propositions, to see if one has greater savings than the other, and therefore to condemn the one with the lesser savings.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Drake; we are not against raising the state pension age, nor against accelerating the time when that happens, but there are issues around the manner and timing of any change. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said that there was more to be done for the group of women we are considering here, particularly in view of their caring responsibilities, and I very much agree with that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells said that this was an issue of fairness and a moral imperative, and that is absolutely the issue here. The noble Lord, Lord German, has argued that this is an issue of affordability—and of course, affordability is part of it—but does affordability always have to trump fairness? I would contend not, by this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to intergenerational issues. If we look at the impact assessment and the difference of the intergenerational factors between our proposition and the Government’s, there is very little difference between the two. The noble Lord referred to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, going “further and faster”; yes, but one of the propositions of the noble Lord, Lord Turner, was that proper notice should be given to people.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, acknowledged that the Government had moved—the term “compromise” was sprinkled around the debate. It does not seem an incredibly big compromise to remove just the period between 18 months and two years for those affected, and shift those people into the “up to 18 months” category. It is some movement, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by the beneficiaries, but it does not address the fundamental problem.
I do not think that we will not have a meeting of minds on this issue—the Minister has made his position clear—and I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 17.
Lord Freud: My Lords, with Amendment 3 it will be convenient to consider Amendments 4 to 17.
Today we enter the final stages of an ambitious programme of legislation to transform the saving habits of working people in this country. Before we begin the debate, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, who throughout this detailed process have brought such value, wisdom and breadth of experience of proceedings to get us this far. Governments have benefited from a significant degree of consensus during the passage of this legislation. Our consensus has sometimes been stretched, but I hope that during this debate we will retain that consensual approach and a common goal to reshape retirement provisions fit for the next decades.
Many of my contributions to our pension debates have started with the words “Automatic enrolment”, and today is no exception. However, I stress one core feature. Automatic enrolment into a workplace pension scheme is an enduring duty: employers must put workers who satisfy age and earnings tests into a pension savings scheme and keep them in a scheme unless the individual chooses to leave. Employers may, of course, choose to close or change a scheme but, if they do, or the scheme ceases to qualify, there is a clear duty in the Bill to maintain scheme membership for all the jobholders affected by providing a replacement qualifying scheme if necessary. Employers may not induce someone to leave a scheme so that it can be closed unless they put them into another one. This is the core enduring duty.
Amendments 3 to 8 and Amendment 10 are technical amendments to make those continuity of membership provisions work as intended and make some minor technical corrections. They ensure that the automatic re-enrolment duty applies straightaway in situations where an employer, or any other third party, causes an individual to lose their membership. It also aligns this obligation to all active members irrespective of age. As a consequence we need to realign the key compliance provision in the Act that prescribes inducement with the automatic re-enrolment duty.
We also take the opportunity, with Amendments 5 and 6, to remove a redundant reference to the old style postponement provisions in the Pensions Act 2008 and amend a cross-reference in the uprating clauses which had inadvertently linked uprating to the jobholder age test rather than the automatic re-enrolment trigger. I remain grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, whose eagle eyes identified this mistake in Committee.
Noble Lords will recall that self-certification for defined contribution schemes was subjected to detailed consideration in this House. I am pleased that we were eventually able to reach agreement. Amendment 14 extends self-certification to employers using defined contribution schemes that have their main administration in another European Economic Area member state. EEA schemes are subject to the same European directives as UK schemes so members’ benefits should be similarly protected. We believe that putting EEA schemes on a comparable footing with UK schemes complies with our European Union treaty obligations.
Amendment 13 is minor, purely technical and consequential. It amends the title of Section 28 of the Pensions Act 2008 to reflect changes to the certification requirements introduced by Amendment 14, which extends the facility to EEA schemes.
Amendment 12 is a technical amendment which provides for a new test scheme standard for defined benefit schemes. This has been wrongly categorised as hybrid in the original clause. The new test standard does not alter the quality requirements for schemes but provides for them through the legislation relating to defined benefit schemes.
Amendments 15 and 16 are technical amendments to clarify the duty for employers with an existing defined benefit scheme to protect individuals. They align the rules on back payment of contributions when an employer moves a jobholder from a defined benefit scheme to a money purchase or personal pension scheme. Employers who have an open defined benefit or hybrid scheme may defer the automatic enrolment date for up to four years provided that the scheme remains open and the jobholder is still entitled to join it. Where this changes, the employer must enrol the jobholder into an alternative scheme and pay up to four years of back contributions. As drafted, the Act does not allow the employer to use a workplace personal pension as an alternative. These amendments fix that omission and ensure that the jobholder is not charged for the back payments.
Amendment 11 extends the reserve power in the Pensions Act 2008 to regulate to cap charges for deferred members in qualifying schemes. The current power to cap charges, should the need arise, applies only to active members who are paying contributions into the scheme; it does not apply to deferred members who have a dormant pension pot administered by the pension provider. It would not be fair to deferred members to be charged inappropriately high charges simply because they have moved jobs. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of schemes currently have low fund charges. However, savers may not understand the full impact that charges can have on their retirement pot. The risk that high charges could erode pension savings and bring pension saving itself into disrepute could increase as we make saving the default decision. The amendment provides a safety net for both active and deferred members in qualifying pension schemes. If we see charges creeping up after automatic enrolment, we will be able to intervene to set a cap to ensure that people’s savings are not eaten up by unreasonable charges. If such an intervention becomes necessary we will of course look at the impact across the pensions industry.
It is critical to the success of the workplace pension reforms that possible barriers to employer compliance are addressed before automatic enrolment starts. There is a potential overlap between the cross-border regulations, which deal with the provision of services by a pension scheme based in the UK with respect to an employee who is subject to the social and labour laws of another EEA state, and the automatic enrolment duty. This overlap could compromise the employer’s ability to comply with the duty. It can be complex and costly for schemes to accommodate pension rights acquired by individuals working in another EEA state and there is no obligation for schemes to do so. Amendment 17 provides for regulations that would exclude individuals who fall under the cross-border regulations from automatic enrolment. Without such a power we may find, when it is too late to address, that some employers will be unable to comply with the employer duties. Draft regulations would of course be subject to formal consultation and we would provide detail on the application of the exemption.
Additionally, the Pensions Regulator already provides guidance for employers and schemes covering the circumstances in which employees may be subject to the social and labour laws of other EEA member states and how this may make the employer a “European employer”. Should the Government make regulations, in practice the employer would need to take a view as to whether or not he is a “European employer” in relation to the employment of an individual and accordingly as to whether he should enrol that individual. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, in the consensual approach that we are invited to take by the Minister, I rise to support government Amendment 11. I am absolutely delighted and welcome the opportunity to return the compliment to the Minister in acknowledging that the Government are extending the powers in Section 16 of the Pensions Act 2008 to allow the Secretary of State to set a cap on charges to deferred members. That is significant progress, to my mind. I see that the Minister, Steve Webb, is here today, and I take the opportunity to say, “Well done”. I am taking this opportunity, too, to press him further.
As we know, with the advent of the new employer duty in October 2012, we will see millions of new savers being auto-enrolled into pension schemes. These workers will change their jobs on average 11 times over their lifetime and, in some occupations, that will be even higher. This means that, when workers leaves their job and their employer’s pension scheme, they are likely to leave a pot of pension saving that is still being administered by the pension provider but is not under the employer’s scheme. The pension pots of these deferred members, which are often modest in size, can be complex, costly and difficult to transfer and will be vulnerable to higher charges and poor governance over investment decisions.
I urge the Government, when they take the power to cap charges to deferred members, which Amendment 11 will allow them to do, not to wait to see what happens, because this is already an area that needs to be addressed. The capping or controlling of charges on deferred members by the Secretary of State should be undertaken through the microscope of the saver. If a provider cannot look after a deferred member’s pot of savings at low charges, it is for the Government to impose protection and, ideally, to facilitate the transfer of modest pension pots to NEST, where they will be looked after at a 0.3 per cent annual management charge, with very high standards of governance. Using the stakeholder cap on charges—the 1.5 to 1 per cent formula—is far too high a charge level for moderate to low income earners and should not be seen as an acceptable level for deferred members. That level of charges eats up far too much of the pension savings of low to moderate income earners. When millions of workers are automatically enrolled, the majority are unlikely actively to engage with their pension arrangements. Therefore, it is important that the Government have a very clear view of what a good pension scheme should look like and important that the Secretary of State uses the powers given under the Pensions Act 2008 to ensure that quality standards are set and met.
As to charges on pension savings, there are few barriers to entry to the market of private pension provision, and the Government need to make clear their expectations to monitor the situation to see whether those expectations are met and be prepared to respond quickly to address adverse developments. When a worker leaving a job leaves a pot of pension saving to be administered by the contract provider and is no longer in that employer’s scheme, who will exercise a duty of care in managing the worker’s investment? Who has the duty of care to ensure that the worker is not subject to high or excessive charges? This is territory within the framework of pensions reform that is much in need of further attention.
Another important area is the ability of workers who are deferred members to aggregate their different pension pots through a simple transfer process and that any charges for doing so are low or negligible. The administrative process of transfer must be made as simple as possible without significant charges being levied, and the ban on transfers to the National Employment Savings Trust should be lifted. I cannot see any gain for workers with moderate pots from that ban on transfers; I struggle to find any suggestion that it does—it can support only the industry, not the employee. I am not contradicted in that view by Paul Johnson, who was appointed by the Government to undertake the review of auto-enrolment policy. As for employers dealing with the issue of charges, transfers and the restrictions on NEST, it is not putting a burden on them. On the contrary, it will reduce the complexity they face when they are trying to do the best by their workers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend, particularly on the issue of orphan assets and the situation of deferred pensioners. As the noble Baroness explained, most men will have up to eight job changes and women will have something like 11 job changes in their lifetime, particularly when they are younger. For example, women in modest jobs, such as hairdressing or in the service industry, may at some points be self-employed and at other times be employed by different employers. They could very well end up with a pot in NEST, or its equivalent, of some £20,000 to £25,000, and several small pots of £2,000 or £2,500 from previous employments. Those little pots are too small to be annuitised, but there is no way to transfer them into the larger pot of NEST, and they cannot be trivially commuted because the NEST pot is over the £18,000 ceiling. Could the noble Lord share with the House his thinking about what women, particularly, on very modest earnings with very modest savings but with a possible multiplicity of small pots so that they can neither annuitise nor aggregate not trivially commute, are expected to do? Can the Minister assure us that he is making arrangements so that, at least at the point of retirement, they will be able to bring those miscellaneous small pots with orphan assets into the NEST pot to ensure that they get the best possible outcome in retirement?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this group of amendments, the helpful background he has given us and his kind words. As the Minister said, the amendments focus on the auto-enrolment provisions, and we put on record our support for the Government’s commitment to take these forward. My noble friend Lady Drake asked the question that I was going to ask, about timing. Could the Minister confirm that it is on track? I do not know whether the Minister can update us on issues around self-certification arrangements, and whether any progress has been made, but maybe that is a matter for correspondence outside the debate.
We remain unhappy with some of the changes to the scheme introduced by the Bill, particularly the hike in the earnings threshold, but now, frankly, is the time to make progress. Turning to the specific amendments, there are just a few points. Amendment 3 deals with continuity of scheme membership and achieves this by requiring automatic re-enrolment to take effect from the day after the day on which the jobholder ceases to be an active member of a qualifying scheme. However, the alternative of allowing a period of time for re-enrolment is preserved whereby the Secretary of State can allow for that period. Given the “day after” requirement, when is the alternative approach likely to be invoked? A similar point arises in connection with Amendment 7.
We support the extended protections dealt with by Amendments 4 and 8. My noble friend Lady Drake has given her welcome to Amendment 11, which has my welcome as well. She talked authoritatively about how important this issue is and about the changes happening in the marketplace. That is therefore a particularly important amendment.
We have no problems with Amendment 12, which deals with a test scheme for certain types of defined benefit schemes, or with Amendments 13 and 14, which deal with certification of schemes where the main administration is within the EEA.
A clarification on protections of back payments for jobholders enrolled into workplace personal pension schemes obviously has our support, but perhaps the Minister could provide us with a little more detail about the scope of Amendment 17, which provides a regulation-making power to exempt employers from auto-enrolment duties where a person is a European employer. What assurances do we have that employers would not be able to organise in such a way as to bring themselves within those “European employer” provisions and therefore be outwith auto-enrolment? An assurance on that point would be helpful but, subject to anything arising from these points, we are content and will support these amendments.
Lord Freud
First, I thank noble Lords for their stamina in listening to this debate on a very technical set of amendments indeed. They are about making sure that the legislation works, as the devil is in the detail. I repeat my thanks for all the help and support that I have had across the House on some of that detail. The important principle underpinning these refinements to automatic enrolment is that we ensure that individuals are preparing and saving for their retirement. Automatic enrolment will mean that 5 million to 8 million people will start newly saving, or saving more. This is a positive move, on which I know there is consensus across the House.
Turning to the specific questions, I will start with timing, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. She asked when the new duty for employers will come in. I am happy to confirm that automatic enrolment will begin, as planned, next year. On self-certification, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we recently finished a formal consultation on draft regulations, which are on track to be in place for next year.
On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, of the deferred member charge cap, we are extending a reserve power which we have to set a charge cap for pension schemes used for automatic enrolment. This reserve power is intended to be a safety net and to allow the Government to step in and protect all members of automatic enrolment schemes from inappropriate high charges. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not right that members are charged higher fees just because they move jobs. We remain vigilant about charges in the pensions industry. We see the market as broadly competitive at the moment, with the majority of workplace pension schemes having annual management charges of less than 1 per cent. We expect NEST and competitive forces to keep the downward pressure on charges but this power will enable us to intervene if necessary and make sure that members are not charged excessive fees. The stakeholder group Which? has strongly supported this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for her support on this important issue and am confident that it will gain support across the House.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, raised the issue of small pension pots, which perhaps goes slightly wider than this set of amendments and on which we spent a lot of time in Committee. On average, individuals will change employers 11 times during their working lives. DWP modelling suggests that after 2017 this will lead to in excess of 200,000 small pension pots of less than £2,000 being created each year. We want to ensure that people can get control of their pensions, build up a single substantive pot and be able to purchase a good annuity. In the interim government response to the call for evidence on regulatory differences that we have published, we have committed to setting out a decision on short-service refunds and addressing small pension pots. We know that this will be difficult, which is why need to work with employers, the pensions industry and consumer organisations on tackling this. For this reason, we intend to publish the full set of proposals in the autumn and to consult widely on possible options. These will include considering whether an individual’s pension pot could follow them from job to job as they move employers. The action for this would be behind the scenes and would require little action from the individual. Perhaps it is too early to say whether this will be possible, but this is an important issue, as the noble Baronesses pointed out, and one that we need to get right.
I turn to some of the more technical issues on which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, sought assurances. Continuity in automatic enrolment is covered by Amendments 3 and 7 to Clause 4. They create the default position that, in continuity of scheme membership cases—where an individual ceases to be a member of a qualifying scheme through no fault of their own—an employer must automatically re-enrol the jobholder from the day after the day on which they ceased to be a member of a qualifying scheme. The clause, as amended, still allows for a period to be prescribed during which the enrolment must occur. We do not intend to prescribe a period. This is purely a precaution in case it becomes clear that circumstances exist in which it is not possible for an employer to comply within the one-day timescale.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was also looking for an assurance on cross-border provision around Amendment 17. The amendment provides for a power to make regulations. It does not change our policy on automatic enrolment. If the power is exercised, the regulations will exclude a jobholder from automatic enrolment only if they are an individual in relation to whom their employer is a European employer, as set out in regulations under the 2004 Act. An employer is a European employer only if he has worker who, by virtue of his contract of employment, is sufficiently located in another EEA state for the social and labour laws relevant to the occupational pensions of that state to apply. The risk of a jobholder being in this position is relatively small. The definition does not cover workers who are posted to another EEA state for a limited period to work in that state for their UK-based employer.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think the Minister said that auto-enrolment was due to start on time next year? Could he confirm that the proposed and published timetable for staging will remain as it is?
Lord Freud
My Lords, yes, I can confirm that we currently plan to move along the timetable as set out.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 to 28.
Lord Freud
My Lords, in discussing Amendment 18, it is convenient also to discuss Amendments 19 to 28. These amendments are about the revaluation and indexation of pensions—that is, revaluing deferred pensions at the point at which they are put into payment and indexing pensions once they are in payment. The first five amendments relate to the change to using the consumer prices index as a measure of inflation and the others are about the indexation of cash balance schemes. The changes to Clause 15 are a positive response to the consultation on the change to using the CPI as the measure of inflation. The consultation ended in March and we published the Government’s response on 16 June. There were more than 150 responses, many of which were technical and detailed.
The areas that attracted the most comments were the CPI underpin and revaluation. There were also concerns about the CPI underpin provision already there for indexation. Respondents suggested that this was too restrictive and unhelpful for corporate restructuring. Removing the CPI underpin for the revaluation of deferred pensions was not originally covered because the different ways indexation and revaluation work means that the likelihood of the CPI acting as underpin for revaluation is small. However, we have listened to the consultation responses, which indicated that even a small risk has consequences for administration and investment costs. The amendment adds a new method of calculating a revaluating addition to Schedule 3 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Some schemes will be able to continue calculating revaluation additions using the retail prices index. They will not be obliged to undertake additional calculations using the CPI as well.
We also made easier the application of the CPI underpin exception for pensions in payment. The test now targets whether RPI-based increases have actually been paid rather than whether the rules require RPI-based increases. The amendments also make sure that the application of the CPI underpin exception survives transfers. We do not want the possibility of a CPI underpin to become a barrier to scheme restructuring. The amendment ensures that the provision to address the underpin problem survives a transfer if the result is that the member has received RPI-based increases since the start of 2011 and will continue to do so.
I turn to Amendments 24 to 28 to Clause 17, which removes the requirements for cash balance scheme annuities to have a limited price index. Amendment 24 does not represent any change in policy; it simply makes a technical change to clarify that schemes that are or were contracted out on a defined benefit basis are still subject to indexation requirements. Amendments 25 to 28 remove the potential for confusion. They ensure that schemes that pay a pension commencement lump sum, or allow a survivor’s benefit of a set percentage of the member’s benefit, can be included in the definition of cash balance schemes and can benefit from this easement. They also ensure that the existing indexation requirements continue to apply to career average schemes or schemes that guarantee a member a pension calculated as a percentage of the lump sum. It was never the intention to exclude these types of scheme from the indexation requirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I can see the purpose of Amendments 18 to 23, particularly the need to address the consequences of the Government’s decision to use the CPI for the statutory revaluation of pension benefits, yet not proceeding to introduce a statutory override to pension schemes whose rules explicitly provide for the revaluation additions to be calculated by reference to the RPI. I recognise that where the statutory method uses the CPI, there is an inconsistency for schemes that apply the RPI in the very infrequent event that the CPI exceeds the RPI in a particular year. In such a situation, schemes paying the RPI would, without these amendments, be faced with a statutory underpin of CPI. In effect, the rules of schemes that apply RPI would be interpreted to mean that revaluation is calculated by reference to the CPI or the RPI, whichever is the greater.
This amendment would remove that underpin requirement and allow schemes to continue to revalue by reference to the RPI, which would seem sensible and reasonable. While the Government are to be congratulated on not imposing a statutory override on pension scheme rules to apply the CPI rather than the RPI, where the rules so explicitly provide, the need for these amendments occur in part because of the open-ended decision by the Government to substitute the CPI for the RPI in the uprating of most benefits. It is with some regret that the Government did not put a time limit on that switch from RPI to CPI. There is scope for a review because I am sure that over the long term, when the economy returns to strong growth and earnings outstrip prices, and the price of key items is excluded from the indexation, the Government will need to revisit this matter.
That is particularly so for pensions, although I doubt that the Government will revisit this now. The change to the CPI from the RPI for evaluation effects a switch of assets and benefits from scheme members to scheme sponsors and does not directly impact the public deficit. None the less, it is clear that these amendments are a necessary flow-through from the Government’s decision, and I can see no reason to oppose them.
Amendments 24 to 28 are technical in nature and address matters relating to the indexing of the guaranteed minimum pension. Again, I see no reason to disagree with them.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, during our discussions on the Bill, one of the issues that raised a lot of controversy was the report that the Government intended to tell occupational pension schemes that in future they must apply the CPI rather than the retail prices index. That certainly led to a lot of opposition from people in occupational schemes. It also led to a lot of opposition from people in public sector schemes, because I gather that the Government are applying the CPI to public sector schemes instead of the retail prices index, which of course produces—currently, anyway—much larger increases than the CPI. I should therefore be grateful for confirmation from the Government that if an occupational scheme desires to continue with the RPI it will not be forced to apply the CPI, and that if it wishes to apply the retail prices index it will be able to do so, even though that is likely to produce—and will continue to be likely to produce—larger increases than the CPI.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this group of amendments cover Part 3 of the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her remark that the amendments are technical in nature and that she has no problem with them.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on private occupational pension schemes. I can confirm that these underpin arrangements are about the ability of such schemes to maintain their own arrangements. There is no legislative pressure on them in that way.
(2) After section 181A of that Act insert—
Money purchase benefits: supplementary (1) This section applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in section 181(1).(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this section if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the member.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this section if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the member is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this section by virtue of subsection (2).(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this section references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(3) In section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008 (interpretation) in the definition of “money purchase benefits” for “which are not average salary benefits” substitute “which fall within section 99A”.
(4) After that section insert—
Money purchase benefits: supplementary(1) This section applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in section 99.(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this section if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the member.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this section if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the member is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this section by virtue of subsection (2).(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this section references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(5) In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 10A to the Building Societies Act 1986 (disclosures about directors etc), in the definition of “money purchase benefits”, for “which are not average salary benefits” substitute “which fall within paragraph 1A”.
(6) In that Schedule, after paragraph 1 insert—
“1A (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in paragraph 1(2).(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this paragraph if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the director.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this paragraph if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the director is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this paragraph by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this paragraph references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(7) The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are to be regarded as having come into force on 1 January 1997.
(8) The amendments made by subsections (3) and (4) are to be regarded as having come into force at the same time as section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, on 27 July 2011, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Bridge Trustees v Houldsworth and another. This was the first occupational pension scheme case considered at the Supreme Court and dealt with the meaning of “money purchase benefit” in pensions law. This definition is a fundamental concept underpinning the design of the regulatory framework for pensions, and it is vital that trustees, employers and members are all clear about the meaning of the term.
Despite accepting that Parliament and Ministers had legislated over a number of years on the assumption that a money purchase benefit could not develop a funding deficit or surplus, the Supreme Court decided that certain benefits that could develop funding deficits or surpluses could still fall within the definition of money purchase benefit. This means that the judgment will result in some schemes being regarded as money purchase benefits under the current legislation, even if it is possible for funding deficits to arise in respect of those benefits. For example, under the judgment, even when benefits are subject to a guarantee in the build-up phase, they should be considered to be money purchase benefits, or where schemes use money purchase rights to provide a pension from the scheme itself, rather than to purchase annuities from an insurer, the pensions should be considered to be money purchase.
The judgment will place some benefits outside the scope of a wide range of legislation that was put in place to safeguard members’ benefits. Money purchase benefits are not covered by scheme funding or employer debt requirements; nor do they have access to the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme. If the judgment stands, the members will not be protected for certain sorts of benefits in the event of the scheme not being able to pay out; yet these workers thought that their rights were protected. For example, if you get a pension from the scheme rather than from an annuity provider, you expect to continue to get that pension, irrespective of what happens to your former employer. This position has been put in doubt by the judgment and it is important to act quickly to provide clarity and certainty for those workers.
Following the judgment, the Government announced the intention to legislate as soon as possible to provide clarity for trustees, employers and members. I appreciate that noble Lords may consider it unusual for the Government to bring forward such amendments at this stage in the Bill, but we consider it necessary that we legislate to protect members immediately. The pensions industry expected this amendment, and it wants certainty so as to be able to operate and advise schemes. Indeed, the Society of Pension Consultants urged us to make an amendment to this Bill. It said:
“We can understand the government's decision to legislate in the way it intends. However, we would ask that the government passes the necessary legislation as soon as practicable, perhaps as an addition to the Pensions Bill”.
These amendments clarify the definition of “money purchase benefit”. They also take associated regulation-making powers. I take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that these powers will be subject to public consultation and the affirmative procedure—both stakeholders and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations.
Law is based on words, and having a common understanding of what the law means is essential not just for law-makers but for society as a whole. If trustees, employers and members are unclear about what sort of benefits their scheme is providing, that simply produces uncertainty and confusion.
Section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 defines money purchase for the purpose of that Act. This is the core definition of money purchase benefit on which subsequent law builds. Amendment 29 amends Section 181 to restore the definition of money purchase benefit to the meaning that it was widely believed to bear before the Bridge litigation. The revised definition makes it clear that only a benefit that is calculated solely by reference to the relevant assets—or, where the benefit is a pension in payment, that is backed by a matching annuity contract or insurance policy—is a money purchase benefit.
If there is any additional form of “promise” in relation to a benefit, it cannot be a money purchase benefit. For example, if there is a guaranteed investment return in the build-up phase, that is not a money purchase benefit; or if a scheme has promised to pay a set rate of annuity that is not backed by a matching asset such as an insurance policy, that is not a money purchase benefit. It is simple; if there is a promise, there needs to be something to back it up.
A money purchase benefit is one derived solely from the relevant assets. In other words, the member gets the value of the contributions, plus the real investment return, less any administrative expenses. The previous definition stated that average salary benefits were not a money purchase benefit. This reference has been removed because, following these amendments, it is not necessary explicitly to exclude one type of non-money purchase benefit from the definition.
The proposed new clause also amends similar definitions of money purchase benefit at Section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008 and in Schedule 10A to the Building Societies Act 1986. Amendment 30 enables the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements for specified types of schemes.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 32. The purpose of Amendment 29A is to give absolute clarity to the legal meaning of a money purchase benefit in so far as it relates to pensions in payment. As the Minister said, the Government’s Amendment 29 is addressing the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bridge and restoring the legal meaning of money purchase benefits to that narrower meaning it was understood by most observers to have before the litigation. In doing this, it is restoring what was understood to be the extent of protection to scheme members and beneficiaries when their pension benefits could face funding deficits and preserving their potential access to the Pension Protection Fund. It is the Government’s intention that a pension in payment is a money purchase benefit if its provision is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy. I do not disagree with that intention.
My concern is that the legislation should make it absolutely clear that any annuity purchase for a pension in payment must explicitly be in the name of that member and ring-fenced for them. I am not confident that the wording of subsection 3(a) of the new Section 181B inserted by the Government’s Amendment 29, which is before us, does that. My amendment simply adds the words,
“in the name of the member”,
to make crystal clear that the annuity must be ring-fenced for that member. The Government’s view, with which I have no disagreement, is that normally pensions in payment within a scheme are not money purchase benefits as the amount of the liability of that pension is unlikely to be matched exactly by assets held by the scheme. That being the case, there will always be scope for a deficit or a surplus in the funding of those pensions in payment. The exception, which the Government’s amendment allows for and which they propose to include within the definition of money purchase benefit is pensions in payment secured by annuity. Again, I have no disagreement with that proposal.
I repeat that my concern is that, in purchasing those annuities and insurance policies, schemes might not necessarily have ring-fenced such policies for the members concerned. They may have been secured as assets of the scheme as a whole and not for the named pensioner in receipt of a pension, which would not be unusual. Should that be the case, it would mean that those with a pension in payment would not have an automatic right to those assets in the event that there was an employer default on an underfunded scheme. Members could lose out if the scheme was wound up or underfunded.
I know that the Government’s intention is that the definition of money purchase is such that members should have the benefits of these annuities ring-fenced to them, but I am concerned that the Government’s amendment still leaves room for ambiguity because it does not, to use layman’s words, nail the point that the annuity must be held in the name of the member. My amendment simply seeks to provide that nail and so adds the phrase,
“in the name of the member”.
Current legislation has allowed the Supreme Court decision to arise notwithstanding the intention of policymakers, so if we are to avoid Lady Bracknell’s descriptive distinction between two comparable events, I believe it is appropriate to tighten the wording of the definition of money purchase benefits to reduce the likelihood of a similar problem in the future.
My amendment does not question the intention of the Government’s Amendment 29. I agree with them. All I am trying to do by the deployment of a few words is to make absolutely clear that a pension in payment is a money purchase benefit only if it is secured by an annuity or insurance policy in the name of that member.
Amendment 32 confers upon the Government the power to change the definition of money purchase benefit in the future, and one can see the common sense reason for this. Having been faced with a Supreme Court decision which ran contrary to what most observers thought was the definition, it is better to reserve powers to address a simple or comparable problem should it arise in the future—and other complexities may arise. The definition of a money purchase benefit is important because money purchase benefits are not subject to the regulation designed to mitigate deficits in a pension fund and to extend particular protections to pension scheme members.
What I am concerned about is the breadth of the power conferred on the Government or the Secretary of State by Amendment 32. I am particularly concerned that it could be used retrospectively to remove access to Pension Protection Fund protection from scheme members and beneficiaries by broadening the definition of money purchase benefit. I have similar concerns in respect of people having access to the financial assistance scheme.
The Pension Protection Fund exists to offer a level of protection to members of occupational pension schemes, unless they are excluded for certain reasons, the main ones being the existence of a crown guarantee; the trustees having compromised a fund debt; and that it is a money purchase scheme.
I am sure that the Government have no intention to use the power conferred by their Amendment 32 to remove Pension Protection Fund protection from schemes or members as currently defined. None the less, it would appear that the powers extended to the Government in Amendment 32 would allow such a possibility in the future. It is not clear to me what other existing statutory provisions, if any, would overlay the Government’s ability to use these powers. Put simply: what would limit a Government’s freedom to use the power conferred by Amendment 32 in a way that meant pension scheme members and beneficiaries would lose out?
I ask the Minister, if this amendment is made to the Bill, what, if any, limits would there be on the Government’s power retrospectively to remove protections from members and beneficiaries of funded pension schemes facing deficit and/or default. In respect of the other amendments in this group, they are largely technical in nature and I see no reason to disagree or query them. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her precision analysis in this area, which—I say this as a compliment—has had the team seriously thinking about the issues involved. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for applying such scrutiny to the powers contained within the Bill. I trust that noble Lords are as content with the Government’s amendments, even though they have some broad powers within them, as the committee was after its consideration.
Let me turn now to Amendment 29A. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, highlights a key question. How do we ensure that those people whose benefits are classified as money purchase benefits in payment, because their scheme has bought an annuity to match the liability, actually benefit from that annuity? The Government share the noble Baroness’s aim in laying this amendment, but the issue is how one ensures the right outcome. I have concerns that the way this amendment is designed could have desirable consequences and place an unnecessary regulatory burden on schemes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I think that perhaps the noble Lord meant “undesirable” consequences.
Lord Freud
My Lords, when I look down at my notes, which perhaps I should do more frequently, I do notice that the word is “undesirable” and not “desirable”. I am most grateful that we have the record absolutely correct on this.
Baroness Drake
I thank the noble Lord for his detailed reply. I appreciate that trustees may not purchase individual annuities for individual members and can take out insurance policies for a number of members, but it is important to catch that issue of the policy or the annuity identifying the members covered so that it is clearly ring-fenced. One cannot leave an ambiguity at the purchase of the policy or annuity stage and then hope that somehow there will be clarity around ring-fencing if and when a legal challenge comes. I am very concerned that there are no ambiguities left, because either we will see another Bridge case or we will leave unprotected a group of members that the Government intend to protect. I note the Minister’s reference to making regulation and urge him to ensure that those regulations, when applied to this amendment in this clause, extend the protection with as much clarity as is possible to do under regulation.
With regard to the new powers, I appreciate that evolution can occur in the area of money purchase benefits. It is important to have on the record the Government’s recognition that the insolvency directive will limit the way in which the Government can exercise those powers in Amendment 32 and that the protection of people in funded occupational schemes is not diminished by this amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29A.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 30 to 35.
Energy: Feed-in Tariffs
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat as a Statement an Urgent Question made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Climate Change.
“Since the feed-in tariffs scheme started it has been successful in encouraging people up and down the country to get involved in local, clean, green energy generation. Solar PV has led the way and over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity. But let us be clear: the current returns now available on solar PV investments, funded by consumers through their energy bills, are unsustainable. Falling PV costs mean returns are double those originally envisaged under the scheme. This does not provide value for money for the consumer.
If we do not act now, the entire £877 million FITs budget for the current spending review period will be fully committed within the next few months. That would limit the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs in general. We are therefore urgently consulting on new tariffs for solar PV installations. Because of the urgency, we propose that these new tariffs apply to all new installations that become eligible for FITs on or after a reference date, which we propose should be 12 December. We are also seeking views on other proposals, including one to strengthen the link between feed-in tariffs and energy efficiency. It cannot be right, and it is a fault of the system we inherited, that we currently subsidise renewable energy generation for inefficient buildings.
We are determined to secure successful feed-in tariffs through sustainable growth rather than through boom and bust. That is why we are consulting today on new tariffs for solar PV: to save the FITs budget in the interests of all eligible technologies and to bring much greater coherence to this Government’s ambitious policy to green Britain’s homes”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House today. It is not the first time that we have discussed feed-in tariffs in your Lordships’ House. I have to say to the Minister that I was surprised to receive an e-mail this morning announcing that a Written Statement was due to be issued. Given the public interest, I was surprised that the Government wanted to issue a Written Statement rather than an Oral Statement. I appreciate this, and I am grateful to the Minister for repeating it. With thousands of jobs and businesses at risk, he will understand the concern that this could have been slipped out as a Written Statement without the opportunity to seek answers to some very important questions in your Lordships’ House.
The Minister will recall that we discussed this issue in your Lordships’ House just before the Summer Recess. Given that the order we debated then made significant changes to the feed-in tariff system following a previous consultation, can the Minister tell us why, so very soon after one consultation and legislative change, the Government have now initiated another?
When I asked the department about this previously I was informed that the consultation was required because of a loophole in the law. I found this quite surprising, because I was concerned about whether the issues addressed in this consultation that seek to plug that loophole were evident or should have been evident at the time of the last consultation. When did the Government become aware of this loophole, and would it have been reasonable for them to have been aware of it sooner, prior to this consultation—indeed at the time of the previous consultation?
Does the Minister really understand—I am sure he does—how difficult it is for investors to have any confidence in the Government if the goalposts on feed-in tariffs keep moving, making it more and more difficult for them? Are they supposed to guess what the next so-called loophole will be that the Government will try to plug? This is the second significant change in a matter of months. I have to say to the Minister that it seems to be a bit of a shambles. I am sure he is aware that investors need certainty, and this merry-go-round of consultations and changes provides exactly the opposite for investors and for the industry. What message will the Minister give to current and potential investors, and will he offer an apology to them for the chopping and changing that we have witnessed over the past two months?
As I said in our previous debate on this issue, to say that only the Government wanted to see any changes in the feed-in tariffs and that everybody else wanted to leave the feed-in tariffs as they were creates a false dividing line. Investors and others are aware that installation costs have fallen by around 30 per cent, and it was recognised that feed-in tariffs would change in line with that. Many preferred a tapered change.
What is not understood is why the Government have reduced the tariffs by more than 50 per cent, which is a significantly larger amount than the reduction in costs. With a new rate of 21p per kilowatt hour, less than half the previous rate, has any assessment been made of the impact on jobs and businesses? Last year the solar industry employed 3,000 people in 450 businesses. Today it employs 25,000 people in 3,000 businesses. Has any impact assessment been undertaken of the impact on jobs and investment in business?
In the previous consultation just a few months ago, over 80 per cent of those who responded opposed the Government’s plans. What level of support do the Government expect for the plans they have issued in this current consultation? What notice will be taken of the consultation this time? Although the consultation does not finish until 23 December, the cut-off date for eligibility under the current scheme ends before that on 12 December, in just six weeks’ time. Will the Minister take any note of the responses to the consultation, or is this a pronouncement of government policy rather than a consultation on possible or intended changes to government policy?
I listened with interest to the Statement in the other place earlier today, and I thought I heard the Minister, Greg Barker, say, if I understood him correctly, that there could be individual exceptions to the cut-off date. Does the Minister know what these are, or what the process will be for those individual exceptions? Can any advice be given to those who have already commissioned domestic solar power systems and paid a deposit but who will not have been able to manage the installation, certification and official registration by 12 December?
Has any assessment been made of the impact on community projects, and are the Government worried that the changes being made will mean that those on lower incomes are now far less likely to benefit, while those on higher incomes are more likely to be able to do so? It might be helpful if I quote to your Lordships’ House a gentleman called Nigel Farren from Energise Barnet, who says: “Churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, sports clubs and other community organisations across the country are getting together to establish energy saving initiatives so they can lower energy bills, reduce carbon emissions, and eradicate fuel poverty among their members. Unless community-owned projects and community-buying group initiatives are ring-fenced from the feed-in tariff cuts, the trust of these organisations and thousands of volunteers will be lost, setting back the whole green agenda in keeping secure their help in delivering the Green Deal”.
Finally, the Secretary of State Chris Huhne said to the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change earlier this year,
“The next time someone asks where the growth is coming from, you can tell them. Green energy”.
It is a sad irony that on the very day the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announces funding for 35,000 new jobs, a successful industry that has created 20,000 jobs in the last year seems to have had the rug pulled from right underneath it.
At the beginning of the Minister’s comments he said that this was a successful scheme. It is, and we want it to remain so—we take great pride in the capacity that it has built up and those who benefit from the current scheme. We know that there have to be some changes, but these are very serious issues that I have raised today, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer my questions.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions—quite a lot of them—which I will deal with. I will, I hope, cover the canvas of this particular issue.
The motive for the Government here is putting consumers first. That is absolutely fundamental in these difficult times. I was delighted that Consumer Focus should say that the Government are,
“taking a sensible approach to protect energy bill-payers with the proposed changes to Feed-in Tariffs. Incentives to overcome the high set-up cost of solar panels and help make our energy supply greener are necessary. But the cost for this is passed onto bills of energy customers and we need to strike a balance”.
I do not think you can say it more clearly than that. That is at the very heart of the difficult decision that we have had to take in changing these rules.
Why was this initiated? It was initiated simply because if we carried on at the current rate at which people are taking up this thing, we would have run out of money by March. Therefore there would have been no money available to pay for other excellent initiatives that have the benefit of feed-in tariffs such as anaerobic digesters and other projects that we have out there.
We read in the St Albans & Harpenden Review that a solar panel company is advertising panels at £3,995, which is down enormously from the original cost—not by 30 per cent but by nearly 60 per cent. There is also a guaranteed IRR of 14 per cent, backed by the Government through an incentive scheme that frankly has become overheated and bloated and is in danger of ripping off consumers and those who invest in it. So of course the goalposts have been moved for the investors who the noble Baroness wants to have a clear path. Of course, they brought it upon themselves to a large extent by advertising schemes that show that government-backed schemes have outstanding benefit beyond the normal rate of investment return. It is reasonable in the current world that we have an investment return of 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent, which is what the new tariff would offer.
The impact on jobs is regrettable, given that an industry has developed. I am sure the employers will look very closely at that and will hopefully look to the export market, where, as we all know, the sun shines more often than it does in this country. I have just been on a visit to China, and I offer to support any solar panel manufacturer in their export endeavours. As we all know, one of the unfortunate things about this country is that the sun does not always shine when we need energy most, and we have the shortest days of the year.
The Government are left with a choice. Does the tariff represent value for money for the customer? Does it represent value for the taxpayer? Does it have a real impact on the supply of electricity to homes, which is currently 0.1 per cent and could go up to 0.3 per cent? Do we have the climatic environment that is necessary or beneficial for this type of product? The answer is that we believe it could be used better elsewhere.
The noble Baroness asked further questions on cut-off dates, the response to the consultation and community things. Of course, the whole point of consultation is that we are consulting. This is not an edict but a consultation period. We want to listen to views before we go ahead with our proposals and we will look at exceptions, which is the point. On community projects, it is important that we maintain community buy-in. That is why we have agreed to keep 80 per cent of this tariff for aggregated schemes, which will still provide a return on investment of around 4 per cent. Because the purchasing power of these solar panels can drive greater economies of scale, they should be able to benefit more from IRR. Therefore, it is wholly in tune with this Government’s policy, which is to be the greenest Government ever and to deliver a benefit for consumers. That is at the heart of these proposals.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, it is clear that one of the challenges, as mentioned by the Minister and the noble Baroness, is the sustainability of this industry. One area in which I would give sympathy to the Minister is that if we have an industry that steams ahead until next April but then there is no money and everything stops, we will be in the situation that Spain and Germany have been in in the past whereby we have built up an industry that then completely disappears. We need to make sure that that does not happen and that we have a sustainable industry. We want a sustainable environment that works over a number of years and builds up, which is why I am sympathetic to trying to achieve that in these measures.
Having said that, one of the most unfortunate things is that we are moving to the second review on FIT rates in a short period. Where we have a global investment market in energy—in the United Kingdom we have a requirement, estimated by Ofgem, which is often quoted, of £200 billion of investment over the next 10 years—how can we make sure that the investing community remains confident in government schemes and that investment in our energy systems, energy plants and energy distribution systems can be sustained? One change to FIT rates is unfortunate, two might be careless, but another one would mean that we could destroy confidence in investment in this industry. It is not perhaps so much of a problem for manufacturing industries, but the installation industry in this country is far less mobile.
Although I applaud the Government’s efforts to make sure that this business and this industry stay sustainable over a number of years, how will the Minister ensure that that confidence, not just of households but of other larger investors, remains in the UK energy market?
Lord Marland
As always, my noble friend Lord Teverson is well informed about these matters and I am grateful for his broadly supportive comments. I totally agree and accept that the confidence of the investor is paramount. However, put yourself in the position of the Government. We inherited a scheme of feed-in tariffs that did not consider the fact that the more solar panels that are bought, the cheaper they become, as illustrated by this argument; and that a pot of money is available to support this scheme, which becomes a scheme for which the IRR is way beyond most people’s dreams and beyond what is reasonable for consumers. At some point, a decision has to be made to say stop or pause or to take action. That is broadly the step that we have taken on this.
I wholly agree that getting future investment and the infrastructure of this country right is fundamental, but we have to get that right against the backcloth of heavy lifters in the game changes for the electricity supply. As I have already indicated, I do not believe that the 0.1 per cent, or the £3.2 billion that we will have saved the consumer, is the right change of game plan for electricity in this country.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Perhaps I may remind the House that this is an Oral Statement and that interventions should be limited to brief comments and questions.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. My concern is that this is merely about the Government’s priorities, which are being set by a modelling of the energy system that is proving to be utterly incapable of modelling what happens in the real world. This is now the second set of changes whereby a successful industry is essentially being cut off at the knees because of an unexpected success rate, when this is something that we should be championing and backing. The Government must accept that if their modelling is incorrect, they must go back to first principles and work out which technologies are going to deliver the step change that they describe. No matter how much money is thrown at some technologies, they may not succeed—I am thinking of CCS and the current generation of nuclear.
The Government saying, “This is just too successful, we cannot afford it”, is not a good answer. We must go back to first principles and ensure that our successes continue to be successes. If they are having trouble now with feed-in tariffs, they will have even more trouble when they look at energy market reforms and try to fix prices for the long term on the big generators. That should be settled by the market. I am very concerned that the modelling is incorrect and that trying to fix prices is just the beginning. We should probably look at market-based solutions.
Lord Marland
The noble Baroness is completely right. The modelling was incorrect. We inherited it and we have sought to get it right. As I asked earlier when I talked about government priorities, do we think that this is a game changer in electricity supply and that it is in the best interests of the consumer? The answer from Consumer Focus is no. As regards the game change in the electricity supply of 0.1 per cent, even if every house had them the figure would get to only 0.3 per cent. Therefore, this goes down the list of priorities. I am afraid that it is not a government priority, given the massive problem that we will have for electricity in the 2020s.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, first, I declare my interest: I chair a very small community interest company, a social enterprise, that was set up in order to get cheaper, more sustainable fuel into poor and deprived communities. It has had a good success rate in doing that and the next phase was to seek to introduce solar PV. I am interested that the Minister thinks that it is not very successful. I could take him to some elderly residents in my previous constituency who have solar and which works remarkably well for them. They were looking forward to solar PV to deal with electricity. The reality is that the Government are taking a huge risk with the market. I want to be sure that they are watching that they do not kill off the market altogether with these actions.
The other issue is that nationally—not just in the north-east and Yorkshire from where the company to which I referred operates—the work on due diligence, tenant consultation and so forth has meant that very little work has been done in terms of installing solar PV on social housing. I want to be sure that in the changes the Government will not penalise tenants in social housing. I confess that I have not read all of this very thick document, although I have tried to do so, but I am not convinced that the Government have really thought their way through getting to social housing. Will the Minister tell us what his thinking is? Would he also meet people and a delegation from those organisations concerned to tackle fuel poverty and to use solar PV as one of the means of enabling social housing tenants to avoid paying the high end of energy costs, as they often seem to do at the moment?
Lord Marland
Obviously, the whole point of the consultation is that we have representation from the noble Baroness and those communities that she represents. I would be delighted to meet them and pursue this issue in greater detail.
The scheme has been successful—too successful—and that is why we are taking these steps. As I referenced earlier, there is a continuation for aggregated schemes. From the communities’ point of view, surely the most important thing that we can do to support them is to have a retrofit programme. If we start from that end, solar PV makes sense. That is why the Green Deal is so important and is a banner product for this new Government.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for the start of my noble friend’s Statement, but I had already read it. I welcome what he said about the importance of protecting consumers. I am not sure the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, recognised the fact that the cost of this is actually borne by the consumers of electricity; it is not paid for by the Government. The Government put an envelope around the maximum sum. In fact, the figures show that it will increase by nearly three-and-a-half times over three years. Nobody could accuse anybody of being stingy on that one. The fact is that any of these subsidies for special help to different forms of electricity generation goes straight through the companies on to electricity bills. I do not know whether the noble Baroness studies her own electricity bill; mine shows the amount that is being paid towards government subsidies—at the moment. What is it going to be in 2020? Ask Ofgem and it will tell you.
Why is it that not until paragraph 19 is there is a reference to the,
“placing a financial obligation onto energy companies, which is then passed onto the consumer through energy bills”?
If this consultation document had paid as much attention to that factor as my noble friend did in his Statement, I think it would be a great deal easier to understand.
Lord Marland
As always, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his intervention. It sets up the fundamental question: what is going to be the cost of FITs on the consumer’s energy bill by 2020? It is going to be £26. Bringing in these steps will reduce it to £3, which some people might not want to spend, but it is a considerable reduction. My noble friend is quite right about putting the consumer first, and I apologise that those in my department are masters of disguising that fundamental point.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, given that the coalition agreement includes a strong commitment to encouraging community ownership of renewable energy projects, what advice can the Minister give to the community energy co-operatives around the country? I am aware of three in my area that have live share offers at this moment. It is now unclear whether their proposed projects remain viable. Should they continue to solicit funds? Does the Minister recognise, as I do, that further reductions of the feed-in tariffs for installations at more than one site—which, I understand, were put in in order to get rid of the “rent a roof” schemes—actually threaten community projects that cover more than one site, such as local hospitals in Warwickshire or local schools in my area in Wey Valley?
Lord Marland
I am very grateful to my noble friend. The fact is that if we did not act now, there would be nothing in the pot for those schemes to which she is referring because it would be empty by March for the next spending review period. We have taken this action to allow community schemes, among others, to carry on. This is not retroactive. If you are in the scheme already, you are still benefiting from it. It is new regulation that we are bring in. I hope that gives her a degree of comfort. I am, of course, happy to explore it during the consultation process and, as always, I am delighted to hear my noble friend’s views.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, which I hope will be one of a series aiming to reduce the subsidies available for renewable energy, as the Government seek to limit their cost to the consumer and to the economy.
The Written Statement issued today in the name of Mr Gregory Barker stated:
“Over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity”.
Will the Minister say whether he meant all their own electricity or just some of it, perhaps including those who generate only a very small part of their own electricity? Will he give any figures to indicate how much electricity is being generated or has been generated to date by solar PV, and how much do the Government hope or expect will be generated in the future?
Lord Marland
I will have to write to my noble friend on the latter question. The answer to the first question is as in the Statement—that over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:15 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
20:55 - Division on Amendment 16 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 16 disagreed.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Localism Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 10 : Fire and rescue authorities: charging
Amendment 1
Baroness Eaton
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2. I have tabled these probing amendments in order to request clarity from my noble friend the Minister. This is an amendment to allow fire and rescue services to charge for calls regarding persistent false fire calls. False fire calls from faulty alarms in non-domestic premises are a significant burden for fire and rescue authorities. Around a third of all fire brigade attendances are to false or faulty alarms. In London alone, there are 30,000 attendances each year as a result of calls from automated fire alarms. Of those, only 3 per cent of the calls were to actual fires and in just 1 per cent to fires was a hose needed to put them out. Clause 10 is intended to allow fire authorities to charge those building owners who persistently generate such calls, thereby giving them an additional power to reduce the number of calls and the associated disruption, cost and increased risk to the public.
However, there is an established consensus from the sector that the current wording of the Bill, which addresses only malfunctioning and “misinstalled” alarms, covers less than one-fifth of the total issue. For example, of the 6,002 recorded calls from these alarms in Lancashire in 2009 and 2010, only 16 per cent were recorded as having been set off by faulty alarm systems.
I understand that organisations from across the sector, including those representing the businesses that install and monitor these alarms, have appealed to the department to look again at this drafting, but without success. For clarity, when I say “the sector”, I am referring to the Local Government Association, of which I am a former chairman, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Industry Association, the British Security Industry Association, and fire services across the country. All these bodies and authorities have, I understand, appealed that the current wording does not address the issue and have warned the department that the legislation as it stands could mean much confusion and many arguments over the definitions currently in the Bill, and that clarity will probably only be reached following decisions from the courts.
I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue but I am sure that few of us would say the same about the bodies I have just cited. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on this subject. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Before this legislation, I had never come across or heard the word “misinstalled”—it is a curious turn of phrase—but clearly if an alarm is misinstalled the idea of it being maintained at relatively regular intervals is of course the responsibility of the business holder in that company. That has to be undertaken. That is why this is a reasonable amendment.
The only question I have on that concerns the evidential burden. If the business owners had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the alarm system was properly maintained, would any action be taken against the company which had failed to do so or would it be a matter for the business? There is a slight legal quagmire here, and although I am in no haste to make extra work for lawyers, I broadly support the amendment. It is entirely reasonable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for tabling this amendment and I hope that she will not be too offended when I say that I am not going to accept it.
The fire and rescue services often raise the issue of the number of mobilisations to faulty fire alarms, perfectly reasonably, at non-domestic properties. We agree that this is a significant issue and we have addressed it in the Bill by proposing that, following local consultation, fire and rescue authorities will be able to recover their costs in cases of persistent false alarms in non-domestic premises where fire alarms have malfunctioned or have been misinstalled—I believe that is the word.
It is certainly true that some fire representatives support the amendment—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, laid out who they were—and want to widen the scope of the clause to cover a wider range of incidents. However, on the other side of the coin, there are others who do not agree with the amendment and are concerned that it is confusing and will lead to additional burdens.
It is vital that we keep charging provisions as straightforward as possible and do not create uncertainty for businesses or fire and rescue authorities which seek to recover their costs. If we were to widen the scope of the clause in this way, it would mean that the fire and rescue authority would have to provide evidence that a business had not properly maintained a piece of equipment. Going down this route could only open up a significant potential for challenge that would benefit neither businesses nor the fire and rescue sector. The Bill already allows for authorities to charge under a wide range of scenarios that can lead to malfunctions and the amendment would not add anything to that.
On that basis, I am not persuaded the amendment helps. It would not achieve its intended purpose in significantly widening the number of scenarios under which an authority could charge. Instead, it could unhelpfully complicate the Bill’s provisions as drafted and leave those extra provisions open to legal challenge. I hope with that explanation the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Eaton
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. The last thing I intended with my amendment was to complicate matters and to create an opportunity for more challenges. I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“(2) In deciding whether a decision-maker had, or appeared to have had, a closed mind to any extent when making the decision—
(a) the relevant time at which that issue is to be assessed is when the decision of the relevant authority was formally taken;(b) an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predisposition is irrelevant; and(c) an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predetermination shall be taken into account and given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, Clause 25 is directed at the concern that local councillors must be able to express views on controversial local issues such as, for example, whether to give planning permission for a bail hostel without being accused of bias when the issue comes up for a vote at the council meeting. There are two main objections to the drafting of Clause 25 which the amendment seeks to rectify. The courts have adopted a sensible approach in this context and a local councillor can express strong views on an issue prior to the council meeting as long as he maintains an open mind in the sense that he is willing to listen to the competing arguments and the advice of officials at the council meeting before casting his vote. The courts have explained that the common law allows strong predisposition and the holding of strong prior opinions; it prohibits only predetermination, the closing of the mind and the unwillingness to listen to the debate before casting a vote. It is extremely unclear whether this distinction between predisposition and unlawful predetermination is being maintained by Clause 25 or whether it is, in some respects, being amended. It is so unclear that it will inevitably lead to protracted and expensive litigation, a process that will undermine rather than advance the Government’s objective. That is the first objection.
The second objection to Clause 25 which the amendment seeks to rectify is that it appears—I say “appears” because the clause is very difficult to interpret—to provide that as long as the local councillor says or does nothing at the council meeting to indicate a closed mind it is legally irrelevant what he or she may have said or done before the meeting to demonstrate a closed mind—that is, predetermination. For example, if at the council meeting the councillor says nothing during the debate but votes against the bail hostel, under Clause 25 there could be no legal complaint of predetermination. That would be so even though, on the way into the council meeting, he announces to the television news cameras outside that he is not interested in what is going to be said at the debate. That would be a substantial change in the law and one very much to be regretted.
The two concerns that I have outlined are exacerbated because Clause 25 will apply not only to controversial political decisions in local government but to all functions, including, for example, employment and contracting decisions. In those other areas, in particular, it is of great importance that local councillors have an open mind; that they hear the arguments at the council meeting and listen to the advice of officials before they make up their mind.
I have received a letter from Mr Clive Lewis QC, who is the chairman of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association, a copy of which I sent to the Minister, expressing concerns very similar to those I have set out. I have also been informed by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors that it, too, is very concerned that Clause 25 as currently drafted will lead to uncertainty and run the risk that serious cases of alleged bias could not be challenged in the courts.
I am very grateful to the Minister’s officials for taking time to seek to explain to me the reasoning behind Clause 25 at a meeting last month. However, my concerns remain. This amendment would set out—I hope clearly—the principles stated by the courts so that local councillors and their advisers would be in no doubt that the prior expression of strong opinions is not prohibited by law. Even at this late stage of consideration of the Bill I hope the Minister will think again on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Hart of Chilton
My Lords, my name is associated with this amendment and I support it for the following reasons. I believe it is common ground that councillors should not be prevented from or penalised for speaking their minds on the hustings. I do not accept the anecdotal evidence that if councillors speak out on an issue then they are banned from voting at a committee. If they are being given that advice then it is bad advice and it should be clarified. You do not need a statutory provision to do that.
A predisposition has always been permitted but not a predetermination. I think it is also common ground that decision-makers must approach their task with an open mind. They must listen and consider all the arguments and then reach a conclusion. It is self-evident, for example, that a Secretary of State who as a local MP has crusaded passionately against wind farms saying there are no arguments in their favour cannot decide an appeal against the refusal of a wind farm planning application. He must—and I am sure he would—recuse himself.
In the present case, in a much less exalted position but important nonetheless, a councillor who declares himself opposed to an application and states he is determined to vote it down ought not to pursue such a course up to and including the planning meeting. However, the Bill appears to provide a loophole for this by affording an opportunity for a councillor to state wholesale opposition right up to the door of the planning meeting and then to remain silent at the meeting itself nevertheless casting his vote. In such a case the provisions of the clause mean that clear evidence of bias, which that is, is impermissible evidence. That cannot be right. At worst this clause could, I fear, become a bigot’s charter, which cannot be in the public interest.
The amendment offers a solution. It confirms the present position of predisposition but provides a potential sanction for predetermination if the circumstances permit. I emphasise that this does not prevent the crusader councillor from crusading. He can attend usbthe council meeting to represent his views but he must not, if his mind is made up before the meeting, participate in the voting on the decision itself. That must be left to those who come with an open mind to listen to all the arguments before finally coming to a decision. That is the law and it is in the public interest that it be upheld.
The current wording of the Bill does not do so. It could well be used as shield or a licence for bias and is bad policy because the clause applies not just to planning but to all functions of authorities, some even more sensitive, where greater restraint on strong expressions of view is called for. Cases of bias are extremely difficult to get on their feet. This clause makes it almost impossible because those who are biased will now remain silent during the committee’s deliberations.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, first, I must declare my role as an elected councillor. Councillors have long walked a difficult line; trying to engage in an open and rigorous debate with their communities ahead of key local decisions, without falling foul of the complex common law principles of predetermination. The Government’s proposals in the Localism Bill offer welcome clarity by removing any presumption that a councillor has made a decision with a closed mind simply because they had previously explicitly offered a view, or inferred a view through their actions, about a decision they would subsequently make.
It is essential that councillors have the freedom to express their thoughts and views on an issue to the communities they represent. This is an important part of the dialogue between local people and their local democratically elected representatives, helping councillors to gauge levels of support for or against a view and to encourage communities to come forward with further evidence to inform decisions that matter to them. This is surely a key part of the big society we are striving to create.
This amendment would reintroduce confusion over where predisposition ends and predetermination begins when prior indications of a view have been made. Therefore it would continue to make it difficult for councillors to have those absolutely full and frank debates with local people on the merits of any decision.
There are a number of safeguards in place to uphold good decision-making in local government, from overview and scrutiny functions through to opportunities judicially to review irrational decisions. At the same time, this Bill is strengthening the requirements around registering and declaring interests to deter biased decision-making, and the local electorate will ultimately retain the power at the ballot box not to re-elect any councillor. I therefore cannot support this amendment.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, during my period in your Lordships’ House, which now goes back far too many years, I hope I have been the personification of reasonableness, rationalism and light. Unfortunately, on the debit side, I have to confess that I was a local government leader before I came here.
Missing from this debate so far is the fact that local government in the United Kingdom is significantly influenced by party groups and party group meetings. Something may be discussed in committee. Before the council meeting the various party groups meet and reach a collective decision. That decision is then whipped at the council meeting. That is the reality of day-to-day local government in the United Kingdom. I would like to know from both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he sums up, and the Minister the extent to which both the clause as it is now and the amendment strike at that practice.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord, in my eyes at any rate, puts himself further on the debit side by describing his previous career as being on the debit side. Many of us regard our time in local government as a very great plus.
Lord Sewel
Perhaps the noble Baroness will recognise a joke and an irony when she sees them.
Baroness Hamwee
Unfortunately when irony appears in Hansard it appears to be totally serious.
I realise I am being bold tangling with the expertise that has been brought to bear both by the two noble Lords who have spoken and have their names to the amendment and the authorities they have cited. I do not see in the clause the problem they describe—the possible extension from predetermination to predisposition. The word “etc” in the clause heading I can see might be a little confusing and possibly in Clause 25(1)(a):
“an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise”.
But I regard the “otherwise” as meaning “or not”, not as a different attitude.
I start by not being able to follow the noble Lords down that route. Are the important words not the ones that we debated at a previous stage, in Clause 25(2), “just because”? That subsection is not exclusive. It does not describe the only circumstances that might amount to predetermination but approaches from the other side. It says that if a decision-maker demonstrates or has done these two things—or has done the first thing and the matter is relevant to the decision—that does not of itself mean that he has predetermined; nor does it mean that he has not. That approach is much more effective than the one provided in the amendment, which seems to spell out all the circumstances that would amount to predetermination. I am sure that noble Lords have great imaginations, but I doubt whether any of us could imagine all the circumstances that need to be covered. I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene in the debate but do so having listened to the arguments for the amendment put forward so ably by my noble friend Lord Hart. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I had the honour—I will not do irony, either—to serve on a local authority before being elected to the other place. Not being a lawyer, I would like the Minister to tell me what predetermination actually means. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel, I confess that the Labour group on the local authority of which I was a member, eventually becoming leader, met before council meetings and decided the group view on various issues. Is that predetermination, or not? If it is, is it caught by the provisions of the Bill?
I take the view that both Houses of Parliament interfere far too much in local authority matters. I well understand the view that where planning matters are concerned the letter of the law should be laid down and followed. The previous Labour Government created a standards authority for local government, which quickly became bogged down. If you traded insults in a council chamber, a complaint was made to that body and all sorts of trivia were discussed at that level. I do not wish to tie the hands of local authority members more than successive governments have done over the years, but I am concerned about both the clause and my noble friend’s amendment.
My noble friend is not just a lawyer—he advises lawyers, as well. He is doubly damned in my eyes, I have to tell him. But he did not define predetermination in speaking to the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel, I think that the Minister really ought to do so. I end as I began: tying the hands of local authority members is something that both Houses of Parliament have done over the years, in my view quite unnecessarily.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, always moves his amendments superbly, and I am fascinated by them, although I heard it elsewhere than in the Chamber this evening, and I apologise for that. But I think that he does not look at this matter from the point of view of people being elected. Ever so many people are elected simply because they have always had some pet subject that was very much of local interest, and that is what got them elected. Any of those people, under this amendment, will find themselves being accused or blamed for the fact that they fought in that way. I am thinking of the Member of the House of Commons, who was elected on the single issue about the hospital in Worcestershire, and elected not once but twice on that issue. Would we have all condemned him if he had shown a particular interest in the hospital in Worcestershire? It is unrealistic to believe that people could be completely opposed to something that they had fought for for years.
The other side of that is that anyone sitting on any planning committee should do so with an open mind. If they do not have one, they have no right to sit on that committee and they should declare it as such. That should deal with the matter, rather than this amendment.
Lord Greaves
I declare an interest, since it is Third Reading, or redeclare an interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which has a local planning authority on whose planning committee I sit.
I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, got into a little bit of trouble for trying to use his native Bradfordian flat irony in your Lordships' House, which is something that I also get into trouble about for the same reasons. I sometimes think that we should run a campaign so that we have a means of telling Hansard to insert a smiley at appropriate places, but I suspect that that is a campaign that I will not win in my lifetime.
I regret the fact that I did not get involved more in this issue in Clause 25, as it now is, earlier in the passage of the Bill. It is not completely satisfactory as it stands, but I think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would make things worse. I shall explain why in a minute. I do so not from his position as an eminent lawyer who knows about things like predetermination, predisposition and perhaps predestination as well, I do not know—or perhaps not. I come from the point of view of how these things are now looked at in local government. What people have not really been talking about is that within local government there is a general belief at the moment that there are two types of issue. There are those that people say are in some way quasi-judicial, or involve things like appointments and disciplinary hearings, as well as planning and licensing, whereby the approach of councillors has to be less predisposed than on other matters. When I got back on the council eight years ago, I spent the whole election campaign speaking about the number of empty, boarded-up houses in my ward. I thought that the position had deteriorated appallingly in the six years I had not been a councillor. The electors actually agreed with me, for once. I have spent a lot of the eight years since then working hard on the council to do something about that problem. I am totally biased on this matter; I think that it is an appalling problem, and I campaign on the council and outside the council to try to solve it and make no bones whatever about that. But if a planning application came up in relation to one of those houses, I would step back and regard it and treat it as a planning application. That is quite well known within local government, although perhaps not as well known in some councils as it should be—but it is the case. Therefore, there is a problem here in that both the Bill and the amendment are broad-brush and do not make that distinction between different types of issue, which are certainly well understood within local government.
I have problems with the words predisposition and predetermination. It may be that in the courts of this land they are well understood, but I do not believe that most councillors would understand those words if you put them to them. The word that is more used in local authority government in relation to that kind of problem is fettering. Councillors are told that they must not fetter their discretion when it comes to things like licensing and planning applications. That is the word that is used—but fettering includes both predisposition and predetermination. The attempt to pull back from the straitjacket that councillors are in at the moment is well done.
I do not think that the position is well understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said on Report and said again today, but one problem is that different councils apply different rules. In some cases, when planning applications are submitted—that is probably what we are talking about most here—councillors are banned absolutely from speaking to anybody, including residents, applicants, objectors or the local press. Some councils are absolutely draconian in doing this: one is not allowed to talk to anybody unless one is in the presence of a planning officer. That is totally unrealistic on many councils that do not have lots of spare planning officers to wander around with councillors who are talking to people on their patch.
All this did not originally come from the courts. I particularly noticed it because I was not a councillor for six years and during that time, between 14 and eight years ago, the whole regime changed. It came from decisions of the Local Government Ombudsman, where there were complaints that councillors had made up their mind on planning applications before the applications were dealt with. It also came from references to the standards authorities, particularly the Standards Board for England. That is where this whole regime within local government has come from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made the point that councillors are different because they are elected. Therefore, the regime that has to apply to councillors as opposed to other public officials and people serving on tribunals and so on is different because they are elected. Very often they have fought election campaigns and taken part in local campaigning. We have examples from around the country. A market town provides one classic example. A particular political party had campaigned vigorously against the redevelopment of a town centre that involved a big supermarket as the core of that redevelopment. All its councillors—the party had swept the board—were banned from taking part in the part in the decisions once they were elected because it was said they had fettered their discretion because they were part of a party which had won elections on that basis. Clearly there is a huge conflict here between local democracy and fair decision-making. Electors cannot be expected to understand that.
Regarding the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would say that there is a lot of talk of bail hostels. As long as a bail hostel is small and is confined to an existing house, I do not think it needs planning permission. It is not a good example in that sense, but I understand the point made by the noble Lord. We have all had to deal with a very difficult application where a lot of residents have been strongly opposed to it, yet it has actually been right. That is when councillors have to gird their loins and do what is right. They do not always do it, but that is democracy.
The amendment of the noble Lord is an admirable attempt to clarify the position. Subsection (2)(c) of the amendment states that,
“an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predetermination shall be taken into account and given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
I do not believe that even local authority lawyers will understand that sufficiently to give clear advice to their councillors, and councillors certainly will not understand it because they will not understand what amounts to predetermination. The words,
“given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
are a recipe for a lot of lawyers to earn a lot of money when matters come to court to determine what they mean in the circumstances of a particular case. I do not believe it is a useful check on what one does in a particular circumstance that happens locally. Therefore, I do not think the amendment of the noble Lord provides clarity. In a practical sense, at a local level, it will make matters a lot worse, with no clarity.
The problem is that council lawyers are well known for being top of the league of people who err on the side of caution on pretty well everything. If the House were to pass this, it would result in no change to the present position, in which it is the councillors who are totally fettered from doing the job that people elect them to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, said that if councillors are given the advice that they cannot say or do anything or take part in any discussions before it goes to a planning committee, it is bad advice. All I can say is that if it is bad advice, it is universal bad advice. Given the choice of two not wholly satisfactory wordings, I very much prefer that of the Government.
Lord True
My Lords, if I might intervene, slightly more briefly, because I agree with so much that has been said by the noble Lord. I did not have the opportunity to take part in the debates on these clauses, although I have taken part in a lot of the proceedings on the Bill. I strongly agree with the objections that have been raised to the amendment. Perhaps it is not surprising, declaring again my interests as a local councillor and leader of a local authority, that it tends to be that some of us with experience of local government find ourselves ranged against the exacting purity of those who practise at the Bar.
Some may feel this is a function of the imperfection of local councillors. Imperfect, of course, we are. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and others, that councillors are biased. They are elected to be biased. My electors would be extremely surprised if I were not, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, seeking to implement the policies on which I was elected. That reality has to be understood and respected.
The current situation is having a chilling effect on a lot that goes on in local government, a point referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Greaves, and others. Councillors are nervous about expressing opinions on a whole range of matters where there is no question of predetermination or predisposition and so forth. It is having a bad effect on local democracy because local councillors are representative—they are not very highly-paid volunteers to try and put the public’s will into effect. They try their best.
I fear there is a growing inhibition on being able to speak out and speak frankly on questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there is a clearly understood distinction between issues of planning and other issues. The trouble with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, began to say this in reading out the first part of it and my concern was reinforced by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton—is that subsection (2)(c), in stating that an earlier statement or conduct shall be,
“given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
refers to a decision as defined in the clause, which is any decision of the council. We are not just talking about planning applications; we are talking about committee meetings, sub-committee meetings, functions of the authority’s executive and council meetings. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, conjured up in my mind the spectre of lawyers standing outside the council meeting saying, “You cannot go in and cast your vote because you said this on that a few weeks ago”. It may sound humorous but that kind of thing could well happen. People are trawling the opinions of local councillors, seeing who is biased and seeing whether they can get people struck off. It is rather like one of those American films where they try to strike off members of the jury to make sure that the right result is achieved in a murder trial.
I am worried about the link between subsection (2)(c) of the amendment and its application to every possible decision that might be taken by a councillor. We do need severe protection of the law on planning, but in other areas please let councillors be biased; please let them respond to the wishes of their electors; please let them be like MPs and Members of your Lordships’ House—people who are entitled to strong opinions. Let us not proceed with the chilling effect of this process of litigation and quasi-litigation that has actually occurred or may be threatened. I support the Government’s attempt to set things right and to improve things. It may not be perfect, but I certainly prefer it to the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will not support the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our names to this amendment, for reasons which I will try to explain. As I understand the Government's position, this provision is meant not to change the current position—they may confirm or deny this—but to clarify it, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. The problem in seeking to clarify it, for some of us at least, is that they have unbalanced it and made it difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, advanced the point that, as drafted, the “just because” was the get-out but I contend that if you have to ignore anything that the decision-maker has previously done with a view to a matter, directly or indirectly, there is not much else that that decision-maker could have done which could then be the subject of a challenge on predetermination.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was not intending to describe it as a get-out but to say that “just because” could also be read as “only because”. Although those are not words that one would normally find in legislation, they are very helpful and descriptive in this context.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I take that point but, even if it is “only because”, what else might a decision-maker do that you have to take account of if you can ignore all of the things that are described in this provision? That seems to be the fundamental problem.
My noble friend Lord Snape asked: what is predetermination? As I understand it, predetermination is having a closed mind at the point when you make a decision. Is that not important, because if people are coming to local councils seeking decisions which they expect to be rationally made—whether on planning, licensing or anything else—are they not entitled to have a case that is properly made and not fettered by somebody ignoring all of that process at the point when the decision is made? That seems to be the key difference between predetermination and predisposition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that people will always have their pet subjects, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Predisposition means having a view that, other things being equal, this is what you support and this is what you do not, and it does not preclude you from having, for example, manifesto commitments. That is reflective of the current position. The problem with the clause, for some of us at least, is that it unbalances that decision. It may give clearer protections or guidance to councillors in respect of what they can and cannot do but it does not address the other side of that equation: the circumstances where somebody has a closed mind and would seek to exercise judgment on something when they should not. That seems very important to me.
Things are not helped by the demise of the Standards Board for England, which set out guidance on all of this, but I understand that there is also legal precedent and case law around all of this. My noble friend Lord Sewel raised the point about collective decisions. There is nothing wrong with a party group sitting around and having discussion on an issue. The key is that when you come to the point of making that decision—whether it is in the council chamber, the committee chamber or elsewhere—the mind is at least ajar. I think that was the terminology that was used.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said that councillors have long walked this difficult line, and she is absolutely right. I agree and, in our view, the line does not need to be changed. Yet the terms of this clause are potentially changing it and that is the problem we are seeking to address by this provision. Our position is as follows: we support the proposition that those who have a closed mind on an issue should not participate in decision-making and could invalidate it if they did. We understand that this is also the Government's position, from debates on previous stages of the Bill where we have had amendments around this. It may be particularly relevant to planning and to other decisions as well.
We differentiate predetermination from predisposition and understand that the Government also do that. Having clarity on the scope and protections that this gives to councillors is to be encouraged but issues of a closed mind or otherwise are properly to be assessed when formal decisions are to be taken. We understand that this is also the Government’s position. The problem is that, in framing the scope and protections for local councillors, there must not be opportunities for those with closed minds to have their actions and utterances ignored in evaluating whether they had already predetermined the matter when making decisions. These are matters of probity.
If it is right that we agree on those propositions about the difference between predisposition and predetermination—determined at the point when the decision is made—we should be focused on how we achieve the legal construct that deals with that. That is the real matter before us and the matter in this amendment. In this regard, we consider that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Hart, achieves those objectives. However, we are very clear that the clause as it stands makes things worse and muddies the waters on principles and issues that I think we are not apart on.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have skilfully proposed this amendment, as it has given me the opportunity to research the issue for myself—with an open mind—and to provide further elucidation to the House. I hope that I can prevail upon the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his open mind.
I think that there is general agreement on the mischief that Clause 25 seeks to address: that councillors and candidates are receiving overly cautious advice from a variety of sources. All noble Lords accept the need to engage with the electorate, and I agree entirely with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the courts. The courts do not have a problem at all; it is the advice being given that is the mischief.
I will give an example to show how far this culture has spread, not from local government but rather from advice issued by Friends of the Earth about the planning process. One would imagine that that organisation would be keen for the public to engage with councillors, not just to put their views to the councillor but to seek the councillor’s view. Yet the advice states that,
“councillors on the planning committee are not allowed to express their view until the decision is made”.
When advice from expert campaigning groups such as Friends of the Earth is risk-averse, it is clearly time to act. My noble friend Lord Greaves also told us about different councils having different rules and the problems that that causes.
In the light of the debate during previous stages, most noble Lords clearly have no difficulty with the difference between predisposition and predetermination but it may be helpful if I remind the House what predetermination is. Predetermination, which can be actual or apparent, is where a councillor’s mind is closed to the merits of any arguments which differ from their own about an issue on which they are making a decision, such as an application for planning permission. The councillor makes a decision on the issues without taking them all into account.
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hart, for the time he has taken to explain carefully the problem to me in private. He described a situation where a bigoted person states publically, and with the protection of Clause 25, that he is strongly against some development. He is then on the committee that determines the application but says nothing, then votes against the development. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said much the same. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, is right that nothing can be done, but the same would apply if the councillor was covertly bigoted—that is, if he said nothing at any point but still voted against and always intended to, no matter what argument was put forward. Perhaps he is racist and would never ever support an accommodation unit for asylum seekers. My own view, for what it is worth, is that in reality very few councillors operate with a closed mind.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this fascinating debate and to the Minister for his detailed response. I shall respond briefly, attempting to avoid any indication of exacting purity that may offend the noble Lord, Lord True, or indeed any other form of reprehensible purity on this matter.
The Minister indicated that there is nothing wrong with the common law rules, and I respectfully agree with him. The problem, the Minister said, is the erroneous advice that is being given to local councillors up and down the land. The problem with that analysis is that, if the advice is the erroneous advice, we should deal with that advice. Let us not amend the common law in a way that changes the current position—and changes it by excluding from relevance the legal material that can demonstrate that there is unlawful predetermination.
Earl Attlee
May I explain the advantage of Clause 25 and the way that it is drafted? If I was a councillor and engaging, as a layman, with officials who were giving me advice, I would be able to produce the words in Clause 25 and say, “It says here that I can express a view”, and there would be very little that officials could do to counteract that.
Lord Pannick
I understand the point and am grateful to the Minister. However, the clause introduces clarity by amending the common law, which the Minister is concerned to maintain. The clause does not maintain the existing common law rules, which the Minister considers entirely adequate. The clause excludes from consideration anything that is said or done prior to the council meeting at which the issue is to be discussed, however extreme the previous statement may be. I entirely accept that what the councillor said prior to the council meeting may not be determinative of whether there is unlawful predetermination, but it must be relevant. That is the objection to Clause 25: it purports, in the Minister’s words, to restate the common law, which the Minister regards as entirely appropriate and unexceptionable. What it actually does is amend the existing common law in a way that will prevent real cases of predetermination being brought and succeeding.
Real concern was expressed in this debate that it is absolutely vital that local councillors should be able to express their views on matters powerfully and strongly if they wish. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Greaves, made this point. I entirely agree with them that that is the common law position. The cases make it absolutely clear that local councillors deciding any matter are not impartial in the sense required of a judge; they have political allegiances, their politics involve policies and they are entitled to express their views—of course they are. The case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in 2009, covered from page 83 of Volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports, is the leading Court of Appeal judgment. It says that any local councillor who expresses his views powerfully and strongly on any view is not guilty of unlawful predetermination so long as he is prepared to keep an open mind when he goes to the council meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked for reassurance in relation to the role of party groups and party whips in local government. That, too, has been considered by the courts. In the same case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the Court of Appeal approved an earlier judgment in 1985 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—then Mr Justice Woolf—where he said:
“I would have thought that it was almost inevitable, now that party politics play so large a part in local government, that the majority group on a council would decide on the party line in respect of the proposal. If this was to be regarded as disqualifying the district council from dealing with the planning application, then if that disqualification is to be avoided, the members of the planning committee at any rate will have to adopt standards of conduct which I suspect will be almost impossible to achieve in practice”.
Lord Greaves
I apologise for intervening, but I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that there is a very widespread view within local government, which in my view is widespread in its application, that on things that are thought to be quasi-judicial like licensing and planning applications there is no party whipping. There may be discussions, but no party whip is applied.
Lord Pannick
I understand that, of course; I am responding to the point made that if our amendment were to be carried, this would in some way affect the existence of that whipping that does take place in local government—those elements of party control that are effective. Let me just complete the citation from Mr Justice Woolf: he concluded that there is no objection to any of this so long as, when the councillors come to the council meetings, they have an open mind in the sense that they are prepared to listen to the competing arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was rightly concerned that we should do nothing that should enable lawyers to make lots of money out of all this. That is a very laudable objective. My concern is that Clause 25 is so unclear that it will inevitably provoke litigation, and it will do so because the Minister says that it is not changing the common law but merely expressing it, whereas its terms manifestly do change the common law.
Lord True
On the question of litigation, will the noble Lord answer the point that my noble friend Lord Greaves and I made? If we are concerned about litigation, surely the construction of his proposed new subsection (2)(c),
“as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
which may, as construed with the rest of the section, apply to any decision of any form made by a councillor, is pretty ripe for litigation. Therefore, I do not think his argument that the Government may cause more litigation stands up. Let him answer on this one.
Lord Pannick
My answer to the noble Lord is that paragraph (c) is simply designed to maintain—as the Government say they wish to maintain—the existing common law principle, which is that the judge will indeed look at all the circumstances of the case and decide whether there has been unlawful predetermination. I am not seeking to change the common law position; I am seeking to maintain it. The Minister has the same objective; he does not have the objective—as I understood him—of changing the substance of the common law. The objection to Clause 25 is that, on its wording, that is precisely what it will do, or there is a real risk it will do that. That is why it needs further consideration.
In the hope that the result in your Lordships’ House is neither predetermined—
Lord Sewel
Could the noble Lord explain how his amendment would affect, for example, the situation where, a councillor at a committee meeting having argued very strongly on one side but the party group having met and decided collectively on a different position, the councillor then says, when approached immediately before the council meeting, “I am changing my vote”, and, when asked why, says, “That was the decision of the group and I accept it” and then goes into the council meeting and votes in accordance with the decision of the group? How would the amendment address that issue?
Lord Pannick
The amendment would address that issue by dealing with the question in the same way as the common law deals with it at the moment. No judge is going to accept that there is unlawful predetermination simply because a local councillor has followed the whip that is imposed by his own party or his own group. This happens day after day in local government, and there are no cases that can be pointed to in which the courts have said that that is unlawful predetermination. It is not unlawful predetermination because the local councillor has listened to the matters addressed in the local council meeting.
We are dealing with a phantom problem that is created by erroneous advice being given, or is said to be given, to local councillors up and down the land. We are dealing with it in Clause 25 in a way which is going to make the problem far, far worse; and it is for that reason that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) In discharging its duty under subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in particular, adopt a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of members and co-opted members of the authority when they are acting in that capacity.
(1B) A relevant authority that is a parish council—
(a) may comply with subsection (1A) by adopting the code adopted under that subsection by its principal authority, where relevant on the basis that references in that code to its principal authority’s register are to its register, and(b) may for that purpose assume that its principal authority has complied with section 28(1) and (1A).”
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments 5 to 9, 11 to 13, 68, 74 and 75. We had an extensive discussion on Report on the provisions dealing with local authority standards. It was obvious from the strength of feeling exhibited that noble Lords considered this matter to be important and worthy of careful consideration.
There was much common ground in that debate. Everyone in this Chamber agreed about the importance of maintaining the highest standards of conduct in local authorities. There was also broad agreement that the Standards Board regime has become a vehicle for vexatious, petty and politically motivated complaints, with more than half the allegations of misconduct being rejected when assessed.
At the same time, concerns were voiced that the provisions that we had set out to deal with local authority standards after the abolition of Standards Board regime were too localist and not up to the task of ensuring the high standards of conduct that we expect of local authority members. We undertook on Report to take those concerns away and see whether we could strengthen the provisions to address the concerns. Over the past few weeks, we have reflected carefully on that debate and had extensive and useful discussions with noble Lords on their concerns.
As a result of that, I am bringing back a package of amendments to modify the standards provisions in the Bill. All authorities will be required to have a code of conduct. Amendment 4 would put that in place, and local authorities must, as part of their duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, have a code of conduct. This requirement applies to parish councils as well as to principal authorities. That code of conduct must be in accordance with the Nolan principles of public life. Amendment 5 states that a code of conduct adopted by a local authority should be consistent with the seven Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The code of conduct will, in addition, have to include the requirement for members to register and disclose interests. Amendment 5 provides that the code of conduct must include the requirement for members to register and disclose their pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. Noble Lords will recall that under Clause 34 a member will be committing a crime if, without reasonable excuse, they fail to declare or register a pecuniary interest or if they knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information about that pecuniary interest.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I draw attention to my own Amendment 10. I rise mainly to pay tribute to and thank the Minister for the constructive and very helpful way in which she has entered into discussions following the amendment that I tabled on Report, together with the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Newton and Lord Filkin. Unfortunately, the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Newton, for very good reasons, cannot be here tonight, but they both specifically asked me whether they could be included in the thanks for the constructive approach that has been taken.
I shall not waste the time of the House by running over the ground that the Minister has already covered. I think we now have a package that is much better as a result of all our efforts, and this is now a very important part of the infrastructure of local government. As the noble Baroness knows, simply for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness, I would have liked to have had a specific reference in the Bill to the power to suspend from a committee. However, I am grateful to her for having referred specifically to the powers that already exist, and I think that that, too, will help to clarify the situation. Therefore, all in all, I am very grateful for the help that she has provided. I know that sometimes she has had to act in the face of considerable opposition. I shall go no further than that, but I think that we have reached a place with which I feel content and, again, to save the time of the House, that means that I shall not be moving my Amendment 10.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I follow my noble friend with a small “f”—the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. As he said, we moved a number of amendments at an earlier stage of the Bill and I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for listening so carefully and for taking so seriously the points that we made. The apologies of my noble friend Lord Newton have already been given, but I specifically undertook not only to give his apologies—a hospital appointment prevents his being here—but to pass on his warm thanks to the Minister. Those thanks are perhaps not so much for the extent to which she has moved but for the extent to which she has been able to move those close to her during the proceedings here.
I think that we have moved a very long way from the position that we were in in Committee, when the person replying on the Front Bench said that standards were a matter for local discretion. I am probably one of the greatest localists in your Lordships’ House, but I thought at the time, and feel very strongly now, that if there is one thing that should not be left to local discretion, it is standards in public life. We have got to the point that we have now reached because in the past there has been rather too much discretion over standards in public life.
I am very pleased that we are going to have a mandatory code—or, rather, that it is going to be mandatory to have a code—but I am a little sad that its minimum provisions are not to be the same throughout the country. I think that in reality they will be the same throughout the country, because my expectation is that the great majority of local authorities will simply keep the code that they all already have. My concern relates to what I hope will be a tiny minority of councils that decide not to keep the code that they now have, and it relates more particularly to why they make that decision and in what way they might change it. That leads me to ask the Minister whether there will be any form of monitoring, whether by her department or by the Local Government Association, so that we know what changes are happening throughout the country. There may well be some that are a cause for concern. What we do about them may be another matter, but we should at least know about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, has already told us that he will not be moving his amendment, but my other concern is that councils now have, and will retain, the power as a sanction, if necessary, either to remove councillors from certain committees or sub-committees or simply not to appoint them. Will that also apply to outside bodies, as all councils appoint councillors as their representatives on outside bodies? Will they now also be able to remove a councillor from an outside body to which the council has appointed him or her?
Many councils, including my own, also have local committees or area committees that are constituted and stated in the council’s constitution to comprise all the councillors elected for that area. Presumably there is a power now to remove them from that area committee. Is that the case, and how does that fit with the constitution of the council, which says that all councillors representing that area have a right to be on that committee?
My other concern is about the form of monitoring—I do not mean imposition, but monitoring—there will be to let us know what is happening under the new regime. I certainly am grateful to the Minister for moving us so far on this, but quite a number of us are still concerned about this issue and feel that we are not there yet—well, we are there but this is not perfection and we may well have to return to the issue in the years to come after a number of high profile cases.
My last point is to welcome the lengths to which Ministers have now moved in the appointment of an independent person and in trying to ensure as far as possible that that person is genuinely independent and open. That independent person now plays an even more important role, in effect being the right of appeal—the only appeal that a councillor has—against what he may well feel is the unfair victimisation by a council with a heavy one-party majority, whatever the party, of someone who is a thorn in the flesh but is not necessarily doing anything improper. Again, it is important that the independent person, as far as it is ever possible, is upheld to be genuinely independent.
I join others in very much paying tribute to the Minister. I know from other sources how hard she has had to work at times to persuade more reluctant colleagues of the necessity to move in this direction. I congratulate her on her persuasive powers and the success that she has achieved. As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, we do not have all that we want but we have a lot more than we thought we would get at an earlier stage in the Bill, and I am grateful for that.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I want to raise a specific issue, but first to declare an interest as a councillor and one-time member of a standards committee. I welcome the amendments because they move us towards a system that is proportionate, will protect the right to free speech, give confidence to the general public, be fair to an individual councillor and should prevent party-political prejudice leading to unjustifiable and unreasonable decisions. The introduction of the independent person—or at least one independent person—seems to me to be a major help in enabling us to abolish the Standards Board for England so that matters can be dealt with locally and we can remove the need for a national referral system.
My one remaining doubt is on how the decisions on allegations will be made. That relates to subsection (3). The Minister said that all local authorities would have to have a form of process for investigating and determining matters relating to breaches of the code of conduct but it is for them to decide what those processes should be. I hope that guidance will be given requiring a local authority to have a formal committee structure to achieve this. Otherwise, it is not clear how that will be delivered. If there is to be a formal committee structure, in my view it should be chaired by an independent person but not necessarily the same one who is the independent person referred to in other subsections. In addition to having an independent chair, there will be independent members, as now, along with sitting councillors. Then the whole council will be able to decide on any suspension from committees that might be recommended.
I believe that because it is extremely important to avoid any perception or possibility of party-political bias in reaching a decision. Standards committees with independent members seems to be a means of preventing what may appear to the general public to be party-political decisions being made. Therefore, pursuing independence at a local level through the independent person and independent members of standards committees is extremely important.
Lord True
My Lords, I am rather more sympathetic to the Government’s attempt to find a formulation than some of the demurrers and I congratulate my noble friend on finding an admirable way through. That is another example of the way in which she has conducted the Bill. If I may help my noble friend Lord Tope, surely the answer to the question of committees or bodies to which councils mandate members is that in the first instance questions of misconduct must come from those bodies themselves, to which the people are mandated. It seems inconceivable that any council would wish to be represented by somebody who had attracted censure. It would certainly be within the power of any council to withdraw a nomination and I would hope that every authority would do that.
My noble friend Lord Shipley raised a point on subsection (3). I rather like that subsection although I agree with my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that there has to be some sense that there is independence. Often these matters can be dealt with by arbitration and a sensible person who will put two people together. It is clearly sensible, as my noble friend Lord Shipley says, that we may need to get two committees. However, there may be things that can be dealt with more effectively without getting to that process, but giving everybody along the way the sense that they can go to an independent body. I would not want my noble friend to be much more prescriptive, but I agree with the sense of what my noble friend Lord Shipley said. We have found an admirable way through and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others who have contributed to it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a council—hence my straying into jargon that we apply in council debates—a member of the standards committee, which meets later this week, and vice president of the Local Government Association. I join other of your Lordships in extending warm congratulations to the Minister who is clearly responsible for, and indeed embodies, an outbreak of sweet reasonableness over this issue that we hope to be pursued by some of her ministerial colleagues when we come to other legislation after this evening’s proceedings.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that there are issues that one might have wished to have taken a little further. A mandatory code would have perhaps been preferable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, in all probability we will end up with something like that. I hope that the Local Government Association, with others, will draft something that will be useful and will be adopted by many local authorities. It is very important that this independent role should be reflected. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that mandatory committees, perhaps with that independent element, would have been preferable. Nevertheless, we have gone a long way forward since the original Bill and our earlier discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. For that we are clearly indebted to the Minister.
I am not quite so sure about the sanctions that are available and whether they are sufficient to meet some of the more serious cases. A huge range of cases has applied at national and local level. I note that people from all political groups have transgressed, sometimes quite significantly. A prominent Conservative ex-leader of a council was found to have leaked a confidential document related to a land sale and was suspended for 28 days by his council. A Labour deputy group leader was also found to have breached confidentiality in relation to a compulsory purchase order. These are not insignificant issues, and they are not personal issues either. He was suspended for three months by his local authority. A Lib Dem councillor was suspended for six months for bullying and disrespectful behaviour at a training session. One of the worst cases was an independent borough councillor who had undermined and humiliated the council’s press officer systematically in front of other councillors until she began to cry and had to leave the room. That is intolerable behaviour in any circumstances and is certainly not consonant with holding a public office. A suspension for three months took place in that case.
However, I wonder whether suspension from a committee or even removal from outside bodies is necessarily sufficient for the more serious types of case. We clearly cannot pursue this further tonight, but it may be that over time, and bearing in mind that we need to see how this works in practice, we might have to revisit that element. Another place has quite draconian powers of discipline. I am not quite sure that they are quite as draconian in this place, although there are matters currently under consideration of a very grave nature and one hopes that one would not see anything like that again in your Lordships' House. It may be therefore—given that the national framework has been dismantled and that there may still, unfortunately, be a few cases where really serious misconduct occurs—that one must wonder whether the sanctions currently available and reflected in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, are adequate. We have clearly moved on and I am grateful and pleased that we have achieved this. I congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and thank them for the work they have done on this matter.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank everybody for the very kind compliments. It is unusual to hear them, so I am basking a little bit. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who fought very hard with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to make sure that we took this matter on board. He has been very persistent and was gracious in saying that he will not move his amendment.
We think that these procedures will have a real impact on the conduct of local councillors. While not spelling out how councils should put a scheme in place, it is clear that they have to. They must have some means of dealing with complaints. It seems almost inescapable that if you are going to do that, you are probably going to have to have some sort of committee structure to deal with them. That would be fine if local authorities decide for themselves, but to be fair and independent, they will need to have a balance.
I do not think that anybody has misunderstood. However, I want to make it clear that whatever the system and whether local authorities have independent members in that committee structure, they will still be required to have a further independent member who will act outside the committee system and will have to be referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the monitoring of the process. From the Government’s point of view, there will not be any further monitoring. It is possible that the Local Government Association will want to know what is going on, but unless things are very different from what we anticipate, it will be up to local authorities themselves to see their systems through and to make sure that this structure works.
I have been asked questions about representation on outside bodies. I think the answer must be that where the council is appointing somebody to another body, if there is a complaint about the councillor, the council is still responsible for them so it would be able to take action against them.
The other aspect that must be clear is that this has to be a transparent process. Each step must be open to comment and it must be dealt with openly. If there is a complaint that results in a warning or a letter, that must be clear so that local people who have elected these councillors know exactly what has happened or can find out. Some of the sanction will therefore be imposed by the electorate. They will know that somebody has transgressed or offended before they chose to re-elect him. The day-to-day monitoring will be carried out under the transparency of the decision-making process. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the decision on allegations. I hope that I have covered that. If not, I will talk to him subsequently.
I think this system will work. It leaves a big localist element, but it has structure and elements that were not there before. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate.
Baroness Hanham
“(1) A relevant authority must secure that a code adopted by it under section 27(1A) (a “code of conduct”) is, when viewed as a whole, consistent with the following principles—
(a) selflessness;(b) integrity;(c) objectivity;(d) accountability;(e) openness;(f) honesty;(g) leadership.(1A) A relevant authority must secure that its code of conduct includes the provision the authority considers appropriate in respect of the registration in its register, and disclosure, of—
(a) pecuniary interests, and(b) interests other than pecuniary interests.(1B) Sections 29 to 34 do not limit what may be included in a relevant authority’s code of conduct, but nothing in a relevant authority’s code of conduct prejudices the operation of those sections.
(1C) A failure to comply with a relevant authority’s code of conduct is not be dealt with otherwise than in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3); in particular, a decision is not invalidated just because something that occurred in the process of making the decision involved a failure to comply with the code.”
“(3) A relevant authority other than a parish council must have in place—
(a) arrangements under which allegations can be investigated, and(b) arrangements under which decisions on allegations can be made.(3A) Arrangements put in place under subsection (3)(b) by a relevant authority must include provision for the appointment by the authority of at least one independent person—
(a) whose views are to be sought, and taken into account, by the authority before it makes its decision on an allegation that it has decided to investigate, and(b) whose views may be sought—(i) by the authority in relation to an allegation in circumstances not within paragraph (a),(ii) by a member, or co-opted member, of the authority if that person’s behaviour is the subject of an allegation, and(iii) by a member, or co-opted member, of a parish council if that person’s behaviour is the subject of an allegation and the authority is the parish council’s principal authority.(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
(a) a person is not independent if the person is—(i) a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority,(ii) a member, co-opted member or officer of a parish council of which the authority is the principal authority, or(iii) a relative, or close friend, of a person within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);(b) a person may not be appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) if at any time during the 5 years ending with the appointment the person was—(i) a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority, or(ii) a member, co-opted member or officer of a parish council of which the authority is the principal authority;(c) a person may not be appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) unless—(i) the vacancy for an independent person has been advertised in such manner as the authority considers is likely to bring it to the attention of the public,(ii) the person has submitted an application to fill the vacancy to the authority, and(iii) the person’s appointment has been approved by a majority of the members of the authority;(d) a person appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) does not cease to be independent as a result of being paid any amounts by way of allowances or expenses in connection with performing the duties of the appointment.(3C) In subsections (3) and (3A) “allegation”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a written allegation—
(a) that a member or co-opted member of the authority has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct, or(b) that a member or co-opted member of a parish council for which the authority is the principal authority has failed to comply with the parish council’s code of conduct.(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3B) a person (“R”) is a relative of another person if R is—
(a) the other person’s spouse or civil partner, (b) living with the other person as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners,(c) a grandparent of the other person,(d) a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the other person,(e) a parent, sibling or child of a person within paragraph (a) or (b),(f) the spouse or civil partner of a person within paragraph (c), (d) or (e), or(g) living with a person within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners.”
Baroness Hanham
Lord Beecham
“(b) members of a designated neighbourhood forum under section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment deals with another issue of standards, but of a rather different nature. It relates to the position of members of the neighbourhood forums which the Bill establishes and which, of course, will have the responsibility of initiating, potentially, local plans which will be, it is hoped, a significant part of the planning process. Originally, as your Lordships may recall, the Bill proposed that such forums could be constituted by a mere three individuals. That has been expanded sevenfold and now 21 individuals can constitute themselves into a neighbourhood forum and may be involved in the process thereafter that gives rise to a local plan.
There is effectively no restriction on those who might constitute this forum, and it may well be that in some cases they would have interests. They might be interests as residents or landowners in the area, or they might be as employees of a concern wanting, for example, to open some facility such as a shop. They might be employees or participants in such a business. As matters currently stand, there would no obligation for any of those interests to be disclosed. I would have thought that in the interests of transparency, they ought to be. This would not be a complicated process. Those who apply to be designated as a neighbourhood forum would, in making the application, simply indicate their relevant interests in exactly the same way as councillors, certainly when elected, have to declare their interests. The Bill has dealt very fully with that, so it is not an inordinately complicated process.
Lord True
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have a lot of sympathy with the spirit behind this amendment, but having wearied the House with my views on neighbourhood forums and not having been able to persuade my Front Bench fully about this question, I think that noble Lords opposite will know that my view is that we should start from the assumption that the neighbourhood forum includes everybody in the neighbourhood area. In those circumstances, if the neighbourhood forum is very large, I do not think that the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has proposed would be practicable. I do not think that we could ask everybody who lives in a village or in a neighbourhood area to publish their interests simply because they wanted to participate in a neighbourhood forum.
If, however, it emerges—and I think we have to wait and see the guidance on the Bill—that my maximalist view of what a neighbourhood forum should be does not prove to be the case, and if the neighbourhood forums turn out to be rather small bodies of perhaps only 21 individuals wielding a great deal of influence in the name of the community, then I would find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite persuasive. As we gain experience going forward of what these bodies are actually going to be—whether they are small or big—this will affect the judgment that I would make about this question. I would suggest, however, that this is something that we might leave until we see further guidance on the Bill. I am sure it would be a matter that might be addressed then. If 21 people are going to be very influential in an area, I would like to know where they were coming from, and I am sure local people would, too.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14 would require local authorities to maintain a register of the interests of members of designated neighbourhood forums. From the outset, I remind Members and my noble friend behind me that 21 is a minimum. You can have as many as you like on a forum—if he wants the whole bloomin’ neighbourhood, he can have the whole lot on it. There is nothing to stop that happening. I would take his view that if you are going to have most of the members of a ward or an area, which might amount to 1,500 or so, this proposal would probably be otiose.
A neighbourhood forum is designated by a local authority for the express purpose of preparing a neighbourhood plan or order for a designated neighbourhood area. The neighbourhood forum will not make decisions on planning applications or on whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force, nor will it take on wider duties and responsibilities. Neither is the neighbourhood forum intended to form an equivalent governance function to that of a parish council. The neighbourhood forum is simply a group designated by the local authority to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order.
We have worked hard to ensure that the Bill reflects this position by imposing minimum requirements that community groups must meet in order that they can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. This will enable existing groups to take a leading role in neighbourhood planning. To avoid forums acting inappropriately, the Bill gives local authorities the power to remove the designations of neighbourhood forums in certain circumstances. In addition, requiring their members to register and declare interests would be unnecessary. Since the forum is similar to a planning applicant submitting a planning application to the local authority, it is not making a decision in the public interest.
Furthermore, in practical terms, maintaining a register of the interests of neighbourhood forum members would be extremely difficult for the authority to achieve, given the wide range of individuals who could be members of a neighbourhood forum and the likelihood of frequent change in the forum’s overall membership throughout the process of preparing the plan or order. The Bill requires all neighbourhood forums to include, as I said, at least 21 members who live or work in or are elected members of the neighbourhood area and to have an open approach to their membership.
In addition, of course, there was the requirement that we put into the Bill—I think at Report stage—that there should be consultation before any plan is put to the local authority. I hope that Members will accept this view and not push this amendment today.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful for the conditional support of the noble Lord, Lord True, which I occasionally receive. I quite take his point, and I also listened carefully to the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord True, is right, and this may be an issue to be revisited at a later stage. I am not entirely sure that we will in fact have large neighbourhood forums. I think the surveys that have taken place so far indicate that there is not—at the moment, at any rate—a huge appetite for the formation of these things. Therefore, we may be in the position where they tend to be rather small and in that case we will perhaps need to look again. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there have been significant changes wrought by this Bill. One of those that we debated in earlier days was the abolition of the duty to promote local democracy, which I thought was somewhat inconsistent with the general localist agenda. That elicited little or no support on the Benches opposite and did not seem to me to be worth while bringing back at this stage. However, in respect of another issue, which was the provision about petitions, it does seem to me that the case for some provision—as opposed to the elimination which Clause 46 of the Bill would have carried through—has been heightened by at least two recent developments.
The first is the changes in the Bill around the issue of democratic engagement. I very much welcome the withdrawal of the proposals for local referendums, which I thought were misconceived, overelaborate and calculated to produce a great deal of mischief and trouble. Nevertheless, they were a form—and in my view a very unsatisfactory form, and I think that has ultimately been accepted by the Government themselves—of promoting public engagement. This still leaves the issue of how one does promote particular forms of public engagement.
In another place a week ago, there was a diverting evening using the petition process which the Government have initiated to debate rather grander matters, I guess, than will normally be the case at the local level. Of course, the Government have proceeded with their electronic petitioning and the right of the other place to debate matters that receive a significant degree of support—a policy which may not have entirely produced the results anticipated last week and which some members of the Government may even have cause to regret. At any rate, the procedure is there.
For some time, in some councils, there has been an approach which has welcomed, and indeed encouraged, the bringing of petitions and discussion of them. Looking back, about three years ago the New Local Government Network, which is not a partisan organisation—it has councils in it that are controlled by all three major parties and indeed some independent members—advocated a proposal for a more defined process for bringing petitions. That proposal was, in almost the last gasp of the previous Government, embodied in legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out in his typically robust fashion was somewhat overelaborate, to put it mildly, and that certainly was the case. I think the legislation was announced in December 2009 and passed into law shortly after that, and it was certainly much too overprescriptive in the way it laid down how the process should be implemented.
Nevertheless, although a significant number of councils have a process to facilitate the bringing of petitions and their consideration, it is by no means universal. It seems to me important that there should be an obligation on local authorities to foster that kind of engagement with the communities they represent so that matters can be brought to the attention of the council and discussed in whatever form the council decides is appropriate, on the basis of the basic requirement that Amendment 49 would create, of having a scheme under which the petitions might be considered. This would also include another right that was brought into being by the previous Government, the right to call an officer of the council to account, in a properly structured way.
This is not an overbureaucratic process. As I say, many councils have their own procedures now. Mine certainly does; I dare say the councils of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope, and perhaps even that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will have similar procedures. However, it is not universal, whereas it seems to me that it should be, so that any number of people—the council may lay down a minimum if it chooses—would know that they have the right to have matters raised at the level of the local authority, not just with their individual councillors, although that is always an option, but in a more systematic way.
The amendment also provides for a simple enough procedure for the council to give an account of what happens to those petitions, so they do not just disappear into a black hole. That certainly is the case in my own authority and I suspect in many others, and all there really needs to be, perhaps even just once a year, is a brief summary of what matters have been raised and how they were dealt with, so people can know that their views and concerns have been taken care of. It is not a huge obligation and would contribute to a healthier relationship between a local authority and its members on the one hand and the community on the other. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have second thoughts. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, that is a nice try by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I am afraid I am going to be conditional in my support again. Petitions are important and he is quite right to say that my own authority considers them: tomorrow night we have a debate on a petition from the public; and there are two running petitions, both with over 2,000 signatures, which I am sure will lead to debates at future council meetings. I agree that it is good practice for local authorities. I do not think the Government are withdrawing from encouraging that but it would be a pity if they were.
I have not had time to study the details of his new clause so for that reason alone I would find it hard to support it. However, I am slightly worried about the concept of public petitions calling an officer to account. All those who have been in positions of authority in local government will know the amount of, frankly, sometimes libellous and hostile comment one gets about officers, and one of the duties of people who are elected is to take responsibility. I do not care for the encouragement of petitions to call officers to account. For that reason, as well as not having studied it, I would be doubtful about the form; the spirit is right but I do not think that it is something we could add to the Bill at this stage.
Lord Tope
My Lords, neither the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, nor the noble Lord, Lord True, were Members of your Lordships’ House when some of us spent many happy hours—hours and hours—dealing with what I think was the first part of what was then the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. We argued for hours about petitions and petition schemes. I recall my noble friend Lord Greaves—who I think I have just managed to shut up for a few moments—actually bringing in some petitions to his council so that we could see that they are rather different from petitions that come to Parliament in their general layout and form.
We had a very listening Minister then who listened and indeed made many amendments to what was proposed, but we were still left with pages of prescription about how councils should collect, receive and deal with petitions. We heard that most councils did not have such a scheme. What actually emerged, and it was a legitimate criticism, was not that most councils did not have a scheme but that most councils had not thought to put it on their website, which of course they should, but that is rather different from saying that councils do not receive or deal with petitions.
I have much sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said in moving his amendment. The crucial difference between us is that I believe he was talking about good practice and I do not believe, especially in a Localism Bill, that it is for your Lordships’ House to be prescribing in legislation what should be disseminated as good practice. I still bear the scars of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, and that, I am afraid, tempers very considerably the sympathy with which I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will just add a few brief things. My noble friend reminds me of one or two things which I had thankfully forgotten about. I was trying to remember how many amendments I actually put to this chapter of that Bill when it came. That is also something I had forgotten about, which is something that happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly said that councils have to welcome and encourage petitions. But what is really important is the seriousness with which they treat them and deal with them when they come. You can set up as many bureaucratic, complex, legalistic schemes as you like, but if people do not treat the petitions seriously it is just going through the motions and wasting time and energy. If people treat petitions seriously you do not need a complex, bureaucratic, top-down—and, I have to say, pretty patronising—piece of legislation like Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. I note with some wry amusement that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is desperately trying to hang on to this classic piece of new Labour nonsense, which frankly has not improved the situation of petitions in any council in the country. Those who take them seriously, take them seriously; those who do not, do not.
This is eight pages of primary legislation telling councils in great detail how to deal with petitions. I, along with my noble friend, pay tribute to the Minister at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who listened to a great deal of what we had said—it was 12 pages of nonsense before we started, and between us we managed to persuade the civil servants and the powers that be in the then Government at least to take some of it out. As I told the noble Baroness at the time, if the Government simply want to tell councils to have a scheme for dealing with petitions that deals with them seriously, they could do so in half a page of legislation, not eight pages. I have been through this and reminded myself of the huge amount of nonsense in it. I will not detain—or should I say entertain—your Lordships’ House with any more of this tonight, but it really does deserve to go.
The one point that I will raise relates to Section 16 of the 2009 Act, which is the requirement to call officers to account. I do not know how often, if ever, this has been used since this part of the Act was commenced. At the time, we had a long debate, and in our view it was totally inappropriate for officers of the council to be hauled up and held to account before the public in this way. The people who should be held to account are the elected councillors: those who run the council and who have been elected by the people to be responsible and accountable to the people. Clearly, they will need support from officers, and if officers are not performing their jobs properly, the elected councillors are the ones who should take a grip of the situation and sort it out. That is a fundamental principle, in our view, but we could not persuade the Government at the time that that was the case. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shutt is, I assume, going to resist this amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clause 46 of the Bill repeals the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to have a petitions scheme and the associated provisions. Amendment 15 would omit this clause, therefore reinstating the duty, and Amendment 49 would then amend the original legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to when he mentioned the eight pages. Incidentally, I have a note that there would be still four or five pages left of that, including the requirement to call officers to account. So a lot of it would still be there.
While the intention behind the amendments to ensure that councils treat the receipt of petitions sensibly and appropriately is laudable, I am not persuaded that reinstating this prescriptive and burdensome duty, albeit in a revised form, is either necessary or desirable. The revised duty proposed would remove Section 11 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which provides for principal local authorities to have petition schemes, but it is clear that they would continue to need such schemes, given that Amendment 49 includes several references to petition schemes. Even with this change, the revised duty would mean a significant new burden on local authorities. The effect of subsection (6) of the proposed new section is that the statutory petitions schemes would have to go into far more detail than is currently required about how particular categories of petition will be treated.
In addition, the extension of the statutory duty to all categories of petition—including mayoral petitions and council tax petitions—which the amendment creates, will create further additional burdens, as a scheme would then need to provide for different processes for different types of petition. To reinstate the current overly prescriptive duty not with a clean sheet but with a confused mishmash of some retained elements, with some changes and some provisions dropped, is not at all helpful. We trust local authorities to make the best choices for their local areas and to respond to residents’ concerns in a locally appropriate way. However, how that looks should be a matter for local discretion, not central prescription.
We simply do not believe that we need to reinstate this duty in order to force local authorities to have a petitions scheme, any more than we believe that we need to tell local authorities how to respond to petitions from their own residents.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked whether the Government still support the concept of petitions. Let me make it clear that they absolutely support and encourage the use of petitions but at a local and not at a national level. It seems to me that people want to put up a petition in a post office or whatever. They do not want to have to scratch about wondering what the proper way to organise a petition is for that council. They want to get on with the petition, get the names together and get on with it. That is how it is in democracy and how it is in local areas. In the circumstances, I trust that this amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu since the issue has arisen, but he should have looked at the amendment rather than the Act. The amendment would substantially reduce what I entirely agree was a ridiculously overprescriptive regime for the presentation of petitions. It simply provides for councils to have a scheme to deal with petitions and is not about the detail of how petitions are to be presented, except that they would be acceptable in electronic or written forms. After that, it would be very much a matter of local discretion as to how they would be dealt with. There is no intention in the amendment to prescribe how petitioners should present their case. It is not at all a bureaucratic substitute and is significantly shorter than the three volumes that the noble Lord would have us believe the Act required.
The difficulty is that, by abolishing the provision without any alternative, the Government are sending a signal that petitions do not seem to be important. They are important and it is unfortunate that the Government are sending a signal to the contrary by neglecting this when Parliament is now adopting a procedure, for good or ill, which appears to place considerable value on petitions. However, it is clear that there is insufficient support for me to test the opinion of the House. I regret what has happened and I hope that at some point the issue will be revisited. In the mean time, at the very least I hope that Ministers will use their best endeavours to encourage councils, even if not on a statutory basis, to promote the use of petitions as an important element in local democracy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“Litter deposited from motor vehicles
(1) Local authorities may make byelaws about litter deposited from motor vehicles.
(2) Such byelaws may include provisions about—
(a) the application of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (offence of leaving litter) to litter deposited from motor vehicles;(b) the procedures for identifying the person in charge of a motor vehicle; and(c) the information which the registered keeper of a vehicle may be required to provide the local authority.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I must declare two interests. The first, I hope, is shared by many on all Benches of your Lordships’ House, which is to campaign to do something to reduce the amount of litter that disfigures—indeed, I would say disgraces—our country. The second is to remind noble Lords that back in the 1990s I was for five years chair of the CPRE, which has supported this amendment.
I do not apologise for repeating this amendment 21 days after we last debated it. At that time, the Government’s reply to the debate was, I suppose I could say, sad. My amendment is simple and necessary. We have to do something about litter. I believe in the old political cliché of action and not words. I am not seeking to create a new offence; it has been an offence for 11 years to drop litter from vehicles under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The problem is that it is very seldom that anything can be done about it because it applies only to the person dropping the litter and at the moment there is no way of knowing who dropped the litter. My amendment would simply make the keeper of the vehicle responsible, as is already the case for parking and for speeding. It is a simple amendment. To put it mildly, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Shutt did not welcome it. He read out a brief that did not produce a single decent argument. Perhaps I may remind him of what he said on 10 October. He said that,
“extending the scope of the littering offence … raises issues of fairness and proportionality ... It may not always be a ready solution for the registered keeper to avoid prosecution by identifying who was the actual offender”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1370.]
That is what he was asked to say, and he said it. That is his job, I suppose, in one sense. However, the only Whitehall bazooka that he forgot to fire was that the Government, I suppose, feel that they can never risk being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. No doubt his officials said to him, “Yes, Minister, it is always safer to do nothing”, and that is what happened.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It is not just my great regard for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his commitment to the best heritage in our society and to preserving it that makes me want to support him but the issue itself. Litter is a menace in our society. It is disfiguring our towns and villages and the countryside. If we really care about our inheritance and preserving what is best, it is no good just having exhortations and principles, which are sometimes enunciated in legislation; it is essential to have some muscle in what is being done to combat it. A few egocentric, selfish people can ruin the environment, whether it be the built environment or the rural environment. It is time that this matter was taken in hand.
I sometimes get a little frustrated in my home community. I have the pleasure of being the president of the Friends of the Lake District—which, of course, represents the CPRE in the whole of Cumbria—but I sometimes reflect in my own neighbourhood of the community how people who take tremendous pains and care with their own gardens and their own estates seem to abandon responsibility when they move outside the garden gate. We have to promote a sense of community commitment on this, followed through with legislation consisting not only of words but the means to make it happen.
It is not an accident that nations that are healthy socially and economically have a great deal of civic pride. I sometimes think that it is a good way of measuring the state of psychology of a nation. If a nation is in good heart, there is a much better chance that all these matters will be taken seriously. On the other hand, it is a two-way argument, because if we let things slip people lose interest. They lose their sense of civic pride and their sense of belonging to a community and needing to make sure that our community is strong and prosperous. It all goes together psychologically. From this standpoint, I thoroughly commend the amendment that has been brought back at Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was absolutely right to bring it back at this stage.
Lord Reay
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said and I strongly support the amendment.
Like my noble friend, I did not think very much of the Minister’s arguments for not accepting my noble friend’s amendment on Report. He argued that we could wait and see how it worked out in London when London boroughs get powers under the latest London Local Authorities Bill to issue the registered keepers of vehicles with civil penalties where enforcement officers witness littering from a vehicle. I thought that argument had some plausibility.
However, London is not the country. Litter thrown from vehicles is a particular scourge of the countryside. People driving through the countryside may feel themselves more likely to be unobserved and so more prone to commit the offence. They may well be right. Creating this new offence may work better in towns than it will in the country—we simply do not know—but I suggest that the logical thing to do would be to allow it to be tried out in different parts of the country. My noble friend’s amendment would enable this to happen by permitting local authorities who are particularly keen to do so to take action.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. If they do not and do not say that they have now changed their minds and intend to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, a new national offence along the lines of my noble friend’s amendment, I hope my noble friend will press his amendment to a Division and I shall certainly support it.
Lord Deben
I am attracted to the amendment, which has been so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. As a campaigning environmentalist I am sometimes concerned that the one issue that unites everyone is not fighting climate change—which, of course, is the biggest issue of all—but litter. If you really want to cause a major row, then raise the issue of litter. The Government have to be careful about appearing not to recognise how, particularly in the countryside, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said, this is an issue of considerable concern.
I find it one of the more depressing things that, in the beautiful part of England where I live, at most weekends the first part of the job is to pick up the various items that have been pushed into the hedge and down the drive of the house in which I live. It is a sad fact but it is one that needs to be taken seriously, and I hope noble Lords will agree that this elegant use of the Bill—to give opportunity for particular local authorities to make a particular choice—would be a sensible step. I am sure the Minister may have some really remarkable argument to show a better way forward, which I look forward to hearing.
In Suffolk we have a very successful campaign, which I have to speak of very carefully because it is headlined by the phrase, “Don’t be a tosser”. It is designed to make people stop throwing things out of car windows. This is a real issue. The local authorities in Suffolk might well like to take the opportunity, were they able to, to help the Government by trialling such a proposal. I hope the Government will take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has suggested.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, and in doing so I must declare an interest as a farmer. We are plagued by litter from cars down in Somerset where I come from. It does not tend to be what I would call black-bag-type litter, although that is sometimes worse because the bags are thrown out of cars and explode and the litter goes all over the field in a real mess and is very difficult to pick up.
The worst sort of litter that we have is old fridges, old cookers, old beds and old mattresses. They get poured out into little nooks and crannies by the road and then seem to breed. I feel that there is a book in here somewhere, although perhaps not the type of stuff the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, writes. You get one cooker, and then two. Then they will have a daughter of a fridge and a mattress will arrive. It is a most extraordinary thing and no one seems to have the responsibility for picking it up. I know one or two local farmers who shovel the stuff back on to the road, so then it becomes the responsibility of the Highways Agency, which of course makes it responsible for littering the countryside.
It is obviously very difficult for the local council, because almost every night somewhere around my neighbourhood someone has dumped some particular object or other. Can the council do anything to prosecute the motorist? If you are worried that it might not be the motorist who has dumped it but someone in the car, do not tell me that a motorist is not responsible if his car is stopped and a fridge gets thrown out. A motorist is just as responsible as the person who might be in the back seat. I really endorse this amendment and think it is really very important that we support it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support the concept of this amendment, but we are in danger of making even more laws when we cannot enforce the ones we have. I find pretty incredible the idea of somebody such as a litter warden—I do not think the police would do it—chasing every car that goes down a country lane to see whether something falls out of the window and then trying to identify who threw it via the keeper. The same could apply in parks or on the roads. Who is going to enforce these laws? I wonder whether either of the noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment could actually tell the House how many convictions there have been for dropping litter, even without this amendment, since the law came into effect. I am afraid that it is probably a solution that is nice to have but will not make much difference. We have to do much more to educate people about not throwing litter or dumping things and helping them, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, to have more pride in the environment in which they live.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, but I have only one question to ask my noble friend who is going to reply. When he replied on 10 October, at col. 1370, it was perfectly clear that he had been briefed about the London Local Authorities Bill currently before Parliament. I had made the point that it was awaiting some technical changes to be approved by the Government. The Ministry of Justice and no doubt the DCLG will also have been involved. Can my noble friend tell me anything more about that? How long are we going to have to wait before that Bill can be made to work? That is what we are waiting for, and at the moment it is in the hands of the Government. Can she tell me anything about that?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. This is in my view a model amendment. It does not require local authorities to take action but creates a power for them to do so, which is absolutely right in the circumstances. It is for them to make a judgment about whether in particular circumstances it is likely that they can secure convictions in an urban area—to respond to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It would be easier to do so than in a rural area, obviously, because there would be witnesses and people who would take note. Frankly, I suspect that the situation is worse in urban areas even than in the rural areas about which we have heard.
The noble Lord is to be congratulated on his amendment. This is not a party issue. However, if the noble Lord were minded to divide the House I would certainly go through the Lobby with him.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for moving this amendment. We have had some discussion about it and have had two serious debates in this House. I am afraid that there are serious problems with the amendment. One of them was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The fact is that it is extremely difficult when most enforcement law is not carried out anyway and you are just adding to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, himself said, there are already powers regarding littering offences under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act. What happens is that they are not enforced; there are not enough enforcement officers, or they are not around at the right time to ensure that littering does not take place. There are already penalty charge notices that can be given by enforcement officers, particularly in the towns, but all over the country, to enable enforcement on litter dropping. So I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
What we need is proper education and proper campaigns. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, his authority is not sitting around waiting for a by-law—it has got itself up and going and is running a campaign with a quite attractive title. I have to say that it strikes one as something that might have had the noble Lord behind it. So we do not really need this.
There is a further difficulty. Local authorities can make by-laws only for themselves. If one authority has a by-law and another does not, where is the fridge going to be dropped? It will be dropped within the one that does not have a by-law. Furthermore, local authorities cannot deal with motorways or main roads outside their control. Those are in the power of the Highways Agency, which has not been included in the amendment.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is going to be very upset with me, because we have had a discussion that will make him upset with me, but I want to go back to the position that we do have the London Local Authorities Bill, which has powers in it. I appreciate that it is largely urban, but London local authorities stretch out beyond the urban to the suburbs and even, may I say it, border on greenbelt and places that could be tempted to be rural. What we want to do is to see what happens as a result of that Bill. The Bill is a private Bill, as everyone knows, and is before Parliament now. It has completed its Lords stages and is at an advanced stage in the House of Commons. The expectation is that if there are no more challenges to it, it will proceed on its way. When that is implemented, we will be able to see what can be done. The Bill will allow a local authority to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers whereas the amendment of the noble Lord would make it a criminal offence. This would make it a civil offence with a penalty charge notice of £100, and that would be to the registered keeper.
There has been some discussion about whether the registered keeper is the person who ought to be responsible for this. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, the registered keeper would have to be asked who was in the car—very similar to a charge within a court of an offence asking for a statutory declaration. If we can move it into the civil area, I think that would be a worthwhile approach. The Bill will also enable local boroughs to issue civil penalties. We hope that is going to receive Royal Assent later this year. We want to see whether that can be a good route out.
In the mean time, I am going to use those terrible words about getting people to understand what they are doing. The Government are already supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign—that is nearly as good as the tosser. We are also supporting other campaigns in order to make people realise what they are doing. I do not underestimate in any way the problem of litter. I appreciate that it is an absolute eyesore. I think fridges may be outside the scope of litter, but I appreciate that is also part of a wider problem.
I cannot accept the amendment. I know the noble Lord will be upset with me about that, but there are still too many problems associated with it to make it one that we can put into legislation at this stage. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it after my explanation.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I am most grateful for the support that I got from all sides of the House. I would like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, straight away. First, I am not creating a new offence as such. All I am trying to do is to make the 1990 Act, which has failed for the reasons we have discussed, work better. How many prosecutions there have been or how many there will be is completely unknowable. I suppose we could know how many there have been, but the point is that at the moment the thing cannot be enforced. In my book, unenforceable law is bad law. You should not have laws which put obligations and requirements which cannot be, and therefore are not, enforced. That is the way to bring the law into contempt.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The Act applies to more offences than throwing things out of motor cars, so have there been any convictions for other litter offences without this problem of motor cars?
Lord Marlesford
I am talking about the problem, not of motor cars but of motor vehicles—a little wider than motor cars but not as wide as the noble Lord seeks to draw me. I am not concerned with other things that the Act does. I am sure there are lots of bits of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which work extremely well. What I cannot accept is the suggestion of my noble friend that it is not necessary. It is necessary for us to do something about litter. This is one thing we could do. It is a simple thing. It is an enabling power. It is a power which gives local authorities the opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin explained, to do what is being done in London. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate to the Bill. All too often one has found that the Government talk one thing and either do nothing or do something quite different. I would like to feel that this House will give a signal that it basically believes that something should be done and that something can be done. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, this is a group of several amendments. They are government, minor, technical and consequential amendments to the Bill that are necessary to correct some minor errors, provide clarity of expression in places and ensure that clauses operate as intended. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of all of these amendments. It was rather hard-going trying to work through them all, as they came through fairly late in the day. However, we are happy to accept them on the basis that, as he said, they are minor, technical and consequential, and on the basis of an assurance I hope he will give us that they do not change policy, processes or, in particular, the protections for local authorities that were achieved by the sterling work of the Front Bench opposite—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been dealing with EU fines. I would just like to ask the noble Lord where things stand on the draft policy statement. I am not clear whether that has become a finalised policy statement and what its status is. Subject to that, I am happy to support these amendments.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I believe that work on the policy statement is still going on, but I am happy to confirm that these amendments are exactly as I have indicated.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(4) Any provision of a certificate under subsection (2) which has the effect of excluding the whole or part of any periodic payment mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(iii) (including any such payment which has fallen due from the United Kingdom since the earlier certificate was given) may be varied by a further certificate under subsection (2).”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(ii) any periodic payments not included in that total amount (including both payments that have fallen due since the date specified under section 54(7)(b) and future periodic payments)”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(4) Any provision of a certificate under subsection (1) which has the effect of excluding the whole or part of any periodic payment mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(iii) (including any such payment which has fallen due from the United Kingdom since the earlier certificate was given) may be varied by a further certificate under subsection (2).”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(ii) any periodic payments not included in that total amount (including both payments that have fallen due since the date specified under section 64(7)(b) and future periodic payments)”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(8) Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (contributions regulations for a financial year to be in force by preceding 1 January) does not apply to regulations under that paragraph in their application to the financial year beginning in 2012 so far as they make provision related to the operation of section 47 of that Act as amended by this Act.”
Lord Greaves
“Sustainable development: duty to publish guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish guidance on the meaning and application of “sustainable development”, and(b) take such steps as he considers necessary to bring such guidance to the attention of relevant bodies.(2) For the purposes of this section “relevant body” shall in particular include—
(a) a local planning authority,(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority,(c) the Secretary of State when carrying out functions relating to applications for development consent,(d) a qualifying body as defined in section 61E(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and(e) a body or other person that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we move back fairly quickly to discuss Part 5 of the Bill on planning. My amendment is grouped with a Labour amendment, Amendment 51. This is my fourth attempt to put a reference to a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. We have the end of this Bill in sight in your Lordships’ House, and I should like to take this opportunity, specifically in relation to sustainable development and the other planning provisions in the Bill, to thank the Ministers in this House; Greg Clark, the Minister in the Commons in charge of the Bill; and the team of civil servants responsible for the Bill for what seems to have been an enormous number of discussions and careful consideration that they have given to the points I and my colleagues have raised in relation to planning.
As for this issue, I believe that there was a willingness to consider it seriously. However, it has again fallen prey to the legal advice that Ministers have received—like their predecessors in the previous Government—that the Bill is not the place to provide for sustainable development. I regret this but, nevertheless, we are where we are.
The amendment sets out what we understand—from discussions with the Government and from government statements in all our debates on sustainable development and the national planning policy framework in recent weeks—the Government are going to do. We believe and sincerely hope that they are going to set out a better and fuller definition of sustainable development within the NPPF. It is worth going back to what the draft NPPF says. Paragraph 9, headed, “Delivering sustainable development”, states:
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”—
the 1987 basic Brundtland definition. The draft NPPF continues:
“It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning. Simply stated, the principle recognises the importance of ensuring that all people should be able to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, both now and in the future”.
That, as we have all recognised, is okay so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.
In particular, it does not recognise that the definition and strategy for sustainable development moved on significantly in the 2005 sustainable development strategy, Securing the Future, which the present Government have assured us on a number of occasions is still valid, that they are not in any way revoking it, and that they still stand by the strategy. The 2005 strategy contains a number of basic definitions of sustainable development and the Labour amendment in this group sets them out. While I should not, technically, speak to that amendment until it has been spoken to by the Labour Party, I feel some proprietorial right to do so, given that it is, as far as I can see, word for word, identical to the amendment that I moved on Report. I am flattered by the fact that the Labour Party has tabled that amendment again, and I regard it as being a compliment on my parliamentary drafting. Perhaps I should make it clear that I regard that as requiring an ironic comment. Never mind— perhaps it requires what I might call a “Sewel smiley”. If we can have Sewel Motions, perhaps we can have Sewel smileys. However, it is interesting that, yet again, the Labour Party seems to be one step behind what we are doing on this Bill.
My amendment on Report was to an extent probing, but its essence, and the essence of what has been put forward across the House—both in the debates on the Bill and on the national planning policy framework—is the three pillars of economic, social and environmental considerations; the need for balance between them; and the importance within the planning system of achieving that balance.
I was interested to read and watch on the television what Greg Clark said when the House of Commons debated the NPPF on 20 October. He stated:
“There has been some suggestion that the proposals represent a fundamental change in what the system is about, but they do not. They will, quite rightly, balance the environmental, the social and the economic, and there is no change in that regard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/11; col. 1082.]
At col. 1084 he said:
“It was necessary to update the 1999 strategy in 2005. Six years on,”—
that is, in 2011—
“there are some respects in which thinking on sustainability has progressed. For example, there is the idea that the separate pillars of the economy, the environment and the social aspects of sustainability can be traded off, one against the other. Some people argue—and I think there is some merit in doing so—that that is a rather defensive position and that one should be looking for positive improvements to the environment, not simply to trade-off. That is very much the thinking in the Government’s natural environment White Paper, which talked of a net gain for nature”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/11; cols. 1084-85.]
I regard that as extremely helpful and encouraging. I know that the Minister will have some difficulty in saying too much, or indeed anything at all, about what the Government may be intending or wishing to put in the NPPF at some point in the future after they have considered the consultation on it. The consultation has closed. There have been 14,000 responses, which are more than a few, and I understand that for the best possible reasons the Minister cannot pre-empt the government response.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has spotted, we have an amendment in this group which may be familiar to him. Frankly, particularly following the debate last week, we were concerned that something was not going to get on to the agenda for tonight, so we reached for a handy amendment and this one came within our view. We tabled it to make sure that we had a last opportunity to address issues concerning sustainable development.
I am comforted by what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just said if it is his understanding that the Government’s intent is consistent with the contents of his amendment. We accept that definitions are not going to be included in the Bill but I hope that at least we shall be able to get very strong assurances that there will be full definitions in the NPPF. However, again I accept that the state of the consultation and what now has to happen will mean that the noble Baroness cannot be as fulsome as she would perhaps wish to be.
Notwithstanding that, I should like to hear from the Government more precisely where they stand on sustainable development. We have had assertions in the past that Brundtland and the 2005 strategy still hold sway, yet some of the wording in the draft NPPF document seems to countermand and undermine that. Therefore, when the noble Baroness responds, can she tell us whether it was the Government’s intent to change the balance of that 2005 Brundtland sustainable development approach or whether it was just due to inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the wording? If the consultation took the Government in a direction of supporting more growth at the expense of other pillars of the approach, is that something that they would resist? Where is their core on this? Is it Brundtland in 2005 and is the issue making sure that that is comprehensively dealt with in a consistent and coherent manner in the NPPF, or is it open for change? If it is open for change, what is the Government’s view on what the direction of that change should be? It will be interesting to hear what the Minister can say on that.
Lord Best
My Lords, perhaps it would be valuable to noble Lords to hear the views of the Local Government Association. I declare my interest as its president. The LGA believes that sustainable development can only be defined locally. Indeed, sustainable development makes sense only at a local level, as set out in the definition of sustainable development at the beginning of the national planning policy framework. There must be a balance between economic, environmental and social issues and locally elected councillors must have the flexibility to make the necessary trade-offs locally. In relation to guidance from central Government, the LGA maintains that the NPPF should make clear that it will be for the local plan to set out what sustainable development means for the local area and for the development that it will require.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the LGA are surely right that sustainable development must be interpreted locally and in the end you can only determine what it means in relation to local circumstances. However, I agree with both noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that it is important that the Government should fill out their definition, or at least their understanding of what is intended by sustainable development. The Brundtland definition is so high level that it leaves too much scope for varying interpretation. In the absence of specificity and rather fuller detail in the way in which the Government have set forth this policy, there is space for all sorts of anxieties to grow. Those anxieties have been intensified by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech when he referred to the planning system as being a “chronic obstacle to growth”. That is a profoundly misplaced analysis. Whether or not the planning system has played some part in obstructing growth over the years, what matters now is that a lot of people in this country are anxious about the Government’s intention. While they may possibly acquit CLG of desiring to concrete over the countryside and so forth, they have anxieties about the Treasury’s reading of the situation and intentions. I think that they feel the Treasury would be too ready to see the protections that the planning system has historically given to our countryside to prevent inappropriate development being swept aside. The more desperate we become to achieve economic growth the more reckless they fear the Government may be over those protections.
The Government would do themselves a good turn and would allay a great deal of anxiety that I am sure in reality is needless if they would undertake to clarify and amplify their intentions in committing themselves to promoting sustainable development. Like other noble Lords I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt a full definition on the face of primary legislation because, as we have noted, the understanding of sustainable development has itself developed over the years and will surely continue to do so. It seems that the right place for that is guidance, whether in an expanded section of the NPPF or perhaps in greater detail in fuller supplementary guidance that I continue to hope the Government will issue to support the NPPF because, admirable as I believe most of its tendencies to be, it is too high level and leaves too much scope for ambiguity and doubt.
There is not only anxiety but the danger of legal conflict and uncertainty among all concerned. I think that it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness were able to say that the Government have made up their mind firmly that they will provide a fuller explanation and definition of what they intend by sustainable development.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, in the previous debate I promised to go away and think about what should be done and whether sustainable development should find itself in legislation or in the national planning policy framework. It has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this matter has demanded careful consideration. It has been raised over and over again. We discussed this very thoroughly on Report, and I think we established that there was a good degree of agreement between us about the outcome that we are trying to achieve. I said then that there should be no doubt about the Government’s commitment to securing sustainable development through planning and to meeting environmental, social and economic needs in a balanced way. Those are the three legs of the stool that reference the planning side. It has been apparent from the debates we have had on the Bill and in the House that we need to be clear and to go further in setting out how our commitment can be achieved.
Having agreed to go away and come back with our view on whether the Bill could be amended to effect this aim or whether it could be part of the consultation on the draft national planning policy framework, it is appropriate to say more on that. I appreciate that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his colleagues is designed helpfully to probe our intentions on this, and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was trying to do the same thing. I hope I can provide reassurance.
We now have the benefit of the consultation responses and the draft NPPF. As noble Lords have said, there are 14,000 replies, and many of them are going to address this specific issue. We also have the evidence given to the environmental audit committee, so there is quite a lot of external thought coming on this. Of the responses that we have been able to look at so far, many have made a cogent case for defining sustainable development in more detail in the NPPF. Noble Lords have also voiced strong views about what should be included. Clearly, we need to tailor our definition in the light of all the views we have received. This is something that we intend to do as we revise the document. The explanation will not be a legal requirement in the Bill but will address the policy issues in the policy framework.
We cannot finalise our policy on the NPPF until we have considered all 14,000-plus responses, so I am not going to try to pre-empt that, but important themes are emerging that we want to take into account as we refine our approach. In particular, we know that we need to address the way in which the definition works alongside the presumption in favour of sustainable development, so it is clear that what we want to see through the presumption is that development is sustainable. The planning system should help to secure net benefits for present and future generations, including promoting strong, vibrant and healthy communities together with protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment—we have always had a commitment to that, but I think some of it got skewed during the early part of the consultation process, almost before it had started—in situations in which there could be limits to the environment’s ability to accept further development without irreversible damage. We will carefully consider what noble Lords and noble friends have said about building on and explicitly referencing the principles that underpinned the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy, which is the relevant strategy. We are crystal clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, my honourable friend Greg Clark, who has been managing this Bill, is clear—that sustainable development has the three legs that we have spoken about: environmental, economic and social dimensions. The purpose of the planning system as a whole is to achieve a balanced outcome—I hope that this to some extent addresses the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that actually reflects all three of these points.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
When the draft NPPF was issued for consultation, did the Government seek to change what had hitherto been the balance between the various components of sustainable development at that stage? Was it the Government’s intent to place greater emphasis on economic growth at the expense of the others? I do not assert that that is where the Government may end up, but obviously there was great concern from the wording of the document that that was the intention at that stage. Can the noble Baroness dispel that concern, or is it a real issue?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the initial expectation in the NPPF was that there would be a balanced approach to this. There are the three legs that are really relevant to planning: economic, social and environmental. Brundtland, of course, includes science, and we have been given lots of other ideas of what it might include. If I can just leave it at that, we expect this to be a balanced approach to sustainable development and we recognise that there are elements that are more reflective of the planning system. Then we will have to wait and see what comes out of the discussions.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply from my noble friend the Minister, who I think went as far as she could—in fact, I think she pushed the limits a little further than some of her more cautious advisers might have liked. I hope that what she said turns out to be satisfactory in the long run.
I just want to say another couple of quick things about sustainable development. Going back to what Greg Clark said in the House of Commons debate on the NPPF, which I think is extremely important, this is not just about balance. Balance is very important indeed, but really good planning can enhance all the three legs, or pillars, or whatever they may be called, of sustainable development. That is possible with good planning. Clearly individual decisions may be balanced one way or another, but overall there has to be balance and enhancement, particularly of the environment. Again, I hope that the issue of environmental limits that you cannot go beyond will be addressed in the NPPF.
Listening to this debate, I was musing that we have not only had the four debates on sustainable development in this Bill and the two NPPF debates; the debate seems to have gone on over the years. I was thinking back to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning Act 2008, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, when there was a willingness of the then Labour Ministers to think about what they could do about putting this into the Bill. In the end, however, they said, “No, it cannot be done, for all the reasons that have been put forward”, and all the legal reasons put forward by their advisers. Having struggled against a Labour Government on four of these Bills and trying to find our way through this one under the coalition Government, we are where we are.
Will the outcomes be satisfactory? Will we look back on these debates and say, “Yes, the NPPF is okay, despite the inauspicious way in which it was launched upon the world and despite a lot of the unfortunate wording within it”? Will that all be sorted? Will we get a document that will work? All I can say is that I hope we will. We have a lot of good intentions from the Government and from Ministers, not least my noble friend the Minister here. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will certainly be keeping up the pressure, and we simply ask them not to let us down. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Local development plans: transitional arrangements
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify transitional arrangements concerning the timetable and procedures involved in the introduction of changes to local development schemes and the preparation and adoption of local development documents.
(2) Subsection (1) applies—
(a) where changes are required by any enactment, and(b) where changes are required following the issue of new or revised guidance by the Secretary of State.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, becomes flattered again, I should say that this was another handy vehicle to make sure that we got this on the agenda.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, if the Labour Party really needs a new parliamentary draftsman to write its amendments, I might be prepared to offer my services.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
They would be very welcome.
The Bill is about to leave the House when we have no certainty that there will be any transitional provisions, let alone what those provisions might look like. The changes to our planning system, the demise of regional spatial strategies, the introduction of the duty to co-operate, the introduction of neighbourhood planning, together with the NPPF and the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development, represent a major upheaval to the planning system. The key continuing feature—we support this—is the significance of the local development plan, which, subject to material considerations, should continue to determine which planning applications would be approved. However, we know that many local development plans are not up to date. Even if they were, there seems to be uncertainty as to whether the NPPF in its current form would itself cause all of them to be out of date.
The Minister, in our debate last week, contended not. I am bound to say that I believe that this is not a universal view. Is it accepted that the NPPF will introduce new policy which must be complied with? It is of deep concern that the noble Baroness gave the Government’s position in our debate in the following terms:
“We have not decided yet what, if any, transitional arrangements there should be”—
although the Minister then added—
“but we see that you cannot get rid of the regional spatial strategies and not have something else”.—[Official Report, 27/10/11; col. GC 384.]
Perhaps the noble Baroness can expand on the latter phrase to see whether we can derive any comfort.
As we made clear in last week’s debate, we do not support or encourage local planning authorities to hold back on updating their local plans, but is it not the case that they are dealing with a moving target? There has been a very considerable response to the NPPF consultations, to which the Government have to give due consideration. It may not be until next April when we see the final version of the framework, with the prospect of no further consultation thereon, and probably no parliamentary process. It is acknowledged that the Government would be looking to fast-track a process for updating local plans, and for obtaining certificates of conformity, but this is not, surely, a total solution. Local planning authorities will not know what they have to conform with until they see the final version of the NPPF sometime next year. What assessment have the Government made of the planning inspectorate’s capacity to cope with all of this? Indeed, what assessment have they made of local planning authorities’ capacity to cope with this?
Is it not the case that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is supposed to be the stick that encourages local planning authorities to get local plans up to date, because if they do not, the national policy will be the framework for planning decisions. This carries the implication that if the stick is effective, local authorities will want to avoid the NPPF on its own providing the framework without the local plan—that is, development which an up-to-date local plan would not support could gain approval unless the adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Does the Minister accept that this could be the consequence of not having local plans up to date?
The Government are asking local planning authorities to ensure that their local plans are up to date when the NPPF, as drafted, includes new policy and the final form is unknown. Will an up-to-date plan not have to reflect the duty to co-operate? The draft NPPF is clear that local planning authorities will be expected to co-operate and to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts. A demonstration of this will be required when local plans are submitted for examination. Will it be the case, therefore, that any plan which does not involve the duty to co-operate could be challenged as being not up to date?
Lord Best
My Lords, in Committee and on Report, I tabled amendments on transitional arrangements. I agree that it is imperative that local plans are in place as soon as possible but councils must have adequate time and resources to put in place sensible plans that conform to the new NPPF and ensure that local needs are met and local people have a say in the development that affects them. This will require clear transitional arrangements so that citizens, councils and developers have certainty about when and how the presumption of sustainable development will apply. Those areas that have invested a significant amount of time and resources in getting an up-to-date local plan in place prior to the changes should not be required to go through the process again or to face further delays. It is important that any process for registering conformity is light touch and swift.
I have been pleased to hear from the Royal Town Planning Institute that progress is being made in making transitional arrangements. I know that the Local Government Association is also part of the process of working with the Government on this. I feel sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that appropriate arrangements will be put in place quickly and I look forward to hearing her response to the sensible points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I congratulate the Labour Party on writing such a brilliant amendment. The interesting thing about transitional arrangements is that when the Bill came to your Lordships’ House, they were not being talked about at all. The view was that in six months it could all be sorted out. The more it has been discussed in this House and with Ministers, the more it has become clear to everyone, including those of us who raised it tentatively at first, that it is an extremely important issue. Getting it right is crucial to the transition from the present system to the new system. The good news is that I believe that the Government, particularly the planning Ministers, now understand that. The bad news is that they have not yet produced a clear plan for that transition and how it will work. I believe that it is being thought about seriously across government.
Whether or not it should be in the NPPF is an interesting question. Originally, we were told that it did not need to be in the Bill because it could be in the policy framework. The more some of us think about it, the more complex it is and the policy framework may not be the best place for it—certainly not for most of it. It is so complex and requires so much detailed and substantive guidance to planning authorities on how to cope with the transition that it probably will need separate guidance. I do not think that this would in any way undermine the Government’s wish to bring the total of planning policy guidance down to around 50 pages, although I think that it will be a bit more than that when it comes out. The point is that, by its very nature, guidance on the transitional process will be temporary; it will come and then it will go. That is another reason why perhaps it should not be in the NPPF but should be separate guidance to local planning authorities in some detail as to how to cope.
Going back to another anecdote, I am reminded of the following phrase, which I learnt from Professor Danny Dorling:
“Anecdote is the singular of data”.
In this case I think it genuinely is.
I am about to read from a Pendle Council press release, not for special pleading but because I believe it is typical of the position that very many local planning authorities are in at the moment. I received the press release on Tuesday, headed “Six week consultation on Pendle’s most important planning document”. It says:
“It’s the final chance for Pendle residents to comment on a document that will influence how Pendle changes in the years to come. A six-week consultation starts on Friday 28th October on the Core Strategy”.
Then it explains what is in the document and what its purpose is. It continues:
“Between now and Monday 12th December you can view a draft version of the Core Strategy”,
at various council outlets and libraries throughout Pendle or, alternatively, on the website. It goes on to say:
“During the six-week consultation, planning officers will be attending a series of drop-in sessions in different parts of Pendle”.
That is what that glossy leaflet was all about. I think there are 10 or 12 of those taking place. It is a big consultation operation and exercise. It then says:
“A display will also be available to view at Nelson's Number One Market Street”—
which is the council’s call-in centre—
“for the full six weeks”.
The councillor who looks after planning issues in Pendle says:
“‘The Core Strategy will set out the overall approach for planning and development in Pendle for the next 15 years, so it's essential that residents make their views known before it's finalised … This is your final chance to help shape the future of Pendle’”.
Then I thought: this is all going ahead. The council quite rightly, I think, decided to continue going ahead with the production of its local plan as quickly as possible despite the presence of the Localism Bill casting a shadow over all these operations. This is really localising and turning into an anecdote some of the broad questions that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked. Will Pendle Council and lots of other councils around the country have to start again when this Bill comes into effect? To what extent will they have to go back and revisit their evidence base for their local plan? To what extent will they have to go back to the core strategy—which is 200 to 250 pages thick, I would guess—and rewrite it? To what extent will the whole process now be put back by six or 12 months? Will this quite intensive consultation process all have to be done again at this time next year perhaps? Those are the kinds of practical questions that councils all over the country are facing. They need very clear guidance on the transitional period from the Government as quickly as possible.
I think that this is my last speech on this Bill. There may be sighs of relief around the House. I have already thanked the Minister, her colleagues and the civil servants on the Bill team for their great kindness and for the assistance that I and my colleagues have had. I also want to thank people around the House. I thank the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, on the Labour Front Bench for their very sensible and constructive approach to the Bill. I may be doing severe damage to their career prospects within the Labour Party by saying that, but I think it needs to be said. We have worked with them and discussed things with them. We have not always agreed, but the amount of co-operation that there has been around the House on the Bill has been to the advantage of the House and to the advantage of the Government in that when the Bill leaves very shortly now, it will be a very much better Bill than when it came.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it is a great strength of the Government’s policy that it commits us to plan-led and sustainable development. It follows from that that it would be extremely unfortunate if there were to be possibly a long interval—a black hole—in which possibly half of planning authorities, maybe even all, did not have a valid plan. During that period there would be real danger of abuse and bad, inappropriate development gaining permission, and perhaps even being built, which would contradict the Government’s proper objectives. Unless the Minister is able this evening to give clear-cut reassurance that there will be firm and legally binding transitional arrangements, I fear there could be consequences that the Government do not want. I also fear that there will be needless public anxiety—or, possibly, even justified public anxiety—and it would be sensible and helpful if the Minister could finally allay our anxieties on this point.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not going to be able to reassure everyone on everything. When we discussed this in the past, I pointed out the Government’s concern that there had been transitional arrangements on previous occasions which had resulted in only 40 councils having local plans, with some of the remainder being on tap and others having some being prepared. Transitional arrangements are a bit of a worry. In response to a question today, I said to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that this is very much in our minds and I can confirm that that is the situation. We are looking very carefully at transitional arrangements, particularly in respect of the analysis of the NPPF and what that will throw up. We have listened also to the views of the Local Government Association and others and will be taking them into account.
We place an enormous amount of importance on up-to-date local plans and we will put in place transitional arrangements that advantage plan making to reflect the fact that the national planning policy framework is all about putting local communities in control of planning decisions through their local plan. As I have said previously, the framework is policy not legislation and legislative measures are unnecessary as the Secretary of State can deliver transitional arrangements more appropriately through policy or guidance. That clearly will be part of the discussions and talks we are having about how much of that is required.
It would also be helpful if I made it absolutely clear that the status of local plans will not change when the Bill is enacted and the final national planning policy framework comes into force. Local plans will continue to be part of the development plan and the plan will remain the first point of reference for decisions on planning applications and appeals. It is, of course, for local councils to decide when they should update their local plans—it is entirely a matter for them and their communities—but it is important that we help them through the process. We are supporting councils by simplifying the process of preparing plans. This will help provide flexibility so that councils can concentrate on issues that matter to them and their communities.
On the question about the Planning Inspectorate, we are working closely with it to make sure that the examination process can be quicker and that, if necessary, only parts of a local plan need to be reconsidered. It is a flexible arrangement and we are sure that the Planning Inspectorate will be able to help with that appropriately.
As we have discussed before, if there are policies and regional strategies that councils wish to incorporate in local plans they can do so by undertaking a review focusing on those policies. Councils can also continue to draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to support local plan policies, supplemented, as needed, by up-to-date local evidence. The availability of an existing body of evidence will also help councils through the local plan review process and, consequently, transition.
The NPPF offers councils the opportunity to seek a “certificate of conformity” with national policy which will help them identify which of their existing local policies are consistent with the framework. We expect that many elements of local plans will conform with the direction of national policy. Where issues are indentified, councils should attempt to address these through reviews undertaken as quickly as possible. We will, of course, be considering any representations made on this point in the current consultation.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I think there is an important point here. Will the certificate of conformity be available to planning authorities that have an approved local plan that is waiting for inspection before it is inspected, or will it be only for local plans that have already been adopted?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had had his last word on this Bill, so I am a little bit taken aback. I will get an answer to that question as we go along. The answer is no—only adopted plans will have the certificate of conformity.
I hope that I have made it clear that the transitional arrangements are still under consideration but that there will be transitional arrangements. I have been asked whether there will be guidance from the Secretary of State. It will set out as clearly as possible what the transitional arrangements are and any other procedural issues.
Let me conclude by reiterating—this is not my last word, unfortunately—the importance that this Government place on local plans and the need for effective arrangements, delivered through policy or guidance, to manage transition. I want to offer a firm reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of this, as I said earlier today, and will ensure that this is addressed alongside the revisions that are made to the NPPF itself. We are of course looking very closely at all the suggestions that have been made about transition during the consultation process.
We recognise there are genuine issues to be addressed about the status of local plans during the transitional period. I hope that I have addressed some of these tonight, but we will also be considering them further. With these reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for as clear an indication as she is able to give about transition. I take some comfort from that. Whether it ends up in the NPPF or in guidance is not the most important issue as long as it is there and it is effective.
I thank other noble Lords who have supported and argued in favour of transition, including my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind words—this must not get too much like a love-in—which we ought to reciprocate. This has been an interesting experience for those of us who are new to planning legislation. It has been an intriguing position. I used to think that Luton was the centre of the universe, but I understand Pendle now may begin to be a bit of a rival—perhaps we will pay a visit one day to see.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment because I believe the noble Baroness has given us the strongest degree of reassurance I have heard to date on this issue.
Earl Attlee
“Local authority, statutory undertakers’ and National Trust land
(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 128(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of local authority or statutory undertakers’ land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by the authority or statutory undertakers and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.(3) In section 130(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of certain National Trust land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by National Trust and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the need for this amendment emerged following the first decision under the regime a little over a week ago when it became clear that the Planning Act 2008 contains a drafting flaw that could have serious consequences for the regime if not corrected. Under compulsory purchase law, local authorities, statutory undertakers and the National Trust have special protection from proposals to compulsorily acquire their land. Where they object to a compulsory purchase order, and do not withdraw that objection, the order is subject to special parliamentary procedure—an involved, complex and often lengthy process which can add six to nine months to the timetable.
The first decision under the regime has demonstrated that the Planning Act 2008 has inadvertently widened the grounds on which special parliamentary procedure is engaged. Any representation by a relevant body on any aspect of the development consent order not limited to compulsory acquisition can trigger SPP. This means that many more projects will need to go through the SPP than do at present, with implications for growth and jobs. Government Amendment 53, therefore, seeks to correct the drafting of the Planning Act to bring it into line with compulsory purchase law as it operates under the town and country planning system.
Let me be absolutely clear on this for the benefit of the House. We are absolutely not seeking to lessen the important protections for land belonging to those bodies, and indeed this amendment would not prevent the National Trust, for example, from invoking SPP where a development consent order would grant consent for its land to be compulsorily acquired. The amendment seeks only to correct an error in the 2008 Act, thereby ensuring that the compulsory purchase regime is consistent across both the 2008 Act and the major infrastructure planning regimes. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his amendment and allowing me to speak to my three amendments in this grouping. He has agreed to respond after this, and it is very welcome that we can do it in this way.
I shall just make a very small comment on government Amendment 53. While I welcome the amendment—it is good to see that the Government recognise that some changes have to be made to the Planning Act in this regard—it does nothing for the point that I shall come on to shortly. In a wider sense, the special parliamentary procedure seems to be an additional safeguard in the 21st century, with a rather heavier touch, as I shall come back to several times, than the approach taken in the Harbours Act or the Transport and Works Act orders, which are two of the principal order-making regimes that the Planning Act draws on and replaces.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The House will recall that, both in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and I moved, and spoke in support of, a number of quite technical arguments, which we thought were pretty important to the Bill, designed to make a number of changes to the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 dealing with the new regime for considering national infrastructure projects, which are currently operated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Planning Act is a distinct improvement on the many regimes that we had before for the types of infrastructure that it replaces, and I think that it is settling down.
My concern, which I expressed previously and will have to return to shortly tonight, is that this Bill should have gone further and made more changes to the 2008 Act that are either a necessary or logical consequence of the IPC's abolition and the return of decisions to Ministers or are simply required to make the 2008 Act work better. I have been briefed in particular by the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which has people with great experience in this field. I welcome the Government's intention to keep the new regime under review, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister tonight a little more as to quite what they are going to review and when.
The House will recall that the Minister, Greg Clark MP, said in a Written Ministerial Statement that the Government are,
“listening to industry, representative groups and others using the system … and will be exploring opportunities for improvement to ensure the system has the right mix of certainty, flexibility and efficiency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/11; col. 73WS.]
That is good. In the impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions on major infrastructure projects, published in January this year, we are told that, in relation to the policy behind the preferred options, which is now reflected in the Bill,
“It will be reviewed 04/2014”.
I would like to hear from the Minister how this review will take place.
Before discussing in more detail the issues focused in these amendments, I want to mention a very recent development that appears to be highly relevant. Apparently,
“The European Union is concerned that the single market is not operating effectively because of a lack of integrated energy, transport and digital infrastructure”—
I certainly support that view—
“and is also not moving to a secure, low-carbon energy future quickly enough”.
On 19 October, only a couple of weeks ago, the European Commission launched two new proposed regulations to address this: the “Connecting Europe Facility”, which is about to spend €50 billion on all three sectors of infrastructure, which is a great deal of money; and a focus on energy infrastructure, for which the Commission will require new authorisation regimes because such projects will have to be subject to a special “permit granting process”. It is a bit complicated, but €9 billion has been earmarked for energy projects.
The Government will have to change regulations or legislation to allow these internationally significant infrastructure projects—which are apparently called ISIPs, as opposed to NSIPs or something—that will sit above, or instead of, the Planning Act regime for nationally significant projects. There are various processes and timetables set out for this and the pre-application consultation requirements are quite prescriptive. I understand that all these are required to be in place by 1 September 2013, which is only nine months after the regulation is due to come into force. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to do this and make sure that the money being offered from the EU is available.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting between his officials and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, between Report and now. We had a very useful meeting and I take the opportunity to thank Ministers and officials for the very helpful discussions. We should have had the meeting some time ago, but we did not—as was said at Report. However, I hope that, even so, we can make progress.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I should say that Amendment 87 relates to the Minister’s amendment about development consent orders and the need to have special parliamentary procedures where there are objections. As the Minister said, it could take about nine months extra if one had to go through these procedures. I still wonder why we have to go through these procedures when there should be a single consents regime with a harmonised set of requirements and procedures, which I call a one-stop shop. I compare the complexity and difficulty of this with the transport and works orders and the harbours orders.
On Report, the Minister referred to the Planning Act drawing on long-standing and well-established protections from compulsory purchase orders for certain types of land. He thought that our proposals then would significantly weaken them, but I do not accept his reference to a two-tier system—why it should go further than happens with the TWA and the harbours order. The House will recall that the only project so far to be approved by the IPC, which is Covanta's proposed incinerator in Bedfordshire, will now have to be approved by this House and the other House under SPP. A lot of people may not like these incinerators but that has gone through a process and, again, will be subject to six to nine months’ extra delay. I hope that the Minister can indicate that these issues will be reviewed in the light of experience.
The next amendment in the group, Amendment 88, refers to the regulations made under Section 150, which deal with construction-related consents in England. Again, we discussed this quite thoroughly on Report—so much for having a one-stop shop, as there are still up to 42 other consents required from regulators in England and a further 36 in Wales. I still have not discovered why there are so many extra ones in Wales but it may be that the noble Earl will take the view that it does not matter very much. Again, the point is that it would be very good for those developing new projects to be able to reduce the number of these other consents which they have to get. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give some kind of timetable and a commitment to reviewing this number, and even to produce a report to Parliament every year for the next few years. That could challenge his colleagues in other departments on whether they really can be brought underneath this umbrella of the one-stop shop.
Finally, on Amendment 89, again, we have discussed the creation of criminal offences in some detail but it is still a worry that the types of offences which can be introduced through this process are not sufficient for the types of projects and offences which might be required. Again, that provides a much greater limit than the Transport and Works Act orders do, which is why I wanted to see whether we could include railways and construction in tidal waters. One example which springs to mind is the question of trespass during construction, which could well occur on the high-speed line—assuming that it gets built—or on some of the offshore wind farms, if people can get around there. Trespass is a very difficult thing to stop if you do not have the right regulations, and it would be good to see whether the Minister would be able to extend the existing criminal offences to the two issues in this amendment.
To sum up, we have made progress on these issues in discussions on the Bill but we have certainly not gone as far as I would have liked to see. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us a little more about the issues that I have raised and about three things in particular? First, there is the impact assessment on how the Planning Act 2008 has worked in respect of projects through the IPC and its successor, which I believe is supposed to be there in 2014. Secondly, there is how this connecting Europe facility will work and whether the Government are keen that projects here should get the extra €9 billion that will be available for energy alone. Finally, can I press him to have an earlier review and a progress report to reduce significantly those 42 consents, plus the 36 in Wales?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to his amendment so comprehensively that I want to add only one point. As my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, the Government’s own amendment came to light only a week ago. I should like to say a very warm thank you to him and to the officials who recognised so swiftly that there had to be a change to the 2008 Act to prevent quite unnecessary use of the special parliamentary procedure, or SPP.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said: there are still too many examples where such procedures will or could need to be invoked. If anybody makes an objection—for instance, where one is dealing with local authority land—and that objection is sustained, it will have to go through this special parliamentary procedure. While the decisions on major infrastructure projects were being taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a quango, that may have been a necessary parliamentary protection. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said, under the new procedure, perhaps from April 2012, these decisions will be taken by a Minister accountable to Parliament. This changes the nature of the necessity for these other protective procedures to be built in.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I would very much welcome an indication from my noble friends on the Front Bench that they will look at this again. I understand that, in the short time that we have had to deal with this—it came up only on Report in this House—it has been difficult for Ministers to go as far as we would perhaps like. However, with the review coming up, there seems to be an opportunity to have another look at this so that it gets somewhat nearer the one-stop shop that was originally offered by the Ministers in the previous Government as being the major benefit of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. It most manifestly is not a one-stop shop at the moment. Maybe it never could be a one-stop shop but it could certainly have fewer than the 42 consents that are necessary for these major projects. I hope my noble friends will be able to give us some reassurance that they are sympathetic to this and will, in the review, look at it very carefully with a view to coming somewhat nearer the original objective that was held out to Parliament when the 2008 Act was introduced.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Scottish solicitor who is registered as a foreign lawyer in England and Wales. I also have an interest in planning. I thank the noble Earl for bringing forward Amendment 53, which deals with a real anomaly. I also support my noble friend on Amendments 87 and 88. Much of what I would say has already been said, but I shall just add a couple of points.
On the special parliamentary procedure, on Report my noble friend Lord McKenzie expressed some reservations about the abolition of what was perhaps seen as a protection. However, the point that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made is that it is a heavier regime than that which pertained under the Transport and Works Act and the Harbours Act. Therefore, it seems curious that we have made the development consent orders regime more onerous than it was under those two Acts. I do not suppose that my noble friend will press his amendment tonight. However, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the operation of the special parliamentary procedure will be part of the review. Perhaps that will give us an opportunity to look at it and reassure those who are sceptical about removing the protection, giving them some comfort that the protections will still be there in the role of the Secretary of State and his accountability to Parliament.
Amendment 88 would do away with the large number of consenting regimes that are still in place, or at least significantly reduce them. It is not the case that doing away with these consenting regimes somehow removes protections, because protective provisions will be put into the development consent order. That is the crucial thing, and there are plenty of examples, again under transport and works orders, of protective regimes being put into place. I gave an example earlier in the proceedings of this House.
We have to strive to get a one-stop shop. If there is bureaucratic inertia to addressing this issue, then it is up to Ministers to argue the case in government against those who are suggesting that we cannot do anything about that. We need to get a more streamlined process, so that development is not held up simply because we have to go through yet another procedure. I welcome the forthcoming review, and I hope that will give us an opportunity to clear up some of these anomalies that have been left over from previous systems and planning regimes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley for spotting a difficulty and the Government for responding with their Amendment 53, which seeks to deal with that. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have raised a number of profound and important issues about how the new system is working, the need for a one-stop shop, the connecting Europe facility and how we will take advantage of that, and the special parliamentary procedures, but I am not sure that we are going to solve all those issues tonight. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but if he is able to confirm that there is a review under way, that seems to be the arena in which these very important issues can be picked up and addressed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments for their contribution to the debate on these important issues. I thought we had an excellent debate on Report, and I am grateful to the noble Lords for their time at the meeting we had a week ago to further discuss these matters. I am happy to adhere to correct procedure, and that is to allow noble Lords to move the amendments before giving a response.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to developments in the EU; this is developing policy and I will have to write to him on that point. Noble Lords have already explained the amendments in this group at some length, but I will briefly summarise. Amendment 87 would remove Sections 128 to 132 of the 2008 Act, which made provisions relating to the compulsory acquisition of special types of land. Amendment 88 seeks to amend Section 150 of the Act, so that it applies only in relation to land in Wales. Amendment 89 would extend the existing provisions of the Localism Bill in relation to the creation of offences in a development consent order so that offences could be created in respect of railways and off-shore development in addition to those already provided for within the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave the example of trespass during construction. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said and I agree that these matters need further consideration. These are complex issues and we will need to think on them carefully in the light of the new regime’s vanguard cases.
Baroness Hanham
“(1) In section 20B(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (demoted assured shorthold tenancy lasts for one year unless subsection (3) applies) after “subsection (3) applies” insert “, but see section 20BA”.
(2) ”
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendments 54, 55 and 56 are technical amendments that ensure, in line with our original policy intention, that where a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy is demoted, the tenant can be given another fixed-term tenancy upon successful completion of the demotion period.
Without these amendments, such tenants would automatically become periodic assured “lifetime” tenants on successful completion of the demotion period. That would clearly be unfair—in effect, a reward for behaving anti-socially in the past—and mean that private registered providers would in practice be unlikely to demote fixed-term tenancies, rather than simply seeking to evict for anti-social behaviour. These amendments ensure that private registered providers of social housing who demote fixed term assured tenants are in the same position as local authorities who demote flexible tenants. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I accept that these government amendments are to correct a drafting error. I am pleased that someone spotted it before the Bill left your Lordships’ House. Well done to whoever did that. It would be regrettable if we had had to waste valuable parliamentary time correcting this error at a later stage if it had passed into law. The substantive amendment clarifies that a fixed-term tenant should get another fixed-term tenancy on successful completion of the demotion period. From these Benches we have no objection whatever to that. Time is getting on and I will leave it there.
Baroness Hanham
““20BA Assured shorthold tenancies following demoted tenancies
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) section 20B applies to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England (“the demoted tenancy”),(b) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing,(c) the demoted tenancy was created by an order under section 6A made after the coming into force of section 162(2) of the Localism Act 2011,(d) the assured tenancy that was terminated by that order was an assured shorthold tenancy that, whether or not it was a fixed term tenancy when terminated by the order, was granted for a term certain of not less than two years,(e) apart from subsection (2), the demoted tenancy would cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4), and(f) the landlord has served a notice within subsection (3) on the tenant before the demoted tenancy ceases to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4).(2) The demoted tenancy does not cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4), and at the time when it would otherwise cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) to (4)—
(a) it becomes an assured shorthold tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy for a term certain, and(b) section 20B ceases to apply to it.(3) The notice must—
(a) state that, on ceasing to be a demoted assured shorthold tenancy, the tenancy will become an assured shorthold tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy for a term certain of the length specified in the notice,(b) specify a period of at least two years as the length of the term of the tenancy, and(c) set out the other express terms of the tenancy.(4) Where an assured shorthold tenancy becomes a fixed term tenancy by virtue of subsection (2)—
(a) the length of its term is that specified in the notice under subsection (3), and(b) its other express terms are those set out in the notice.”(3) Before section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 insert—”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, our reforms to the complaints system for social housing are designed to promote the resolution of complaints as far as possible at the most local level, and to encourage a system where ideally the ombudsman is brought in only where local resolution does not prove possible. At Report, amendments were tabled by several noble Lords that would have modified our proposals by introducing a so-called dual-track approach to the process for making complaints to the Housing Ombudsman. As I made clear to the House, the Government’s view is that this would fail to deliver a sufficiently localist approach.
The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, proposed that a compromise should be considered. They recognised the value of local complaint resolution but were concerned that having gone through the local route tenants must ultimately be able to secure redress where they receive a poor service.
In the light of these most helpful observations, I agreed to take this issue away to see what more could be done to ensure that our provisions were sufficiently flexible.
With Amendment 58, the Government are now proposing a way forward that retains the localist approach but, in specified circumstances, allows the tenant direct access to the ombudsman. We hope that this gives assurance to noble Lords that we have acted upon their concerns through allowing a degree of flexibility into our proposals that will be of further benefit to the tenant.
Under these proposals, tenants will retain the option to go directly to the Housing Ombudsman if eight weeks have elapsed since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, or if a local representative explicitly declines to refer the complaint to the ombudsman or agrees that the tenant may approach the ombudsman directly.
The eight-week exception would assist tenants in cases where, for example, the local representative simply did not respond to their complaint. We propose that the time period for this condition would begin at the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure, not when the tenant first approached a local representative. This is so that a clear audit trail exists should the case eventually go to the ombudsman. Starting the clock at this point will make the system straightforward and minimise burdens on tenants.
The second exception is designed to address the concern that a local representative could simply prevent a tenant securing redress by refusing to refer the complaint to the ombudsman, despite the fact that the tenant had attempted to resolve the complaint locally. In most cases, we would expect a local representative to deal with the case or to refer it to the ombudsman, but we recognise that there may be occasions, such as where there is a conflict of interest, where it would be preferable for tenants to have direct access to the ombudsman. For this reason, we wish to provide that a designated person may agree that a complainant can take their complaint to the ombudsman directly.
Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would alter the first of our proposed exceptions by providing that tenants may access the ombudsman directly after six weeks have elapsed. I shall let her speak to her amendment before responding to it. In the mean time, I beg to move Amendment 57.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 60 and, in doing so, I welcome enormously the amendments tabled by the Minister on behalf of the Government. I warmly welcome what she has put forward concerning the preference for having things dealt with, if at all possible, locally and as soon as possible. If it does not do his future career a lot of harm, perhaps I may associate the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, with the thanks to the Government for moving on this. He cannot be in his place tonight but I am afraid that the two of us are at one in thanking the Government, which I think puts us both in very bad odour.
What the Government have done has been welcomed very widely. I know that the British and Irish Ombudsman Association has supported this final retention of a citizen’s right to direct access. Similarly, the National Housing Federation supports the line which enables MPs and councillors to be involved as the first route at the discretion of the complainant but allows the fallback position. Likewise, the Law Commission prefers a system where the complaints can go either through a local representative or to an ombudsman. I hope that the Government know that tenants are similarly very happy with the new amendments, under which they can either deal directly with their councillor or go to the ombudsman. The organisation Which? similarly prefers the choice of the local route but, if not, then the fallback position if for whatever reason the complainant does not want to involve their MP or councillor. As the Minister said, the reasons for that could well be a conflict of interest: the councillor may be the provider; the MP may already have heard the case in their surgery; or the MP may know the local council official involved. The only other reason that has been mentioned is that there could be a threat to the tenant’s privacy where there are issues that they would perhaps not want to share with an elected official. The only other point when somebody may want to go to the ombudsman, albeit after the delay, would be when an elected representative perhaps would be rarely accustomed to awarding redress and would not have the authority to enforce any award.
The way in which this has been tabled by the Government is to be greatly welcomed. It clarifies the current position of the Housing Ombudsman because the scheme requires complainants to have completed any internal complaints procedure with their own provider before going to the ombudsman. Only in very exceptional circumstances, such as oppression or something like unreasonable delay, would the Housing Ombudsman take a case before it had been through the provider’s in-house procedure. That is also helpful in the wording of the Government’s amendments. All the other organisations similarly take that line.
I am delighted that the wording allows local access or the fall back after eight weeks. It is only that that brings up my very small amendment. I have no difficulties with the idea of some delay after the internal procedure is over for the complainant to take stock and consider whether a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman is still justified, having heard the reasons for being turned down by the in-house procedure. Two months seems a little long, especially as the internal procedure that they would have already gone through could also have been a bit lengthy. My amendment would simply shave a fortnight off those eight weeks. The Government have moved a long way on this amendment and I hope they will go a little bit further. An extra 14 days would make this a particularly good final answer to the original amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has just said, the Minister has moved a long way since we last debated this. We all accepted the strong desirability of resolving these matters locally whenever possible, but we realised during or even before that debate that it had an unintended consequence of giving the designated person the right of veto. I do not think that that was what the Government intended and I am pleased that they have recognised that, and that it has been removed. Once again, I thank the Minister for not only listening but for acting. At this late hour at this very late stage of the Bill I do not propose to debate further whether it should be six or eight weeks. I am just glad that we have got to where we have.
Lord Best
Once again the House of Lords consideration of this Bill has led to a really sensible change to the legislation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Newton—I have supported these amendments all the way—on persuading the Minister who I know has handled this with great distinction. On behalf of all the organisations which have been extremely worried about this and all the people whose complaints will now be better handled, I thank the Minister very much.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. They are a work in progress. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her amendment which would reduce the period before referral from eight to six weeks. I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend’s proposal.
I never really got to the bottom of why it was such an issue for the Government. Looking back to the debate on Report, it was not only Members from the Labour Benches who expressed such concerns but Members from all sides. I have always thought that the democratic filter would do nothing to improve the process of enabling tenants to resolve their complaints. The Government’s proposals allow a tenant with a complaint direct access to the ombudsman after going through a process or on the refusal of a designated person to send it on.
When the noble Baroness responds to the debate, will she say how the ombudsmen satisfy themselves that either of the two conditions for direct referral have been met? I hope that that will be something very simple, such as the copy of a letter or an e-mail confirming that the complainant has gone through the process and the period of time has elapsed, or the refusal of a designated person, as I do not want to see added burdens on the complainant.
At this point, I would like to add my thanks to the Minister, other noble Lords on all sides of the House and the Bill team as we draw to a close on this Bill. This is the first Bill on which I have contributed to your Lordships’ House’s discussions from the Dispatch Box. It has been an interesting learning curve for me. I hope, in particular, that I have been of assistance to my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Beecham. I again thank the Minister for bringing these amendments back. They are very welcome.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we thought carefully about the time limit and believe that eight weeks strikes the right balance. It allows sufficient time for a complaint to reach the local representative and for the local representative to make representations to the landlord and achieve a successful resolution to the complaint without imposing an unnecessary or onerous delay on the tenant. It might help the House if I unpick this a little further.
First, as the clock starts at the end of the landlord’s process in our proposal, we would expect the tenant to require a little time to forward the complaint to the local representative, and we make allowance for this. Secondly, it is important to recognise that in most cases the local representative will want to review the case materials before going further and will possibly want to discuss them with the tenant. It is key to our aim of getting local representatives more involved in housing complaints that they are given the space and opportunity to do that. If, on the other hand, the local representative concludes that the complaint cannot be resolved locally, they do not need to wait for the eight weeks to elapse. They can at any stage refer the complaint to the ombudsman or agree to the tenant accessing the ombudsman directly. We believe that we should trust local representatives on the ground to make this judgment and to provide effective support and advocacy on behalf of tenants.
I was asked how the ombudsman would know that the tests had been satisfied before the matter was referred to him. I understand that this is a matter for the ombudsman, who plans to consult over the next year on a revised statutory scheme that will set out these matters. I hope that that will enable the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 7AA (complaints that need not be made by way of referral).”
“Complaints that need not be made by way of referral by designated person7AA (1) Paragraph 7A(1) does not apply in relation to a complaint against a social landlord made to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme if the ombudsman is satisfied that—
(a) the social landlord has procedures for considering complaints against the social landlord, (b) the matter that forms the subject of the complaint has been submitted to those procedures,(c) those procedures have been exhausted, and(d) the complaint has been made to the ombudsman after the end of the eight weeks beginning with the day on which those procedures were exhausted.(2) Paragraph 7A(1) does not apply in relation to a complaint against a social landlord made to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme if—
(a) the ombudsman is satisfied that a designated person—(i) has refused to refer the complaint to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme, or(ii) has agreed to the complaint being made otherwise than by way of a referral by a designated person, and(b) the refusal, or agreement, is in writing or the ombudsman is satisfied that it has been confirmed in writing.(3) Paragraph 7A(2) (meaning of “designated person”) applies also for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2).”
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 62 to 67. These amendments are in response to two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on Report: Amendments 96 and 103. I know that my noble friend Lord True also has an interest in these matters. Those amendments related to obligations on the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made at consultation where he proposes to bring forward a mayoral development corporation. I am happy to say that we have looked carefully at the case put forward by the noble Lords for amending the Bill and propose to introduce the following changes.
Amendment 61 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to the mayor’s proposals for a mayoral development area. Amendment 62 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposed planning functions.
Amendments 64 and 65 are minor and technical relating to Clause 203 and put right minor inaccuracies arising from changes to the Bill. Amendment 66 would require the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough, where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposals for non-domestic rate relief. Amendment 67 defines “affected local authority”.
Together these amendments would put an affected borough on the same footing as the London Assembly with the regard to the duty on the mayor to respond directly to any concerns it may raise. I trust they address my noble friend’s concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, of course, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friends for having, at this late stage, agreed these amendments. I cannot do better than quote a note I received only this morning from London Councils. It states that this is a notable change in the Bill and one that borough councils will very much welcome in years to come. I would endorse that very warmly. I thank my noble friends.
Baroness Hanham
“In paragraph (c) “affected local authority” means a person specified by section 196(4)(d), (e), (f) or (g) in relation to the area.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“In paragraph (c) “affected local authority” means a person specified by section 196(4)(d), (e), (f) or (g) in relation to the area.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(2) In paragraphs 6 and 7 “education functions” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996.”
Baroness Hanham
“(10A) In paragraph 11A for “7 to” substitute “8 and”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18)5A In section 49(1)(de) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (disclosure of information by Commission or auditor etc for purposes of functions of ethical standards officer or Public Services Ombudsman for Wales) omit “an ethical standards officer or”.
Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)5B In section 31 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (exemptions from subject information provisions for data processed in connection with certain regulatory functions)—
(a) in subsection (7) omit paragraph (b), and(b) in subsection (8)(b) omit “, or to an ethical standards officer,”.”
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I beg to move government Amendment 76 and speak to Amendments 77 to 83.
Your Lordships agreed to government amendments to provide that a council tax referendum could not be triggered solely due to expenditure that had been supported in a local referendum. However, the agreement reached at Report stage to remove local referendums from the Bill means that any link between council tax referendums and local referendums is no longer relevant. These amendments, therefore, remove the references to local referendums from Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, these amendments come in Schedule 5 which deals with referendums, including council tax referendums. I apologise at this late hour for raising an issue which has only just come to light in relation to council tax referendums; that is, a communication from the Electoral Commission— received extremely late in the day, it must be said—raising concerns about the procedures. I had a word with the noble Earl previously under the misapprehension that the noble Baroness would be replying to this amendment. I am not asking for a definitive answer tonight, because I do not know whether the noble Earl has actually seen the communication from the Electoral Commission. However, it was recommending that the proposed arrangements that any council tax referendums should commence from next year—Spring 2012—should not take place and that referendums should not be required to be held until 2013. There has been a principle, apparently accepted for several years now, that regulations including conduct rules should be clear no later than six months in advance of the date of the first poll to which they will apply. It is clearly of the view that that will not be possible in this case, as it has seen only a very small part of the draft secondary legislation which will be required for referendums. It has not seen details specifically for these referendums. There are a number of factors, including the fact that there might be multiple referendums held because of the variety of precepting authorities which would be potentially involved in the issue of such referendums as and when these might be held.
The Electoral Commission’s assessment is that,
“there is a high level of risk that any council tax referendums held in Spring 2012 may not be well run … There is not in our view enough time before then to adequately ensure”—
I notice it is splitting its infinitives—
“that regulations are well drafted and electoral administrators are properly prepared, and campaigners are ready to engage with others”.
Therefore, it is asking for,
“a clear commitment to not hold these referendums until Spring 2013”.
It makes the helpful suggestion that we might table amendments, but of course we are out of time to table amendments. It raises questions about how the Electoral Commission works and I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy has already raised questions about that. However, it makes an additional point that has been touched on in previous discussions on the funding of referendums and whether the rules about donations and campaign spending and so on ought to be brought into play to deal with these referendums.
It is very late. I am not expecting the Minister to give a definitive answer but I would be grateful if he could assure the House that these matters will be considered. Obviously, I expect the Government to take seriously the views of the Electoral Commission. In practice, I suspect that next year there will not be many councils that, given the general state of play, will be proposing council tax levels such as to trigger potential referendums. We cannot be certain, of course, but it is probably unlikely. There is little to be lost and indeed much to be gained, I venture to suggest, by looking closely into these matters and responding positively to the belated recommendations of the commission. An indication that the Government will at least think about that would be very welcome. Subject to that, we will certainly agree the amendments, which are simply a tidying-up process following the welcome decision to abandon local referendums at large.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, does not disappoint me. I have read the letter from the Electoral Commission carefully. All organisations would love to have the maximum possible time to implement changes, and I understand that these are complex changes. However, council tax payers expect to have protection against excessive council tax increases. That is what we are delivering through the Localism Bill. We have a duty to consult the Electoral Commission. We are fulfilling that duty to make sure that the right processes are in place. However, the Chancellor recently announced a council tax freeze in England for 2012-13. We expect most if not all authorities to take up the freeze, in which case there will be no need for referendums next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, graciously recognised.
The Government intend these provisions to become effective from 2012-13 onwards, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in sufficient time. We will of course reflect on what the Electoral Commission has said as part of our ongoing engagement with it. Noble Lords should also remember that the Secretary of State will set the excessiveness level, which will have to be approved by another place, and if necessary a local authority can be put into a special category if it has any specific problems. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
“( ) that the draft order is made by the authority, or”
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very pleased to be moving and speaking to the very last amendments to this Bill, after our many months of discussing it. This gives me the chance to say to the Minister, to the Ministers who have supported her, and indeed to the government Ministers in another place, that this Bill has been enormously improved during its House of Lords stages. Indeed, the key role of this House in scrutinising legislation has been wonderfully illustrated by the progress of the Localism Bill.
I have been given a list of 10 major issues that were originally of considerable concern to the Local Government Association, for example, and on which that body, representing local authorities up and down the land, now feels reassured and to a very large degree satisfied with the legislation as it now appears. The same kind of list could have been devised by a number of external agencies, with the same satisfaction rating at the end of that. It has been a long slog, with meetings all through the Summer Recess, and Ministers have worked incredibly hard. The outcome is a Bill that has been transformed. Both thanks and congratulations are in order, very much including congratulations to the opposition Front Bench, and, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, in particular, who handled this process with great care, courtesy and skill to very great effect, and to the efforts of external bodies that have made their representations to us so helpfully and so effectively.
Lord Tope
My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the beginning of his moving the amendment and echo also the words of my noble friend Lord Greaves in thanking very much the Ministers and the Bill team for the very constructive way in which this Bill’s very lengthy process has been approached. As I understand it, we are now sending something like 100 pages of amendments back to the Commons. What is more notable is that all those amendments have been passed without the need for a vote; in other words, we have truly reached consensus. Of course, like all consensus, it has not achieved everything that each of us would have wished but, without any doubt, we are sending back a very much better Bill than the one we received back in June.
Tribute has also been paid to the opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, had any further hopes for their future careers but, should anyone read the late-night proceedings in Hansard, we have probably now effectively ended their prospects. I pay tribute to them for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill. It reflects a view with which all of us started; that we were here not to play games or to score points off each other—some of us have known each other quite long enough to know exactly how to score points if we were so minded—but for the genuine interests of better local government and local democracy, which I think we have achieved.
My final thanks are to the Liberal Democrat team on this Bench. Recently, my noble friend Lord Greaves in private referred to my role as being that of team manager. By being the team manager I have been very much more fortunate than much better known team managers in having, certainly, an all-star team but without the all-star egos and tantrums that go with it. I put on record my thanks to my colleagues for the very effective way in which we have approached this Bill, and to the Minister for listening to the good advice that my all-star team has offered and for being so willing so often to take that advice.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is the last time I shall speak on the Bill. Perhaps I may start by expressing support for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his inquiries. I hope that he will receive the confirmations that he sought, certainly on the basis of the helpful background note that we received from the Government today, which confirms that proceeding via development plan documents and local development orders would obviate the need for referendums.
I should like to offer my thanks to several people. Certainly, I thank the Bill Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and her team, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has gone on to other things. I know what hard work it can be working on a Bill and what a tremendous amount of effort has been put in. It has been a listening team, which has boded well for the outcome of the Bill. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the manager, and his team, who have had a tremendous input into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the point that a substantial number of changes have been made to the Bill. I have not worked on a Bill that has changed quite so much during its passage through your Lordships’ House. That has been due to the power of the contributions around the Chamber. It has not been the Opposition particularly or any particular group. The Government have listened to the voices of experience and common sense. Certainly, the Cross-Benchers have played their full part and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular. I think that we all look up to him on housing matters. I thank my team and I offer big thanks also to the Bill team. Particularly at this stage of the proceedings there are a lot of last-minute amendments in order to try to get everything in shape for the conclusion of the Bill. The team has worked very hard and has always been receptive to inquiries that we have made. This has been a really good exercise in scrutiny of what, frankly, was not a great piece of legislation when it arrived in this place. It goes back to the other place in much better form. I am not quite sure how it will find the time to deal with all the amendments but I wish it well.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we get lost in the fact that we are nearly there, I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Best, briefly, but I hope satisfactorily. I want to make it clear that local authorities can use existing planning mechanisms to take forward planning proposals that a neighbourhood forum or parish council has produced without needing to hold a referendum. The draft neighbourhood plan policies can be taken forward by the local authority as a development plan document which is subject to independent examination but not referendum. Similarly, the permissions in the neighbourhood development order can be taken forward as a local development order which is subject to neither independent examination nor referendum. So both development plan documents and local development orders are required to be subject to appropriate and effective consultation.
However, it is an underpinning principle of this Bill that a parish council or neighbourhood forum should always be able to ask the wider community to decide in a referendum whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force. Therefore, neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders, which are tools that the Localism Bill introduces for planning at a neighbourhood level, will always be subject to a referendum of the neighbourhood. The referendum gives everyone in the community the opportunity to have their say and demonstrate evidence of community support in a manner that cannot be demonstrated through a petition or consultation.
Local authorities that work effectively with their communities in planning at a neighbourhood level will be in a good position to decide whether to take emerging proposals through the development plan or local development order route, but it has to be right that if a local community wants it, it can use the power in the Bill to prepare a neighbourhood development plan or order and ensure that the wider community has the final say in a referendum. The removal of that right would undermine one of the core building blocks of neighbourhood planning as envisaged in the Localism Bill.
With those reassurances and clarifications, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“51A In section 148(1) (HCA may not, during a moratorium, give or enforce directions as to the use or repayment of financial assistance)—
(a) before “the HCA” insert “neither”,(b) after “the HCA” insert “, nor the Greater London Authority, may”,(c) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) omit “may not”, and(d) for the “and” between those paragraphs substitute “or”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I.2010/1158) | In paragraph 47(2) of Schedule 2, the word “7(1),”.” |
“In section 148(1), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), the words “may not”.” |
“Equality Act 2010 (c.15) | In Schedule 19, the entry for the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords.” |
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we finally conclude at the end of all this time, I join very much with the remarks that have been made about the constructive way in which the Bill has been dealt with. It is absolutely remarkable that for all the months we have spent on the Bill it has resulted in seven votes on all the amendments and changes that have been put forward. It has been a great pleasure to lead the team on the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lord Attlee, Lord Taylor and Lord Shutt for the help and support they have given me on the Bill and for the extraordinary detailed and useful work that they have done. I particularly thank—sometimes with gritted teeth—my colleagues behind me, all of whom contributed significantly to the Bill. It would be fair to say that it has been an all-round-the-House contribution. I thank all noble Lords and hope that we will meet again at some stage.