House of Commons
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 15 January.
Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 15 January.
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 15 January.
Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 15 January.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 15 January (Standing Order No. 20).
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
1. When the Government plan to bring forward proposals on the recall of hon. Members.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
The Government published our proposals on the recall of MPs last year, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee then published its report in June last year. We submitted an interim response reaffirming our commitment to establishing a recall mechanism and are now taking the proper time to reflect on the Committee’s recommendations.
Ian Murray
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that unvarnished answer. Given that one of the justifications for introducing recall is improved confidence in our democracy, what is his view of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s statement:
“We are not convinced that the proposals will increase public confidence in politics”?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Committee made a number of recommendations about our proposals, but equally it accepted that all parties had made a manifesto commitment to introduce some kind of recall mechanism and acknowledged, as I think everyone does, the difficulty in trying to define serious wrongdoing precisely and determine who should define it and who should set off a trigger for a recall by-election. It is precisely those kinds of difficult dilemmas that we are now trying to address, because we do not want to resile from the commitment to legislate to introduce some kind of recall mechanism.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What his policy is on the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
4. What his policy is on the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
The boundary commissions are continuing with the boundary review in accordance with the legislation that requires them to report before October 2013.
Jim Dobbin
Yesterday’s coalition renewal document, “The Coalition: together in the national interest”, includes a vote on the boundary change proposals for constituencies. I know that the Minister is to answer, but I would like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister will campaign for a no vote.
Miss Smith
I think that the parties within the Government have made their positions clear on the matter. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there will be a vote, it will take place, and I suppose that is that.
Mr McKenzie
Does the Minister believe that it is right to redraw parliamentary boundaries on the basis of data from which millions of eligible voters are missing?
Miss Smith
It is the Government’s intention to proceed with the individual electoral registration programme, which will increase and improve the accuracy of the registers we work with. It is really important that we all continue with the support that there is across the House for those proposals.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend guarantee that the next general election will be fought according to the new parliamentary boundaries recommended by the Electoral Commission, and that it will be fought with individual voter registration?
Miss Smith
I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is best given within the point that there will be a vote on those proposals, as I think he knows. On individual electoral registration, I can confirm that the programme is proceeding as planned, and I am happy to give him further details on that.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
If the Lib Dems are still voting against the recommended parliamentary boundary changes, should this House not have the earliest opportunity to vote on the issue, thereby possibly saving unnecessary public expenditure at a time when the public finances are limited, and when should such a vote take place?
Miss Smith
I am terribly sorry to be boring, but there will be a vote on those proposals.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
3. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that under-represented groups are included on the electoral register.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
As I mentioned in my previous answer, it is important that we ensure that all those who should be are included on the electoral register, including the under-represented groups to which the hon. Lady’s question refers.
The Government, politicians, parties, electoral administrators and plenty of others have a role to play in encouraging people to register to vote. The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration, including among under-registered groups. They are looking to modernise the system to make it as convenient as possible and are running various sets of data-related pilots to find out how we can best identify unregistered groups and add them to the register.
Jessica Morden
Does the Minister agree that the annual canvass is a really important part of ensuring that under-represented groups are on the register and that any attempts to water down the frequency of the canvass, or give powers to Ministers to abolish it altogether, should be avoided?
Miss Smith
Our current plans for electoral registration do include the annual canvass, which will continue to be used for as long as it remains the best way to ensure that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify what penalty, if any, will be imposed on those who fail to return an individual electoral registration form?
Miss Smith
There will be a set of penalties that relate to those actions. I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend so that he gets the fullest possible detail.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
14. When does the Minister expect a national online electoral registration system to be in place?
Miss Smith
Many Members take an interest in that issue. I do not have a specific date to give the hon. Gentleman. The Government are looking at the matter and I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
We all want a register that is complete and accurate. The Electoral Commission’s recent damning report on the move to individual voter registration in Northern Ireland is extremely worrying, yet the Government have decided to speed up the implementation of individual voter registration and to remove the safeguards that Labour put in place.
All this is happening at a time when local authorities are having to make record cuts, including to the amount that they can devote to electoral registration. Given the criticism levelled by the Electoral Commission’s report, what extra are the Government considering to avoid a repeat in the rest of the UK of the experiences in Northern Ireland, which could see millions of eligible voters dumped off the electoral register?
Miss Smith
I think the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting some of what the report says. The evidence from the report is that continuous registration is working for the majority of the population in Northern Ireland. The report notes that many of the key lessons from the experience in Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the proposals. It also states:
“The findings from this research do not undermine the principle of individual electoral registration or mean that the introduction of this system in Great Britain will necessarily lead to similar declines in accuracy and completeness.”
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
5. What assessment he has made of the work of the Commission on Devolution in Wales.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
6. What assessment he has made of the work of the Commission on Devolution in Wales.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
On 19 November, the Commission on Devolution in Wales delivered a thorough and clear analysis of the options for fiscal devolution in Wales. The Government welcome publication of the Commission’s report and will respond formally in due course.
Mr Williams
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome his welcome for the work of the Silk commission. We have an opportunity to enable our Assembly to be truly accountable—not just for the money that it spends by way of the block grant, but for the money that it raises through taxes, through a partial devolution of income tax. Surely that would be an important facet of a strengthened and accountable National Assembly. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that part 1 of the Silk recommendations will be enacted in legislation during this Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that we will respond in full well before part 2 of the Silk commission proceedings is concluded. We aim to provide our full response to part 1, about the fiscal aspects of further devolution to Wales, by spring this year.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s praise for the report, which is thorough and thoughtful. It is radical; it suggests devolving up to about a quarter of total money spent in Wales to the Welsh Assembly itself. It actually goes further in important respects, notably on varying income tax rates, than the Calman-like process on which it was modelled.
Glyn Davies
The Silk commission recommended that the National Assembly for Wales should become more financially accountable through being given responsibility for raising tax. Does my right hon. Friend believe that this can happen only after a referendum takes place to secure the support of the Welsh people, even if a firm commitment is made in the manifesto of the party or parties that form the next Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, the Silk commission has on it representatives of all four parties in the Assembly, and it was a unanimously supported recommendation that the change in income tax recommended in part 1 should be implemented only once a referendum had taken place. Obviously, we will look at this very closely. We are acutely aware that it represents a cross-party approach within Wales itself.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government considered a floor to the Barnett formula to ensure that Wales does not lose out?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman may know, back in October the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that we would work with the Welsh Administration to look at the convergence or, as is the case at the moment, divergence of funding in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have also made it clear that while there is a legitimate debate around the future of the Barnett formula, our priority remains the stabilisation of the public finances.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Given the need for change, supported by all parties on the Silk commission, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s enthusiasm, together with that of his party, will he make every effort to ensure that part 1 of Silk is legislated on during this Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, we all need to take a careful look at part 1 and take a collective decision within the coalition Government on how we respond to it. As Ministers in all parts of the coalition have said, it is an extremely thorough and thoughtful piece of work representing a cross-party approach in Wales, and we will respond to it with similar seriousness before the spring of this year.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to communities that straddle the Anglo-Welsh border—for instance, the Chester economic sub-region, including north Wales and Chester—and the impact that this will have on people who live and work on both sides of the border?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has identified one of the issues that makes some of the tax recommendations in part 1 of the Silk commission slightly more complicated in certain respects than the devolved tax arrangements in Scotland, principally because the border area between England and Wales is more populous than the border areas between Scotland and England. That is one of the things that we are seeking to address right now in our internal deliberations.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In the very slim mid- term review, a commitment is given to the Government’s responding to the Silk commission, as the Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed this morning. Will he give a commitment that there will be no unilateral reduction in the block grant to Wales?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think we have done better than that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, back in October the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that we would work with the Administration in Cardiff before each public spending review to monitor the convergence or divergence between the funding settlements in both places. This commitment has not been made by previous Governments here in Westminster. That is a demonstration of our willingness to respond to some of the concerns about the future funding arrangements within the United Kingdom, particularly as they affect Wales.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
7. Whether he plans to examine the balance of power between local and central Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government are clear that we must disperse power in our society. That is why we have initiated a historic shift away from Westminster to put our counties, cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods and citizens in control of their own affairs. I look forward to seeing the final report on the relationship between local and central Government from the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee inquiry as we continue the process of reform.
Mr Allen
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that three out of the four nations within the United Kingdom now enjoy some form of devolution; the one that does not enjoy any devolution, effectively protected by statute, is England. Will he engage with local government at the right moment to discuss how devolution can be made effective through local government, and will he also engage with the Select Committee, which is due to report on this very matter at the end of this month?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on his long-standing critique of the over-centralisation of power in Westminster and Whitehall. I know that he has welcomed some of the initiatives that we have taken. They do not provide all the answers, but they are significant steps in the right direction. The retention of 50% of business rates by local authorities is probably the biggest act of fiscal decentralisation in England for several years. The city deals, in my view, are a radical template of a wholesale transfer of responsibilities, ranging from transport and capital investment to skills and training, to local authorities. The question that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee is posing is whether that can be done in a more systematic, neat and formalised way, and I am certainly open to look at any suggestions in that respect. It is the tradition in this country to do things in a slightly more informal and uneven way, but his Committee’s report will be taken very seriously by us in government.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend set out what powers have been devolved from central Government to the big society?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, whether it is in planning, control over business rates, significant powers over skills, transport and capital investment in our cities or in the enactment of a general power of competence—whereby we recognise in law for the first time the general power of competence for local authorities—I believe that, in all of those areas, as well as, of course, the new referendum powers available to local neighbourhoods and local authorities, we have made a significant step towards creating a more decentralised nation.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Paul Burstow
Yesterday the Government, in their mid-term review, reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of a cap and reform of means-testing to end the care lottery in this country. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now go further than just considering principles and commit this Government to introducing legislation, through the draft Care and Support Bill, during the life of this Parliament to give effect to that cap and give people the peace of mind they deserve?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can confirm that in the coming weeks we will publish our detailed response, which will address the issue of how to avoid individuals and households having to face catastrophic costs in funding their care. We have said all along that we believe in the principles and the basic model set out by Andrew Dilnot. Of course there is an issue about how to pay for this in the future, but as my right hon. Friend has rightly identified, the first step is to enshrine that approach in legislation, which we will seek to do during this Parliament.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
If the Deputy Prime Minister votes for the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill tonight, he will be voting to make millions of low-income families worse off. Will he confirm that two thirds of the people who will be hit by the Bill are not lying in bed with the curtains drawn—which, anyway, is no way to speak about unemployed people—but are actually in work?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is obvious that a measure that deals with both out-of-work benefits and tax credits affects people both in and out of work. The challenge for the right hon. and learned Lady and her colleagues is to explain to this House and the British public, first, why she could support a 1% limit on the pay increases for doctors, nurses and teachers in the public sector, but not take exactly the same approach in this area, and secondly, where she is going to find the £5 billion that this measure will save over the next three years. Would she take it from the NHS? I know that Labour’s health spokesperson thinks that increasing spending on the NHS is irresponsible. We do not. Would she take it from schools? Would she take it from social care? Those are the kinds of answers that this House deserves from the Labour party before the vote takes place tonight.
Ms Harman
Even the right hon. Gentleman should be able to work out that 1% if someone is earning more than £100,000 a year is a great deal more than 1% if someone is struggling on a low income. His Government are failing on the economy—that is why they are borrowing £212 billion more than they had planned.
On fairness, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that tonight’s vote will mean that, while someone earning more than £1 million a year will be better off by £2,000 a week because of their tax cut, a working couple on tax credit will be worse off because their increase of 38p a week will be wiped out by inflation? The Government have failed on compassion as well as on competence, so why will he not vote with us against the Bill tonight?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The biggest tax measure, which will benefit more than 20 million basic rate taxpayers, is about to take place in April. A two-earner household on the basic rate of tax will be £1,200 better off because we are increasing the tax allowance by the largest amount ever. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Lady would welcome that. It means that someone on the minimum pay will have had their income tax slashed by half.
On the upper rate of tax, the right hon. and learned Lady’s party makes great play of the 50p rate. It is worth putting it on the record that the 50p upper rate of tax existed for only 36 days of the 13 years that her Government were in office. I know that they had a deathbed conversion to the 50p rate, but they pretend that they were believers all along. Actually, the upper rate of tax under Labour was 40p. Under this Government, it will be 45p. Justify that!
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T5. Like many hon. Members, I read the mid-term review with great interest. Much of it is welcome, but I was concerned by the line on page 32 that states that“provision is made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on proposals to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples.” Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not support that common-sense proposal, which would help hard-working families across the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a carbon copy of the wording in the coalition agreement. My party has always taken this stance because I have always struggled to explain to people why someone who happens not to be married should pay more tax than someone who happens to be married. If such a measure were put before the House, it would be very difficult to explain to people why those who are not married should be stung with higher tax. That does not seem to me to be right.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T2. When the Deputy Prime Minister entered the coalition, did he foresee that at the halfway stage there would be a sixfold increase in the number of people using food banks, there would be predictions that half a million more children would be living in absolute poverty by the end of the Parliament and that he would champion legislation described by the Child Poverty Action Group as “poverty-producing”, as he will later today? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of his record?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am proud that this coalition Government have come together to clear up the monumental mess left by the hon. Lady’s party. After all, it was her shadow Chancellor who went on the prawn cocktail charm offensive in the City of London to suck up to the banks, which created the problems in the first place. It was the Labour Government who presided over the shocking tax system in which a hedge fund manager paid less tax on their shares than their cleaner paid on their wages. It is this coalition Government who have ended that scandal.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
T6. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward legislation on the succession to the Crown. However, does he think that it is necessary to push it through in one day as if it was emergency terrorism legislation, when Parliament has a job to do to ensure that it is correctly drafted and that any concerns or unforeseen difficulties are addressed properly?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Making a small, concise amendment to an Act that has been on the statute book since 1701 is hardly acting hastily.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am being corrected by the historians on the Opposition Benches. None the less, this is something that has been on the statute book for more than 300 years. Let us remember that this is a very specific act of discrimination against one faith only. The heir to the throne may marry someone of any religion outside the Church of England—Muslim, Hindu and so on—but uniquely not a Catholic under the terms of the Act of 1700 or 1701. This is a precise change and it is being co-ordinated precisely with all the other realms that have to make the identical change in their legislation.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T3. The last former East Midlands MEP, who had a radio show, soon disappeared into political oblivion. When will the Deputy Prime Minister give the voters of Sheffield, Hallam the opportunity to vote on recalling him?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is always a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat incoherent but none the less punchy questions. I do not want to disappoint him, but I am afraid there are not millions of people hanging on his every word spoken in the Chamber. I think that as politicians, we should go out to be where people are rather than expect them to come where the politicians are. I make no apology for making myself available to members of the public on the radio or in town and village halls up and down the country, as I do every week.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T8. Given the huge distortions in the current parliamentary boundaries, does the Deputy Prime Minister really believe that by reviewing boundaries only every eight to 12 years we will have a fair and unbiased electoral voting system?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I have said before, my own view, in light of the events that have disrupted the package of political reforms to which the coalition Government had committed in the coalition agreement, is that we should delay the implementation of the next set of boundary reviews by a full parliamentary cycle.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T7. Support through the tax system for families in Scotland with their child care bills amounted to a miserable 1p a day in the past year, and the Resolution Foundation says that half the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister’s current voucher plan for child care goes to people in the top fifth of the income bracket. Is he not going to have to do a lot more than his complete absence of plans yesterday to prevent the second half of the coalition from being as big a disaster for families’ child care costs as the first half?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is commenting in detail on plans that have not been published yet. We have not yet finalised the details of our new investment in support for families facing high child care costs, but we will do so in the weeks to come. I point out to him, though, that it is this Government who have introduced 15 hours of free pre-school and child care support for every three and four-year-old in this country, which no Government have done before. It is also this Government who, from this April, for the first time ever, will be providing 15 hours of free pre-school and child care support to two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families in this country. Government Members are proud of that.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Why is the fact that an Act has been in existence for more than 300 years an argument for amending it, together with the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union with Scotland, in a single day? I would have thought the argument was very much in the opposite direction.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I sought to explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) earlier, we are removing one specific, highly discriminatory provision from the law, on the faith of people whom heirs to the throne may marry. That discriminatory provision was introduced in the early years of the 18th century in response to the activities of Louis XIV of France, and I simply do not think it is necessary now in 21st century Britain.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
T10. The Deputy Prime Minister is starting to have the same trait as the Prime Minister of not answering questions. May I try again? Is it not the case that after the vote this evening, 3,900 people in my constituency who claim in-work benefits and do the right thing will be worse off while millionaires get a tax cut of £2,000 a week?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said before, the Labour rate for top taxpayers was 40p, so the hon. Gentleman needs to justify his support for 13 years for a lower rate applied to millionaires than will be introduced—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, and they are shrieking at the top of their voices, but the record shows that for the whole time of the Labour Government, apart from 30 days towards the end, the upper rate was 40p. We are introducing an upper rate of 45p. That is the first point.
The second point is that I hope the hon. Gentleman would celebrate with his constituents the fact that as of April this year, every single basic rate taxpayer in his constituency will be £600 better off because of the changes in the income tax allowance that we have introduced since the general election.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
T9. There is no doubt that the Government have to make some tough decisions, but what comment would my right hon. Friend make on the overall impact of Government policies on social mobility?
The Deputy Prime Minister
One thing we have learned is that if we could shift social mobility by pouring billions of pounds into the tax credit system—the Labour party’s approach—that would have worked a long time ago. In fact, despite a huge transfer of money through the tax credit system, social mobility barely budged during 13 years of Labour government. That is why we are investing more in early years initiatives and providing more child care support, and why we are giving more support to two, three and four-year-olds and—most importantly—providing £2.5 billion through the pupil premium to help the education of the most disadvantaged children in the country. We believe that that is the way to promote social mobility over time.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T13. The Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly is not implementing tuition fees, and Liberal Democrat Assembly Members support that. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his Liberal colleagues in Wales?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have a devolved approach to higher education in both Wales and Scotland. Under the new system introduced in England—unlike that over which the right hon. Gentleman presided during Labour’s time in office—students will not pay any up-front fees at all. That includes thousands of part-time students who for the first time do not need to pay any up-front fees. Because of the way we are introducing what is, in effect, a time-limited graduate tax, all graduates will pay out less from their bank account every week and month—even if for longer—than they did under the system introduced by Labour.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
T11. I welcome the second wave of city deals for the next 20 largest cities, but what about smaller cities such as Carlisle? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that they too will have the opportunity to reach a deal with the Government to have increased powers devolved to them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, the first wave of city deals applied to the eight biggest cities. We then invited 20 cities and communities to submit bids for the next wave, on which we hope to decide in the coming months. I very much hope that the city deals will not be just a one-off experiment in devolution but that they will act as a template for further devolution across the country.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The coalition agreement states that the Government will introduce
“extra support for people with disabilities who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected officials.”
Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on progress with that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady may know, there is a £2.6 million access to elected office fund, and the wider access to elected office strategy was launched in July last year to deliver on the coalition agreement commitment to provide extra support to tackle the obstacles she mentions. The fund will be open for applications until the end of March 2014, and so far there have been 11 applications, including from independent candidates.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Succession to the Crown Bill will give the public confidence that the relationship between Church and state will be unaltered, even if a future monarch should marry a Roman Catholic and the ensuing child is a Catholic?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can give the hon. Gentleman complete reassurance that the provisions in the Bill will not in any way alter the status of the established Church in this country and the monarch as head of that Church. We have had monarchs who have married Catholics. I think Queen Anne of Denmark was married to James I of Scotland—I may be corrected by our historian, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), from a sedentary position. There is absolutely nothing in the provisions that will alter the status of the Church in the way feared by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The coalition agreement commits the Government to the appointment of new peers to create a second Chamber that is more reflective of votes cast at the 2010 general election. Is the Deputy Prime Minister seriously saying that he will appoint 24 new UKIP Members of the House of Lords and 16 new peers to represent the British National party, or is it more about stuffing the other place full of Tory and Lib Dem cronies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has grasped the wrong end of the stick. The coalition agreement says that the appointments we make to an unreformed House of Lords—pending the long-awaited, and now even more long-awaited reform of the other place—will be made according to the proportion of votes won by parties at the last general election. That is precisely what we intend to do.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a happy new year. Was one of his new year resolutions to decide that, if he thinks a policy is right, it should be rushed through in a day? Will he answer properly a question he has been asked before? Why will the succession Bill be rushed through in a day under emergency legislation procedures? Those procedures should be used only for emergency legislation, which the succession Bill is not.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy new year too—and Mrs Bone. It is important to stress that the Bill is not a capricious legislative initiative on behalf of the Government. It was solemnly agreed at the Commonwealth summit in Perth by all the Commonwealth realms. It has also been subject to extensive discussion between officials in the Cabinet Office and the royal household, and between Governments and officials of this country and of the Commonwealth realms. We have said that we will take the lead in setting out the legislative provisions for the other Commonwealth realms. The legislative change is very precise, which is why we are keen to proceed as quickly as possible.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister would like to take this opportunity to enhance his concern for people in difficulties. More than 60,000 people have signed a petition asking that the Government carry out a proper cumulative impact assessment of the changes to disability benefits. Will he ensure that that happens?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am curious to know whether the hon. Lady believes that those impact assessments were delivered in full under the Labour Government—I do not recall them. She will know that we are on the verge of introducing a very significant change in the way in which disability benefits are administered in the years ahead, from the disability living allowance system to the personal independence payment system. That change will mean that many who have received disability benefits for years when there has been no check on whether they need it will finally, for the first time, be asked to be subject to certain objective tests. The change will also mean that people who do not currently receive benefits or support for their disabilities will receive it for the first time. We have been transparent in setting out our proposals.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
1. What steps he is taking to recover payments made to former senior staff at the Serious Fraud Office that were not properly authorised.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to recover payments made to former senior staff at the Serious Fraud Office which were not authorised by the Cabinet Office or Her Majesty’s Treasury.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
As set out in my statement to the House on 4 December 2012, on learning of these agreements and payments, the new director of the Serious Fraud Office sought legal advice on whether the arrangements might be reopened and on whether money might be recovered. The advice he received is that the agreements, although entered into without the necessary approvals, are binding on the Serious Fraud Office.
Mr Spellar
If one of our constituents is overpaid on tax credits, or on their housing or council tax benefits, which often occurs through no fault of their own, the state claws the overpayment back, yet the Serious Fraud Office has made unauthorised redundancy payments to bureaucrat fat cats—some of nearly £500,000—but seems to be doing nothing to recover them. What, therefore, will the Attorney-General do to get the money back? Perhaps he could get a new lawyer, but he could also take action against those responsible for irresponsibly giving away public money.
The Attorney-General
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s disquiet about what has happened. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who is the accounting officer in this context, to take legal advice and to observe it when he receives it, and the legal advice he has received is quite clear. It is perhaps worth making one further point. The vast majority of the sums paid out would have been in line with the civil service compensation scheme. In my judgment, some payments may well not have been in line with the scheme, but the majority were—I would stress the totality of the sums involved. Should there be any further developments, I will inform the House of them. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not consider the matter to be satisfactory—it causes me disquiet, and the Public Accounts Committee may well wish to look into it.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the Attorney-General for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). In that spirit of openness, will he publish the findings of the independent investigation into the payouts commissioned by the current director of the Serious Fraud Office? Will he also indicate whether any legal or disciplinary action will be taken against the individuals responsible?
The Attorney-General
On the first point, my office and the Serious Fraud Office have received requests for this information, and we are currently considering whether any further information can be released. I would like to see as much of the information released as possible.
On the second point, it is right to make it clear that the person responsible for making these payments is no longer working in the civil service.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Attorney-General realise that this is merely a symptom of something seriously wrong with the Serious Fraud Office in terms of its leadership, culture and record over recent years?
The Attorney-General
May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at the report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate on the Serious Fraud Office, as he will see that it has many laudatory things to say about the way in which the SFO has operated and sees it as capable of achieving significant outcomes in challenging cases? That is not to say that I do not think that there is room for improvement—I certainly do. A new director, David Green, has been appointed, and I have every confidence that he will be able to make the necessary changes. For example, he will be implementing the changes that the inspectorate recommended, and it will of course make a follow-up report to track that progress.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
While we are on the subject of the efficiency of the Serious Fraud Office, may I ask the Attorney-General how it is that, despite the appalling behaviour of some bank staff in some British banks and the enormous fines that have been imposed on those banks by the regulatory authorities in both New York and London, no senior banker in this country has yet been prosecuted for complicity in serious criminal banking offences?
Mr Speaker
I know that in respect of this question the right hon. Gentleman will have in mind fraud in particular, which properly concerns the Serious Fraud Office. He did not say it, but I know that is what he meant.
Sir Peter Tapsell
I withdraw the word “criminal” and insert the word “fraudulent” instead.
The Attorney-General
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, in whichever context. The Serious Fraud Office is carrying out a major inquiry and investigation into the LIBOR scandal. The conduct of the investigation is obviously a matter for the SFO, but the matter has not been ignored.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Attorney-General has referred to the report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. I have read it, and it says that the Serious Fraud Office needs to improve its performance and appears to be suffering considerable resourcing problems. Will he consider the suggestion by the director of the SFO that the agency be allowed to retain more of the proceeds of crime that it confiscates? Might that be a way in which it could increase its funding?
The Attorney-General
The hon. Lady raises an interesting question which may turn out to be a good subject for debate in this House at some point. There is clearly potential for changing the rules on the retention of the proceeds of crime by prosecuting agencies, but it is equally right to point out that it is not an uncontroversial subject. Disquiet is expressed about prosecutors being dependent on asset seizure for the way in which they operate, and that also raises some profoundly difficult ethical issues. For those reasons, I would counsel caution about whether that is necessarily the right way forward, although I am open-minded about any improvements that can be made on funding.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
2. How many successful prosecutions for tax evasion the Serious Fraud Office has completed in each of the last five years.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
It is the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the Serious Fraud Office that prosecutes tax evasion cases. The records of the Crown Prosecution Service show that in 2008-09 there were 226 convictions, and the latest figures, up to November 2012, show 349.
Simon Hughes
We had a major debate on tax avoidance yesterday, and I think the country and Parliament want us to be very tough on tax evasion. Can the Solicitor-General assure us that the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service will concentrate on large national and international companies, and not on the small fish, so that ordinary people realise that they are not being singled out when much bigger prizes are available from much naughtier people?
The Solicitor-General
I can certainly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that from top to bottom the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has given us a target of increasing prosecutions fivefold, and all parts of Government will tackle this issue hard. From the point of view of the Attorney-General’s office, my right hon. Friend may be interested to know that we have been referring cases where sentences are unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal. It has recently been established that seven years’ imprisonment should be the starting point for significant tax fraud cases.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Tax fraud is estimated to cost the Government £3.3 billion. What steps are the Serious Fraud Office and the Department taking to address that?
The Solicitor-General
The Crown Prosecution Service, with the police, is working extremely hard on tax evasion cases to ensure that as many as possible are brought to court. As I mentioned, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has set the target of a fivefold increase in cases. The figures I read out show that since 2008-09, there has been a major increase in the number of convictions.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to support victims of child abuse in the prosecution process.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Crown Prosecution Service takes all allegations of child abuse very seriously. Supporting victims of child abuse is vital to successful prosecutions. The CPS works closely with the police and voluntary sector agencies to ensure that proper support is provided to victims at all stages.
Anas Sarwar
In the past two years, reports of child abuse have shocked the entire country. Currently, at least 13 inquiries are taking place, including three BBC inquiries into Jimmy Savile, a Department of Health investigation into Broadmoor, a CPS inquiry, and inquiries into child protection in Rotherham and Rochdale. What discussions has the Minister had with other ministerial colleagues to ensure all that work is pulled together, and to ensure that all victims of child abuse receive the support and protection they deserve?
The Solicitor-General
The Director of Public Prosecutions is working closely with all other authorities and took a personal lead in September by holding a round-table to consider how child sexual exploitation offences can be tackled. Witness care units are important and new Crown Prosecution Service guidance on child sexual exploitation is due in the new year. A great deal is being done, and special measures are being put in place to help witnesses give evidence.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is probably aware that a small team is looking into the history of cases of child abuse complaints in Northern Ireland. One member of the team is an ex-senior inspector in the Metropolitan police who explained to me that, looking back at cases from 1920, believe it or not, one stark fact is the astonishing lack of support for victims, including from the Crown Prosecution Service. Would my hon. Friend be interested in meeting him at the right time to consider whether there is anything from his expertise and research that would be of help?
The Solicitor-General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer, which I will certainly take up. He is right to say that support for witnesses is crucial to enable them to give their evidence in a confident and effective way. That is why the witness care units, the use of the voluntary sector supporters and the other work going into special measures at court to make it easier for witnesses to give evidence are all important. I look forward to the meeting.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the steps taken by Keir Starmer and Nazir Afzal to try to reorganise how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these matters. However, the fact remains that in relation to Rotherham there have been no prosecutions this year in the whole of south Yorkshire, despite 600 victims having been identified in the past few years. Does the Solicitor-General share my concern? Can we please see more prosecutions of the perpetrators?
The Solicitor-General
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it depends on the police investigating cases thoroughly and then on the Crown Prosecution Service reviewing them to see what evidence is needed. A full review was carried out after the Rochdale case, which was particularly concerning. That was last autumn, since when the CPS has been working on the new guidance, which I hope will lead to more prosecutions. I accept the need for more prosecutions in this area, but we want to establish best practice, and that guidance will be out soon.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
On another form of child abuse—female genital mutilation—there have been no prosecutions whatsoever in this country since it became illegal. Does the Solicitor-General share my hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ robust new action plan will lead to more progress in this area?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, I certainly do. I have personally raised and discussed this subject with the DPP and was delighted that he held the round-table last September, which led to the robust action plan that my hon. Friend mentions. That is about improving the evidence available, identifying what is hindering investigations and prosecutions, exploring how other jurisdictions deal with these cases and ensuring that the police and prosecution work together closely on what are very difficult cases.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
5. How many prosecutions for human trafficking there have been in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to increase prosecutions for human trafficking.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Crown Prosecution Service charged and prosecuted 64 cases where human trafficking was the main offence between 1 April 2012 and 2 January this year, and has prosecuted other human trafficking cases using other legislation. The CPS is working with law enforcement and other agencies to improve investigation and prosecution and to encourage victims.
Fiona Mactaggart
Those figures sound a little better than the ones previously published that suggested to me that out of 25 European countries Britain had fewer prosecutions for human trafficking specifically than all bar Malta, Slovakia, Estonia and Finland. What effect does the Solicitor-General believe the relatively low level of prosecution for specific human trafficking offences has on the potential for future human traffickers?
The Solicitor-General
Of course, it is very important that we prosecute cases of this kind, but I make the point to the hon. Lady that the figures I read out and which are often quoted relate to cases where human trafficking was the main offence, but quite often with human trafficking, as she will know, the main offence is a violent assault or a rape, and it is the more serious offences that are flagged. In another 111 cases, in addition to the 64 I mentioned, human trafficking was one of the offences, but the main offence was a rape or major conspiracy.
Andrew Selous
There have been relatively few prosecutions for human trafficking involving forced labour, compared with, say, sexual exploitation, although there have been major successes in my own county of Bedfordshire and, just before Christmas, in Gloucestershire. These forced labour exploiters often earn enormous sums of money. What can we do to take some of that money to help the police fund these complex and difficult investigations?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend will know of the Connors case, which was finally concluded yesterday —an appalling case involving vulnerable people being forced to work by the criminals concerned. It is important that we tackle these cases, but the main offence was introduced only in 2010 and related to events that occurred after that date, so we are very much at the early stage of bringing these cases to court. The Connors case is one of the first. An agreement has been reached with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, however, to refer cases to the police, and other steps are being taken to toughen up on internal trafficking.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Has the Solicitor-General had any indication of the number of cases where files were submitted and the decision was taken not to prosecute, or of the number of decisions that were based on concerns about the witness capacity of the victims?
The Solicitor-General
I will look into that and am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have the information here. The Crown Prosecution Service is anxious to prosecute in this area if the evidence is available. All too often it is difficult to obtain the quality of evidence from overseas that one would want in order to prosecute effectively. There is also the problem that victims need a great deal of support and encouragement. All these matters are being addressed, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his point.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I welcome what the Government are doing in this field—they are being very proactive—but does the Solicitor-General share my concern that there is a temptation for the Crown Prosecution Service to choose lesser charges for which it is easier to secure a conviction, such as immigration offences, which results in traffickers getting a lower sentence than if they had been prosecuted for human trafficking?
The Solicitor-General
I would dispute that. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), many human trafficking cases involve other offences, which are often more serious. With sexual exploitation cases, where there are continual rapes and serious offences of that sort, it is right to charge for rape as the principal offence because it is more serious in some ways. I therefore do not accept that the Crown Prosecution Service is going for lower charges. This is a matter that we in the Attorney-General’s office keep under review.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
6. Whether implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson report will affect the enforcement of laws of contempt.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
Lord Justice Leveson has provided detailed recommendations on how best the press might be regulated in future. Those recommendations and their implementation will be considered by the Government and Parliament. Whichever regulatory model is finally chosen, the law of contempt remains applicable. When appropriate, I will continue to bring proceedings against publications that create a substantial risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Graeme Morrice
What consideration has the Attorney-General given to Lord Leveson’s view that further guidance is needed on press coverage of police investigations and that
“save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances…the names…of those…arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public”?
The Attorney-General
I have noted what Lord Justice Leveson has said and it may be something to be incorporated in press regulation. The current position on the law of contempt is that proceedings are active from the time of arrest. Those considerations are not identical to those that Lord Justice Leveson was considering, but they raise the issue that after arrest the press has to have in mind the possible impact on the fairness of the trial process thereafter. That could include naming a suspect; equally, it might be perfectly acceptable to do that.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
There is continuing concern, nevertheless, about the almost habitual naming of suspects after arrest, which in the minds of many of us has the potential to cause real prejudice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all he can to monitor the current situation and ensure that the law is prosecuted to its full effect?
The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am certainly mindful that in many of the contempt matters brought to my attention the problem has arisen in the period between arrest and charge. Of course, if the House were minded to change the law on anonymity, which has been floated previously in private Members’ business, that could be done by enacting legislation. However, let me make it quite clear that this would need a legislative solution, not one that I can in some way “magic up”. The law of contempt has to be applied free of all political considerations, and that is what I try to do as best I can.
Mr Speaker
I would not want the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) to feel socially excluded, so we will accommodate him, but he needs to be very brief.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the Serious Fraud Office’s ability to conduct a succession of large-scale inquiries.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The recent report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate demonstrates that the Serious Fraud Office has the ability to conduct large-scale inquiries, although there is scope for improvement. Funding for the Serious Fraud Office is kept under constant review. There is a set budget for the SFO, but as the Prime Minister has previously made clear in relation to the LIBOR investigation, if the SFO needs more resources, they will be provided.
John Robertson
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that none of the additional funding promised for the LIBOR investigation has been received by the Serious Fraud Office, and will he explain why? It is envisaged that the investigation will take three years. Why so long?
The Attorney-General
The undertaking is for up to £3.5 million for each of the next three years to be made available as and when required. When the SFO requires it, it will be made available.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I remind the House that, in addition to the two urgent questions granted today, there is a statement followed by a very heavily subscribed Second Reading debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The UQs will therefore be run strictly to time, but depending on the level of interest, it might not be possible to accommodate all colleagues who are interested. I shall do my best, and I invite the House to do the same.
Ibrahim Magag
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the disappearance of Ibrahim Magag.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, failed to report for his overnight residence requirement. As I told the House yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded, and his whereabouts are currently unknown.
On 31 December, at the request of the police, I asked the High Court to revoke the anonymity order that was in force in relation to Magag. The police subsequently issued a public appeal for information that might lead to his location and apprehension. The Government took steps to inform Parliament of this incident as soon as it was lawful and operationally possible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), spoke to the Chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on 31 December. This was followed by letters to both Committee Chairmen, to the shadow Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies of the letters were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.
The statements that the police issued on 31 December and 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public. The TPIM notice in this case was intended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. The Government do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking this matter very seriously.
The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although I cannot give operational details, I can confirm that the police, the Security Service and other agencies are devoting significant resources to the search for Magag. Members of the public with any information relating to the search should contact the confidential police anti-terrorist hotline.
Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again, I would like to remind the House that this is not the first abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of control orders, there were seven absconds, of which six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond is serious, and the authorities are doing everything they can to locate him. I will update the House when there are further developments as soon as it is possible to do so.
Yvette Cooper
Ibrahim Magag is still missing after 13 days, and the Home Secretary clearly has no idea where he is. The first priority must be to find him, and she should tell us more about the additional resources being put into the search. Will she also tell us what the threat assessment really is? She said that the risk simply related to “fundraising and overseas travel”, yet the courts have said that Magag has attended terrorist training camps in Somalia, that he was fundraising for known terrorists and that
“the operational tempo and capability of the group of extremists based in London will be degraded by removing his operational role from London”.
Does the Home Secretary think that that threat assessment still holds?
How was Magag able to abscond in the first place? Was he even under surveillance at the time? Cabwise, a trade news service for London cabbies, reported yesterday that Magag
“used a London taxi in the vicinity of Triton Street at around 17:20 on 26 December.”
Is that true? Is the Home Secretary worried that surveillance can be shaken off simply by jumping into a black cab?
The Home Secretary allowed Ibrahim Magag to return to London. She has not answered the question from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, about whether it would have been harder to abscond in the west country, where Magag was made to live under a control order and where it would have been harder for him to get help from his associates, harder to hide and harder to get forged papers. She knows that relocation makes it harder to abscond, because she has included it in her draft emergency terror legislation.
The Home Secretary referred to the early years of control orders, but David Anderson, the independent reviewer has said:
“The absence of absconds since mid-2007 has coincided with the trend away from light touch control orders, and/or the more extensive use of relocation.”
The right hon. Lady chose to ditch relocations, and she has personally made it easier for people to abscond. Other people previously relocated under control orders are also now back in London on terrorism prevention and investigation measures. Could any one of them simply jump into a black cab tomorrow and be off?
Will the Home Secretary ask the independent reviewer urgently to investigate the failures of this case and to review the issue of relocation? She has ignored security advice before and someone involved in terrorism is now out on our streets. She must not ignore the evidence on relocations. She should put the national interest ahead of her political interests and stop ducking the issue. Is it not time that she took some responsibility and sorted this mess out?
Mrs May
I am very sorry that the shadow Home Secretary chose to pursue that line in relation to this case. Let me repeat the key fact that she does not seem to want to accept—that this is not the first time that somebody has absconded. She seems to think that it is all down to the difference between control orders and TPIMs, but in six years of control orders there were seven absconds and six of the individuals involved were never apprehended.
The right hon. Lady keeps saying that it is all down to whether we have the power to relocate, but relocation powers were available throughout the history of control orders and they did not prevent seven absconds by control order subjects. If she will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to the police and the Security Service, which made it absolutely clear at the time TPIMs were introduced that there should be no substantial increase in overall risk and that appropriate arrangements were in place for the transition from control orders to TPIMs—and that remains their position.
The right hon. Lady asked about the current level of risk. I repeat what I said in response to her question—that the statements the police issued on 31 December and on 2 January confirm that at this time Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public, and that the Government do not believe that his disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK.
The right hon. Lady made a number of references to David Anderson, the independent reviewer. He has said:
“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”
I agree, which is why we provided extra funding to the Security Service and the police when we introduced TPIMs to maximise the opportunities to prosecute terrorists in open court and to minimise the risk they pose to national security. The alternatives—whether we are talking about TPIMs or control orders—are highly useful disruptive tools, but because they do not involve locking people up, as the history of control orders shows, there will always be a risk of abscond.
Currently, the police and other agencies are, as I have said, working very hard to apprehend Ibrahim Magag. They have taken the operational decisions that needed to be taken and the way in which they pursue their inquiries is an operational matter for them. When the dust has settled, we will look again to see whether any lessons need to be learned. The independent reviewer produces an annual report that covers TPIMs, and I fully expect him to cover them in his review. I say to the shadow Home Secretary, however, that all she has done in highlighting this matter is to demonstrate the weakness of her argument, as what she says about TPIMs was also true of control orders. I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the police, the Security Service and other agencies in continuing their work and in keeping our country safe.
Mr Speaker
Order. To maximise the number of participants in these exchanges, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to ask single short supplementary questions and, of course, to the Home Secretary to provide us with her characteristically pithy replies.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Since the previous Government introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, it has been more difficult, has it not, to strike the right balance between the rights of terrorists and the proportionate protection of society from the threat they present? Should we not be thinking about the long- term future of the Human Rights Act, notwithstanding the support it has from Opposition Members?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend tempts me down a road that, if I were to travel down it, would probably necessitate a rather longer response than the pithy answer you have requested of me, Mr. Speaker. I can tell him, however, that the Government are looking at the Human Rights Act, and that the Commission on a Bill of Rights is considering what legislative support we should have in relation to human rights.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the security Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—for contacting me about this matter on new year’s eve. May I briefly express two concerns? First, it has been alleged that Magag was forging passports while he was in the camp in Somalia. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the police have his passport so that he is not able to travel abroad? Secondly, will she personally review the arrangements for the other nine people who are subject to TPIMs, in order to be satisfied that they are all in place and are secure?
Mrs May
The issue of the passport has not been discussed openly in public, but given the right hon. Gentleman’s position I shall be happy to talk to him about it on Privy Council terms. As for his second question, when one TPIM subject absconds, the agencies take appropriate steps to look at other TPIM subjects.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the whole concept of internal exile without trial is abhorrent? Labour should never have introduced such a Stalinist, authoritarian approach, and she was right to get rid of it. Someone who has committed a terrorist offence should be tried, convicted and jailed, not exiled indefinitely without trial.
Mrs May
As I explained in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, one of the purposes of the extra resources that we provided for the Security Service and the police following the introduction of TPIMs was to improve their ability to identify opportunities for prosecution. As was pointed out by the independent reviewer, the best place for a terrorist suspect is behind bars.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary decided to rebalance in favour of civil liberties rather than security, and that cost £50 million. Will she answer this question? Did the absence of relocation affect the ability of this individual to abscond?
Mrs May
When the Government took office they decided to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a public consultation, and a number of changes were made as a result. It is possible for people to abscond from wherever they are; indeed, three of the control order subjects who absconded did so from outside London.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Is not one of the root causes of the current problem the fact that members of the Labour Government allowed so many of these people to have visas and passports, letting them stay in the United Kingdom? Is it not time that we rounded up as many of them as possible, and established grounds on which to strip them of their visas and passports and deport them to whichever hellhole they came from and wish to emulate?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes his point in his normal forthright manner. I can tell him that the Government view national security as an absolute priority and take every possible step to keep the public safe, through deportations when they are possible, through the application of TPIMs, or through other measures.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
On many occasions the Home Secretary has been at pains to reassure the House that the extra measures are sufficient to mitigate any increased risk caused by the absence of a relocation power and the move from control orders to TPIMs. Why were those additional resources not effective in this case?
Mrs May
It is true that when we introduced TPIMs we made extra resources available to the Security Service and the police. However, as I said in my original response in relation to whatever powers actually exist, the best place for a terrorist or a terrorist suspect is behind bars, because without that there is a risk of absconding.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crude political posturing of Labour Members is all the more ironic given that they did not even vote against TPIMs when the Government proposed their introduction, and given that they lost seven people under control orders, six of whom have never been seen again?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is at pains to say that it is not all about relocation, and she reminds the House that she chose to legislate to give these suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, and for a sunset clause that would kill this regime off after two years even if the threat level from the individual had not changed. Given the disappearance of Mr Magag, does she not regret regarding increased risk to the public and unnecessary extra pressure on the police and the security services as an acceptable price to pay and as, in the end, a civil liberties pose rather than a move to increase national security?
Mrs May
I am confident in the TPIM package that was available—the TPIM measures plus the extra resources that were made available to the Security Service and the police. We of course consulted on them at the time this was done. As I said in response to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), they were clear that there was no substantial increase in risk, and that remains their position.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to avoid such dangerous individuals being loose in our society is to improve our ability to intercept their communications? Will she therefore agree to carry on supporting the telecommunications Bill—which I hope will come before the House—so that our agencies can do the best job they can?
Mrs May
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to improve and develop the ability of the agencies to have access to communications data. That, if I might gently remind my hon. Friend, is not about intercepting data. Intercept of data is a separate issue under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but it is true that we need access to those communications data. As terrorists and others—organised criminals, paedophiles and others—use new means to communicate, it is important that the Government have access to the communications data from those new means of communications.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has repeated several times this afternoon that the Security Service and the police advised that there would be no substantial increase in risk as a result of the introduction of TPIMs, but the question that she is singularly failing to answer is how she can justify any increase in risk to the safety of this nation. Or is she saying that the absconding of Mr Magag and the more relaxed conditions that allowed it to happen are now part of an additional but acceptable risk that she is prepared to take?
Mrs May
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said to him on a number of occasions, because he has asked a number of questions in relation to TPIMs—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he will continue to do so, and I will continue to answer them in the same way. When we looked at the legislation, we did introduce the TPIMs. One of the purposes of the TPIMs was to ensure that people were better able to find evidence that would lead to prosecutions. Extra resources were given to the Security Service and the police at the time, and the Security Service and the police at the time and now are clear that there was no substantial increase in risk.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In my experience, the very best way of stopping potential terrorists in action, in thought or in any deed is to relocate them. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the measure? I was always uneasy about changing from control orders.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Apparently, during the period that he was supposedly subject to a TPIM, this man was allowed to meet regularly with other known extremists. Why did the Home Secretary think that was a good idea?
Mrs May
For every individual who is placed on a TPIM, there is a particular package of measures that is part of that. The details of that are operational matters. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the package of measures is carefully considered for each individual and is reviewed regularly.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that more people absconded under the previous Government than under this Government? While she is at it, will she remind the House that under the previous Government and under the control order regime there were more absconds that were not based in London?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Even if Magag does not pose a direct, imminent terror threat, as the Home Secretary claims, does she not accept that his presence in a city such as London is of great concern and risks radicalising young vulnerable people such as some in my constituency? What assurances can she give that that will not happen?
Mrs May
We take that individual’s abscond extremely seriously, as I have said. The police, the Security Service and other agencies are working and putting resources into trying to apprehend him. That is entirely right and, as I said earlier, I hope the whole House will support the police and the other agencies in doing that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does not the fact that six people absconded under the control orders and were never found show the major flaws in the control order system? Can my right hon. Friend set out how the TPIM system, with the extra resources thrown at it, is much more advantageous?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: the Opposition fail to accept that under the control order regime there were seven absconds, six of whom were not apprehended. That was under a regime that had the relocation power. What we did with TPIMs and in giving extra resources to the police and the Security Service was to put in place the regime that was appropriate for national security, but which also should allow greater opportunities for prosecution.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The background to this is clear. Under control orders, people absconded, so the extra power to enforce their relocation was used and as a result, during the next four years, no one absconded. The Home Secretary made a political decision to get rid of that power and allowed this man to come back, live where he wants, mix with whoever he likes and as a result, within 12 months he has absconded. That is what happened. It is clear. Is it true—yes or no—did he just ring a cab?
Mrs May
The situation that the hon. Gentleman portrays in the whole of his question is not the situation that pertains. I made it clear in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that for any individual on TPIMs a range of measures can be applied, including, for example, listing those with whom they may not associate. Those measures are put in place for each individual. They are carefully considered and regularly reassessed.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue is not about relocation orders but about the extra resources that were given to the police and security services when TPIMs were introduced? Can she reassure me that those extra resources are being used with specific reference to this person so that he can be apprehended as soon as possible?
Mrs May
The extra resources that were available were to be used on the introduction of the TPIMs and for a period of time in terms of the individuals who were on TPIMs and the TPIM regime that had been introduced. In relation to resources for the potential apprehension of Ibrahim Magag, I am assured by the police and others that they have the resources that they consider necessary to be able to conduct the inquiries and the search they are conducting.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, why cannot we all be told whether the authorities have Magag’s passport? Do not the public have a right to know?
Mrs May
Perhaps I can answer the question in this way. There are certain facts in relation to an individual that are not publicly known because they are subject to an anonymity order, and there are various legal issues relating to that. If I may go away and check those issues, and if it is possible to make a public reference in the House in relation to the passport issue, I will place a letter in the Library of the House.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation.
South London Healthcare NHS Trust
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trust special administrator’s report on South London Healthcare NHS Trust and the NHS in south-east London.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I have today published the final report of the trust special administrator to South London Healthcare NHS Trust and laid it before Parliament. I received the report yesterday and must now consider it carefully. I am under a statutory duty to make a decision by 1 February on how best to secure a sustainable future for services provided by the trust.
The trust special administrator began his appointment on 16 July. He published his draft report on 29 October and undertook a consultation on his draft recommendations between 2 November and 13 December. More than 27,000 full consultation documents and 104,000 summary documents were distributed during the consultation and sent to 2,000 locations across south-east London, including hospital sites, GP surgeries, libraries and town halls. A dedicated website was established to support the consultation, the TSA team arranged or attended more than 100 events or meetings and the consultation generated more than 8,200 responses.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members and, indeed, the people living in areas affected by the proposals, especially in Lewisham. They have a right to expect the highest quality NHS care, and I have a duty to ensure that they receive it. However, they will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on the report’s recommendations only one day after receiving it. To do so would be pre-emptive and would prejudice my duty to consider the recommendations with care and reach a decision that is in the best interests of the people of south-east London.
However, I have made it clear that any solution would need to satisfy the four tests outlined by the Prime Minister and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), with respect to any major reconfigurations: the changes must have support from GP commissioners; the public, patients and local authorities must have been genuinely engaged in the process; the recommendations must be underpinned by a clear clinical evidence base; and the changes must give patients a choice of good-quality providers.
The challenges facing South London Healthcare NHS Trust are complex and long standing, but to fail to address them is to penalise other parts of the NHS from which resources must be taken to finance the biggest deficit anywhere in the NHS. To date, it has not proved possible to ensure that South London Healthcare NHS Trust can secure a sustainable future for its services within its existing configuration and organisational form. In appointing a special administrator to the trust, the Government’s priority was to ensure that patients continue to receive high-quality, sustainable NHS services, and I will consider the special administrator’s report with that objective in mind.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Neither I nor my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) are opposed to change or to greater efficiencies, but we are opposed to the destruction of Lewisham hospital, which is a solvent, well-regarded trust that meets all its performance and financial standards.
There is a fundamental question at stake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has made it clear that the powers associated with the failure regime under which the TSA acts were not intended to be used to encompass the services of other hospitals. Yet in order to tackle the huge financial deficit sustained by South London Healthcare Trust, the TSA proposes to close Lewisham hospital’s accident and emergency services, including the acclaimed children’s A and E, to end all medical and surgical emergency care and to demolish maternity services. He then proposes to sell off half the hospital’s land. That cannot be justified. Each year around 120,000 people use Lewisham A and E, more than 30,000 children use the children’s A and E and more than 4,000 babies are born in the hospital. There is no current capacity at any of the other hospitals in the area to provide for those patients.
These proposals amount to a major reconfiguration by the back door, and they are opposed by virtually all the health professionals in the area and by the people of Lewisham. Does the Secretary of State believe that a reconfiguration of services in south-east London is necessary? If he does, he needs to propose one with the relevant consideration for patient safety and health care standards and that meets his four tests. These proposals do none of that and must be rejected.
Mr Hunt
First, I want to recognise the right hon. Lady’s real concerns about the proposals that have been made. I also recognise that they reflect the concerns of many of her constituents and, indeed, many people in Lewisham. Her point about scope is one I replied to in my letter to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) before Christmas. I have taken legal advice on that and been told that under the unsustainable provider regime, which the previous Government put into law, an administrator must initially look at a trust’s defined area, but if they conclude that the defined area is not in itself financially sustainable—they have a duty to come back with a financially sustainable solution—and if it is necessary and consequential, they need to look at a broader area. Of course there is interrelation between different parts of the south-east London health care economy. However, I will be getting fresh legal advice on that point, because I recognise that it is extremely important.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady recognises that changes need to be made. I also hope that she understands that I have a duty to address this issue, which has affected hospitals in the South London Healthcare Trust area for many years. The deficit of the trust amounts to £207 million in the period since it was set up, and that is money that must be taken away from other parts of the NHS. I have a clear duty to address that issue. I will not comment on specific proposals today, but I will be very happy to meet her and her colleagues from Lewisham in order to hear from them directly about their concerns. Indeed, I will be meeting the trust special administrator on 10 January so that I can ask him any questions about his proposals before I make my decision, which must be within 20 working days.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Beckenham Beacon is not only modern, but extremely central. I stress the incredible value it could have in south London. I very much hope that the services currently provided there will increase, rather than decrease, at the end of this consultation.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for again speaking up for his constituents, as indeed I have done as a constituency MP on many occasions. I want to reassure him that the four tests we have outlined for any major changes to health care services would indeed apply to the Beckenham Beacon and that, were there to be any changes, we would need to be satisfied that they would have strong, local, clinical support, that his constituents had been properly consulted and that there was clear evidence that change would be beneficial.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the start of proceedings on this urgent question.
It has long been accepted that difficult decisions are needed to secure the sustainability of health services in south-east London. That is why recommendations from the review, “A Picture of Health”, were agreed under the previous Government. The trust special administrator has adopted many of those proposals, which we welcome.
However, the review presented today goes way beyond that and takes the NHS into new territory. It uses powers passed by the previous Government in a way that was never intended and, in so doing, sets a worrying precedent whereby normal processes of public consultation are short-circuited and back-door reconfigurations of hospital services are pushed through. The Health Act 2009, which I took through this House, states that
“the administrator must provide to the Secretary of State and publish a draft report stating the action which the administrator recommends the Secretary of State should take in relation to the trust.”
In making recommendations that have a major impact on another trust, is the Secretary of State not going beyond the powers this House has given to him? He has acknowledged that he needs to commission fresh legal advice, which suggests to me that the legality of the process is in doubt. Will he publish all the legal advice he has been given so far and give a commitment that any new legal advice he commissions will be made available?
As this is a financially driven process, the people of Lewisham have justifiable concerns about whether it is safe to close their A and E and downgrade the maternity services. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that a clinical case has been established behind these major changes? Given that all A and E departments in south London are currently overstretched and operating at full capacity, people will need to be convinced that these changes will not put lives at risk.
Finally, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee today to the people of Lewisham that, if he accepts the TSA’s recommendations, they will have the full consultation rights that come with any hospital reconfiguration, including the ability to challenge the clinical case and, if necessary, to refer it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel? This process is attempting to rewrite the rules on making changes to hospital services, bypassing the intention of the House. It will send a shiver through any communities without a foundation trust, as it raises the prospect that their hospital will be able to be used as a pawn to solve problems in another.
People in Lewisham feel a huge sense of unfairness and I am sure that that will be shared by people across the House. The onus is on the Secretary of State to justify the changes and ensure that rules governing hospital changes are fair and respect the essential rights of all communities to be fully consulted and involved in any decision affecting their services.
Mr Hunt
We have followed to the letter the processes laid down in the law that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government passed. We followed the procedure extremely carefully. This is the first time that the procedure has been invoked, so we have taken extra legal advice to make sure that the processes followed strictly adhere to the letter of the law. I will continue to take legal advice, because I want to make sure that we absolutely follow the wishes of the House in how we carry out the procedure.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, we have introduced new safeguards for any major changes made to NHS services. Those safeguards did not exist when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary. We have said that we will not accept any changes unless there is proper consultation of the local population, clear evidence and clear local clinical support. We made that commitment in the four tests, which did not exist under his Government.
I will not accept any of the changes that the special administrator proposes unless I am satisfied that all four tests have been met. They include proper local consultation, because I consider that to be extremely important.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The report mentions an increase in elective surgery in Darent Valley hospital—my local hospital, which is just over the Kent border with south London. Although the hospital has enjoyed extra funding from the Government, it still has capacity issues. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the knock-on issues are taken into account before he makes any decision?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the most important things that I have to consider in the next 20 days is what he describes as the knock-on impact of all the proposed changes. I have a duty to find a solution that is financially and clinically sustainable for the South London Healthcare NHS Trust area. However, I need to consider the knock-on effects everywhere else, including in Lewisham and my hon. Friend’s constituency.
As well as legal advice, I will be seeking clinical advice and want to make sure that my officials agree with the financial considerations made in the report. I will consider all that advice in enormous detail before I come to any decisions.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet Members with Lewisham constituencies about this matter. Representatives of the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign, which is made up of local GPs, local hospital doctors and the public, are also very keen to meet the Secretary of State to put our case directly to him about why it is important to retain a full, admitting A and E and full maternity service at Lewisham. Will he agree to meet them?
Mr Hunt
I want to meet colleagues from the House but, as I am sure the hon. Lady will understand, I want to be careful not to restart the whole consultation process that has been happening in what I believe is a very thorough way in the past few months. However, one of the things that I will be considering very carefully—and I will listen to any points that the hon. Lady makes when I meet her—is whether the consultation has been done properly, as it needs to be done and as was intended by the legislation. I will not accept any changes unless I am satisfied on that point.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s apparently open-minded approach to the proposals, which have caused enormous clinical alarm in our hospitals as well as local concern.
Two particular issues affect my constituents and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in relation to King’s College hospital. I ask the Secretary of State to take them seriously. First, should the proposed closures at Lewisham hospital go ahead, that will impact on the King’s College hospital paediatric A and E, which is already overstretched; the staff have enormous concern about their ability to meet any additional demand.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State agree that discussions currently under way to merge the managements of King’s College hospital with those of Guy’s and St Thomas’s should be suspended while the extensive reorganisation threatens the stability of a number of hospitals? If they were to go ahead in parallel, that would risk engulfing our hospitals with preoccupations about reorganisation rather than there being a focus from our world-class hospital staff in south London on treating the patients that we represent.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Lady makes two important points. As she knows, I visited King’s College hospital just before Christmas and was incredibly impressed by what I saw. I visited the geriatric ward and was really impressed, and I am sure that the paediatric service is outstanding as well. It came across to me as an extremely well run hospital. I will, of course, make sure that I consider the impact of the changes proposed by the trust special administrator on King’s, just as I will consider the impact on all surrounding hospitals.
With respect to the merger proposals, because the legislation requires me to come to a decision within 20 working days, the right hon. Lady will find that I have to make and publish my decision quickly enough to ensure that any impact from the changes is properly considered by the people pursuing the possibility of a merger between King’s, Guy’s and Tommy’s.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will understand that I have not been able to read the entire trust special administrator’s report in the hour or so I have had access to it. However, while I was reading the report, it became clear that a great deal of concern was expressed during the consultation about the implementation of the proposals. Indeed, the report highlights the fact that following previous reorganisations, costs have increased rather than reduced as a result of the very process of reorganisation.
Given those worries, will the Secretary of State agree to meet representatives from other boroughs, who are equally concerned? I remind him that he declined my request for a meeting on the trust special administrator’s draft report; I hope he will not decline to meet now that we have the full report. In particular, will he consider the implications for patient care and services of a major reorganisation, which can be disruptive and fail to deliver the savings envisaged?
Mr Hunt
I heed absolutely the right hon. Gentleman’s warning that reorganisations are not always the panacea that they are made out to be. We need to be absolutely clear that, if we accept the proposals, they will deliver a sustainable, robust and clinically sound outcome for the right hon. Gentleman’s and neighbouring constituents, as the trust special administrator believes they will. I shall be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman attends the meeting with other MPs affected by the proposal. I shall hear what he has to say further at that meeting.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has to recognise the serious contradictions between the proposals in the trust special administrator’s report and the Conservative manifesto before the last general election. If he were to accept the proposals, particularly in relation to A and E, that would be a serious betrayal of promises made to the electorate. There are also the changes expected from the “A Picture of Health” proposals for Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup in relation to overnight elective surgery. How much is the Secretary of State bound by the specific promises made in the Conservative manifesto before the election when it comes to making a decision on the report?
Mr Hunt
We were concerned in the run-up to the last election at the pace and scale of many of the reconfigurations pursued by the last Government. That is why when we came into office we paused the reconfigurations and introduced the four tests—an additional safeguard to make sure that reconfigurations were not done without local clinical support.
We wanted to avoid what had happened so often, including in my own constituency—an alliance of Health Ministers and NHS managers riding roughshod over what local people wanted. We wanted to stop that, so we put in place new systems. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted by the robustness and thoroughness of the processes that we are now going through.
EU Fisheries Negotiations
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I represented the UK at the fisheries part of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 18 to 20 December. Richard Lochhead, Michelle O’Neill and Alun Davies attended for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales respectively.
The annual December round of negotiations for total allowable catches, or TACs, and quotas is a difficult process, and this year was particularly challenging. UK fishermen were facing automatic 25% reductions in the time they can spend at sea, as well as significant decreases in TACs and quotas. I entered this year’s negotiation clear in my mind that decisions on quotas or on days spent at sea need to be based on three clear principles: following scientific advice, sustainability, and the need for continued discard reduction. We adhered to these principles throughout, and I am pleased to report to the House that the UK Government secured a deal that was good for the health of our seas and for the UK fishing industry.
We secured agreement to end automatic reductions to the number of days fishermen can spend at sea, overcoming legal obstacles in the cod recovery plan. The number of available days in 2013 will be at the same level as 2012, giving fishermen the time to fish sustainably, avoiding discards and juvenile fish. The quota for North sea cod in 2013 will be decided during the EU-Norway negotiations next week. We removed the requirement for this to be based on an automatic 20% reduction, instead enabling the quota to be set on the basis of scientific evidence. Reflecting the latest science, the UK is calling for a rollover of the TAC to decrease discards, increase the likelihood of achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2015, and improve the stock biomass. This outcome, together with our success in removing proposed restrictions on discard reduction programmes, means that our highly successful and innovative catch quota scheme, which effectively eliminates discards, can continue to grow and develop this year.
On fish quotas, where the scientific evidence showed that significant cuts in quota were necessary for the health of the stock, we accepted them—for example, in the case of North sea nephrops, Celtic sea herring and Rockall haddock—but where they were not justified we successfully managed to fight huge cuts to quotas across a number of different fish stocks. The proposed cuts to quotas were often not supported by the available evidence and would have led to an increase in the discarding of perfectly edible fish. Successes included mitigating a 55% cut in south-west haddock to 15%, a 48% cut in west of Scotland haddock to 30%, and overturning a 12% cut to a 6% increase in nephrops around Northern Ireland. Because a number of stocks are improving, we were able to increase quotas for them this year. For example, we secured increases in quota for plaice and sole in the channel, nephrops in the west of Scotland, and cod and whiting in the south-west. We are hoping to secure increases in many of the North sea stocks, in line with the scientific advice, as part of the EU-Norway discussions next week.
Through the night the UK team battled hard to reach an agreement that ensures the long-term sustainability of fish stocks while providing short-term catching opportunities for our fishing industry. The package we secured helps all sectors of the industry, large and small, and delivers benefits for all parts of the UK—north, south, east and west. It was a good result for the UK fleet and for sustainable exploitation of the fish on which our fishermen depend. It also supports our wider objectives on the reform of the common fisheries policy, and it was a timely coincidence that the European Parliament was voting on CFP reform at the same time that the annual quota negotiations were taking place. I was very pleased that ambitious provisions to eliminate discards, set fishing rates sustainably and allow for regional decision making were voted through. This was an important step forward for the reform process, and it bodes well that the final package we will negotiate this year will include the radical reforms we all agree are needed.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
I sympathise with the Minister for being forced to sit through the night at the Fisheries Council at the end of last year in what I am confident he would describe as a Kafkaesque experience. Does he agree that our fishing industry deserves better than this undignified and often chaotic annual round of negotiations each December? More to the point, does he agree that public and industry confidence in the negotiation framework would be enhanced by a substantial degree of transparency? By holding meetings behind closed doors, the Council prevents us from evaluating the logic behind its decisions. What measures does the Minister plan in future to open up these negotiations to a healthy dose of public scrutiny?
We are at a critical point for fisheries management, and common fisheries policy reform is at the top of the agenda. May I wish the Minister every success during the EU-Norway negotiations on the North sea cod quota next week? Labour Members welcome the news that automatic cuts to the North sea cod quota and a reduction in the number of fishing days at sea have been avoided. Given public outrage at the shameful waste of discards, any change in policy that increased discards would have been unacceptable. Is the Minister aware of concerns within the fishing industry that the vote by the Council of Ministers to amend the more problematic parts of the cod management plan could be subject to legal challenge from the European Parliament? Can he guarantee that the Council’s vote will not be overruled by the outcome of such a legal challenge?
The Minister told the House that proposed cuts to quotas were “often not supported by the available evidence”. Will he give us examples? Can he confirm that despite the Council’s, and his own, public support for evidence-based policy-making, about half of all quotas have been set above levels advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea? He reported that the Council was able to increase quotas for those stocks that are improving. Can he confirm to the House that all these quota increases were unambiguously supported and recommended by the scientific evidence?
What discussions, if any, took place at Council regarding the ongoing dispute between UK and Icelandic fishermen on disputed north-east Atlantic mackerel stock? Was the Minister personally involved in any discussions on the possible enforcement of EU sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and will he update the House on this crucial issue?
Is the Minister fully aware of the increasing importance to Scottish processing plants of the blue whiting quota, and will he bear this in mind as he approaches the EU negotiations with Norway next week? Total allowable catch for blue whiting increased significantly in 2012 but is still constrained by our commitment to swap quotas for North sea cod with Norway—a move that largely benefits Spain and Portugal.
Lastly, given the importance to these annual negotiations of quota distribution within the EU, will the Minister update the House on when he expects to be able to publish the full, comprehensive and up-to-date list of who owns the UK fishing quota, long promised by this Government?
I welcome the Minister’s statement and wish him every success in future negotiations. So long as he continues to represent the fight for the sustainability of the UK’s fishing industry and of our vital natural resource, he will continue to enjoy our conditional support.
Richard Benyon
I would expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy about the absurd and ridiculous processes that one has to go through. With the reform of the common fisheries policy, we have a golden opportunity to end some of the absurdity, if not all of it. We can cease the ridiculous charade of a Minister like me discussing fishing net sizes with a Commission official perhaps 1,000 miles from where the net will be used. That is a technical matter that should be decided locally with fishermen. That is why our regionalisation agenda as part of the CFP reform is so important.
The system can also be improved through better long-term management plans. The cod recovery plan is a bad plan, but that should not dissuade us from pushing for more long-term management plans that are scientifically based and worked through with the industry, taking away from politicians the late-night horse trading and making the system much more evidence based. We want to see more of that.
The hon. Gentleman raised an issue about cod. Where cod effort continues to be reduced, the incentive is then for fishermen to fish as soon as possible after leaving port, and that might not be the most sustainable place for them to catch fish—it might be where cod are spawning or where there are more juvenile fish. We want to encourage them to go to the places where there are the larger fish that they can target sustainably.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this will be subject to a legal challenge. It may well be—these things happen. I was very clear that I did not want the livelihoods of our fishermen or the sustainability of our seas to be the totemic issue on which inter-institutional rivalries would be sorted out. Therefore, the decision we took to support the presidency in sorting out this element of the cod recovery plan was the right one. It may well end up in court and I cannot guarantee the result, but we have secured a sensible solution for this year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES looks at individual fish stocks rather than, as is the case in this country, mixed fisheries, so we do apply other scientific advice. On cod, we got ICES to agree that our rationale was right that if we had progressed down the route proposed by the Commission, it would have resulted in more discards.
Mackerel remains our absolute priority. It is this country’s biggest by-value catch and I am determined to do all we can to get Iceland and the Faroes back to the negotiating table and find a solution. If not, sanctions remain on the table.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman about blue whiting, because that is a more technical issue.
We inherited an extraordinary situation whereby we do not know who owns quota in this country, which is daft. We have set about our determination to resolve that issue this year, so I hope that at some point in 2013 we will be able to explain to the House whether or not quota is actually owned by football clubs and celebrities, as is constantly made clear to me. We have yet to find out and are working hard to achieve that.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the Fisheries Minister on enduring the final throes of an out-of-date policy. Could he assure the House that cod quota will be extended to our hard-pressed, initial under-10 metre fleet? That is extremely important.
On the common fisheries policy, it is music to the ears of fishermen that we are proceeding on the grounds of sustainability, sound scientific advice and, indeed, a discard policy that should work. Will he assure the House that regional control will amount to control by him and his colleagues for the North sea fishermen and, indeed, by the fishermen and the regional advisory councils themselves?
Richard Benyon
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. Yes, I can confirm that cod is an important stock for the inshore fleet as well as for others. It is welcome that cod stocks are increasing. That is in so small part thanks to the work being done by fishermen in all sectors to improve the biomass of this important staple of our diet. It is not entirely good news—there are still cuts to cod quotas in some areas—but the general trend is increasing. We need to reflect on the fact that 1 million tonnes of cod will be caught off Norway and in the North sea this year. This stock is improving dramatically not very far from us. It is not improving quickly enough, but we are working hard to achieve that.
I agree with my hon. Friend that sustainability is important, not just because we mind about the health of our seas, but because we mind about the future of our fishing industry. We want an increased biomass and it is through increased stocks that more businesses will progress and become more profitable.
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments on regional management. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been banging this drum for a long time. We want fully documented fisheries where the technical measures that are currently decided by a top-down centralised system are decided locally on an ecosystem basis, so that in an area such as the North sea it is the countries that actually fish in it that will decide how it is managed.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I join in congratulating the Minister on this very good result that is obviously welcomed by the fishing industry. He is well aware of the trials that are taking place in Scotland to improve discards. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is anxious that they progress as quickly as possible and feel that it would be extremely beneficial to have an extra quota of fish specifically to pursue the research. Is the Minister prepared to argue for that in next week’s Norway discussions?
Richard Benyon
What we managed to achieve was to get the argument understood. We are not talking about more mortality; we are talking about landing more fish that would otherwise be discarded. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that fishermen from his part of the world have led the way on a whole range of measures. Some have been technical and have involved their gear, while others have involved real-time closures, but the really important scheme is the catch quota scheme, which has involved fully documented fisheries. The scheme has been praised from the commissioner downwards as the way forward. We want it to become the norm and, in many respects, for it to be much extended, because under that scheme practically no cod will be discarded from vessels this year. That is an incredible achievement by those fishermen and the people who have worked with them on such schemes, and we want to see more of that.
Mr Speaker
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on his CBE in the new year’s honours list. I also congratulate his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on her OBE in the same list.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on the tremendous progress that has been made on regionalisation. It has long been an ambition of the UK Government that more decision making and management of the common fisheries policy be done locally. Could he give us other examples of how this will benefit the UK fleet and ensure that it has a happy future?
Richard Benyon
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent honour.
Many benefits can be achieved from proper, effective regionalisation. Ending the top-down, centralised control of small and detailed technical measures is an important way forward. Ensuring that local fishermen work with scientists and developing the concept that every single vessel is a scientific platform can only be achieved locally. We cannot achieve what we want to achieve on discards without regionalisation. It has been a real battle to push this through the Council and other forums. I am really pleased that the fisheries committee of the European Parliament recognises this. We now have to make sure that it is followed through in the bizarre processes that we have to go through for the rest of the year, in order to ensure meaningful reform. I assure my hon. Friend that this is a priority for us.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister will recall that I have called on a number of occasions for the abolition of the common fisheries policy and for the Government to press that on European colleagues. I still believe that we should do that. Would it not be sensible to return to the national limits that we used to have, so that we can manage our fish stocks and monitor our fishing? That is how the Norwegians do it, and their fisheries are much better than ours.
The question that I really want to ask relates to Spain, which has in the past refused to give information about its fishing. Indeed, there have been suggestions that it is landing black fish illegally. Is Spain being properly regulated now?
Richard Benyon
Sadly, Spain is not alone in having had problems in the past with black fish landings. We have to make sure that all houses are in order when we criticise countries for failing to obey the rules. I want to make it absolutely clear that if people land black fish—illegal, unreported and unregulated landings of fish—they are stealing those fish from our fishermen. People such as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) have made that important point consistently.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is consistent in his view of the common fisheries policy. I certainly would not have started from this point, and I think that most Members would agree with that. As we develop the policy further, we need to recognise that the “common” part of the common fisheries policy is not necessarily wrong. We need to manage this on an ecosystem basis. Fish may spawn in one country’s waters and then swim to those of another country. They do not have passports and we need to manage the situation on a sea basin basis, and that is where our regionalisation agenda is going.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commission’s draconian and inflexible stance, particularly on stocks with a precautionary, rather than an analytical, TAC, is a clear reason why management and decision making should be devolved to the local nation states that have a real interest in the sea basin area? Will he argue for that in the CFP review negotiations?
Richard Benyon
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this issue. Her knowledge is important in guiding us and making sure that we are on this agenda. I assure her that we are. I want fishermen from her part of the world to take responsibility for the detailed management, technical measures and other sustainability issues that we require of them, rather than feeling that yet another layer of control is being imposed on them. That is what is driving people out of the industry and making fishermen feel that they do not want their children or grandchildren to go into their industry. I am determined to see a degree of regionalisation that is effective in delivering that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to tell the House that we have got through only five questions in nine minutes of Back-Bench time, which is very slow progress. We need to speed up, I am afraid, if we are to accommodate colleagues and move on to the next business in a timely fashion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his hard work and effort on behalf of the fishing industry, especially in Northern Ireland, and for working with the Minister in Northern Ireland. Along with Diane Dodds, I met the Minister the day before he went to Brussels to put the case for the Northern Ireland fishing sector. The 6% increase in nephrops is most welcome, especially for the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. What plans does he have to address the growing problems associated with Irish sea cod, particularly in area VII, and the assertion of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries that science suffers from annual TAC reductions?
Richard Benyon
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am pleased with where we got to on nephrops.
On the technical issue of Irish sea cod, I think that we can slightly ameliorate the impact of the cut. Working with fishermen in his constituency and the STECF, I hope that we can move the argument forward. Great work is being done by fishermen in Northern Ireland on selectivity, and I encourage that. I want to achieve the holy grail of fisheries management, which we are achieving elsewhere: catching less and landing more. We can do that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My constituency and neighbouring Grimsby broadly welcome the negotiations and, in particular, the moves towards regionalisation. However, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns that the negotiations between the EU and Iceland over mackerel catches may lead to lower imports into this country, which are vital to the Grimsby-based industry. Will he give the industry in my constituency some reassurance?
Richard Benyon
I visited my hon. Friend’s region not long before Christmas and that point was made very clear to me. I recognise that we have a very valuable processing industry that we want to protect. In large part, it is dependent on fish from Iceland. If sanctions are brought in against Iceland, we want to ensure that they are proportionate. We think we can exert some influence in this area and get Iceland back to the table, so that we can start seeing proper management of a stock that swims across a vast area that is the responsibility of many countries.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On behalf of the Scottish and UK fishing industries, may I congratulate the Minister on a job well done? Will he give the House an assessment of whether Scotland’s fishermen would have benefited from having a separate delegation or whether we are better together?
Richard Benyon
My view is that Scotland’s fishermen are best represented as part of a large, 29-vote member of the European Union. That is true of a lot of other interests. I cannot do the maths off the top of my head to work out how many votes Scotland would have as an independent state, but I think that it is best served by being part of the United Kingdom in these negotiations.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on behalf of myself and the fishermen of Ramsgate. Will he elaborate on the impact of the settlement on the under-10 metre fleet, in particular in the channel?
Richard Benyon
We achieved an increase in the quotas for sole and plaice in my hon. Friend’s area and a roll-over of the sprat quota, which was due for a big cut. Those are all valuable fisheries for her constituents. I am gratified that fishermen in her area are part of our trial for more financial support for the under-10 metre fleet in the coming year.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
There is much to welcome in the Minister’s statement. I commend him and the devolved Ministers for their efforts in recent weeks. I, too, want to press the Minister on the mackerel dispute, which is still at an impasse. Will he give an assurance that he will reject the Commission’s proposals for reductions in mackerel quotas next week at the EU-Norway talks, because that would simply reward Iceland and the Faroes for destructive overfishing and fail to pull them back to the negotiating table?
Richard Benyon
I am sure that the hon. Lady, like me, wants to ensure that we stay resolute in our determination to follow the science. We have a political issue to sort out with the mackerel problem and that can be done only by getting Iceland and the Faroes back round the table. I do not want the United Kingdom to fish the last mackerel out of the sea. We want to ensure that the stock remains sustainable. I feel very unhappy about the impact that this situation could be having on her constituents and on those whom I have met in Lerwick and in other places where mackerel is an important fishery. We want to ensure that Iceland and the Faroes play ball, but we cannot allow this stock to be fished unsustainably.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has tried to do for the under-10 metre fleet. Will he say more about how the “non-sector” will be affected by the settlement, in particular people fishing out of Harwich, Brightlingsea and Wivenhoe, a fleet that he knows well?
Richard Benyon
As I have said, there is good news for the under-10 metre fleet, which is particularly effective at targeting stocks such as sole and plaice. There is quite a large increase in the plaice quota and we managed to avoid a big cut in other stocks by presenting the science and working with my hon. Friend’s constituents who fish sustainably. The under-10 metre fleet can feel proud of their contribution towards the sustainability of our fishing industry and I commend those in his constituency for that.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has taken a sensible approach to the dispute over mackerel with Iceland and the Faroes. In the discussions that he and his colleagues have with them, will he ensure that the point is made that they will be the biggest losers if there is an unsustainable approach to mackerel fishing in the North sea? It may be attractive to Iceland to get immediate economic returns from the mackerel stock, given its current economic situation, but it would not be in that country’s interest to see the stock diminished beyond recognition.
Richard Benyon
There is a perfectly acceptable international method for resolving these disputes, but it requires countries such as Iceland to take part in the process. We remain willing to discuss the matter with them in an open and meaningful way. The ball is in their court. In the meantime, this is a difficult time for the industry, with the threat to the viability of the pelagic fleet. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that bad practice is not rewarded and that we are working hard to achieve a happy solution to this problem.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on securing an increase in the quotas for cod and whiting in the south-west and for plaice and sole in the channel. How quickly does he think it will be possible to roll out the catch quota scheme to further eliminate discards?
Richard Benyon
I was really pleased that fishermen in my hon. Friend’s constituency entered the scheme last year. I want many more vessels to do so, because fully documented fisheries are the only way forward, not only to have proper management of our fisheries, but to address the concerns of all our constituents—even mine inland—who are affronted by the idea of perfectly edible fish being thrown away. Through schemes such as the catch quota scheme we can give assurances to our consumers and make life better for our fishermen, who are landing more and being better rewarded for it. This is an entirely virtuous circle.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the Minister on his work in the negotiations before Christmas and over the past two and a half years on behalf of the under-10 metre fleet. There is concern that in future work on the reallocation of quota, the under-10s will be compromised by not having kept records. Will he confirm that he will work with the industry to address that concern?
Richard Benyon
I hope my hon. Friend would concede that I am on record as having faced criticism from some quarters for reallocating quota to the under-10 metre sector. I strongly believe that fishing opportunity is a national resource, and this rather bizarre business is about the allocation of that national resource. I firmly believe that the under-10 metre sector is important socially as well as economically, and I will continue to do what I can to make its life better.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on both what he has achieved and the manner in which he has conducted the negotiations. He mentioned the context of the common fisheries policy reform. Will he reassure the House that his counterparts in Europe will respect the fact that we are introducing marine conservation zones that extend beyond the six and 12-mile limits, to ensure that British fishermen are not constrained in areas where foreign vessels are not?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is really important. I am not in the business of proposing restrictions for our vessels only to see vessels from other countries entering the restricted areas in our waters and fishing in a way that our fishermen cannot. We must have the matter agreed at European level, and I have already had discussions with my French counterpart on it. We will have further discussions to ensure that it is completely clear at every level that we are not imposing a restriction on ourselves that will not be recognised by other countries.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s success in getting the scientific evidence heard, particularly when it comes to haddock in the south-west. Why were the Commission’s original proposals so far wide of the mark, and why is it apparently so dysfunctional on the issue and so deaf to the evidence?
Richard Benyon
The issue of haddock in the south-west is a product of the situation that I mentioned earlier, whereby the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea simply examines one stock on its own. In most of the UK waters we have mixed fisheries, and there is a danger that we can—I have already used this expression in Committee today—make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we are tied to one species, in this case a “choke species”, it can result in more discards and worsen the sustainability of wider stocks. That was why we argued successfully for a reduction in the cut.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am sure that the fishermen who fish in Sole bay will be delighted by the increase in eastern channel sole, as will those in Southwold, Orford, Sizewell and elsewhere in my constituency. Does the Minister share my concern, though, about the comments of the chief executive of the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association that the deal was damaging, when it has actually proved a lifeline for many of our coastal fishermen?
Richard Benyon
I think the chief executive’s comments were a pity, because if he had looked closely at what we achieved he would have seen an improved prospect for the year ahead across all sectors and around all our coasts. That includes some valuable stocks that are of particular interest to his members, so I accept my hon. Friend’s point.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
May I add to the chorus of congratulations from Members on both sides of the House on the Minister’s his genuine achievements? In particular, the increase in the nephrops quota will be most welcome in Fleetwood and is a real success. Now that he is back, may I ask him to keep an eye on the new wind farm applications in the Irish sea so that there might be some space left for my local fishermen to catch the new quota?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend may try you, Mr Speaker, but I listened to what he said. I want to ensure that we get away from the silo mentality in managing our fisheries of talking about fishermen in one forum, conservation in another and other marine activities in a third. Following the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, we are moving towards much more holistic management of our seas, which is right.
Regulation of Bailiffs
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulatory regime for bailiffs which would preclude the making of multiple fee charges without explanation; to introduce guidelines for dealing with potentially vulnerable debtors; and for connected purposes.
Concerns about the practices of bailiffs are not new, nor has the issue simply gone ignored. Governments have been aware of the concerns for decades. Action on the matter, however, has proved slow at best. I do not wish to make a party political issue of it, and I am aware of cross-party concerns about bailiff practices. Before I continue, I wish to thank the Coventry Evening Telegraph for the investigative work that it has undertaken into the matter. Many of my examples have been drawn from the paper’s investigation.
Those of us wanting reform of the bailiff system were given hope when, in February last year, the Government announced a consultation on bailiff reform. The consultation duly went ahead and closed in May 2012. I am aware of the disappointment felt by many in the industry regarding the scope of the consultation, but many have been optimistic that it could lead to real change. However, the report on the consultation was due to be published in October. As might be expected, every month that passes with no word from the Government diminishes hope about their commitment to the issue. I understand that the report is due to be published this month, and I very much hope that that will be the case. I therefore want the House to signal to the Ministry of Justice that we place great importance on bailiff reform.
Another reason for the lack of faith in the forthcoming report is that the Department in charge consulted 16 organisations and introduced the national standards for enforcement agents in 2002. Those standards remained unchanged for nine years and were clearly in need of updating. Many people were therefore delighted when the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), announced last January that the national standards had been updated. He said that the voluntary code had been tightened to protect people from rogue bailiffs, and stated:
“Councils and other authorities will adopt the standards”.
I do not know on what basis he could make those claims, given that the standards remain voluntary.
What is most concerning, however, is that on close inspection of the updated standards, it appears that only six sentences were added to the original standards. Only one sentence was changed in the section on information and confidentiality, adding the words
“avoiding unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language”.
No changes were made under the headings “Complaints/Discipline”, “Vulnerable situations” or “Goods”. I was also shocked to discover that most of the new material had been taken almost word for word from the new Office of Fair Trading debt collection guidance.
In updating the standards, the Ministry of Justice consulted only two organisations, compared with the original 16. Anyone looking for a meaningful change in standards for bailiffs must be extremely disappointed. Based on the Ministry’s last announcement regarding its efforts to address bailiff reform, in my eyes there is reason to be pessimistic about the Government’s forthcoming proposals. Nevertheless, I wish to take this opportunity to raise a number of recommendations that have been made, in the hope that the Ministry will take them into consideration.
The first recommendation is to eliminate the practice of making multiple fee charges for a single visit without explanation. I believe that in calling for that, I am asking for something modest. The local government ombudsman has recognised that the practice is legal and not uncommon, but she has also ruled that in many cases it is disproportionate. She has urged councils to enter into new contracts with bailiffs preventing multiple fee charging.
An example from Coventry might be helpful. Coventry council’s hired bailiffs recently sent 10 threatening letters in two days demanding that a disabled woman pay her debts in full immediately or face the loss of her possessions. That was despite her already having begun a payment plan. The bailiffs charged her five lots of £95 for a single visit to her house, which cannot be right, reasonable or fair.
There are many reports of bailiffs charging multiple fees for a single visit or bill, and the debt escalates rapidly. Such practice is too prevalent for us to continue relying on individual contracts with private bailiff firms. Let me reiterate that such cases are not unique to Coventry council and it has not behaved illegally. I hope, however, that all hon. Members will agree that such things should not be allowed to happen.
We are failing vulnerable people facing bailiff action. A cancer patient in Coventry missed just two council tax payments before receiving a court summons and a demand for the full up-front payment, together with the threat that her home possessions might be taken away. The bailiffs added another £200 costs and appear to have wrongly threatened her with prison. In that case, the bailiff firm seems to have accepted that it failed in the guideline “duty” on bailiffs to hand cases back to councils as soon as any potential for vulnerable circumstances is identified, so that councils may handle such cases more sensitively. There are many other examples from my constituency of vulnerable people trying desperately to persuade private bailiffs of their situation but simply being ignored. Such cases include a women who was suffering from severe depression and deemed at risk of suicide.
National standards for enforcement agents make it clear that bailiffs should exercise discretion when dealing with debtors who may be vulnerable. The standards state that potentially vulnerable people include those with a disability, but do not mention debtors who have mental health difficulties or who may be vulnerable by virtue of other difficulties—for example, those facing homelessness.
A bailiff might be the first person in the process to realise that a debtor is vulnerable, and we need much closer regulation of how to handle vulnerable debtors than currently exists. Private bailiff firms must be forced to inform councils of vulnerable cases. At the moment, administrative oversights, mistakes and unclear protocol can result in vulnerable people becoming the victims of aggressive or inept practice by bailiffs. I therefore hope to see a drastic change to the guidelines on how vulnerable people are treated in our private bailiff system, and I hope that all hon. Members will agree on the need for change.
This issue was discussed before Christmas in another place during a debate on an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, and I urge the Government to take on board the many sensible and important points made then, particularly regarding a full regulatory system for bailiffs. I call on the Government to consider the recommendations in the recent local government ombudsman report, “Taking possession: councils’ use of bailiffs for local debt collection”. The report covers a number of issues and provides recommendations based on the ombudsman’s considerable experience of complaints.
In conclusion, I appreciate the importance of debt collection to councils’ revenues, particularly in these times of austerity. Faced with cuts to council budgets, Coventry council has set a target under the bailiffs’ contract to reduce council tax debts from previous years by about 40%, and many other councils are in similar situations. We can therefore expect private bailiff firms to continue to be necessary to a certain extent, but we should make whatever arrangements are necessary to prevent the worst practices—whether due to incompetence or greed—such as multiple fee-charging, and protect the most vulnerable in society at an extremely distressing time. I hope that the Government will take my comments on board in the upcoming report, and that we will finally see radical change to our mediaeval bailiff system. I hope we will achieve a system that is reasonable, legal and proportionate, and I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Jim Cunningham, Thomas Docherty, Mr Geoffrey Robinson, Grahame M. Morris, Mr Tom Clarke, Sir Bob Russell and Mr David Winnick present the Bill.
Mr Jim Cunningham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed (Bill 117).
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 261 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Secretary of State to move the Second Reading debate, I inform the House that the amendment has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is about the renewal of what I believe is a principled welfare state based on affordability, integrity and fairness. For the convenience of the House, let me explain that I intend briefly to run through the features of the Bill, and I will then open up the debate to take interventions and deal with the amendment.
This Government inherited from the previous Government an unsustainable and costly system, and a welfare state that I believe delivered poor social outcomes, trapping people in dependency, as well as a poor deal for Britain’s taxpayers. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), needs no reminder of that as it was he who, when we arrived in government, told us that there was no money left. That was the result of a recession that was later discovered by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be deeper and sharper than anyone thought. The original estimate—
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a moment. I am in the business of having the right hon. Gentleman justify his own position so I will be happy to give him a chance, but let me finish this point. The previous Government originally claimed that the shrinkage in the economy was 5.8%. In fact, as the OBR later pointed out, at 6.3% the shrinkage was deeper than we had ever seen before—the biggest shrinkage in the economy since world war two.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raises that point because a huge part of that is spending on pensions. He will know that we are spending more on pensions and provide a better deal for pensioners than his Government ever did. Until this Bill, the Government continued to raise welfare payments in line with inflation; this is the first time that we propose not to do so. That will take effect through the uprating order that should be laid before Parliament later this month. The Bill provides that discretionary working age benefits and tax credits will be uprated by 1% for a further two years in the tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16, if prices have risen by at least 1%. The schedule to the Bill sets out the benefit payments and tax credits in question, which are listed in full in the explanatory memorandum. By providing for those changes in legislation, we can provide certainty for taxpayers, the markets and claimants.
A number of exceptions to the Bill are not included, and a number of benefits remain outside the scope of the Bill. We are maintaining our commitment to the triple lock so that the basic state pension will rise by 2.5%. In April 2013, pensioners will see an increase of £2.70 on last year—far more than the derisory 75p that Labour gave them in 2000—and I stress again that we introduced the triple lock to guarantee that. Crucially, we are also protecting disabled people and carers. Benefits to cover the added costs faced by these groups will continue to be linked to price inflation.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a moment. That includes carer’s allowance, disability living allowance, and new personal independence payments, as well as premiums paid to disabled people receiving working age benefits such as the disability additions in tax credits, and the support group component of employment and support allowance.
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was first.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has stated that benefits have been raised in line with inflation, but he did not say that tax credits— 2,000 people who are affected by the Bill are in work and receiving benefits such as tax credits—have not been increased for the past two years. In fact, they have been frozen.
Mr Duncan Smith
It is interesting that the hon. Lady raises that point, because under the Labour Government, tax credits absolutely boomed. In 2005, there were increases of 58%. Overall, there were 340% increases in tax credits, 70% of which goes to child tax credits. The hon. Lady says that tax credits should continue to rise, but she can make that argument in due course.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State admit that the social security budget is going up on his watch because unemployment is rising faster than his colleague expected?
Mr Duncan Smith
Never let a good fact get in the way of a good argument. Unemployment is falling, youth unemployment is falling, more women are in work than ever on her watch, and long-term unemployment is flattening out. The reality, therefore, is that we have better employment figures—there are 1 million new private sector jobs, which outweighs the public sector jobs we have had to get rid of. The reality is that the rate of unemployment, at 7.8%, is better than the EU average and better, almost for the first time, than the United States of America.
Mr Byrne
It is significant that the Secretary of State has just admitted for the first time that welfare spending on his watch is rising £14 billion higher than projected. Will he go a step further and confirm his understanding of the OBR figures that show that the claimant count is forecast to rise by a third of a million more than anticipated over the next few years? Will he admit that, yes or no?
Mr Duncan Smith
I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the claimant count was forecast to rise but has fallen throughout all those forecasts. I know it is inconvenient for the Opposition, who would rather unemployment rose than fell, but unemployment is falling. Many countries in Europe would give their eye teeth for the employment figures in this country.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On disabled people, paragraph 24 of the Secretary of State’s impact assessment, which has just been published, states:
“Nevertheless, despite this protection…those households where someone describes themselves as disabled, (under the DDA definition) some of whom will not be eligible for a disability benefit, are more likely to be affected than those where there is not a person”
in that category.
Mr Duncan Smith
There are two good reasons for that. First, families in which there is some disability are often more likely to include people who have claims on other benefits. Some of those will be affected by the change.
Mr Duncan Smith
No. That is exactly the reasoning behind what the impact assessment says. The second reason is that, as part of employment and support allowance, the support group is protected. However, people who are described in the terms of the Bill as qualified under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and are not in the support group will find that they will be affected by the 1% increase. Therefore, by and large, the benefits for those who are disabled and qualified as disabled, and for those in receipt either of support payments in ESA, disability living allowance or the premiums in many other benefits, are being uprated in line with inflation—[Interruption.] May I finish? The only benefit that is not being uprated in line with inflation is ESA for those not in the work-related activity group. Some of those with disability will be affected because many in their households will be on other benefits. That is the reason.
Mr Duncan Smith
I think I have dealt with that particular point and will move on—[Hon. Members: “No!”] All right, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Derek Twigg
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, but I am not clear about what he has just said. Will he confirm his impact assessment, which states that
“despite this protection …those households where someone describes themselves as disabled, (under the DDA definition) some of whom will not be eligible for a disability benefit”—
this is the crucial point—
“are more likely to be affected than those where there is not a person who describes themselves as disabled”?
Does he agree?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have just told the hon. Gentleman that the reality is that someone in those households is more likely to be on benefits, but particularly ESA. Let me remind him and the Labour party that they introduced the changes to the work capability assessment and ESA. The Government inherited, modified and improved those measures, but they are part of the reason why that is in the impact assessment.
Mr Duncan Smith
No. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point. The truth is that the Labour party is not only against the Bill but against what the Labour Government introduced just before the last election and the work capability assessment. Labour Members have opposed £80 billion of changes and reductions in every single vote and every single motion. I have dealt with his point. They must decide what they are in favour of when it comes to reducing the deficit; otherwise, they will be a laughing stock.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is not the bottom line that it is very difficult to justify 20% increases in benefits when earnings for hard-pressed families have gone up by only about 10%?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that, when the Opposition originally heard about the Bill, the shadow Chancellor and my opposite number—the shadow Secretary of State—entertained the idea that what was wrong with the Bill was that it affected too many people who were in some kind of work through working tax credit. The speculation was that, somehow, they would be prepared to support, or not oppose, measures on those not receiving working tax credit. I notice that there is no mention of that position in the amendment, because they have been clobbered by their left and by the trade unions, their paymasters. Instead, there is a rag-bag amendment expressing opposition to a variety of things, which bears no relation to their previous position. There they go again, denying where they are.
The real question for the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Chancellor, before they intervene again, is this: having opposed every single reduction to the deficit, what exactly would they do to cut it? They have not a single answer.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
We have just heard that one justification for capping benefits at 1% is that, allegedly, benefits have risen significantly more than wages. In that case, would it not be wise for the Government to introduce a measure so that benefits do not increase by more than average wage inflation?
Mr Duncan Smith
As I have said, the Bill is about trying to bring that fairness back into the welfare payments process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has said, the reality is that in the period since the recession, payments for those in work have risen by about 10% and payments for those on benefits have risen by about 20%. We are trying to get a fair settlement back over the next few years. Eventually, benefits will go back on to inflation.
Andrew George
We do not know—the Secretary of State is probably more clairvoyant than I am—what food price inflation will be in, for example, 2016. We are being asked to predict what the circumstances will be in the context of the rather arbitrary figure of 1%. I simply urge my right hon. Friend to keep an open mind, and to have a means by which we will uprate that is fair to both benefit recipients and those in work.
Mr Duncan Smith
I accept the point about fairness—that was my point—but the reality is that the Bill is also about getting the overall welfare bill down and in kilter. As I have said on the radio and again today, the key is that we must reduce the deficit—that is at the heart of the measure. The Liberal Democrats joined us in the coalition. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the No. 1 priority we face is reducing the deficit that Labour left us—the biggest deficit on record of any Government since the second world war. That is the reality, but Labour Members are in denial, so I will move on.
The reality is that affordability—
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a minute—I want to make progress and I have been quite reasonable in giving way.
First and foremost, under Labour public spending spiralled out of control—[Interruption.] Yes, it did. That left behind the UK’s largest ever peacetime deficit, and interest payments running at £120 million a day—[Interruption.] It is interesting that as soon as I speak about what Labour Members left behind, they go into denial. They try and shout me down because they do not like the sound of it. The reality is—
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a minute. The reality is that the shadow Chancellor and the former Chief Secretary deny that they left a problem. It was a nightmare, and they should apologise and tell us what they would do to put it right.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again: he is being typically generous. No doubt he, like me, will have looked at the DWP benefit expenditure tables, which show that spending on out-of-work benefits between 1996-97 and 2009-10 did not rise, but fell by £7.5 billion. That is why Lord Freud said that Labour’s record in getting people back to work was “remarkable” and noted that Labour had tackled the long-term dependency on unemployment benefits that it had inherited from the Tories in 1997.
Mr Duncan Smith
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is very careful to avoid telling the House how much Labour spent on tax credits as well. The important point that Labour Members need to realise is that of the total bill for tax credits, 70% had no involvement with work at all. Child tax credits had no work agreement on them whatever. The reality is that Labour spent 340% more on tax credits, 58% before the 2005 election and 29% before the last election, in the hope of buying votes to get it out of difficulty. The result was that the debt we had to pay off was costing us £30,000 every single minute. That is what we had to pay as a result of that expenditure—
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman again. I keep reminding him that he is the man who, when he left office, admitted that there was no more money left. He should apologise for that. Labour has opposed the £80 billion of savings that we have proposed. When he gets up again, he needs to tell the House what Labour would do to reduce the deficit and where it would find the savings. If he answers that question, I will give way to him.
Mr Byrne
My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out far more about the difficult decisions that we would make than the Chancellor ever made. We have said that uprating of benefits should be slower; that there should be a two-year cap on contributory ESA; that there should be a reduction in disregards in tax credits; that there should be a benefit cap in different parts of the country; and that no one in this country should be allowed to live a life on welfare and languish for more than two years on JSA. The best way to bring the welfare bill down is to get people into work, not give them a failed Work programme.
Mr Duncan Smith
I remind the right hon. Gentleman again that we are getting people into work. Unemployment is lower than it was when we took office, youth unemployment is lower and we are getting more people into work. He said that he was in favour of the cap. That is very interesting, because he voted against the cap. He says that he is in favour of a number of issues, but he voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2012. He is against universal credit and the housing benefit changes. He has not agreed to any of the changes that we have made.
The overall bill for welfare rose by 60% between 1997 and 2010—
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is not the philosophical underpinning of this debate our wish to create a hand-back society, not a hand-out society? Is not cutting taxes on lower earners the best way to help those on low earnings, rather than recycling their hard-earned money through the benefits system?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. Labour Members think that helping people is about trapping more and more people in benefits. It is interesting that under the tax credits system, nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits, in some cases those with more than £70,000 in earnings. What a ridiculous nonsense they created.
Labour’s system was riddled with fraud and error. HMRC had to write off £4 billion in fraud and error payments and will probably have to write off another £4 billion, so £8 billion has been lost. This Bill is about finding savings of £1.9 billion, but as a result of tax credits Labour lost probably nearly £8 billion. That is the record of the last Government. They should apologise for the mess they left us in.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s generosity in giving way.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that pensions will not be detrimentally affected by the Bill. Can he confirm that in actual cash terms there will be an increase in benefits?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is correct. That is exactly what this Bill sets out. That will also be the case this year.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I wish to take the Secretary of State back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about disabled people. We have now gone from the Secretary of State saying that there is a blanket protection for disabled people to him acknowledging in the impact assessment that some disabled people will be affected by these changes. Given that recognition in the impact assessment, can he tell the House how many disabled people his Department estimates will be affected by these changes?
Mr Duncan Smith
I stand by what we said originally, and I say it again: in this Bill we have protected people on disability living allowance, as well as people in the support group on ESA. All the disabled premiums in JSA and so on are also protected. I do not know where Labour Members think they are going with all these points, because the reality is that they are basically opposed to absolutely everything. They would spend more money, they would tax more and they would borrow more, and the people who would suffer would be the British people who would have to pick up the bill. That is the reality.
I was making an important point about fraud and error. In essence, more than £10 billion was lost, and we do not even know how much was overspent, because Labour would not collect the figures. Writing off those debts wastes taxpayers’ money. To put this in perspective, the Bill sets out what we are doing at the moment to raise £1.9 billion, but that money could have been raised without difficulty had Labour’s system been better and more efficient.
It is also worth pointing out that, for many of the people Labour Members talk about, universal credit will improve their income dramatically. I have some very good examples of that. Under universal credit, a typical one-earner couple who have two children and rent their home will be £61 better off—including the changes today. A one-earner family with an income of £20,000 and two children will see a net gain of at least £34 a week. That will be a big boost for them and was not taken into consideration in the IFS figures.
The reality is that there is an issue about fairness, which we touched on just now. We should bear in mind that 70% of all households will not be affected by this legislation. Many of our constituents are taxpayers picking up the bill for all these costs, including the deficit and borrowing that the last Government left us. Over the last five years, following the recession, the gap has grown between what people in employment have been earning and what those on welfare have been getting. Those in work have seen their incomes rise half as quickly as those on out-of-work benefits—10% compared with 20%. That is not fair to taxpayers. Returning fairness to the system is critical, and it is one area that Labour refuses to acknowledge. Under the previous Government, taxes rose, borrowing rose and the deficit rose—and they left those bills for the next generation to pay. It is our job to get that under control. These are not decisions taken lightly or easily, but we have to take them and they are in denial.
The shadow Chancellor likes to sound off from a sedentary position. He likes to give it out but does not like to take it. I remember only a few weeks ago that he went around the studios complaining that we were too mean to him. If he does not like it, then he should stop making sedentary interventions.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that inflation can be particularly tough on people on low incomes who face small increases? Will he reassure people in the country that the Government and the future Governor of the Bank of England will be dedicated to getting inflation down, so that the value of benefits is not eroded more?
Mr Duncan Smith
Exactly. Mortgage rates are a critical component of what a household spends each year. Under Opposition plans, if interest rates had to rise because of their messy borrowing and spending, every 1% would cost another £1,000 on a typical mortgage. What have also done as a coalition, which we should be proud of and on which our coalition partners were very keen, is raise the tax threshold. That is taking more than 2 million people out of tax—people who were paying tax under the previous Government. That is serious help and an improvement of £165 a week for the average family.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the people who are moving into low-paid work. Of the increase in employment in the past year, only 20% has been for full-time work, and so 80% has been for people who are by definition in part-time, and therefore probably low-paid, work. How will they benefit when he is capping the in-work benefits increase by just 1%?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the vast majority of people who take part-time work choose to take part-time work. In all the studies we have—I am happy to let her have them; they are in the public domain—only 17% or 18% say that they did not want a part-time job, and wanted a full-time job, so she should not decry those who take part-time work. My second point is that that is why we are bringing in universal credit. Universal credit is about in-work and will be a huge support to those in part-time work, starting this year. The trouble with the tax credit system, which the Opposition are defending despite the fraud, the over-payments and the massive error, is that it lodged people into little silos where they could not move up, out of those hours. If a job moved from 16 hours to 17 or 18 hours, people did not do it because they could not afford to do it. Large numbers of lone parents, as she knows only too well, would rotate out of that and crash back out of work, because the job moved on and they could not stay with it.
The reality is that we are reforming the welfare system to make it better and easier for people who are in part-time work to have improved incomes. That is a part of this overall welfare programme that will deliver an efficient and even-handed system. It is right that the 1% applies across the board, including the tax credit system. As I said earlier about the overall numbers of people affected, of those working households, 20% of all households are affected by the Bill. If tax credits and child benefits were excluded, as the Opposition have prescribed, we would see a requirement to find a further £1.5 billion—yet another amount of money which they cannot say how it would be found. When in denial, like those on the other side of the House, one just votes against everything. A constructive Opposition would give us a proposal on how they would save that money.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has used the word “denial” twice. In previous Budgets and autumn statements, the Government talked about and acknowledged measured child poverty. However, in the most recent autumn statement and in the Bill, there is no mention of child poverty. Will he admit that under these plans child poverty in our country will go up and that that will come at a cost to us all?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will say two things about child poverty. First, we want to ensure that the figures published concern the years that this measure covers, and the year in which I will be introducing secondary legislation. The figures will be published next week in time for the debate—the Committee stage will be on the Floor of the House and everybody who is here today can take part.
Secondly, child poverty was calculated based on the median income line, and the previous Government lost control of it. Tax credits rocketed because they were chasing a moving line. As upper incomes rose, so did average earnings, and that is why they had to spend so much money. I remind the hon. Lady that they missed their targets in 2010 by 600,000 children in poverty. Since we have come in, the figures published this June show that child poverty fell by 300,000. I am not going to stand here today and try to claim credit for that fall. The figure fell because we saw the biggest fall in earnings for many years. Does that mean that because earnings fell child poverty has been solved? No, it does not. That is why we are consulting on a better way to measure child poverty.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State brandishes the figure of a 20% increase in benefits in the past five years. In cash terms, jobseeker’s allowance has gone up from just £59.15 in 2007 to £71 in 2012. In other words, in each of those past years JSA has gone up by just £2.50. Is it not the truth that this is a mean and miserable piece of legislation from a mean and miserable Government?
Mr Duncan Smith
I hear the hon. Lady’s point; I have to say that I do not agree with her. Benefits have risen, but if she would like to talk to those who are in employment on lower incomes in her constituency she would find that many have seen absolutely no rise in their incomes at all, and some even less than that.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On that point, I was approached by a member of Manchester constabulary in my advice surgery recently. He said, “How can you justify putting out-of-work benefits up by 5.2% last year, when I have had a pay freeze and I risk my life every day?” Is that not the nub of the argument? People who are in work have to be treated fairly.
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to make some progress because he is absolutely right. The reality that Labour will not face up to is that the programme it has put forward is hugely costly.
I want to deal with the programme that Labour put forward in the past week, which I think is in the amendment before the House. I looked at it and it seemed very familiar. I remembered something, looking back over the past 10 years. I went back and had a look at the programme that the shadow Chancellor and his then boss, the then Labour Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) came up with. [Interruption.] I seem to recall that they came up with a programme called StepUp. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was an adviser at the time. [Interruption.] Well, he was certainly very close to him. Is he now denying—[Interruption.] Well, there we have it finally: he no longer wants to have the former Prime Minister as his friend. More than that, from his sedentary position, he will probably deny that, late in the hour while the then Prime Minister was troubled and in difficulty, he did not come by taxi or by car to consult him and help him out. A denial of a friend is pretty cheap, and I think we will remember that.
The reality is that the StepUp programme, on which the Opposition have clearly based this new programme, was piloted in 20 areas between 2002 and 2004. It was never rolled out nationally, and I want to quote from the evaluation report. The StepUp programme was all about giving paid employment to people who had been out of work for some two years. The report stated:
“StepUp produces a very modest improvement in job entries…but this is below the level of statistical significance.”
In fact, each of those jobs would have ended up costing £10,000—a massive cost for a very small regard. When they did it—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. When they did it—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear about it. They made a bogus announcement and now they do not want to hear how useless it is. The work prospects of under-25s in the pilot got worse as a result of this programme.
Here is what happened. The Opposition were in a hurry during the Christmas recess, worried about being attacked for having no proposals, so the shadow Chancellor said, “Oh, I remember something we did under the man who used to be my friend, but is no longer my friend. I remember we had this programme.” So they decided to put that out and propose raiding pensions savings yet again to pay for a bogus programme. If anyone thinks for one moment that it would help anybody at all, let me tell them that it is more than a joke—it is pathetic. And it is pathetic that they have done it to try to get themselves off the hook.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend pondered this question? The Government are trying to ensure that the social security net works for people who need social security. When does he think that Labour decided that they were not interested in social security, only in bribing the electorate?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is in its DNA, so I am not sure when it started, to be honest. The tax credit system was out of control, as I said earlier on, because Labour was chasing a figure it could never reach, and as a result its spending was enormous.
In conclusion—
Mr Duncan Smith
No, I want to conclude. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to speak.
Mr Duncan Smith
Okay, I will give way in a second.
I want to remind the Opposition of what they have done. They have opposed £83 billion-worth of savings this Parliament. That is equivalent to adding another £5,000 of debt for every working family in the country. We hear much about taxing the rich, yet, in this Parliament, the richest will pay more in tax than in any single year of the previous Government—more tax on capital gains, more stamp duty—they will be less able to avoid and evade tax and they will pay more when they take out their pension policies.
We hear much about the bankers’ bonus tax, but Labour would have spent that money 10 times over. This is its great bankers’ bonus tax of £2.3 billion. Let us think about it very carefully. It would have overspent that to the sum of £25 billion—through reversing the VAT increase, more capital spending, reversing tax credit savings and reversing the child benefit savings. We are talking huge sums of money.
Mr Byrne
The Secretary of State has the temerity to criticise proposals we launched on Friday, when he is presiding over a Work programme that is literally worse than doing nothing. He stands before the House justifying the position of his Government, which is that it is possible to spend a life on welfare, but we say that is wrong. The way to bring welfare spending down is to get people into jobs, and when there are no jobs we invest in creating them.
Mr Duncan Smith
Our record on getting people into jobs is better than theirs. The difference is that Labour spent taxpayers’ money like drunks on a Friday night, with no care or concern for how effective it was. The work experience programme achieves what the future jobs fund did, but at a fraction of the cost. The Work programme is getting more people into work than the flexible new deal programme.
Mr Duncan Smith
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I think he has a few apologies to make before I give way.
This was Labour’s legacy in government: 5 million on out-of-work benefits, one in five households with nobody working and 2 million children living in workless families—a higher proportion than in any other EU country. In opposition, they have learned nothing. Today’s amendment shows—if Members can be bothered to get to the end of it without falling asleep—that Labour would spend more, tax more and borrow more and let the next generation pick up the bill. The Bill is about picking up the pieces, sorting out the deficit and being a responsible Government.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill because it fails to address the reasons why the cost of benefits is exceeding the Government’s plans; notes that the Resolution Foundation has calculated that 68 per cent of households affected by these measures are in work and that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that all the measures announced in the Autumn Statement, including those in the Bill, will mean a single-earner family with children on average will be £534 worse off by 2015; further notes that the Bill does not include anything to remedy the deficiencies in the Government’s work programme or the slipped timetable for universal credit; believes that a comprehensive plan to reduce the benefits bill must include measures to create economic growth and help the 129,400 adults over the age of 25 out of work for 24 months or more, but that the Bill does not do so; further believes that the Bill should introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, which would give long-term unemployed adults a job they would have to take up or lose benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over £150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over £100,000 a year.
It is good to see the Secretary of State fronting the Bill today and to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his place. Where, however, is the Chancellor? It is a disgrace that he is not here in person. Where is he?
Mr Duncan Smith
The Chancellor told me earlier he was in Berlin making a speech—a long-term commitment —but he will be back in plenty of time for the winding-up speeches, and he is looking forward to hearing Labour make as much of a mess of it at the end as at the beginning.
Mr Byrne
I think it is surprising that the Chancellor is talking to people in Germany, rather than to MPs in the House about the disastrous consequences of his policies.
We know that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State do not see eye to eye on much, but they are jointly and severally liable for the mess and the haemorrhaging of the welfare budget that the Bill seeks to staunch. The Chancellor’s disappearance is a hallmark of the contempt that has been shown for the House today. The impact assessment for the Bill was published at noon. It makes radically different assumptions from the policy costings set out by the Chancellor last year. And now the Government propose to ram the Bill through the House in just one day of debate. They are terrified of scrutiny and exposure. It is turning into a hit and run on working families, and frankly we should not stand for it.
The Chancellor should have shown up, because the Bill is about clearing up the consequences of his failure. His reputation as a maker of recessions is now pretty well established. Every time he has come to the House, he has been forced to downgrade growth yet again, and since he took office he has battered the life out of the recovery that Labour left him in 2010. He is the first Chancellor for 35 years to preside over a double-dip recession. History will not judge him well.
But the Chancellor has a partner in crime: the Secretary of State, the man who has become the Comical Ali of the Government, the only man in the DWP who thinks that everything is fine and hunky-dory—a man who would put Dr Pangloss to shame. Every time he comes to the House, he comes with words of reassurance: everything on his watch is going according to plan. He blithely assures us that the Work programme is fine. We are told that universal credit is completely and utterly on track—not a hiccup to be heard—and that the benefit cap will definitely start in May. The only problem is that he is living in a fantasy land of his own, because everything is not okay, everything is not on time and everything is certainly not on budget. We were promised a Work programme bigger than any yet known to man. So big it could be seen from space. This is a programme that is so effective it is literally worse than doing nothing. It works so well that just three out of 100 people who passed through it passed into sustained jobs. It is a disaster.
Then, of course, we have universal credit—a policy that is now proceeding so smoothly that, it is fair to say, it has earned widespread support and praise from right the way across Government. Members of the Cabinet—perhaps even those sharing a building with the Economic Secretary—are now so impressed that they are telling anyone who will listen at the Daily Mail and elsewhere that it is a “disaster waiting to happen” and that the IT is “nowhere near ready.” The Secretary of State has so much grip on this project that the Prime Minister himself invited him to pack his bags and clear on out of the Department—a vote of confidence that I know rang around Caxton house, because senior officials are now leaving the Department as fast as they can.
Now, of course, we have the news that the benefit cap—which Lord Freud told the other place would absolutely, definitely, without question be introduced nationwide in April—will be introduced in just four London boroughs. This is a record of chaos, delay and impending disaster, and today the Government are inviting millions of working families in this country to pay to clean it up.
Jake Berry
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry to drag him back to the Bill, but what would he say to the police officer in my constituency—the right hon. Gentleman heard my earlier intervention—who said, “Is it fair that people out of work have seen their benefits go up by 5.2% when my salary’s been frozen and I risk my life every day to keep people safe in this country?”? That is what this Bill is about; will the right hon. Gentleman please answer that question?
Mr Byrne
I want incomes to rise faster than benefits. That is why I think it was wrong that the hon. Gentleman voted for a three-year freeze in tax credits, which has hit 7,700 of his constituents. He must answer to them after today’s debate. Why is he supporting a huge tax cut for millionaires when 7,500 people in his constituency are seeing a freeze on their tax credits and a squeeze on them in the years to come?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
To respond to the issues raised by Government Members, I point out that a lady on £72 a week in jobseeker’s allowance came to my surgery on Friday. She is being expected to pay £9.60 because of a loss of housing benefit because of the imposition of the bedroom tax. What do Government Members have to say to her?
Mr Byrne
Once upon a time—back in 2004 and 2005—when the Secretary of State was making speeches about poverty, he said that the way to judge the Conservative party was on how its policies worked for the poorest communities in the country. What many people will be asking after today’s debate is: what happened to that man?
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps not willing to address the issues put to him by Government Members, but I wonder whether he will address the question raised by a former Cabinet colleague of his, Jacqui Smith, who said earlier this week that Labour canvassers
“who’ve knocked on doors recently”
have
“been told the problem for Labour is…they think we caused the deficit and they’re not…convinced we know how we’ll solve it.”
How would he respond to her?
Mr Byrne
I spoke to the former right honourable Member for Redditch yesterday and I set out—[Interruption.] Absolutely. I set out the substance of today’s debate and said that we have a choice between the Tory way and the Labour way to bring down welfare spending. The Tory way is to hit working families; the Labour way is to help people work.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the concern about the Bill’s impact on public service workers. Has my right hon. Friend seen—I am sure he has—the research published over the weekend by the Children’s Society? It shows that 40,000 soldiers will see their household incomes cut if the Bill goes through, along with 300,000 nurses, 150,000 primary school teachers and 9,300 of my constituents, which is why I will be voting against it today.
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is already speaking very eloquently in the House. Some 40,000 soldiers, 300,000 nurses and 150,000 primary and nursery school teachers will be hit by this Bill. I suggest to the House that they are making a much bigger contribution to the health and well-being of this country than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is accusing them of being the people whose blinds are closed in the morning.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have seen the failure of the Work programme. In my constituency, unemployment is now 10% higher than a year ago. One person in the area telephoned BBC Tees this morning and said that he had £130 a week for himself, his wife and three children. He cannot get a job and all he has to look forward to is an increase of £1.30—enough to buy a loaf of bread. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to show compassion to such families, rather than giving millionaire earners a tax break of £2,000 a week?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
We were told that this Bill was about fairness. How can it be a fair when a young mother in my constituency on jobseeker’s allowance is expected to live on £56.24 a week? She will lose £12 a week through the empty room tax and £9 a week in council tax. That leaves her with £35 a week to pay for heating, water and food. How is she going to survive? How can that be fair?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On inflation uprating, which is at the heart of this Bill, there is a widespread belief that housing benefit for private rented accommodation will rise in April by CPI. The Department has done little to dispel that understanding, but in Rotherham, as my right hon. Friend might be aware, the rate for a three-bedroom home is set to be cut by 3% in cash terms. Is not this, like the Bill, another harsh, half-hidden cut to the help that those in work and those out of work need to meet the cost of household bills?
Mr Byrne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is also right that the Department’s incompetence in proceeding with some of these reforms means that many of the changes risk costing more than they save. That is why Ministers have been forced to delay implementation of the benefit cap, about which they made such a fuss last year. Now we see that it will be implemented in just four London boroughs, because the Government do not know how it will work in practice.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right and fair that benefits should have gone up by 20% at the same time that average earnings have gone up just by 10%?
Mr Byrne
I repeat: there are 6,800 people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on tax credits—we have rehearsed these figures before, because he is an assiduous attender of social security debates. I want incomes to go up faster than benefits. That is why it is so important that tax credits are protected. He has to accept that he has voted for a freeze in tax credits for the 6,800 of his constituents who enjoy them. Today he is proposing to vote for a further squeeze, at a time when millionaires are being given a tax cut. I just do not understand how he will justify that to the good residents of Dover.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman refers to 6,700 people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). While he is bandying statistics around, he might be interested to know that there are 38,000 people in work who have benefited from the increase in the tax threshold. The way to raise incomes is not to have inflation of state support but to get people back into work where they can keep more of their own income.
Mr Byrne
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do—he is a numerate man and he understands the figures involved in this debate—that the personal allowance does not compensate for the whack that has been delivered to most working families in this country. The House of Commons Library says they will be £280 a year poorer by next year and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says they will be £534 poorer by 2015-16. He has to get real about the impact of his Government’s policies, because they are hurting 7,000 of his constituents.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. However difficult these decisions are, if we look more closely at the numbers, we see that he is not highlighting the fact that people earning £50,000 or £60,000—which most people would consider a good income—are included in his figures for tax credits. That is disingenuous and merely a reflection of the trap and the legacy of the shadow Chancellor’s former friend, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
Mr Byrne
That is complete nonsense. This Government are taking £14 billion out of tax credits and the Bill proposes to take another £4 billion. That will hurt 7,000 of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, at a time when millionaires are being given a tax cut. I simply do not understand how he can justify that, either in this House or on the streets of Enfield.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What Government Members do not seem to understand is that the whole rationale for this Bill is the need to address their failure to deliver on the economic promises they made when they first came into government. The Bill is necessary only because the Government have failed economically.
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Chancellor came to the House back in December, he was forced to admit that somehow, for some reason, growth had eluded him once again—it had got away. He brought forward a package of measures that was so focused on generating jobs that the Office for Budget Responsibility looked at it and revised the claimant count for the forecast period, not down but up by 300,000. The OBR also spelled out how much this was going to cost us: it is an eye-watering figure. The heroic efforts of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to get the claimant count down over the next few years is costing us £6 billion in higher welfare bills, and today’s Bill shows us exactly who is going to pick up the tab.
Mr Byrne
I shall give way to people who were here at the start of the debate, rather than to those who have wandered in late. This is an important debate. The point that I want to make, before I give way to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), is that we are learning today who is being asked to pick up the bill for this catastrophic economic failure. It is not Britain’s richest citizens, who are now so hard pressed and under the cosh that they are being given a tax cut. From next year, millionaires will have £107,000 more to help them to heat their swimming pools. It is not Britain’s millionaires who are picking up the tab; it is Britain’s working families. The measures in the Bill are a strivers’ tax, pure and simple.
Margot James
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to acknowledge the 1 million extra jobs that have been created since 2010? Will he also acknowledge that the number of people claiming tax credits escalated to an unsustainable level under his Government? The country cannot afford to have 50% of the population either claiming tax credits or in receipt of benefits. That is unsustainable.
Mr Byrne
I look forward to coming to Stourbridge and helping to explain to the 6,500 people there who are on tax credits that their Member of Parliament thinks that the money they are getting is unsustainable. I happen to think that those 6,500 people, whom the hon. Lady has just dismissed, need every pound of the tax credits that Labour delivered when we were in office.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I should like to bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the Bill, and to tell him that when he votes against it tonight, £1.9 billion a year will go missing. Will he compare that £1.9 billion a year with the £3 billion a week that Labour was borrowing during its last year in office?
Mr Byrne
I would contrast that money with the £3 billion a year that the Chancellor is giving away to Britain’s richest citizens, in a tax cut that will kick in next year, at a time when the Government are cutting tax credits and when Britain’s working families are under pressure. How can the hon. Gentleman possibly justify that, either here or to his constituents?
Mr Duncan Smith
I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will now acknowledge that all the OBR’s latest figures show that, under this Government, the wealthiest are paying more in tax than in any single year under his Government.
Mr Byrne
Like me, the Secretary of State will no doubt have seen table 2.1 of the Budget, published in March 2012, which clearly shows that in 2014-15, the cost of the tax giveaway will be £3.4 billion. How can he possibly justify that at a time when he is hitting Britain’s working families? Will he justify it now?
Mr Duncan Smith
I asked the right hon. Gentleman a simple question—[Interruption.] Actually, the shadow Chancellor should leave the right hon. Gentleman alone for a second; I think he has a brain in his head. Don’t listen to him; his advice to the last Prime Minister was hopeless. I want to ask the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) a simple question. Here are the figures: the wealthiest in Britain are paying more in tax under this Government than in any single year under the last Government. Does he agree with that?
Mr Byrne
We put the top rate of tax up. It is this Government who are cutting it, at a cost of £3.4 billion a year. How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the choices made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, a man who has supported him hilt and sword? How can the Secretary of State justify giving away £3.4 billion to Britain’s richest citizens in a tax giveaway when he is hurting Britain’s working families? Justify it now!
Mr Duncan Smith
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree or disagree that the OBR figures show that, under this Government, we are raising more in tax from wealthy people than in any single year under the last Government? Will he now admit that?
Mr Byrne
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he could not be bothered to get here for the beginning of the debate, but let me first ask him how he can justify giving away £3.4 billion to Britain’s richest citizens while taking money away from Britain’s working families. Justify that now!
Nadhim Zahawi
My question to the right hon. Gentleman is about the honesty with which he delivered his message in 2010, in which he told us that there was no money left and wished us good luck. Will he show the same honesty now and acknowledge that we are taking more from the wealthiest in this country in every year of this Parliament than was taken in the 13 years of the Labour Government? That is the honesty we require from him. Yes or no, please?
Dr Wollaston
I certainly feel that the tone of this debate is important, and that we should not be talking about shirkers. I do not believe that people on welfare benefits are shirkers. Having made that clear statement, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: for how many days did the Labour Government apply the top rate of tax when they were in office?
Mr Byrne
I know that the hon. Lady is new to the House—[Interruption.] I will seek to answer her question as soon as those on her own Front Bench calm down a little. I think that she would acknowledge that the economics and the politics of this Parliament are very different from those in the last three Parliaments. There was an important principle at the heart of the debate—namely, that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest load. That is why, when Labour was in power, we put up the top rate of tax. We knew that, as part of the plan to bring the deficit down, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest load. That is why we put up the top rate of tax, and that is why we object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer cutting it and giving £3.4 billion to Britain’s richest citizens when he is taking money from Britain’s working families.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) was right yesterday, and she is right today. This debate should not polarise people in work against people who are out of work. However, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that those of us who lived through the last Labour Government saw the rich doing better, the bonuses getting higher, the bankers exploiting people more and the pensioners not getting the link with earnings that Labour promised but never delivered. This is a difficult decision, but the Government have got the balance right in these difficult times. I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, they will be vindicated through many more people being in work and many fewer being on benefits.
Simon Hughes
No, I do not think that it is the right priority, but it was part of a package deal that will leave the richest paying more than they did under Labour, that will bring the top rate down to 45% when it was only 40% in 12.5 years of the Labour Government, and that will bring in a rise in the tax threshold to £9,440 for ordinary people in my constituency and the right hon. Gentleman’s this year. In this place, we make balanced choices. This is a reasonable balanced choice to get the economy out of the mess that he and his colleagues have clearly admitted they left us in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions, even when invited, need to be relatively brief.
Mr Byrne
At least the right hon. Gentleman is honest, unlike that lot on the Conservative Benches. We will leave it to the voters of Bermondsey to decide whether the package that he secured, which punishes so many hard-working families in his constituency, was or was not a good one.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The argument coming from the Government Benches is wholly founded on misinformation, particularly in respect of the claim that the Government have created 1 million jobs in the private sector. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Office for National Statistics, 196,000 of those jobs are due solely to the reclassification of sixth-form colleges and further education colleges?
Mr Byrne
I will give way later, but I want to move the debate on a little. It is time that we debated who is going to be hurt by the Bill. Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies did us a great favour in setting out for the first time that a total of 7 million working families will be hit by the Bill—half the working families in Britain. As we heard from the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), some on the Treasury Bench like to cry, “Don’t worry, don’t panic; working people are going to be compensated by the rises in the personal allowance.” That is simply not true. The IFS is very clear about that: the real income of a one-earner working family is going to be £534 a year less by 2015-16.
The Children’s Society, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned earlier, has spelt out clearly what this means for many of Britain’s working families. A second lieutenant will lose £552 a year, and there are 40,000 soldiers in the same position; and a lone parent nurse will lose £424 a year, as will a primary school teacher. These are not people who have their blinds closed in the morning, yet these are the people who will be hurt by the Bill.
I know the Chancellor thought he was being clever. I know that he was, as the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) said, playing the politics of the playground and looking for a dividing line. We are right to ask what that means for the average Conservative constituency. It means that an average of 6,000 families in Tory-held constituencies will be worse off—a number that I noticed was bigger than the Tory majority in 107 seats. I just mention that in passing. Why should a second lieutenant, a nurse or a primary school teacher, or 6,000 residents of an average Tory constituency, be asked to pay for this Government’s failure to get people back to work? This is a strivers’ tax pure and simple: it does nothing to create new jobs or remedy the deficiencies of the Work programme; it does nothing to sort out the chaos in universal credit; it does nothing but punish working families that are now losing £9 billion of support under this Government.
Chris Bryant
Is there not another real problem? In many constituencies where there is profound deprivation and low-income families have even less money coming in to spend every week, we will see further depression in the local economy, more shops closed and fewer people in jobs, so that we will never be able to refloat the economy. Is not the greatest scandal of all the fact that working people in our constituencies—people in jobs—are using food banks to feed their children?
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently, and his remarks cut to the quick of the values now on show in this Government. Once upon a time—the Secretary of State will well remember this—he said:
“Conservative policies have to work for Britain’s poorest communities and every policy must be measured by that standard.”
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said on 28 June 2004, so let us weigh up the impact of this Bill on Britain’s communities. It will mean child benefit rising by 20p a week, maternity allowance by £1.37 and jobseeker’s allowance by 72p, while the income of a millionaire will go up as a result of the tax cut by £2,058 a week. How can he possibly justify that? He cannot. He knows that the Chancellor was in search of a dividing line on welfare and that he has obliged the Secretary of State to kiss goodbye to 10 years of campaigning to turn the Tory party into one that gave a monkey’s about poverty.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that child poverty in London remains stubbornly high, and that this Bill will make matters worse? My constituency has the highest level of child poverty, and this Bill will lead to more poverty across cities such as London and around the country.
Andrew George
Of course we welcome the Labour party’s last-minute pre-election conversion to increasing tax for wealthy people. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my sincere misgivings and my wish to encourage him to review this rather arbitrary 1% cap and perhaps to find ways of relating it to average wages. Bearing in mind that the welfare budget is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It was only a few moments ago, I remind the hon. Gentleman, when I said interventions on a speech needed to be brief and should not become a speech in their own right.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful for the intervention because I think the hon. Gentleman, like us, is concerned that in our country today a food bank is opening every three days, and that 5 million people may resort to payday loans this year in order to balance the books for the end of the month. The Sun on Sunday this weekend, in an article carried next to the one by the Secretary of State, said that a quarter of mums are now turning off heating so that they have enough money to feed the kids. Is that the kind of country that we are becoming, because the Saint of Easterhouse has now become the punch bag of the Treasury? Once he talked about broken Britain; now he is presiding over breadline Britain because he keeps losing his battles with the Treasury.
Andrew George
In view of that and given that the welfare budget is £220 billion, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is something that needs a long hard look at? Particularly in a time of austerity, where does he believe the savings can be made within that budget?
Mr Byrne
Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think it is wrong that millionaires will get an extra £2,058 a week next year, in 2013-14, when child benefit is going up by 20p a week. I simply cannot see how that can be justified and I do not think that tax cut should go through.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the public do not want false distinctions between strivers and shirkers and he is equally right, I think, to believe that people will see through those who pretend to care when they do not have the money to show that they care. In his more lucid moment, he explained that the Government had no more money left, so would he accept that one answer might be to push forward with ideas such as the living wage, and will he advise us, on the basis of his own research on a living wage, what impact it would have on the long-term benefits needs in the country?
Mr Byrne
I suspect the hon. Gentleman feels that very keenly, as 7,500 people in his constituency are on tax credits. I think that the best way to bring the welfare bill down is by getting people into work. The tragedy with the Bill is that it fails the Ronseal test set out by the Prime Minister yesterday. It does not do what it says on the tin. We are told that this Bill is all about reducing welfare spending. Actually, if we put tax credits to one side, the welfare bill for the period covered by this Bill will not rise by 1%; it is going to go up by 4%. It will go up by £8 billion because the Secretary of State is doing so little to get people back to work.
The reality of the debate is that there is a Labour way to bring down welfare spending and there is a Tory way. The Tory way, aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats, is to attack tax credits. The Labour way is to bring down welfare spending by getting people into jobs—jobs in which they will pay tax rather than sitting on the dole taking benefits. That is why we tabled our amendment. We think that it is right to introduce a bank bonus tax to get 100,000 young people back to work, and to reform pension tax relief to create a two-year limit on jobseeker’s allowance. We think that it is right to send the clear signal that anyone who can work must not, and will not, be allowed to languish or to live a life on welfare. That is the kind of tough-minded but fair policy that we now need.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
We have heard many interventions from Government Members about the unsustainability of tax credits and top-up benefits for working families. According to the Government’s own impact assessment,
“households towards the bottom of the income distribution are more likely to be affected and have a slightly higher average change because they are more likely to receive the affected benefits.”
What does my right hon. Friend think is the reason for that statement?
Mr Byrne
I note that the impact assessment is based on assumptions very different from those that formed the basis of the Treasury costings in December last year. However, the Government cannot change the simple truth: this is a strivers’ tax pure and simple, and it will hit people on tax credits.
We oppose this strivers’ tax. We believe that welfare to work will not work without jobs, and the Bill does not create a single job. It creates a heck of a mess, and asks Britain’s working families to clear it up. I urge the House to oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, to strike a blow for Britain’s strivers, to send the Government back to the drawing board, and to demand from them a proper plan to get our country back to work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind all Members that there is a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If they read Hansard tomorrow, many of my constituents will be under the misapprehension that the last Labour Government were a great welfare-reforming Government, but one of the points that many others will make to me is that that left the legacy of welfare dependency that has corroded so much of our society. The simple reality is that the last Labour Government should have dealt with the issue of welfare reform when they had the opportunity to do so, between 1997 and 2010.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Research carried out recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that no such culture of worklessness existed, and that in fact there was a strong commitment to work among people throughout the country, including the 3,500 unemployed people in my constituency.
Gavin Williamson
Where we have a culture in which it sometimes does not pay to take a job or to work more hours, we capture people in a culture of dependency.
How do we measure success? Is it about spending more and more money? Is it about spending money on welfare, constantly and consistently, or is it about results? I think that we on this side of the House believe that it is about results. In 1997, the number of households in which no one had ever worked was 184,000. That number was far too high. Given all the billions of pounds that were spent, we would expect it to have fallen considerably: perhaps by 10,000, perhaps by 50,000, perhaps by 100,000. So what happened? Did it increase or did it fall? It increased, and not by 10,000—
Gavin Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the number increased, or does he think that it fell? Perhaps he will tell the House.
Chris Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about an increase in long-term unemployment, why will he not go through the Lobby with the Opposition in support of our amendment, which will guarantee jobs to people who are out of work for more than 24 months?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land. He will not answer the question that I asked. How many more families are there in which no one has ever worked? In fact, the number increased from 184,000 to 352,000 under the last Labour Government. Is that a legacy to be proud of? I think that Members on this side of the House would say that it is not.
Margot James
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the legacy of the last Government. Perhaps he agrees with the economics editor of The Sunday Times, who wrote last week:
“It is hard to think of a period more conducive to control of welfare spending than the Blair years, 1997-2007.”
Gavin Williamson
That too was an excellent point. What we have seen is total fiscal irresponsibility. The whole idea of the Labour party’s proposals is to trap more people in welfare, not to take them out of welfare.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend has made a very good point about Labour’s past record of fiscal irresponsibility, but what about its current record? Labour Members will vote for millionaires to receive child benefit.
Gavin Williamson
I am afraid that the Labour party’s proposals on so many matters are completely inconsistent. The greatest shame is that there are no ideas coming from Labour Members. They have no ideas about how to deal with the legacy that they left, in relation to welfare reform or in relation to the many billions of pounds of debts with which they have saddled the country.
Gavin Williamson
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady if she explains to the House what she will cut. I assume that she will be voting for the amendment. Will she shut schools in her constituency? Will she close hospitals? Will she sack teachers? Will she get rid of nurses? I want to hear what the hon. Lady is going to do.
Fiona O’Donnell
What I want to do is return the hon. Gentleman to the subject of the Bill. Does he agree with Disability Rights UK, which has said that 1 million disabled people will be affected by the 1% uprating, and that more disabled people will be living in poverty? Is he proud of that?
Gavin Williamson
I am taking a lead from the Labour Front Benchers and touching on some of the reasons why we are in this position, and having to make highly difficult decisions. We are not scared to take difficult decisions, but perhaps if the Labour party had made some of the tough choices that we have made—if it had reformed welfare earlier, and had not trapped so many people in welfare dependency—the decisions that the present Government are having to make would be far, far easier.
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not facing up to the reality, and nor is her party doing so. This Government are committed to giving a hand up, not a handout. What we want to see is people getting into work. What we want to see is people doing well, and not constantly depending on the state.
Gavin Williamson
I will make some more progress.
That is what we are hoping to do. That is what we are doing for our welfare reform, and that is what we are doing here today. We recognise that we cannot spend money that we do not have. It is a simple fact and we hope that eventually the Opposition will adopt such fiscal responsibility. We hope that during the afternoon they will suggest what they would cut if they vote in favour of their amendment.
No one wants to see a restriction on benefit increases, but we all have to face the reality of the country’s position. The coalition is dealing with that reality and with the mess that the Opposition left us. That is what we are getting on with and what we will deliver for this country.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Over the past hour and a half, the parties on the Government Benches have thrown various lines of argument into the mix, but possibly the most absurd is that the whole agenda and the Bill are about deficit reduction. That argument is already in tatters. We have seen the economic recovery deferred and a double-dip recession possibly turning into a triple-dip recession. The rate of reduction of unemployment has been so slow since 2010 that it will not return to pre-recession levels until 2019, and we have seen a systematic and structural increase in under-employment. It is no wonder that total expenditure on welfare, despite the protestations, has been going up.
Let us take one example about which there has been a great deal of sound and fury over recent years—the housing benefit bill. Over this comprehensive spending review period, this Government will spend £12 billion more on subsidising private tenants than was spent by the Labour Government during the previous CSR period, so let us not hear anything from the Government about their successes on welfare reform and reduction and our failure.
For the first time in decades we see more working than workless people in poverty—now a record 6.1 million. It is no wonder that the new head of the Secretary of State’s favourite think-tank, the Commission for Social Justice, told an interviewer:
“I would say we have missed in-work poverty”.
Yes, the commission did, and yes, the Government did, but rather than the Government facing the evidence, we have been subjected to a barrage of rhetoric about the people behind the closed curtains and the shirkers rather than the strivers.
Ms Buck
That is correct; I recognise that figure. We have seen from the Bill and the debate behind it a political debate and a set of wheezes that the Government think will pay off for them. The problem with wheezes is that they tend to fracture when they come into contact with reality. The Government cannot make serious money out of an assault on out-of-work benefits, whatever the Conservatives like to say. Just 3% of all welfare spending goes on jobseeker’s allowance. Indeed, all out-of-work benefits account for only 3% of GDP between them. The House of Commons Library advises me that if only out-of-work benefits were subject to the 1% cap, but in-work benefits were uprated as normal, 80% of the proposed savings would disappear. If one factors in the changes to the personal tax allowance, one finds that working people, as the Resolution Foundation demonstrated to us, take 60% of the hit.
If the Bill is passed, 2.5 million workless households will lose out by about £215 a year by 2016, and of the 14.1 million working-age households with someone in work, 7 million will be hit: 30% of all households will take a hit on their income because of this Government’s obsession with the tiny minority of long-term or multigenerational workless.
The distinction between those in and out of work is far less rigid than the Government would have us believe. That is an extraordinary piece of rhetoric, given that the universal credit, the centrepiece of the Government’s welfare agenda, is designed to blur the distinction still further, and it has that one significant advantage of seeking to do that. Millions of our constituents, in Conservative and Liberal Democrat constituencies as well as in Labour ones, churn between those states of being in and out of work. Last year there were between 244,000 and 357,000 new claims every month for jobseeker’s allowance, while between 242,000 and 370,000 left benefit every month.
It is a myth that the welfare reform agenda put forward by the Government is about tackling worklessness. It is an assault on low-income working families far more than on working households. It is an assault on both, and on very low-income families, but it is real and not mythical families who will be hurt as a consequence. It is real children who are at increasing risk of going to school hungry, as teachers unions are already reporting, and it is real children who will return to homes that cannot be heated by parents who cannot manage to balance all the bills.
We live in a country that apparently can afford tax cuts for millionaires but requires low-income, working families to go to food banks and pay their mortgages with payday loans. Every day in London 100 homes bust the £1 million value level, yet 70,000 children were homeless this Christmas. Today we should not be reducing the capacity of 9.5 million families and households across the country to pay their bills.
What the crash and its aftermath demonstrated beyond doubt was that the future cannot be like the past. We want everyone who can work to do so, we want that work to be secure and fairly paid and for the costs that consume an unsustainable element of people’s incomes to be reduced.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice that the Secretary of State accused Labour of having a new idea with our job guarantee? In fact, the pamphlet produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on a job guarantee is dated January 2012. We have been discussing these ideas for more than a year.
Ms Buck
We have indeed been discussing these ideas. The future jobs fund demonstrated value for money in getting people back into work, but the Conservative party, which claims to like evidence, trashed it in favour of the Work programme, which, as we know, has been less effective than doing absolutely nothing would have been.
Without jobs, deficit reduction is doomed, however much the Government cheese-pare away at the income of the poorest. While housing and child care costs consume an ever-larger portion of the incomes of poorer families, work cannot pay and families cannot thrive. It is jobs, fair pay, affordable homes and good affordable child care that will get us out of the trap we are in, whether it is the trap we want to spring to get people into work or the trap of deficit reduction. The trap that the Government are setting today will catch 30% of households in a worsening squeeze on their incomes at the very worst time for them to be facing it.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
People who come to my constituency office these days for help with some kind of error in their benefits often spend the first few minutes trying to justify their worth. They usually begin by trying to explain their history of working and that they have paid tax. They are desperate to get over the point that they are not like other benefit claimants—they are not a scrounger. It is perhaps a feature of the way in which the term “scroungers” has become so pervasive in social consciousness that even those on benefits do not attempt to debunk the entire category, only to excuse themselves from the label.
Language matters. Politicians in this place know that, because all of us spend a good deal of time worrying about how everything we say will be reported by the media, just as journalists pore over every fact, comma and noun we give to look for power shifts and personal divisions. Any modern political party devotes considerable money and effort to testing messages with focus groups to see how they would influence voting patters. However, I am afraid we often spend less time considering how our language actually affects people’s lives, choices, values and sense of worth, how they rub up against their neighbours and how society itself functions.
In an atmosphere of uncertainty and limited resources and where every family in this country is struggling, there is a natural tendency to try to find someone to blame for our woes. A fissure already exists between the working and non-working poor. Hammering on that fault line with the language of “shirkers” and “strivers” will have long-term impacts on public attitudes, on attitudes to one neighbour against another. It will make society less generous, less sympathetic, less able to co-operate. The marginalisation of the undeserving poor will place one group outwith society entirely over time and leave them less able to make choices about their lives and to participate. That fragmentation of society, for me, is the spectre of broken Britain, and it is one that we hasten at our peril.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the nub of the whole argument is that if we allow benefits to be increased by more than salaries, that will increase the number of people on benefits who are trapped in poverty and unable to afford to go to work?
Sarah Teather
I will return to that point in a moment, because I want to make another point about public attitudes first.
For those of us in this place who care about social justice, long-term changes in public attitudes to poverty should give us other causes of concern, because they will make it more difficult for any politicians who come after us to argue for any option for the poor, because public opinion will simply not support it. The irony, of course, is that, as many have said, many of those affected by the Bill are actually in work; many are the same group who have already had a negligible pay rise and are already bumping along at the bottom of the poverty threshold. For me, that is the first of a number of disingenuous comparisons used to argue for the fairness of the Bill. The first is that those affected are out of work, when many more are in fact in work but on low pay. As the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned a moment ago, many of those are part of the group of people who cycle in and out of work all the time; I see that in my constituency.
The second disingenuous point is about percentages themselves, which fail to take into account the cuts to housing benefit that families in my constituency will be experiencing in the next six months or so as the changes filter through. There are also the changes in April to council tax benefit; they will affect the same families affected by the uprating provisions in the Bill.
The third point is whether percentages mean anything at all. Whatever goal posts are used to measure the percentage change in benefit across time, it is clear that the monetary value of rising average wages is significantly more than that of benefits. Percentages do not buy milk, bread or school uniforms—pounds and pennies buy those things, and it is in pounds and pennies that people will experience a cut.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady very much for giving way. I have sat for three or four minutes listening to her and I have never in my life agreed with her more. She is right about the language of the debate and about the percentages—it is monetary value that is important.
Can the hon. Lady explain to me in any way how the removal of the best part of £6 billion from the economy in the next two to three years will stimulate the economy? How many jobs will it create, if any at all?
Sarah Teather
The fourth disingenuous point is probably that cutting the incomes of those at the bottom of the income threshold will help boost the economy. All the evidence says that money put into the pockets of those at the bottom of the income spectrum is most likely to be spent. That is precisely why my party argued so hard during negotiations to ensure that we raised the threshold of tax on the lowest paid.
I do not enjoy voting against my own party, and I cannot vote for the Labour amendment, but with a very heavy heart I shall be voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that I, and any others who choose that course of action, will give the Government some cause for thought and reflection.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather).
The truth is that all western economies need to refashion their social contract to cope with demographic and economic change—expanding child care versus higher child benefit; housing benefit versus house building; and long-term care versus reliefs and benefits for old age. In each case, we need to choose.
The Bill asks us to make three judgments: about fairness, affordability and politics. The Chancellor claimed in his autumn statement that the Bill was about distinguishing working people from those
“asleep, living a life on benefits.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 877.]
That has been blown out of the water by the facts that have come out since; the facts unearthed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State today are damning.
What of the 3,120 people in South Shields on income support or the 4,200 on jobseeker’s allowance alleged to be choosing a life of Riley? I have three points. Two years ago, the Prime Minister said that he had ended the option of a life on benefits through the so-called Welfare Reform Act 2010. Secondly, the Government’s own figures about the level of fraud show it to be 0.7%—by the way, it is lower among immigrants to this country. Thirdly, the DWP’s own figures, published by the Secretary of State, show that more than 10 jobseekers in South Shields are seeking every job. In all the talk of fairness, that is what is unfair.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the statistic he gave? Do immigrants not have a lower level of benefit fraud because fewer of them are entitled to the full range of benefits?
David Miliband
I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a maths lesson—I did not get good marks in maths—but percentages are percentages; that is the whole point. If we change the denominator it plays through in the percentage that comes later. I do not want to get too diverted by that, but I thank him for the extra 50 seconds.
Let me get on to the question of affordability, which is central to the Government’s case. The Government claim that the alternative to this Bill is higher borrowing or higher taxation, but I want to show why that is not true. The Government themselves have projected the total cost of all benefits, all tax credits and all tax relief for the next few years, and I am happy to debate priorities within that envelope. I will take the envelope that they have set, but let us have a proper debate about choices, not the total sum—a priorities debate, not an affordability debate.
David Miliband
Just a minute.
The measures before us raise £3.7 billion from poor and lower-middle-income people in 2015-16. The Chancellor cut tax relief for pension contributions by wealthier people, but by how much? It was by £200 million in 2013-14 and £600 million in 2015-16. The cumulative saving from the richest between now and 2015-16 is £1.1 billion; the cumulative saving from those on lower-middle incomes on benefits and tax credits is £5.6 billion. Taking five times as much from poor and middle-income Britain as from the richest in Britain—
David Miliband
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Taking five times as much from lower and middle-income Britain as from the richest in Britain is not equality of sacrifice. The Chancellor reminds me of the man at the top of a ladder in a 1929 election poster. The man at the bottom of the ladder has got water up to his neck, and the man at the top shouts, “Equality of sacrifice—let’s all go down one rung!” It is not equality of sacrifice when you are up to your neck in water.
David Miliband
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The Government have made a great deal of the point that no one should receive more on benefits than the average wage of £26,000 a year, but they offer tax relief of £40,000 for those with £40,000 spare. Just to be clear, that tax relief costs £33 billion a year, while we are talking about a total bill of £42 billion for out-of-work benefits. If tax relief on pension contributions were limited to £26,000 a year, we would not need this Bill. That is the point about priorities and choices that need to be made.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman gives a very powerful speech in which he mentions lots of facts and statistics, but there is a very fundamental question that he has not answered. Is it right that people on out-of-work benefits should be receiving faster and greater increases in their income than people on very low wages? Is that fair?
David Miliband
Forty thousand soldiers are not on out-of-work benefits but they are being hit by this Bill. Eighty per cent. of the savings—
David Miliband
I will address it directly; I am very happy to do so. If a couple on £5,500 a year or someone on £3,700 a year gets a 1% increase, that is different from someone who is on £15,000, £20,000, £25,000, £30,000 or £35,000 getting the same increase, because although the people on £15,000, £25,000 or £30,000 are making tough choices, those on £5,000 or £3,700 are making a choice between feeding their kids and heating their home.
David Miliband
Let me make some progress and I will come to the hon. Gentleman if I have time.
The truth is that this rancid Bill is not about affordability; it reeks of the politics of dividing lines that the current Government spent so much time denouncing when they were in opposition in the dog days of the Brown Administration. It says a lot that within two years they have had to resort to that dividing-line politics. We know the style: you invent your own enemy, you spin your campaign to a friendly newspaper editor, you “frame” the debate. But the enemy within in is not the unemployed; the enemy within is unemployment.
I do not want to live in a society where we pretend that we can enjoy the good life while our neighbours lose their life chances. It is bad enough to have no economic growth, or 420,000 young people out of work for more than six months, or rising levels of child poverty, or declining levels of social mobility, but it is hard to stomach a Government who take absolutely no responsibility for their mistakes. It is intolerable—[Interruption.] Government Members are laughing, but I am ready to say what we did wrong; I have not heard them say a word about what they are doing wrong. It is intolerable to blame the unemployed for their poverty and our deficit. That is why I will vote for the amendment and against this rotten Bill.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
It is never a pleasure to support any Bill that will leave some people worse off, but Members of both Government parties do so out of a heavy sense of duty and responsibility, both to those who pay taxes and to those who receive them. It is unfortunate, to an extent, that this debate has been framed, perhaps not in this House today, but in some quarters of the press, as a kind of battle between workers and shirkers or, even more regrettably, between immigrants who have come to this country and are sponging off the state and those British nationals who have been here all their lives and paid taxes.
It is true that some people have come to this country and have received too generous an amount in benefits. It is equally true that a lot of eastern Europeans—I know that both points are true from the experience of my own extended family, who are eastern Europeans—have come to this country, sometimes speaking very little English and sometimes with qualifications that are not recognised here, and have managed to find work very quickly, have used that work to get better jobs, and have ended up contributing a great deal to our society. It is true that some British people have not wanted to take on the jobs that have been snapped up by eastern Europeans.
I would have no hesitation in saying to somebody who is fairly young and in their 20s that they should be willing to accept any job going, no matter how demeaning it may appear. I have worked in nightclubs and done other low-paid work in my life. I would have more of a problem, however, with saying to people I know who spent 20 or 25 years working for Tata—British Steel as was—who lost their job through no fault of their own and who may be a father of three or four, “You have to go to work in Starbucks on the minimum wage.” It is a shame that we find it hard in our benefit system to distinguish between different types of people, but that is the way it is.
We are not here to talk about penalising people; we are here because we have a simple problem, which was put eloquently by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) when he said that we do not have any money.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is the problem, why is he supporting a Government who are only too happy to give a tax cut of £2,000 a week to everybody earning more than £1 million a year? How does that add up? How is that fair?
David T. C. Davies
Put simply, the total amount of tax that we are taking from the rich has increased, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, and that has not been denied by any Opposition Member. The total amount of money that we are taking from the rich has increased, which means that the total amount that we have to take from those who are not so rich has gone down somewhat. That is how I would justify it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It might be worth reminding Opposition Members about the 10p tax fiasco that they imposed on some of the poorest members of my community. They have not been forgiven for it.
David T. C. Davies
I should also like Opposition Members to recognise the economic truism of the Laffer curve, which has proved that the more we try to tax the rich, the less we get off them. That is why so many people are queuing up to come over here from France at the moment, and good luck to them. We will have their money and spend it on less well-off people here.
I have listened carefully today to Opposition Members and I have not heard any of them explain how they would manage to maintain benefits at their current level or fund the increases that they want to impose. What would they cut in order to fill that gap? What extra taxes would they impose on people? Would they simply continue to do what Labour Governments have done since the time of Attlee, which is just to borrow the money they need in order to pay for projects that they cannot afford?
Opposition Members simply have no credibility left. Government Members are going to take a difficult decision, but with absolutely no pleasure whatsoever. We are doing so because what happened in 2008 was bad, but it was nothing compared with the financial catastrophe that would engulf us if we continued to spend £120 billion a year that we do not have.
Opposition Members and their many supporters outside in the unions and the pressure groups have complained about the bankers. I could complain about bankers as well. Why is it that these people want to put more money into the hands of the bankers by borrowing money from bankers, getting us more into debt and giving them greater amounts of interest? Who are the true friends of the bankers—the people who are trying to keep down their interest payments or the people who want us to be in hock to them?
I do not want to be a Member of Parliament who presides over Britain being turned into Greece, but without the sunshine. That is why I will vote for the Bill today.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
As someone who has been in this House for two and a half years and who in the past has been unemployed and has held low-paid jobs, I think that the mirth with which parts of this debate are being greeted will be seen with dismay by many people outside this Chamber.
The Bill is yet another example of the Government demonising and punishing the most vulnerable in our society and making the poorest live in greater poverty. The most important fact to take into account is that the Bill does not target only those who are out of work, whom I refuse to refer to as skivers, but those who are in work on low wages. It does not affect just those in part-time work, but people who are in more than full-time employment—people who regularly work long hours or complicated combinations of part-time jobs just to make ends meet.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just with the 1% cap? A constituent came to see me before Christmas who had been made redundant last year by a local factory. His wife is a cleaner and he has now taken employment in a local garage serving petrol at night. He will lose about £20 a week when the bedroom tax comes in because the family home of 30 years is now deemed to be under-occupied.
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more. My surgery in Gateshead is regularly populated by people with similar problems. This is a society that Government Members do not understand. In the whole town, the average income of a household is not much more than £20,000 a year. That is the income for the whole household, not for an individual.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Surely the way to help people on incomes of just above £20,000 is to reduce the amount of tax that they have to pay. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is to tax them with one hand and give part of it back with the other. The way to solve the problem is to do what the coalition Government are doing and remove them from tax altogether.
Ian Mearns
What is shocking for low-income families is the impact of VAT on their real income. Rises in VAT and other taxes of that nature have a disproportionate impact on people on lower incomes.
Ian Mearns
I am afraid that I will not, because I need to make progress.
The shocking statistic is that the number of people experiencing in-work poverty has risen to 1.6 million. Sadly, workers are increasingly reliant on welfare to top up their low wages. The number of families receiving tax credits has risen by 50% since 2003 and 4.4 million jobs pay less than £7 an hour. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to continue to support a situation in which private employers in particular do not want to pay a living wage to the staff that they employ in order to make profits.
As the Secretary of State knows all too well, a real-terms cut will have a much greater impact on low-income households than on higher-income households because basic living costs make up a greater proportion of their income. Even when a cut is proportional to income, it is often felt more acutely by a household on a lower income, as a greater proportion of its income is spent on essentials such as food, fuel and clothing.
On Friday, The Daily Telegraph reported the managing director of Waitrose as predicting that the prices of basic food such as bread and vegetables could rise by up to 5% this year, and in the past few months utility companies have hiked up their prices—the biggest change that I have seen so far is 10.8%. How on earth are the low paid and those out of work supposed to heat their homes and feed their families if their benefits are not increased in line with inflation? Families are already having to make difficult choices between heating and eating.
Make no mistake about it, the Bill is intended to squeeze further the already squeezed. Analysis by Unison shows that in-work poverty is becoming the modern face of UK hardship. It is estimated that the freeze suggested in the Bill will cost an average family with two children more than £1,000 by 2015-16. The Chancellor may point to changes in personal tax allowances as the reasoning behind the Bill, but that will do little to offset the shortfall in the income of working families. The Child Poverty Action Group argues that a working family eligible for both housing and council tax benefit will gain only 13p a week extra—13p!—as a result of the extended personal allowances. We should remember the furore that the 20p upgrade in old-age pensions caused under the last Government, and in this case we are talking about 13p. It is a slap in the face for the working poor and their children.
The CPAG has also spoken of its grave concern about the Bill, arguing that failure to
“uprate in line with inflation will increase absolute child poverty, relative child poverty and the material deprivation”
of many children. The Bill fails any fairness test with regard to income distribution, and it fails the working poor, the job seeking, the caring and the disabled poor. It will push those at the bottom further down the ladder.
The Bill is shrouded in smoke and mirrors. The Chancellor’s choice of start date to illustrate the rise of out-of-work benefits is 2007, but if we take a longer period, for instance beginning in 1979, we can see that benefits have risen significantly less than wages. He talks about strivers and skivers, but I see something different on the ground—families scraping by in low-paid work or jumping from insecure jobs to benefits and back again. The truth, unlike what the Government keep spouting, is that the vast majority of those who rely on benefits and tax credits are either in work, have worked or will desperately be trying to get into work in the near future. They have made a contribution to society, but their families are really struggling.
Welfare to work is a two-part equation: welfare and work. Where there is no work—in many parts of the north-east there is not a great abundance of work—there must be welfare that is enough to sustain families fairly. I know that in difficult times we all have to think about ways of reducing the bills that face the Government, but let us do that in a way that is proper, productive and economically and socially beneficial. Let us do it by stimulating, not stagnating, our economy; by unlocking the huge investment potential of UK business; and by creating hundreds of thousands of real jobs, building houses and reinvigorating our infrastructure, not by punitively poisoning the minds of ordinary people and punishing the poor.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
This is obviously a difficult debate. Any debate that discusses cuts or limits to payments is difficult, and no one should take any pleasure in it. However, two fundamental elements need consideration. The first is the tax credit system as a whole and its purpose, and the second is how benefits in general relate to income. I will briefly take each in turn.
It is hard to believe that until the last general election, anyone earning up to £60,000 a year could still qualify for tax credits. That was nonsensical and crazy. At the time, £60,000 was nearly two and a half times the average salary, but the Government of the day still chose to issue those privileged people with welfare payments.
Sheila Gilmore
The Bill is not about restructuring the tax credit system but about placing a limit on an uprate. Much restructuring has already happened: has not £14 billion already been taken out of the tax credit system? The hon. Gentleman should address the issue of uprating.
Alun Cairns
I wish that the hon. Lady would at least allow me to create a context and develop an argument, and that she would focus on the real issue and allow me to develop arguments on that. To me, someone who earns £60,000 a year is quite privileged and should not be receiving those payments. Nevertheless, that was the position inherited by the Government.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend remind the House what steps the Labour party took to bring benefit increases closer to the world of work when it was in office?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that useful reminder that the Labour party did nothing on the issue. Few individuals—if any—would reject a benefit payment, even if in their hearts they were confused about why they were receiving it or uncomfortable with that. The then Chancellor knew well what he was doing and that withdrawing a payment after issuing it in the first place would create a difficult and almost impossible situation—the situation we are in now. Dependency on the state became more widespread, and with that came a significant political shift to the left. The centre ground of politics moved at that moment. It is, therefore, little wonder that £90 billion is now spent on welfare for people of working age.
During the seven years before the last general election, tax credit spend increased by a staggering 258%—that is the context I wished to create in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Adding insult to taxpayers’ injury, the tax credit regime was one of the most inefficient benefit systems ever devised, leading to £2 billion of fraud each and every year. Today’s Bill will lead to savings of £1.9 billion over two years, with the pain shared by those recipients whose increases in benefits will be limited. Although £1.9 billion is a significant sum, it does not go anywhere near the increases in spending introduced by the previous Government, particularly leading up to the 2010 general election.
Alun Cairns
I will in a moment but I want to develop my argument a little further. Presumably in an effort to drive the landscape even further to the left, tax credits increased dramatically—strangely—in the run-up to the 2005 general election, and, by coincidence, in the run-up to the 2010 general election.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Given the political manoeuvring and increases in tax credits that my hon. Friend describes, which took place under the previous Government, is there a direct correlation between the time that tax credits started, the start of the financial crisis, and the substantial rise in the deficit created by the Labour party?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The previous Prime Minister knew exactly what he was doing and he did it for party political ends rather than to support and help families who needed tax credits.
Ian Austin
If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about helping people further down the income scale, why does he support a tax cut for people who earn more than £150,000 and a reduction in the living standards of the poorest people in Britain?
Alun Cairns
That is right on cue because I remember the 50% tax rate as being temporary. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is committed to that rate leading up to and beyond the next general election?
Ian Austin
I would rather see people who earn more than £150,000 make a contribution than take money off the poorest people in Britain, which is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for today.
Alun Cairns
I would have much more respect for the hon. Gentleman if he told the House that that will be his commitment at the next general election.
Ian Austin
We will announce our policies for the next election but they will not be to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in Britain while hammering the poorest. That is what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are supporting today.
Alun Cairns
It is obvious that there are two options. Either that will not be a commitment going into the next general election, or the Labour Government introduced the only temporary tax rate that would last almost 10 years. I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me, in the minute I have left, to develop my second point.
On benefits and incomes, it is difficult to believe that out-of-work benefits have increased by 20% since 2007 and that earnings have increased by half that amount. What is the incentive to work? The Labour Government left a marginal rate of tax of 80% for some of the lowest earners and those on benefits. What sort of incentive was that to get people into work? They continue with the same principle in this debate. That inequality must be resolved, particularly given the nation’s debt, the need to encourage people into work and the demand for structural changes in the economy to deliver growth. It is Labour’s policy to increase spending, taxes and benefits and to take us into a further spiral of increased borrowing, spending and taxes. The people will not stand for it.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I have sat through a lot of annual debates on benefits uprating, but I have never seen a turnout quite like this. Very often the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is less than double figures. I hope today’s turnout reflects the importance of the debate. The votes tonight will have a profound effect on many of the most vulnerable and poorest people in our society, whether they are in or out of work. Based on the decisions we take tonight, for some families it will not be a case of whether to eat or heat. Towards the end of the two weeks or the month when universal credit is introduced, some families might have a few days when the children get neither food nor heating, unless food banks, which are increasing, come to the rescue. We should not wish that on our society in the 21st century.
Mrs Moon
An additional problem is that low-income families—some working, some not—will be faced with a decision when their housing benefit is paid directly to them of whether to pay their landlord or feed their children. Does my hon. Friend accept that we are facing a potential explosion in homelessness?
Dame Anne Begg
I thank my hon. Friend, because she sets up my point on how the proposals undermine the Government’s flagship policy of introducing universal credit. Universal credit will create problems—she alludes to the fact that it will be paid monthly, and that housing benefit will be paid directly to individuals, who must make the decisions she describes.
One big claim for universal credit is that it will make work pay in all circumstances, but Government Members somehow cannot understand that making work pay means increasing benefits, because the majority of people who receive the benefits that will be affected by the Bill are in work. The group who are out of work and the group in work are often the same people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has said—they move in and out of work.
The principle of universal credit is to smooth the move into work. The Government are freezing the benefits that make up universal credit statutorily for the next three years. I do not know why we are not having the normal uprating debate. There is no reason why the measure must be in the form of legislation, which makes me suspect that it is a political decision. The freezing of those benefits will tie the Government’s hands on the introduction of universal credit and could undermine it.
In spite of everything that has been said today, tax credits were a huge success. They increased the income of workers on low wages and made work pay. For the first time in at least two generations, the poverty trap was ended—I thought that it had gone for ever. There was a genuine poverty trap created by the previous Conservative Government and to all intents and purposes tax credits got rid of that. Almost everybody was better off as a result of tax credits unless they lived in a high accommodation cost area such as London or they had a large number of children. Work paid. The incentives did not always work because work did not pay enough. Through the Bill, the Government are repeating the same mistake—the incentives to move into work under universal credit will not be high enough to make work pay in all circumstances.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the impact of universal credit. I am sure she is aware that the DWP itself says that 1.8 million main earners will be worse off if they take extra hours under universal credit than they are under the current arrangement. The figure for second earners is 300,000.
Dame Anne Begg
Indeed, and Barnardo’s has just published a report which says that families that depend on child care to allow the adults to work will be worse off if they increase their hours. The claims that are being made for universal credit—that it will do away with the cliff edges, smooth the transitions and make work pay in all circumstances—are false. The Bill will make that more likely to happen, not less likely.
Welfare benefits have already been attacked and reduced. We have heard today about housing benefit. Still to come are the changes to council tax benefit, and tax credits have been frozen for the last two years. We now know that universal credit will be set at a level comparable to the benefits that it will replace—income-related job seeker’s allowance, income-related employment support allowance and housing benefit, as well as tax credits. If those benefits have not increased with inflation, by the time universal credit comes in it will be set at a much lower level as a result of the decisions taken today. That will mean less support through universal credit for those moving into work. Unless the Government intend to change the tapers and the disregards—and I have heard nothing to suggest that—the difference between being in work and out of work will not be very great, and on many occasions people could be made worse off by increasing their hours or taking work in the first place.
I have always suspected that when the Government said that no existing claimants would lose in cash terms from the introduction of universal credit, it was their intention to reduce what people were receiving before the move to universal credit. This Bill confirms that that is exactly what they intend. They seem to have missed the essential point—to make work pay, the Government need to increase in-work support, not decrease it as this Bill will do. So when universal credit is introduced and fails to be the magic bullet that the Government have claimed—when it does not do all that has been claimed—they cannot say that they were not warned. That is why I will not support the Bill and will vote for the amendment.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who brings great expertise and experience to the topic. While I may not always agree with her on how to resolve welfare benefit issues, I always respect what she has to say.
For me and many others in the House, the central motivation for being here and practising politics is simple: it is to try to improve the country in which we live, to give opportunities to everyone, and to create an environment in which businesses can flourish, jobs can be created and young people can be equipped with the education and skills that they need to do well. At the heart of every civilised society is the protection of those who cannot work or care for themselves and need help.
It is unlikely that many people will disagree with that opening statement, but, as ever, it is where the balance falls. It is how fairness is achieved that often divides us in this place. The underlying focus of the welfare state must, of course, be to help to prepare and equip people for a life back in work. My concern is that over the years—in particular, under the previous Government—the admirable and compassionate aim of the welfare state, of getting people back on their feet, in some circumstances provided an alternative lifestyle and lifelong income. That is the issue that the House has to address on Second Reading, and in other legislation.
The work ethic was a central part of my upbringing. I stand here as the first person in my family to study A-levels, let alone go on to university. I am very proud of my background. My mother was the main breadwinner in our family—she was a children’s nurse in the NHS for more than 40 years. My late father worked in shops, in retail, and unfortunately had periods when he was not in work. However, he always remained focused on the importance of getting back to work, and my parents instilled in me a strong work ethic, a desire to work hard and to achieve my goals.
Role models are important in life, and the lack of hard-working supportive role models can make the challenge of getting back to work even harder. We now have nearly 2 million children growing up in homes where no one works. Nearly 900,000 people have spent at least 10 years claiming incapacity benefit. It can be difficult to find the self-esteem and motivation to move back into work after such a period of time, but I have seen from this Government a commitment to encourage people, and to provide and facilitate a way to get them back and to reach their potential.
In my constituency of Erewash, many churches and community groups are undertaking excellent work. One church in particular, the Arena Church, undertakes a vast programme of outreach and supportive work. It tells me that it has seen people in the last year blossom, find their self-esteem and move back into employment, often after years of not working.
Mr Kevan Jones
What would the hon. Lady say to the 59-year-old gentleman who came to see me on Saturday at my constituency surgery who suffers from schizophrenia and has failed the work capability test? He has now been sent on a security guard course by his local jobcentre, which is totally inappropriate. Why do we have a system that is so cruel to such individuals?
Jessica Lee
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he takes up the case on behalf of his constituent in this House. However, I put the responsibility squarely on his Government, the previous Government, who expanded the welfare state with tax credits and left people on incapacity benefit who for too long were never reassessed. That is unfair to those people and we need to recreate the entire welfare system to improve it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is always worth saying that there is no Government money, only taxpayers’ money. It behoves us to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used as well as it possibly can be.
Jessica Lee
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank her for her intervention.
The welfare budget has increased considerably over many years. The Department for Work and Pensions already spends more than £90 billion a year on welfare for working-age people—£1 in every £8 that the Government spend. Limiting certain social security benefits to the 1% that is before the House today, and tax credits is a proportionate approach to funding welfare in the longer term.
My constituents in Erewash often say to me that fairness works both ways. One gentleman said to me that he is working around the clock and his wife has two part-time cleaning jobs, and that they are trying their best to keep things going. Like me, he wants to support people in this society who, for whatever reason, will never be able to stand on their own two feet and get work, but that was not his point. His point was about the standard of living of other people in the area on full benefits. He did not think it right that they should have a higher percentage increase than his family’s budget.
The financial mismanagement of the welfare budget by the last Government—increasing and increasing tax credits without the financial means to pay for it in the long term—has created an imbalance between families, and it is not the fault of those families; it is the responsibility of those in government at the time. The books have to be balanced and accountability is required. Between 2003 and 2010, Labour spent £171 billion on tax credits— more than 60% of the welfare budget increases. How on earth it expected to make that financially viable I simply do not know. At the same time, the number of the most vulnerable and of children living in poverty increased, heading up to between 2 million and 3 million. The last Government failed to tackle the cause of worklessness, and that is why we are in this difficulty.
I take full responsibility for every vote I cast and everything I say in the House—I am happy to do so —but I can reassure my constituents that I do not think anyone in the House takes these decisions on welfare lightly. In the wider picture, however, of maintaining the safety net of the welfare state, preparing people for work and setting them free from welfare dependency, today’s proposals are proportionate and necessary, and I will support the Government.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Today, we are debating an uprating Bill that will result in a real-terms cut in support for people working and contributing to the economy. That paradox will not be lost on those hard-working families so beloved of spin doctors. I do not see how the Bill will promote the work ethic so beloved of those on both sides of the House, and I do not see how it will enable working people to contribute more effectively in the savings culture.
As a Welsh MP, I have to say that Wales will be hit particularly hard. Incomes in Wales are substantially lower than elsewhere. Gross value added per head in Wales is £15,696, whereas in the UK it is £21,368—a difference of more than £5,500 per person.
Alun Cairns
Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, is he comfortable that welfare payments are rising at twice the rate of earnings?
Hywel Williams
This point has been done to death this afternoon. It says a lot about the quality of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that he repeats it continually. I do not think I will bother with it any further.
Some 6.8% of households in the south-east of England, for example, claim working tax credits. In Wales, that figure is 7.1%. In Gwynedd—my own area—9,200 families are on tax credits of some form out of 53,000 households. That is 17.5% of the population—nearly three times the Welsh rate. The point is that any cuts to in-work benefits for the low-paid will hit Wales and my constituency particularly hard.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the individuals receiving those types of benefit do not save the money, but spend it in their local communities? In areas of high unemployment, such as parts of my and his constituencies, it will have a knock-on effect on the local economy.
Hywel Williams
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is blessed with clairvoyance, because that is my next point. People on low incomes tend to spend locally and to spend all their money. The Welsh economy is overwhelmingly made up of small businesses. That is a point for the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) to consider. Working tax credit reductions will suck demand out of local economies and make matters even more difficult for small businesses struggling to survive in the recession.
The uprating will also hit those seeking work. The Prime Minister talks of unemployed people abed while others are at work. We can almost see him in Shakespearean mode paraphrasing King Henry: “Gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not out seeking work”—I can see him doing it anyway, but less extravagantly. Unlike the Prime Minister and his friends, I do not think that the overwhelming majority of unemployed people are abed; they are seeking work. They want to work; they want to improve their lives and those of their children. For those who do not seek work, there is a system of sanctions, and there has been for a long time, as the Secretary of State knows full well.
Poorer areas of Wales have long suffered from high levels of worklessness and low levels of job availability. To end the misery of unemployment, we need not only to help individuals with their skills and, in a small number of cases, their motivation, but to ensure there is real work for people to do. Recently published Work programme figures for Wales show that success there was the lowest in the UK, with only 1,380 of 42,380 people getting a job that lasted six months or more. That is a miserable success rate, at only 3%. In Wales, more than 77,000 people are looking for work and claiming jobseeker’s allowance, while only 20,000-odd vacancies are being posted in jobcentres. Across Wales, there are four people chasing every job, with 11 people chasing every job in Blaenau Gwent and 21 people chasing every job in the Rhondda.
That brings me to Labour’s amendment. I have a question, to which I would like an answer—which might persuade me to back the amendment—in the wind-ups. Long-term unemployed people might still be unable to find a job after 24 months of searching. Large-scale work opportunities are just not available in many Welsh constituencies, so my question is: under Labour’s scheme, would those people face penalties after 24 months? If Labour’s scheme were adopted, would we see benefit cuts 24 months down the road for people who are not refusing to find work, but who just cannot find a job?
We in Plaid Cymru have been as good as our word—to the extent we can be—to the people of Wales, securing thousands of extra apprenticeships as part of the Welsh Government budget deal. We are now pushing for a new procurement policy that would create 50,000 jobs by sourcing public sector contracts locally. However, Wales needs proper job-creating levers to improve our economy, not just handouts and certainly not workfare. For example—this might be a domestic matter as far as most Members in the Chamber are concerned—we want full and early implementation of part 1 of the Silk commission proposals. We also want the transfer of responsibility for Jobcentre Plus to the Welsh Government. There are answers to joblessness and dependence on benefits. At present, we in Wales look in vain to London and the London parties for those answers.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
This is not a difficult one for me. I believe that benefits are far too high—I think most people accept they are at an unsustainable level.
Mr Ward
Yes; as a nation, our payments on benefits are, without a doubt, far too high. However, what we face in this Bill seems to be a huge lack of confidence by the coalition in its own policies and programmes to deal with that situation.
None of us is going to support scroungers, skivers or people who are fraudulently claiming disability benefits. None of us is going to say that we should not support people into work, but we on the Government Benches say, “We are doing all of that.” We on this side of the House say that we are dealing with the situation so that we can reduce the colossal welfare bill to the nation. It shows a huge lack of confidence for us then to say that we now need to go to the least well-off in the country and say, “You’ve got to make a contribution to deficit reduction,” because if our measures work—we say they are going to work; we tell people how successful they will be—what are we left with? We are left with those who want a job and cannot get one, even when they have been through the Work programme. We are talking about those who are disabled—and who have been assessed as disabled—who are not able to work. We are talking about those in work but on low incomes. Despite the confidence in our strategy, these are the people to whom we are now saying, “We’re not really sure, because we’re going to have to come to you, for you to make a contribution as well.”
I have identified three arguments for this move. The first relates to incentives, and states that work should always pay, but I thought we were going to ensure that that happened anyway. Is that not what universal credit was supposed to be about? The second argument is that we cannot afford to do otherwise, but I did not see much cutting back on the Olympics. I have heard various suggestions, and yes, there are tough decisions to be made. It has been suggested that we limit the tax relief on pensions. We are seen as being able to afford to give tax reductions to millionaires, and of course we can afford to give rich pensioners winter fuel payments. These are examples of the decisions that need to be made, and there are many more, but we need to look at all of them before we turn to the people on the lowest incomes and those with no income who are surviving on benefits.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fiscal cliff deal made last week in America, which took the most money from the top 2%, gave money to those on lower incomes and is projected to increase growth by 1%, is a much better way of squaring the circle than the measures in the autumn statement, which will take money from the bottom 30% to 50% and give it to those further up the ladder, which is reducing overall consumer demand?
Mr Ward
We all know that. We know about the multiplier effect on consumer demand. It is not a secret; it is well researched and we all understand it.
The third reason for the proposals that I have identified relates to fairness. A national debate about fairness is taking place at the moment. I am about to get really technical: there is a difference between somebody who is unemployed and somebody who is employed. The person who is unemployed does not have a job. The person who is employed has a job. They are not the same; we cannot compare them when we are talking about fairness and a 1% increase. I will give the House another really technical fact: those people who are on low incomes and receiving tax credits are receiving those tax credits because they are on low incomes. It is very technical, this. How on earth can we compare those on low incomes or on benefits with people who are in a job? We cannot say that it is unfair—or bizarre, according to the Prime Minister—to give someone who is in a job 1%, but then give 2% to those on benefits. We cannot compare the two. There is a difference between somebody who is on benefits and somebody who has a job. The evidence for that is clear.
Of course, people who are in employment do not like the pay freezes or the 1% increase, but is anyone seriously suggesting that they would give up their job to be unemployed? Don’t be ridiculous! Let us not forget that we are eliminating the scroungers and all the rest of it. In my experience, most people in work look at those who are unemployed and say, “Thank God it’s not me!” They do not say that it is unfair that their benefits are being increased; they say, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
I have mentioned the massive lack of confidence in our proposals, but there could be another reason for these measures, although I hope that it is not true. It relates to a sense that the public at large are in favour of these welfare reforms, egged on by opinion polls, and that some people on the Government Benches see that as an opportunity to attack the unemployed. I fear that that is being driven by a deep-rooted conviction that unemployed people are unemployed by choice. This is what worries me. I hope that the explanation is in fact the lack of confidence, but I suspect, deep down, that far too many people on this side of the House believe that unemployed people are the undeserving poor, that they need to sort themselves out, and that we cannot possibly reward them with an increase. Let us remember, too, that this is not an increase. When inflation is taken into account, the measure will simply freeze the level of benefits that we have already decided will provide people with a minimum standard of living. The measure is not fair, and I will not support it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Bill is without doubt an attack on the living standards of those who are in work and on low or modest incomes, and of those who are out of work and on disability benefits. The Government have tried to paint those who are unemployed as lazy and as scroungers, but it is a fact that the Bill will definitely make people poorer.
The Government are trying to cover up their failures on the economy, and the Chancellor is now raiding working-age benefits and tax credits by a total of £6.6 billion by uprating them by 1% over the next three years—a real-terms cut. Meanwhile, the Government are giving 8,000 millionaires an average tax cut of £107,000—an average cut of £2,000 for every week of the year. In comparison, people on jobseeker’s allowance will see their benefit go up by 71p and people receiving the couples element of the working tax credit will see a maximum increase of 38p. Of course, the Secretary of State has admitted today for the first time that disabled people will also see cuts as a result of the changes made.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making some strong points. Does he agree with me that one other group of people in our society who will be severely impacted by the change is children? We are going to see an increase in absolute poverty and relative poverty for children, which will take us back to the level we had over 10 years ago. It is wholly unfair that they should be prejudiced in this manner.
Derek Twigg
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point, and I repeat that people, families, children will be made poorer by the Bill. The Secretary of State refused properly to answer a question about the disabled issue. He would not say how many disabled people would be affected, so that is a subject to which we will certainly return.
Of course another group of people who will be badly hit are women. Some 4.6 million women who receive child tax credit, including 2.5 million working women and more than 1 million women who are caring for children while their husbands or partners are in work, will be hit by this strivers’ tax. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which we have just got, acknowledges that that will be the case—and it is a disgrace, if I may say so, that we received that impact assessment at such a short time before this debate. Those hit by the Government’s cuts include primary school teachers, nurses and, as we have heard, many members of our armed forces who today are fighting for this country. My constituents are increasingly suffering because of the rising cost of living. The costs of food, energy and fuel are crippling many families, who are having to decide whether to buy a decent meal or to heat the house.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions primary school teachers and nurses. Does he acknowledge the figures in last Sunday’s edition of The Observer in which chief executives of a number of organisations, including children’s societies, Barnardo’s and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, showed that a single parent primary school teacher or a nurse with two children stands to lose £424 a year by 2015 while an Army second lieutenant with three children will lose £552 a year? Those are hardly people whom we should describe as “scroungers”.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend makes a strong point: many people in work are being hit, and many of them would not usually be viewed by members of the public as those likely to be hit by such changes. Many families on low incomes in my constituency are having great difficulty finding the money to feed their families properly—even to provide proper meals every day. We know that some children are going to school hungry. The problem is so bad in Halton that two food banks have been set up, and I believe that that is a regular feature in many poorer parts of the country. To add to that, of course, are the appalling changes to housing benefit and the unfair cuts to local government funding, including changes to the treatment of council tax support, which will greatly increase the suffering in my constituency and others where the poorest and the weakest will be the most badly hit.
Frankly, the Government’s approach to welfare reform is cruel and vindictive, with cuts hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. That is said even in the Government’s own impact assessment, which acknowledges that the poorest will be hit the hardest. It is a disgrace that this is happening. I have been contacted, like many MPs, by many constituents who have suffered badly under the benefits system, who have lost benefits or who have been denied them or treated badly. In many cases, these people are in despair and at the end of their tether. We have to deal with such cases—day in, day out. It is therefore important to link that with what is happening today.
There are, of course, people who exploit the system, and they should be dealt with severely, but the overwhelming number of people involved are honest and want to work where they can. In my experience, those who can work want to work. I have heard many tales of constituents applying for countless number of jobs, but getting nowhere because jobs are either very hard to find or do not exist. Despite what the Secretary of State said, many want full-time employment. Many are being pushed into part-time employment because there are no full-time jobs for them. The Government have no coherent policy for growth and jobs. That is why people trust Labour more on jobs and growth. We have given greater priority to job creation, which is why I support our jobs guarantee.
Derek Twigg
I will not, because I have already given way to two Members and others wish to speak.
Let me return to the Government’s decision to cut benefits. We should not forget the announcement in the June 2010 Budget that from April 2011 the measure of price inflation used for the uprating of benefits and tax credits would be the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. That will have a significant impact on benefit rates and on future real-terms cuts. So in addition to what is happening today, a major cut is already taking place. The long-term assumption of the Office for Budget Responsibility is that the annual increase in RPI will be 1.4 percentage points more than the increase in the CPI. That means that after 10 years, benefits will be worth 86% as much as they would have been had they continued to be uprated in line with RPI.
The House of Commons Library research paper on the Bill states:
“A decision to limit increases in benefits to below inflation for a sustained period is historically unprecedented. If inflation averages more than 1% over the three years, families claiming the benefits and tax credits affected will experience a permanent real terms reduction in the support they receive.”
It goes on to say that
“independent estimates of “Minimum Income Standards” suggest that current out-of-work benefit rates for people of working age are significantly lower than the amounts necessary for a minimum acceptable standard of living.”
We should never forget that a large number of those who receive benefits are being paid a very small amount of money, an amount that would surprise many people. It is not the case that the majority, or anywhere near the majority, are receiving massive sums. Members should go and talk to a young person who is unemployed, or a single mum, or a couple, and ask about the benefits that they are receiving—and now disabled people are also being hit by the Government’s proposals.
The Bill clearly constitutes a tax on those who work hard and a cruel, vindictive cut in the living standards of the poorest people in our society. The Government should hang their heads in shame, and that applies especially to the Liberal Democrats.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
About 40 years ago, I used to walk through a really run-down council estate on my way to school. The estate was poor, the people living there were poor, the housing was poor, and life expectancy and opportunities were very low. It is still the same today: 40 years on, the people living on that estate have the same opportunities, or lack of them, that they had in the days when I was walking through it.
Successive Governments have failed to address the problems of people who live in poverty in some of our communities. This is not just about money; it is about a lack of aspiration and ambition, about a failure to understand the need to educate people, and about the need for people to develop skills. It is about a whole range of things, and the solution is not simply money. I say that because now, when I look at estates like the one that I mentioned, I see brand-new schools, and I see that all the houses have been done up, but the people are still poor, still unemployed, and still dependent on benefits. The fact is that, regardless of the 1.5% difference between inflation and the uprating, if you have not got the brass you cannot give it out. The purpose of the coalition must be to manage the deficit that we inherited from the last Government, and we must change the culture of dependency in those areas.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks of dependency. Does he not realise that the Bill will create a food-bank dependency in our nation?
Kris Hopkins
I do not think that it will. I think that the 900,000 or 1 million new jobs created by the Government represent the solution to the problem. We need to face up to the drama in the welfare state. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) says that this is not about a dependency culture, but I can take her to places where people are trapped in a way of life that gives them no incentive to go and look for jobs. That is the tragedy of the situation.
Mr Kevan Jones
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the dependency culture—he thinks that if he repeats it enough, people will start to believe him—but what would he say to two people whom I met in a local jobcentre last week? They were made unemployed by AEI Cables in Birtley a year ago. They have the work ethic. They are aged 51 and 52, they had worked for the company since they were 16, and they have applied for literally hundreds of jobs without success. Are those people part of the dependency culture?
Kris Hopkins
No, obviously not, because they are going out there to seek a job. That is the key thing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the extra time.
We have put a benefit cap at £26,000, and that is net. The vast majority of my constituents would be delighted to take home or have access to that amount of money. Far from doing something outrageous by increasing the amount of money that people are going to get by 1% in this climate, it is an admirable move by those on the Front Bench to facilitate that, bearing in mind the crisis that the previous Government left.
We have made some choices about who we are going to protect and who we will not. There is a debate about disability, but I am pleased that we are protecting pensioners. It was a commitment by this Government to protect pensioners and we have continued with that. I am very concerned that the unemployed, those who are dependent, those who are uneducated and have no skills, those with limited opportunities to offer young people, are the families that are growing in my constituency. That is a tragedy for the future of towns such as mine. We must break that cycle. It cannot be right that it pays to live on the state.
The resentment and anger are real in people who are working hard. They have seen generations continue to claim benefit. Some of those are trapped, but some have no desire to go and work. People are making life choices based on the fact that they can get money from the Government. As was pointed out earlier, that is taxpayers’ money. That cannot be right. When families see no increase in their income after their hard work and they see people on benefits receiving twice the increase, as has been shown statistically, that promotes resentment in our communities. It is not just about strivers or skivers. Failure to address the issue promotes racism and tension in communities, because somebody sees or perceives that somebody else is getting something that they are not getting. After all their efforts they do not see the benefit of working so hard.
Kris Hopkins
No, I will not give way.
I have great sympathy for all the people who go out there, graft hard and pay their dues, and then look over next door where the curtains are closed or see estates where people are not ambitious, not aspirational, have failed in education and failed in skills. It is the responsibility of those on the Government Benches to address that, as much as it was with the previous Government. In another 30 or 40 years I do not want to see people living in poverty because they have been abandoned and people keep sustaining those estates. Society backfills sink estates in constituencies such as mine.
We do not take decisions about welfare lightly. We take them extremely seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) said, but we on the Government Benches are on the side of hard-working individuals. That is why I support the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of the many constituents who come to see me every week in my constituency office because they have been affected by the Government’s attacks on our welfare system. I have said this before and I will continue to say it: at every point we must challenge the ideology underpinning these so-called reforms, including the Bill, and the divide-and-rule narrative that the coalition Government have developed.
I know I was not alone in being deeply offended by the Chancellor’s autumn statement, not only because the cuts he put forward will affect the poorest 10% in our society, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but because of the way in which he attempted to justify his actions by deliberately vilifying people who receive benefits as the new undeserving poor. By using pejorative language, such as “shirkers”—he has used the terms “work-shy” and “scroungers” in the past—he sunk to a new low, with a disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts, a few of which I would like to put straight.
Myth No. 1 is that most people on benefits are out of work. In fact, 68%—more than two thirds—of benefit recipients are in work. The majority of welfare beneficiaries are net contributors to the Exchequer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said, there is no evidence of a culture of worklessness in this country—[Interruption.] I will repeat that: independent research has shown that there is no evidence of a culture of worklessness. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute, 6.1 million people are in poverty but are working. That compares with 5 million people in out-of-work households.
As we have heard, the Children’s Society’s statistics show that the proposed cap on welfare benefits will affect 500,000 key workers—nurses, midwives, nursery school teachers, primary school teachers, administrative workers, secretaries, shop workers, electricians, fitters and members of the armed forces.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Can the hon. Lady say what proportion of primary school teachers are covered by those statistics?
Debbie Abrahams
I cannot because I do not have the figures to hand, but I am happy to provide them later. The evidence is there. Scenario modelling has been done—[Interruption.] If I could finish the point. Scenario modelling is available showing exactly how many have been assessed.
Debbie Abrahams
I will not give way at the moment. I will finish my point and then make some progress.
The Children’s Society’s analysis shows that between £500 and £400 will be lost per annum by key workers such as a second lieutenant in the armed forces or a primary school teacher.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
In addition to the scenario my hon. Friend is outlining, these cuts come on top of the fact that the move from RPI to CPI for benefits will push a further 4 million children into poverty by 2020.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that nearly half a million more children will be living in poverty by the end of this Parliament, and that is without taking into account the 1% drop. Families up and down the country are struggling. Food prices have increased by 26% over the past three years, almost as much as energy prices. That is a real cut for ordinary families.
The second myth I would like to expose is the claim that welfare benefits have increased more than average earnings. In fact, since 2002 average earnings rose by 36% while jobseeker’s allowance, for example, increased by 32%. Between 2007 and 2010, to ensure that work pays, benefits for people in work rose by 53.1%, compared with 46.9% for out-of-work benefits. The Government have also claimed that the 1% cap will offset increases in tax thresholds. We know that at least 682,000 working families receiving child tax credit earn less than £6,420, so they will not benefit from those changes in tax credits.
I was going to refer to the myth that we need to do this to reduce the deficit, but that myth has already been blown out of the water in other contributions, so I will not go on about the fact that growth has been downgraded yet again, we are borrowing more than anticipated and our economy is one of the worst performing in the G7.
The Government’s response to their failing economic policies is what? It is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest in society. Some £3 billion is being given to 300,000 people earning more than £150,000 a year, with an average gain of £10,000, and the Government are making people on low incomes pay for it. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, £500 million will be saved as a result of the 1% cut in 2013 and just over £2 billion in 2014, but that money could also be saved if the Government made different choices. It is clear where the Government’s priorities really are. The choices that the Government have made are underpinned by their ideology.
Debbie Abrahams
No, I am not going to give way any more.
That ideology is to demonise people receiving benefits, creating antipathy and resentment and an “us and them” culture. Through the withdrawal of universal benefit such as child benefit, the Government show an irrelevance of the welfare system to non-welfare-recipients; meanwhile, they are dismantling the welfare state.
I am proud of our model of social welfare, born of the second world war, when we were literally all in it together. I want to retain that model, with its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us who should fall on hard times and ensuring our dignity and the basics of life to help us get back on our feet.
Fortunately, the British public are seeing through the Government. As British social attitudes surveys have consistently shown, they want not a divided society but a fairer, more equal one. That has been reflected in recent opinion polls on benefits. When the Government’s myths are exposed to people, most do not support them.
I do not want ours to be a country where we impoverish children and rob them of their futures. We need to get the economy moving again and I hope that the Chancellor and Secretary of State will listen to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State’s proposals about how we do that. If they do not, we are in danger of losing a generation, storing up health and social problems for the future—and seeing a divided Britain, not a one nation Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. In a bid to accommodate more colleagues, I am afraid that I am reducing the time limit for Back-Bench speeches from five to four minutes each, with immediate effect.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
In the short time available, I want to nail a couple of myths that have come up in the debate and give the view from Cannock Chase.
The first myth is that we are giving a tax break to the wealthiest in society. The answer that the shadow Secretary of State would not give earlier is that over a 13-year period, the Labour Government had a 50p tax rate for 37 days. The idea that we are giving the rich a tax cut is just a sixth-form debating point; the Labour party had 13 years to introduce the 50p rate, and they introduced it for 37 days.
Let us nail another myth. Although many people in work get benefits, there is evidence of a culture of worklessness, whatever the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says. If hon. Members do not believe me—[Interruption.] Give me a second. Let me read the House a summary of an interview on LBC radio in December. A man called Paul phoned in to say that it was not his fault that there were no jobs out there. He said:
“Why would you work for low wages, can’t really understand that, what’s the point? I was offered a job two weeks ago; they wanted me in there at 8 am in the morning.”
The presenter said:
“And you didn’t want to do that job?”
Paul replied:
“It’s ridiculous, that time!”
The presenter asked:
“What time would you finish if you started at 8?”
Paul answered:
“Well it finished about 4, but that time in the morning is too early. Most people start at 9 don’t they?”
The presenter, getting angry now, said:
“No, people start work at all hours. If I was in charge and you turned down a job for that reason I would cut your benefits. You lied you said no work out there. There are people out there struggling every single day who would love to get that job, frankly you can’t be fagged can you?”
Paul said that he would love to have the job but he was not willing to start at 8, only at 9.30, to which the presenter replied:
“I am outraged by what you just said.”
Let us not pretend that there are not some people who cannot be bothered to work.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure whether that anecdote should lead us to any wider conclusion. The only worklessness in the Chamber today is on the Tory Back Benches—there has been an average of only 12 Tory Back Benchers all afternoon.
Mr Burley
I have been here since the beginning of the debate, waiting patiently to speak.
I move on to my constituency. The House of Commons Library shows that average wages in Cannock Chase rose by 6% between 2007 and 2012. During that same period, benefits went up by 20%. Where is the fairness in benefits going up by 20% when pay has gone up by only 6%? Do not take my word for it. This is what a local police officer e-mailed me last year when we uprated benefits by 5%:
“Why has the Conservative Government given a recent rise in benefits money…to the unemployed when Nurses, Police Officers, Fire and rescue workers and all other public sector workers have not received a pay rise for over two years?”
It is a fair question, and I do not know the answer. What I do know is that if the rate of inflation is not sufficient to warrant an increase in public sector pay beyond 1% in April this year, it cannot be so high as to require an increase in benefits beyond that either.
This is what another constituent who recently contacted me said:
“I have a friend who has a partner, neither she or he work and have not worked for as long as I can remember. They are both fit and healthy and perfectly able to work they just do not want to. They openly admit there is no point in finding work as they would not have enough money to live on. She stated to me that in order to get close in wages to what they receive in benefits that they would both have to get a job.”
This is the perverse reality of where we are now—that it pays people not to work and they are better off at home on benefits even though they could work and in many cases want to. Tellingly, the constituent went on to say:
“Some time ago she”—
her friend—
“let it slip out that she claimed £500 a week in benefits, I was…astounded and furious and pointed out that it was twice my wages. I am…aware that some people are unable to work and in genuine need…but surely people on benefits who are MORE than capable of working should not be living a life of…luxury and be financially better off than those who…earn a living? These people are playing the system…whilst…genuine hard working people struggle to have a life.”
Those are the real words of a real constituent in an area where the average salary is £22,500, and Labour Members ignore those words at their peril. [Interruption.]
Mr Burley
The Opposition have argued that this uprating of 1% will impact on working people and not just those on benefits. Given that the previous Government made 90% of workers eligible as welfare recipients, that is inevitable. Unfortunately, Labour Members make the mistake of taking these measures in isolation. If we take the Government’s measures as a whole, including tax allowances, energy tariff changes and cutting petrol duty, low-income working households will be better off. It is time to end the ridiculous money merry-go-round. Let us take people out of tax and off benefits. Labour used to be the party of the working man; it is now the party of the workless and welfare. I look forward to fighting them on the doorsteps as they take that message to the electorate. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that shouting back and forth really does not help the debate, and I am finding it difficult to listen to what the speaker is saying, so please let us have less of it. I call Steve McCabe.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I apologise for being absent for part of the debate while attending duties at the Home Affairs Committee.
The one inescapable fact is that however much the Chancellor talks about shared pain, we are discussing real cuts to benefits at a time when he thinks it is okay to prioritise tax cuts for millionaires. We should no doubt be grateful that pensioners have been spared this cut in their benefits, but that is probably down to Lord Ashcroft having identified what a key group they are and putting their benefits off limits.
I am afraid that these proposals look like an ambition to create division between those who have little and those who have less. That sits comfortably with the values and politics of a particular kind of Conservatism. This is called an uprating, but 1% rises over three years really represent a cut of 4% in the spending power of those already struggling. Citizens Advice estimates that when we take tax changes into account, a family with two children paying £130 per week in rent and earning just above the minimum wage will be almost £13 per week worse off. That is before we take food and energy inflation into account. No wonder people are being driven into the arms of payday loan sharks.
Income transfers for those on modest incomes, for example, are recognised throughout developed economies as exactly the kind of fiscal stimulus needed when recessionary pressures are highest, but the Chancellor is doing the exact opposite. A total of 4.6 million women will lose their tax credits, including 2.5 million working women and more than 1 million who care for their children while their partner works—the same people who are also having their maternity benefits cut. Lord Ashcroft calls them “suspicious strivers”. In his words, they fear they are one more redundancy, one interest rate rise or one tax credit change away from real difficulty, and they would not want to rely on a Conservative Government if they found themselves in trouble.
Mr Stewart Jackson
For the record, 42,654 people in the Peterborough constituency will be better off under the tax changes in April. Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that under his Government, who presided over 16 years of economic growth, more than 1,000 people in my constituency were parked on invalidity and incapacity benefit for more than 10 years. That is shameful and it is his Government’s record.
Steve McCabe
I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to have to meet all those people who are better off at his advice centre.
The International Monetary Fund regularly warns about the dangers of cutting the automatic stabilisers in these economically fraught times, yet that is exactly what is happening. It is estimated—the IMF is the source —that these benefit cuts will contribute to a £40 billion reduction in the country’s output when we desperately need the opposite to happen.
As well as implementing benefit cuts that defy economic logic, the Chancellor has set up a special hotline for Tory MPs who are confused about his benefit changes. Special hotlines for Tory MPs, Government cars to cushion Ministers from rail-fare rises, and specially arranged meetings to cover the transport costs if they want to watch the European cup final—yes, they are definitely all in it together.
My contention is that these decisions do not make economic sense, are not fair and will punish the very people who are striving and struggling to make ends meet while the Chancellor’s millionaire friends are prioritised for tax cuts. That tells us all we need to know about this Government’s values.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The problem with this debate is that nobody has gone back to the idea of what the social security welfare state was for. It was brought in to make sure that people who were in desperate need at a time of unexpected circumstances did not fall into poverty. When somebody lost their job, that often meant they were stuck. That is why the social state was created.
I have sat throughout this debate and listened to many a speech, and the only Opposition Member who has spoken with any passion is the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). He gets it—he knows what the welfare state is about. All the other speeches by Opposition Members have, I am afraid, been about pure political point scoring. I do not doubt for one minute that the vast majority of Opposition Members care deeply about the poorest in society, as we do on the Government Benches.
Alec Shelbrooke
Just give me two ticks. The constant mocking that has gone on is shameful political posturing.
Jim Shannon
The two commodities that have seen the highest inflation are food and fuel, which affect those on a low income more than anyone else. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Secretary of State’s benefits cap will enable those people to come out of poverty and go for jobs?
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman mentions rising food inflation, but let us not forget that we have just knocked 10p off the price of a litre of fuel. That 10p was in the Opposition’s plans and would have created extra inflation.
This debate has been polarised, but a divide has been in existence for more than a decade and it is coming to the fore. As soon as we try to address it, we are described as nasty and heartless and told we are not dealing with people fairly. The fact is that too many people in this country have the wrong idea about benefits, which is not a dirty word.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The divide has not been in existence for just the past decade—Lady Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe hatched a plan to dismantle the welfare state more than 30 years ago. Is this Bill just another phase in bringing the welfare state to a conclusion?
Alec Shelbrooke
In the past 10 years, people have said time and again, “Why should I do this when someone on out-of-work benefits gets double the pay rise I get?” That is a fact. Wherever we may want to lay the blame and whichever way we may want to look at the issue, the fact is that people do not believe in the welfare state in this country any more. That is not just a tragedy; it is deeply worrying for this country.
The measures being taken by the Secretary of State, which we will vote through, will bring back some fairness to society. They are part of a big package of measures. However, we have a problem. We all want to give as much money to people—of course we do—but we cannot afford it.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when there is a limited pot of money, it is better to spend it on high-quality advice and support for people such as older workers who are back in the job market and are struggling to cope than on increasing an already enormous welfare bill? That kind of advice is long overdue and has been long neglected. [Interruption.]
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I just heard Opposition Members say from a sedentary position—we have heard this several times today—that there has been a tax cut for millionaires. Let me be blunt. All the evidence shows that when the 50% tax rate came in, £7 billion disappeared from the Exchequer. Today’s policy will save £1.4 billion from the welfare state bill. If Labour had not brought in the 50% rate, we would not have had to introduce this policy. Opposition Members cannot pick and choose the arguments; they have to look at things consistently and completely.
This debate has shown that the Government are trying to ensure that we have a fair system of social security that is there when people unexpectedly fall into terrible circumstances. Several Opposition Members have described people who have been made redundant recently and who need to rely on the welfare state. That is what social security is for. That is why people pay their national insurance contributions—so that they do not fall into the starvation and poverty that existed before the welfare state. What is shameful about the Opposition, as has been shown today, is that the Front Benchers are not linked up with the Back Benchers. The Back Benchers believe in caring for people, whereas the Front Benchers are trying to score political points. If the Labour party once again votes against reforming social security, let the message go out to the country that it is not interested in the poorest in society, but is interested only in bribing the electorate to try to get back into power.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
The proposal is to limit the increase in working-age benefits to 1% for the next three years, which is an effective cut. Let us make no mistake: for anyone who relies on benefits for all or part of their income, this will be a “poverty-producing policy”. Those are not my words, but the words of the Child Poverty Action Group. Working families are finding it hard to get by financially after two years of freezes in child benefit and working tax credit, and cuts to child care tax credit, housing benefit and support for new parents. It is no wonder that the CPAG is warning that the number of children living in absolute poverty will rise.
Let us look at what the proposal means for a full-time worker on the minimum wage. In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), the Treasury confirmed that the working tax credit lost in 2013-14 by people who are working full time on the minimum wage, due to the Government’s freezes and the increase in the earnings taper, will be £475 for a single person with no children and £660 for a couple with one child. Contrary to the assertions made in Parliament, the amount of working tax credit lost by families with one earner on the minimum wage will be greater than their saving of £420 in 2013-14 from the increase in the personal tax allowance.
Many of my constituents work in low-paid retail work. I am grateful to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the survey of its members, who all report how difficult it is to manage with the rising cost of food, fuel and other everyday items. Many report that they have turned off the heating at certain times in the month. Tracey said that although both she and her partner work, after paying for the rent, gas and electric, they often find it so hard to manage that they go without food so that their children can eat.
That situation is confirmed by the Oasis food bank in my constituency, which has recently begun to operate. Although I support its good work and pay tribute to it, I deplore the fact that such organisations are needed in the 21st century. The food bank tells me that many working people come to it as they simply cannot make their money stretch to the end of the month, and we know that more people are turning to payday lenders simply to get money to spend on essentials, not on luxuries any more. It is no wonder those payday lenders are circling the estates.
The people affected have not made a lifestyle choice. They are working people such as the one who came to my surgery who gets up at 5 o’clock to do two cleaning jobs. It is not a lifestyle choice for those who are out of work, either. It is a situation that they find themselves in, like the young man who worked at Comet and lost his job, and is now competing with seven others for every job in my constituency. He was almost in tears at having to claim benefits, and I can relate to that: I claimed benefits myself for a few months in the mid-’80s when I was left with a young daughter, and it has left an indelible mark on me. I know what it feels like to go and sign on—it hurts, it really does.
Those in work who are struggling to make ends meet and those out of work who are desperate to find it are the people who are bearing the brunt of the Government’s failed economic policies, not the high earners and millionaires who are getting a tax cut of £107,000 this April. It is not fair, and it is not right, and I am proud to vote against the Bill and defend the 8,100 people in my constituency who are claiming working tax credits.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this sensitive and important debate. Any debate that focuses on our welfare system tends to provoke a great deal of passion, and it can be all too easy for politicians of all parties to fall into lazy arguments based on simplistic generalisations or preconceived ideas.
Our welfare system is a valuable part of our social fabric. Even a believer in a small state, like me, can believe that we should unquestionably support those in our society who fall on desperately hard times, either temporarily or permanently. For those who find themselves truly in need, support must be provided through our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable.
However, the idea that our welfare system was sufficiently reliable or fair upon the formation of the coalition Government in 2010 is simply ludicrous. First, the system that we inherited was simply unaffordable, costing taxpayers more than £87 billion in 2010 alone. Such enormous outgoings must be reviewed and targeted for efficiencies. To suggest that a desire to reduce the cost of the welfare system is akin to not supporting vulnerable people is nonsense. In fact, I would argue that a shrinking welfare budget would be a key indicator of a successful welfare system.
That brings me to my second point which is about the wider welfare situation that we inherited in 2010. It was creating a culture of sheer dependency in certain parts of the system and contributing towards the dangerous social divide that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) touched upon.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are too many uses of the word “you” for my liking. It is not about me.
Julian Sturdy
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The safety net in the welfare state system is important, but I support the 1% uprating. The point was made earlier that if we are really to focus on the problem, we have to consider inflation as well. If we can keep inflation down through Government measures, as we are at the moment, that is an important part of the system.
An effective and fair welfare system should support those who tragically suffer from difficult medical conditions and those who find themselves in abject poverty. However, benefits that are simply rolled out and increased without question and without any regard for the wider economic situation threaten to give our whole welfare system a bad name. Thus our benefits must always be questioned, our welfare system always honed and the key question of fairness always addressed. The votes in the House later today must be made with fairness in mind—fairness to those who receive benefits and those whose taxes pay for them.
We cannot adequately or logically debate this issue without considering the fiscal implications of increasing benefits and the fairness of those implications. The key fact used by the Secretary of State—that over the past five years some benefits have increased by 20% while workers have experienced an average pay increase of 10% to 12%—is enough to set alarm bells ringing. If we are to ensure that our welfare system is a source of pride and not resentment, we cannot justify such increases when wider taxpayers are suffering in a tough economic climate.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate is essentially about two things—first, whether people on benefits should receive an income that rises faster than those who earn wages, and secondly, for those in work, whether it is better for the Government to take a lot of money and give it back in tax credits, or whether they should take less money in the first place and introduce tax cuts? I, together with most people in the country, believe it is better for the Government to take less money away, and thanks to this Government almost 2,000 people in Bristol North West have been taken out of tax altogether from April, and 40,000 people will get a tax break.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; I will always believe that the Government should take less tax from people in the first place, rather than taking it and giving it back in some other form.
The welfare system—including benefits—is a delicate balancing act and by ignoring valid concerns about the system’s cost and efficiency we risk its future reputation and, by extension, its effectiveness. Capping benefit increases to 1% for the time being is a step of reason that will add to the Government’s wider package of welfare reforms to rebalance our welfare system for the benefit of claimants, while also helping to restore public confidence in the fairness of that system.
We should all remember and appreciate that decisions on such matters have a real impact on real lives. Nevertheless, to improve the fairness, efficiency and effectiveness of our welfare system for those most truly in need, I believe that the measures in the Bill are both necessary and justified. As in many areas of government, our tough decisions will not only reverse deficits and improve efficiencies but will save some of the public provision that the Opposition drove to the brink of bankruptcy when in office. I therefore urge all Members to support the Bill today.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
The Chancellor intends to take a further £6.7 billion from benefits and tax credits over the next four years by capping the increase in them at 1%. That is a real-terms cut and an additional squeeze on families, because of the Chancellor’s failure to create growth in our economy, and the delivery instead of a double-dip recession. The Government told us that they would bring down borrowing, but they are now borrowing an £212 billion more than planned. The Chancellor claims that he is cracking down on a benefits culture, but hard-working lower and middle-income working families are those hit hardest by the Bill. Many working families need tax credits and benefits to top up their incomes, as without them work really would not pay. Just 23% of the savings come from jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, and income support—the principal out-of-work benefits. The rest comes from tax credits such as maternity pay, sick pay and housing benefit, all of which are claimed by working people.
Some 60% of people affected by the changes to tax credits and benefits are in work, and one-earner working families could lose as much as £534 per year at a time when more than 6 million people in working households are already in poverty. Levels of long-term unemployment are worryingly high, because the Government have failed to kick-start the economy and their Work programme has failed. Even excluding the 60% of working people affected by the changes, this is hardly the time to start picking on the unemployed. The Government are always prepared to talk about skivers when unemployment is high and they are worried about costs, but never want to do so when job vacancies are relatively numerous and unemployment is low. Surely, if the Government wanted to inconvenience so-called skivers, this is not the time to target them, when large numbers of people are without work and reliant on benefits.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reform will make it more difficult to kick-start the economy? It will remove millions if not billions of pounds from communities up and down the UK, making it harder for people to spend and therefore kick-start the economy.
Mr McKenzie
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill will take many millions out of local economies and have a double kick on the downturn.
Incredibly, the Government take from struggling households and give to millionaires. As I have said, at the same time as the Government are giving tax cuts to millionaires—as we have heard, some cuts are in the region of more than £2,000 per week—the Bill effectively means a permanent reduction in benefits, which could have a devastating effect when a proper safety net is desperately needed by millions of the most vulnerable people in Britain.
It is highly likely that this regressive change will lead to an increase in poverty, especially for those who are already facing a perfect storm of cuts to public services and rising prices. Clearly, the Bill is an attack on hard-working families, who are paying the price for the Government’s economic failure. It is without doubt an attack on striving families. In my Inverclyde constituency, 6,300 families receive working tax credit. They are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure, while millionaires—believe it or not—get a tax cut.
In Inverclyde, the number of unemployment claimants means that 15 people chase every vacancy. The Government would suggest they use the Work programme. Where can I start with that? My constituents never hear from the Government where they can start work. The Work programme has delivered less than 1% in my area, which is a disgraceful and pitiful success rate.
The best way to reduce the cost of welfare is to get people back into work. The truth is that the Government’s failure on the economy is pushing the dole bill through the roof. That is why Labour propose real jobs for those who have been out of work for two years or more. Scotland stands to gain most from the introduction of the compulsory jobs guarantee. Long-term unemployment has been rising faster in Scotland than in any other part of the UK.
I shall conclude, because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The welfare bill is going up under this Government—it is a staggering £13.6 billion higher than forecast—because they are failing to get Britain back to work. The Government need to practise fairness, but the Bill fails on fairness and on the economic tests, which is why I will support the amendment.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Sometimes when I listen to debates in the House—on a number of subjects—I wonder whether the great British public are, frankly, astounded at the lack of acceptance of the genuine economic crisis facing this nation. The coalition Government exist only because of the situation we inherited back in 2010. Last year, we found out that the situation was worse and that it would take longer to get better. We had honesty from politicians—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), the Parliamentary Private Secretary, says ludicrously from a sedentary position that we created the current situation, but the great British public know full well that it was the hon. Gentleman’s party and his previous Government who created it. What an absurd statement!
The simple reality is that the current situation means that there are very difficult decisions to take. The Bill is one of them. It is a serious matter, and there have been sensible, helpful and thoughtful contributions to the debate from Members on both sides of the House, but other speeches, frankly, have just scored party political points—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so, but he should not chunter from a sedentary position.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening. I have said that it has been made clear that getting rid of that borrowing will take longer and be more challenging. However, let us also be clear that if Labour were in government, we would be like Greece. [Interruption.] Labour Members cannot apologise and they shout people down when things that are true are said. The reality is that difficult discussions had to be made when we found out last autumn that the situation was more difficult and that further cuts would have to be made over a longer period. That would be the reality whoever was in government.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is about choices? Certain choices have to be made in what everybody accepts are very difficult circumstances. Nobody likes doing what we have to do today, but it is a job that we have to do if we are to sort this economy out.
Greg Mulholland
It is indeed about choices, and two parties are having to make those choices while the Labour party refuses to make any choices. Labour Members are saying nothing about what they would do or even telling us a single cut that they would reverse.
Ministers from the two parties have sat down and developed a reasonable strategy for reducing the welfare budget. I remind the House that it costs us more than £220 billion a year—more than we spend on health, education and defence combined. Labour Members conveniently forget that they went into the last election with a commitment to reduce that.
At the same time, the Liberal Democrats were clear that there were red lines that we would not cross. We clearly said that we would not accept getting rid of housing benefit for the under-25s; penalising people who have more children; a freeze on benefits; a reduction in benefits; or £10 billion in cuts. What we have now is a much smaller reduction in the budget, but one that is still significant and necessary. The solution is that everybody on benefits, apart, crucially, from those most vulnerable groups, as it is welcome that DLA, attendance allowance, disability carer and pension premiums in the ESA support group have been excluded and will continue to get benefits uprated by CPI—
Greg Mulholland
No. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely rude in this debate, and I have taken two interventions, so I am certainly not going to let him intervene. If he gets some manners, I might think about it on a future occasion.
It was a tough choice, but Ministers, to their credit, worked together in the interests of the country and came up with something that was as fair and reasonable as possible. I do not want to have to do this. I do not want to see any reduction in benefits unless absolutely necessary, but we need to remember that this is temporary. This is a temporary measure which can and will be reversed as and when the economy improves.
The one thing I would say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that we must get the language right. Talk of trying to divide those who work from those who do not has been unhelpful. On worklessness, as a former member of the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament, I can tell the House that there was an appalling benefits trap under that Government, but they did not have the courage to address it. All members of the Committee said that again and again, and this Government are doing something about it. It is not easy and will not be done overnight, but the universal credit will ensure that people have a safety net and that work pays. That is why it is being introduced, and today’s changes also need to be seen in that context.
It was a Liberal who brought in the welfare state, and that is one of our proudest achievements. The principles in the Beveridge report were for a safety net to assist those who cannot work for whatever reason. If those principles were being breached today, I would not support the Bill, but they are not. Indeed, the level of benefits that we have will increase—admittedly not as much as we would like—and I hope that in the future we will review the situation. This is a tough choice, but it is one that I am prepared to make.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I do not have time to do justice to the appalling, grinding impact of this miserable piece of legislation on the 3,500 people I represent who are seeking work, including a number of people who until last year used to work for Remploy, when they were casually forced out of work by Ministers. I do not have enough time to do justice either to its impact on the 8,500 working families who will lose out as a result of the Bill, or the 40% of children across Greater Manchester who already go to school hungry. There was not one single reference to them in the autumn statement, and we have heard very little about them from Government Members today.
It is bad enough that, as food banks spring up across the country, the impact of the Bill will be felt by the children I represent. It is worse that the Government believe it is appropriate to label them and their families as shirkers and scroungers—to play the politics of division while at the same time failing to explain how jobseeker’s allowance claimants gaining 72p per week and millionaires gaining more than £2,000 per week could possibly be fair in anyone’s book.
In the past few days, it has become absolutely clear that the case for the Bill is based on a series of what I can only politely describe as false premises: that it is on the side of people in work, when, as the Resolution Foundation pointed out, two-thirds of the people who will be hit are in work; and that there is a culture of worklessness, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation roundly disproved in its recent research.
Ian Mearns
One of the things that stuns me about the debate is the fact that 57% of children living in poverty actually have one parent who is in work. It is dreadful that Government Members discount that fact.
Lisa Nandy
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That brings me on to the third false premise that the Bill is based on: that there are two distinct groups, the working poor and the non-working poor, who can somehow be separated out and divided when, as we know and as the research proves, most of the people we are talking about are moving in and out of work at an alarming rate. Many of the people I represent work part-time on zero-hours contracts. They are agency workers and they are in insecure employment.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in inner-London constituencies such as mine, the housing benefit cap affects people in work and out of work, and that working families are being forced out of private rented accommodation? They cannot afford the rent anymore, because the cap has been imposed and does not meet their needs. This is an attack on the poorest people in the most vulnerable parts of the country.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me to illustrate that point.
We have heard the myth, repeated over and over again today, that somehow the welfare bill is too high when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said, there is a big difference between attacking the evil of unemployment and attacking the unemployed. As the Child Poverty Action Group points out, in 1979 unemployment benefit was 22% of average earnings; today, it is just 15%. It has fallen sharply over that period.
We have also heard the myth over and over again that we can bring down the welfare bill by cutting benefits to the poorest. We know that that is not true, as does the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has forecast an extra £6 billion of welfare costs as unemployment tragically continues to rise in my constituency and across the country. There are two solutions that the Government urgently need to take seriously. If the Secretary of State would stop laughing and listen for just one moment, I would like to ask him to get serious about job creation. That is not just about wage subsidies, but looking at how we use our public procurement power to ensure that we get young people into apprenticeships, and people into work and decent training opportunities.
Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State to take seriously the impact of low pay on local economies. A number of hon. Members have raised this point. The more people there are taking cuts to their tax credits and take-home pay, the fewer people there are spending in local economies. In an area such as mine, where there is a high proportion of small businesses that employ many people from the local area, that is devastating.
The Bill fails every test. It is not fair. It will not work. It will have appalling consequences for the very poorest in society, whether they are in or out of work. All of us, every single one of us, in this Chamber has a minimum household income of more than £65,000. Many of us, particularly those sitting on the Government Front Bench, have a minimum household income of much, much more. For any of us to vote for the Bill today would be simply shameful, but what is more shameful is that, as part of the debate, some of us have managed to demonise the very people who most need and deserve support from their Government.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been here since the start and have heard a lot of rhetoric, particularly from Opposition Members. For me, this Bill and this debate are about striking a balance between the state providing a safety net for those who need that support and not putting the burden of any changes on to those least able to react to reductions in income, and taking into account the hard-pressed taxpayer.
I fully support the decision to retain the uprating of long-term disability benefits at the rate of inflation, as I support the triple-lock guarantee for the basic state pension. Those benefits are paid to groups that in general would find it impossible to increase their income, and it is right and proper that we fully protect them. That brings me to the people who will be mainly affected by the Bill. They broadly represent two groups in our community: those on out-of-work benefits and those receiving benefits in work.
I shall take the former first. No doubt, it is a terribly difficult decision to limit the increase to 1%, but, that said, unemployment benefits, by definition, should be a short-term safety net. The Government and Parliament should do all they can to get people back into work as quickly as possible. I know from my constituency that things are starting to work in that regard, and I am delighted now to see more bespoke help through Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme, and measures such as the enterprise allowance, the work experience programme, the Youth Contract and the push on apprenticeships are all starting to make a difference. Couple that with the universal credit, and 3.1 million people will benefit from increased support for getting into work. That will make a huge difference.
I turn to those affected who are in work. Again, in an ideal world it would be fantastic to uprate working benefits in line with inflation, but in the world of inevitable reality we all know that that is unsustainable. The creation of the tax credit system unleashed a bureaucratic leviathan on the country, and billions have now been spent on bureaucracy: £4 billion has been written off in errors and bad debts already and, as we heard today, another £4 million is likely to go the same way. It is far simpler to put people in a position where they pay less income tax, and I am glad and proud that the Government are doing that. Personally, I would like to see that extended, so that we can continue to move away from that bureaucracy.
The deficit, which is the most important issue facing the country, has to be dealt with in a way that is fair to the taxpayer. There is no doubt that difficult decisions have to be made to deal with it, and I am mindful that many people’s wages have been frozen, uprated at below inflation or even cut. We need to acknowledge that the taxpayer cannot bear the burden indefinitely.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to say that taxpayers cannot continue to bear the burden. Does he agree that the 258% increase in tax credit spend between 2003 and 2010 was unsustainable?
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. He is absolutely right that we are in a difficult position that we can no longer sustain.
That brings me on to another point. This afternoon, I have observed a certain mood among the Opposition. Far from being pragmatic, they have been completely ideological. What puzzles me is that before the last general election Labour pledged to cut spending roughly in line with the coalition’s current rate of deficit reduction, but since then they have opposed virtually all the cuts, including £80 billion of savings proposed to welfare. The question for the Opposition, therefore, is: if all those changes are unacceptable, what do you propose to do? Do you want to cut the NHS? Do you want to make more cuts to policing? Do you want to cut local government? Do you want to cut education?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I do not want to do any of those things. Will the hon. Gentleman please use the third person?
Nick de Bois
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Opposition to set out their full deficit reduction plan, as specified by Labour’s previous Chancellor?
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments because they bring me neatly on to my next point. I suspect that today we will hear nothing from those on the Opposition Front Bench about what they will do. As with the rest of the measures that they have opposed, the Opposition will not reverse the measures put forward today, even if this country should have the misfortune of having another Labour Government. I look forward to, I hope, receiving answers from those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I fear that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) will be completely silent on that point.
To conclude, I will go through the Lobby this evening mindful of the fact that I am making an extremely important and difficult decision for many of my constituents. In the absence of a credible plan being put forward by any other party in this House—that is particularly true of the alternative being put forward this evening—I will be backing the Bill’s Second Reading and supporting the Government.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Let me start by doing my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) a favour and correcting the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). It was a Labour Government who introduced the welfare state, not a Liberal Government—I am damn sure there was not a Liberal Government after the war.
I heard the Secretary of State defending the Bill on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made two important comments. The first was that the Government had underestimated the size and scale of the economic problems the country faces; the second was that the proposal to cap benefits was based on fairness. The two issues are, of course, inextricably linked, but what he failed to mention was his Government’s contribution to the size and scale of the economic problems we face. Without that part of the story it is difficult—indeed impossible—to put into context the proposal before us, nor is it possible to understand the rationale that the Government are setting out.
The economy is not in good shape, but if the Prime Minister was too weak to move the Secretary of State from office in the last Cabinet reshuffle, he is certainly not going to move his Bullingdon club buddy. That is a pity, because it is the Chancellor’s quick-fix agenda of raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast that has spectacularly backfired on our economy. Because the benefits bill is going up while tax revenues are down, borrowing continues to rise. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State should listen to this; he might learn something.
We hear a lot about the great work that the Government have done to reduce the structural deficit, but very rarely do we hear anything about the debt. A perfunctory look at the numbers tells us why. The Government claim they have clipped the structural deficit by £37.5 billion, but they have also increased borrowing by £212 billion since they were elected. It seems neither appropriate, reasonable nor sane to claim that we have reduced the household budget— to use the litmus test of Mrs Thatcher, the great saviour of the Conservative party—while simultaneously borrowing more than five times as much as we claim to have saved. Like so many other claims that the coalition parties make, it is spurious. Their economic competence is indeed questionable.
All this is important because if we had steered a different and more sensible course, the economic condition of our country would be immeasurably better. That takes us back to the Bill. Who is being asked to pay as a result of the Government’s mishandling of the economy? We all agree that it would be foolish to disagree or take sides on arithmetic, but it appears that the Government wish to do so. May I remind hon. Members that jobseeker’s allowance is £71 a week? Under the proposal in this Bill, it will increase by 71p this year. It might interest the House to know that since this Government took office, the cost of the average weekly shopping basket has risen by 17%. Most importantly for the poorest people in our country, figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that falling income and rising food prices reduce food affordability by 20%. For the record—I draw this to the Secretary of State’s attention—the proliferation of food banks across the UK is not a cause for celebration.
Increases in prices have the ability, or at least the potential, to be absorbed by a working household’s budget. Although Labour Members do not deny that times are tough for everybody under the current economic circumstances, to suggest that there is a level playing field between someone earning even the minimum wage and someone receiving £71 a week in benefits is an utter fallacy. This is not about fairness; otherwise, 8,000 millionaires would not be getting a tax cut of £107,000 a year. The Secretary of State’s halo has fallen and crashed to the floor, and the Bill is sadly another example of the true character of Conservative politics. In difficult times, they see nothing wrong in helping the rich at the expense of the country’s poorest people.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I do not criticise Labour Members for their aspirations. There is nothing ignoble in the positions that they are taking; I just happen to believe that they are wrong. They know that the picture of despair and hopelessness that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw in Easterhouse in 2002 was the same picture that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) saw in 1997, when there was an historic opportunity for the then Labour Government to tackle welfare dependency and rebalance work and welfare. Unfortunately, they did not take that action.
People out there are decent; they care and their attitude is, “There but for the grace of God go I.” They do not want to stigmatise people, and nor do Government Members. I accept that there has been some rhetoric on both sides of the House, but people do care. They also care about the dependency culture, and about fairness. In all honesty, they feel that the previous Labour Government tested their patience on this issue.
It is disingenuous to talk about cruelty. I think that it was cruel to park 1,000 of my constituents on invalidity or incapacity benefit for more than 10 years without the opportunity—[Interruption.] I should remind Labour Members that this was in 2010. Those people were given no opportunity to inform anyone of their needs. People suffering from depression or other mental health problems, and people with physical afflictions, were simply parked and forgotten. I am not saying that the Labour Government did that because they were cruel or heartless; they did it because they were incompetent. We are taking the tough decisions that will make work pay, through the Work programme and through apprenticeships that will tackle youth unemployment, which the previous Government doubled. Work is the No. 1 determinant in taking people out of poverty and breaking the cycle of children seeing their parents unemployed, living in a half-life of hopelessness and poverty and lacking ambition. That has been demonstrated across the world.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that work provides the best way out of poverty. Does he agree that the 5.2 million people who were trapped in dependency when the economy was growing in the boom years under Labour are evidence of the previous Government’s structural failure to deal with poverty?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In retrospect, I think that it was a tragedy to import thousands of low-wage, low-skilled people from eastern Europe while we parked our own indigenous young people who needed skills and training and who needed educators and businesses to put their the faith and trust in them. I have nothing against the people who wanted to come to this country to make a better life for themselves and their families, but at what cost did they do so? Even the Scottish Trades Union Congress says the same thing.
Some of the arguments being used are disingenuous because they do not fully understand the context. We have uprated benefits by 5.2%, we have brought in apprenticeships, and we are trying to deal with these issues through the Work programme. I am on the Public Accounts Committee and I know that the programme is not perfect. We are at the beginning of a process and there are some difficulties with appeals, with people’s understanding of the system, and with advocacy. I understand that. However, my blue-collar constituents do not understand how it can be right, when their average salary is about £24,000, for a party that aspires to government to say that it will not countenance a benefit cap of £26,000. My constituency has some of the poorest super-output areas and wards in the eastern region, and my constituents are decent, salt-of-the-earth people who want to work. They are not shirkers.
Mr Jackson
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he is a terribly charming fellow.
Those people in my constituency want to work, but they want the Government to give them a positive message about the future. It is cruel to park people and to forget them.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I want to back up what my hon. Friend is saying. When I went around my constituency at the last election, the issue of making work pay came up time and again, and the communities in which it came up were the poorest ones. They had seen the damage that long-term welfare dependency could do to a community. The reason that my hon. Friend and I welcome the reforms is that the Government are finally tackling this long-term problem, which hits the poorest in our country the hardest.
Mr Jackson
That was eloquently put by my hon. Friend, who is even younger and better looking than the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). We take a pinch of salt for a party that has no coherent fiscal alternative. Frankly, “Tough on Coco Pops and tough on the causes of Coco Pops” does not make a fiscal policy. The 10p tax rate was a debacle, while re-spending over and over again bankers’ bonuses and pensions credit does not cut the mustard.
Let me give some free advice to Labour Members. We did the same as them in 1998 and 1999 when we said that the downturn was made in Downing street, but it did not help us because we were not seen as credible. I respectfully invite Labour Members, if they are going to vote against Second Reading, to say what they would cut and what they would spend as an alternative. The Bill will save the best part of £2 billion. Politics is about choices, as Aneurin Bevan said 50-odd years ago, and he was right. It is disingenuous to keep repeating the issue of tax cuts to millionaires, when we have taken millions of people out of tax and cut the taxes of many low-paid working people. This Bill is about giving a message—that work pays and that it is better than welfare. We should give people the life they need and deserve—a life of work and a better future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Will everyone resume their seats? We can see that no Government Members wish to contribute, so if everyone shows the time discipline of remaining within three minutes, all those who wish to speak will be able to contribute to the debate. Let us have some team play.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
First, I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) is no longer in her place, as she made a very good speech. She mentioned one word that applies to much of the debate when she spoke about the use of “language”, while another important word, spoken about by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is now leaving, is “ideology”. Language and ideology have surrounded this debate for many years.
In the last 12 months, we have noticed the language used by the coalition to get us to where we are today. Twelve months ago last January, the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about “alarm clock Britain”, and then we had talk about people “behind the curtains”. On 8 October last year on the “Today” programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was
“unfair that people listening to this programme going out to work see the neighbour next door with the blinds down because they are on benefits”.
My blinds used to be down because I was on night shift, and for many people the blinds and curtains are closed in the morning because they are working hard throughout the night, seven of 24 hours every day to keep industry running. Many people will resent what has been said.
This is not the first time that such language has been used. Andrew Rawnsley, a political columnist for whom I have a lot of time, got it right in an article in The Observer this Sunday, when he said that in view of the true intent of the author of the Bill—I assume he meant the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it should be called
“the Welfare (Make Labour Look Like the Party for Skiving Fat Slobs) bill”.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) is not in his place as that description fits well with his anonymous quotes about people being at home because that is what they want to do and because they do not want to go out to work. That is not my experience in life, and I have been a Member of this House a long time. I started work as one of six children in a coalmining community. I lived in that community for most of my life, and I can say that the people I know and have represented for years are not like the caricatures that have been portrayed in this debate for far too long.
Andrew Rawnsley went on in his article to say the real truth:
“The majority of those who are going to lose—about 60%—are people in work, among them 3.7 million people on child tax credit and 2.5 million on working tax credit…those hit will include primary school teachers, nurses and army officers”.
As he went on to say, they are
“not exactly the ‘shirkers’ and ‘scroungers’ of some Tory rhetoric about benefits.”
The Government are trying to play politics with the welfare state, but their claims are clearly unravelling. It is no wonder that the Government have run out of speakers—and come the next general election, some Government Members will deeply regret the speeches that they have made today.
The Citizens Advice Bureau works with these people week in, week out, giving them advice, and it works with us as well, certainly in my part of the world. According to the brief that it sent to us:
“A couple with two children earning £26,000 a year and paying a fairly modest rent of £130 a week… will experience a net loss of £1.85 a week from next April, £6.52 the following April and £11.20 in April 2015. A possible rise in the personal tax allowance to £10,000 in perhaps April 2014 would only give them £0.75 a week to offset the loss of £6.52.”
Mr Barron
No, I will not. Other Members wish to speak.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), this is the first time that we have sat here and not had one debate about one annual uprating of benefits. That is because this uprating is so unpopular. It has been driven by a nasty party, and by a nasty piece of legislation which I will oppose.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am sorry that we are so pressed for time, because these are issues of real public interest, and I think that they deserve more scrutiny than we are able to give them this evening.
I believe that the 1% cap on the uprating of working-age benefits is an inherently regressive measure. It will make people on low incomes even poorer, will increase deprivation, and will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our communities. It will particularly hit parents in low-paid or part-time work who are already struggling to make ends meet because of the wider economic climate.
I shall oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. Labour’s amendment proposes that the House should decline it a Second Reading, and posits a guaranteed job offer for those who have been out of work for a long time. On the basis that that is a laudable aim, I am prepared to support it, albeit with a caveat. I have listened carefully to the debate, but I have heard no details of how such a proposal could be put into effect in any realistic way. I would not want to endorse any particular scheme until I had seen whether it was workable and fundable in practice.
The Bill will hit those who are working, especially those who are supporting and bringing up children, especially hard. Many people in lower-paid private sector jobs have seen their hours cut recently, and many who are working part-time want to work full-time but cannot find full-time jobs or pick up extra hours. Meanwhile, they are struggling to juggle work with child care.
As others have said, notably the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), we all need to take responsibility for the way in which we portray people who are unemployed. We need to recognise that those who are jobless should not necessarily be blamed for their joblessness, and that the rises and falls in unemployment are caused by wider economic factors more than by individuals’ aspirations. We also need to recognise that the greater part of the savings made here will be taken from people who are working, often in very physically demanding and fairly unrewarding jobs.
Like the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), I was struck by the comments of the Citizens Advice Bureau on the impact assessment. We had seen no impact assessment until this afternoon, and we have still seen no equality impact assessment. According to the CAB’s calculations, a family consisting of two full-time workers earning the minimum wage with two children, living in private rented accommodation, will be losing £12 a week by 2015. Disabled lone parents will suffer, as will families with a single earner. What those examples mask, however, is the disproportionate impact of the rising cost of living on households with very low incomes. The worst of the cold winter weather is probably still ahead of us, but the rises in domestic fuel bills will cause a very nasty hangover in the spring.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady talks of the impact on low-income families. Is she aware that, as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn statement last year, some 1,400 people in her constituency are being taken out of tax, and 30,000-odd are better off in tax?
Dr Whiteford
I am delighted to be able to respond to that point. What has been shown by the monitoring of the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and by the Government’s own impact assessment—which we received very belatedly—is that the combination of the tax and benefit changes will hit the lowest deciles of the income spectrum much harder than the middle and upper deciles. The lowest five deciles are hit hardest, and within that the lowest three are hit worst of all. Many of those are hard-working people and they deserve more. We have heard much criticism of the tax credit system this afternoon, but the Government have failed to address the reason why we need a tax system when people who are working full-time in demanding jobs cannot afford to bring up their children without depending on extra support from the state. That is the underlying issue, and until we have heard how the Government plan to address poverty for working people, we should not even be talking about a below-inflation rise in benefits.
The other issue that should be taken into account, which has been raised by other Members, is that food prices are rising. That is to do with the bad harvest that we have had here due to the very wet summer but, more importantly at a global level, bad harvests in the US and Russia have put the prices of basic commodities way up. In the past year potatoes, probably the great staple of our own food economy, have gone up in price by more than 40%. That is having a disproportionate impact on very poor people, compared to people like us. A 1% increase in an MP’s salary would give us an extra £600 a year. The increase of 71p or 72p for a jobseeker does not compare. There is a quantitative, material difference.
The cap means that there would be a 4% cumulative cut in support to low and middle income families, which will increase material deprivation. The Government have got their priorities all wrong. Asking low and middle income families to bear the brunt of cuts while insulating the very richest is the wrong choice to make, and I look forward to the day when in Scotland we can make these decisions for ourselves.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s statement last autumn was an admission that the Government were failing in their economic policy. They had failed on their two fiscal targets and they now say that they will need two Parliaments to meet those targets. The Chancellor needs to divert attention from his economic policy and is doing so by the crudest of politics. The Bill is a wedge between one party and another for electoral advantage. It hits the low paid, the unemployed, of whom there are 2.5 million, and the under-employed—many, many people on low wages, decent, hard-working people, including nurses, primary school teachers and armed forces personnel—and to play politics with them through the Bill is wrong.
Part-time workers need help and support, yes, and I would support a reform that helps them, but to penalise them at this time is completely and utterly wrong. The Chancellor is not known for his consistency. In his autumn statement in 2011 he said:
“I also want to protect . . . those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs and are trying to find work”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 802.]
Those are the very people who, 12 months later, he is going to hit hardest.
I can understand some of those on the Conservative Benches thinking that the wedge is very clever, but I cannot understand the Liberal Democrats supporting it. There are not many of them—
Albert Owen
I will not take an intervention as the hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout and there are not many of his colleagues here today.
My constituency suffered from high unemployment in the 1930s, the 1980s and the 1990s—mass unemployment in the 1930s. My constituency has a strong Liberal tradition. Megan Lloyd-George, one of my predecessors, refused promotion in the coalition Government because she wanted to stand up for the unemployed, the under-employed and the low paid, and she wanted to support the welfare state. Breaking the link today between the increase and inflation is in many ways a treacherous act for a Liberal.
Albert Owen
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman for the reasons that I gave and the limitations. Had he been here at the beginning, he would have heard many of the arguments.
The Liberal Democrats have a lack of conviction, but they can make up for that. I know that some honourable ones will, and will vote for the amendment tonight and against Second Reading, because the Bill is completely wrong. There was no need for a Bill. The change could have been made as it has been in the past, but it was chosen for political theatre. After losing Corby, the Government in desperation went to Crosby, and Crosby introduced the wedge. The crudest of Australian politics has been imported to the United Kingdom.
Too many of my constituents—decent, honest, hard-working people—will see their benefits cut if the Bill goes through tonight. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats and those decent Conservatives who genuinely care about the underemployed, the unemployed and the low paid to join us by voting for the amendment and against a Second Reading and standing up—I make no apologies for this—for the decent, honest, hard-working people, the low-paid, the unemployed and the under-employed, who are under attack from this Government measure.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Bill represents an unprecedented break with the principles underpinning the social contract that has characterised British society in the post-war period. No other Government—not even the Thatcher Government—have broken with the uprating principle to the degree that this Government have done so, and for very good reasons, because the loss of income incurred over time merely stores up problems for the future.
Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) outlined the case for genuine welfare reform, on the basis that economic and demographic changes make such reform vital. I argue that at the heart of the debate is the need to look again at how we get people back into work. Labour’s job guarantee for the young and the long-term unemployed would be a good start on the road to proper, meaningful welfare reform, whereas the Government’s proposals, as laid out in the Bill, do not represent reform. Rather, they represent an old-fashioned attack on the victims of the Government’s double-dip recession: the low-paid and their children.
The attack on the jobless and the low-paid is simple to explain. In the context of the welfare changes already announced, which will take £18 billion out of the welfare budget for the working-age population, the 1% freeze represents an appalling but audacious decision on the part of the Con-Dem coalition to force those on the lowest incomes to pay the cost of the Government’s failure to inject demand into the economy, with borrowing going up and austerity measures being extended well beyond 2015. While £3.4 billion is given away as a tax cut to millionaires, the very lowest paid in society are being asked to pay for the Government’s economic failures. Even worse, it is those in work who will bear the greatest impact of the freeze inscribed in the Bill. According to the IFS, as we have heard many times today, 68% of those affected by the decision will be in work.
Yesterday we heard the Deputy Prime Minister—a Liberal MP—excuse his support for what is clearly an unfair and vicious attack on those who are least able to pay the price for economic incompetence by claiming that there is no alternative. The truth is that these savings, which amount to £3.7 billion, must be seen in the context of the £3.4 billion give-away to the very richest in society. On top of that, we all know that there is only one sure way of getting the deficit down in the long term: getting the economy growing again and getting people back into work.
The real victims of today’s measure are, of course, children—blameless children who will feel the impact of squeezed budgets. Many already know what it is like to see their parents fall back on food banks to keep them fed. Children are primarily the responsibility of those who bring them into the world, their parents, but we understand that society, too, has a responsibility towards them. After all, the young are our future. Society needs to nurture that future, invest in it and give it the best possible chance of delivering the prosperity we all need.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion with one further point. The Government think that they are clever in the way they are shaping their savings profile. They think that they will escape the consequences of what they are doing because the jobless, the low-paid and the young vote in lower numbers than we all wish to see. The Government should think again, because that will not necessarily prove to be the case in 2015.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Hardly a week goes by without an individual or couple coming to my surgery, rather downcast, and saying something like, “You know, I’m very happy that we’re cracking down on scroungers, because it needs to be sorted out.” Then they pause and say, “But look what’s happened to me.” They might have lost their job at Lloyds TSB, Tata or Kimberly-Clark. They will say, “I’m out of work for the first time, so am I really supposed to work for such little money?” They might have the threat of the bedroom tax to pay and might be worried about where they will find the money. That demonstrates that in the same individuals can be the rhetoric and the reality. They can swallow the rhetoric of the right-wing press—some of which some Government Members, to their shame, have reiterated this afternoon—while understanding when the reality hits what the reality is.
The fact is that 60% of those affected by the cut in support that will take place if the Bill is voted through are people in work. As the Children’s Society has demonstrated, nearly 12 million adults with children and 11.5 million children will be affected by the proposal. Parents affected include 300,000 nurses, 150,000 primary school teachers and 40,000 armed services personnel.
The Bill and the rhetoric used by some on the Government Benches—to their credit, not by all—is designed to break the cross-party consensus that has existed since the Beveridge report. That consensus said that we were a society that looked after people in their hour of need and supported people through the bad times; that we were one nation who supported each other. It is not surprising, therefore, that some in the party of Beveridge are deeply unhappy at the tone and substance of the debate. I pay tribute to the contributions made by the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for Brent Central (Sarah Teather).
Barnardo’s has pointed to the impact that the Bill will have on children:
“This policy will punish children the most by trapping them in poverty and impacting on their lives, leading to poor health, poor qualifications and unemployment.”
That is the risk we take if we go ahead.
Finally, the policy is not only unfair but economically inept. As many have pointed out, people on the lowest incomes spend their money in local economies, and the last thing that we need is a further contraction in demand in local economies. We need a virtuous circle of a one-nation United Kingdom, which will be created if we deliver the compulsory jobs guarantee proposed in the Labour amendment. I will be proud to be supporting the 7,700 people on tax credits in my constituency by voting against what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) rightly dubbed “this rancid Bill”.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
How can it be that we are the seventh richest nation in the world but our children are getting rickets? How is it possible that in our rich nation 13 million people live below the poverty line—or that 200,000 people had to go to food banks last year, or that the poor have to make a choice between heating and eating, or that children are going to school hungry?
The reason is that this rotten, heartless Government have given a tax cut to millionaires but with this Bill make the poor suffer even more. They have the cheek to label the 2.5 million people who are desperate for work as “shirkers”. How dare they?
Do the Government want to tell Allan, who was working for an agency that gradually reduced his hours to the point where he lost his home—he is now sofa-surfing—that he is a shirker? What about Nicola, who lost her tax credits while she was on maternity leave, or 59-year-old Patricia who, having worked all her life, has become unemployed due to an injury and already cannot heat her house? What about Stephen, who has just got custody of his three boys aged under seven and has had to give up his job as a chef because he could not get care for the children at night? What about Peter, who was about to set up home with his girlfriend until he lost his job three weeks before Christmas?
Government Members do not have a clue. What would they like to say to my neighbour Leah, a single mum of two working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage? She uses her £101 a week wages to pay her rent, utilities, council tax and other household bills. She uses her tax credits to buy food, clothes, school dinners and her £18-a-week bus fares. What will she cut out when her money will not cover her basics? Should she beg for food at a food bank, stop her children from going swimming, stop heating the house or do what so many other parents have to do at the moment—skip meals just so that she can feed the children?
Sixty-eight per cent. of the people hit by this Bill are, like Leah, in work. They are nurses, soldiers, shop workers, cleaners, teachers, admin workers and care workers. Many are already struggling to make ends meet, and this will put them over the edge. What about the others who are affected—carers and the disabled, and people desperate for work? Government Members should be ashamed of themselves.
This policy is also going to harm the economy. The IMF has already warned the Government that their annual cut of £24 billion to benefits and tax credits will reduce economic output by up to £40 billion. Not only are they heartless; they are incompetent too. The way to get down the benefits bill is to get people into decently paid work. By already having a double-dip recession and heading for a triple dip, the Government have demonstrated that we cannot cut our way out of a recession—we have to grow our way out. Punishing the poor and bringing them to desperation will not grow the economy; it will simply make it worse.
The Government boast that they are creating jobs but fail to tell us how many of those jobs are unpaid, because unbelievably they are including unpaid workfare placements in the figure for jobs created. They are silent on the number of those jobs that are under 16 hours a week, and they do not tell us how many of these so-called new jobs are really public sector jobs that are simply being transferred to the private sector.
Yes, the Government need to get a grip on the economy, but not by driving the disabled to suicide and the poor to despair. They need to take action to grow the economy, not starve the poor. This Bill is a disgrace and I will be proud to vote against it and stand up for my constituents, both in work and out, who need a system that will support them and their families in good times and bad.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I object to the Government’s proposals to limit to 1% for the next three years any rise in income-maintenance benefits to low-income households, over 68% of which go to households in work, not households out of work. It is grossly unfair, hits the poorest hardest and will cause genuine hardship; it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Making real-terms cuts to low-income families will have a disastrous effect on local economies. People on low incomes and families who are struggling to make ends meet immediately, through necessity, spend what money they have and any increase they receive on basic essentials, putting that money back into the local economy. They have no choice about that. Low-income families have already been disproportionately badly hit because of rising food and fuel prices. Implementing these real-terms cuts will suck money out of the local economy, leading to more difficulties for local businesses, more shops on our high streets closing, and more job losses. This will particularly affect economically depressed areas where it is already hard to find another job, and more people unemployed means more people needing to claim benefits.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about jobs. The benefits bill is rising because of this Government’s failure on the economy and jobs. Does she agree that the Welsh Labour Government are showing the way with their Jobs Growth Wales fund, which is already ahead of target, in stark contrast to the failure of the Work programme, which has seen only two in 100 people put into work?
Nia Griffith
Indeed. What the Welsh Government are doing is absolute proof that we mean business in our motion and in saying that we need to create opportunities and make sure that people get back to work. The great thing about the Welsh Government’s programme is that they have been targeting private sector jobs having previously concentrated on public sector jobs. That is making a huge difference to the people who are able to take part.
The Bill will suck more money out of the economy. For example, House of Commons Library figures show that over the next three years the Government’s economic decisions will mean cuts in welfare benefits taking some £3.6 billion out of Wales. If we also add in the £2.4 billion in extra VAT that people will be paying, that amounts to a massive £7 billion coming out of the Welsh economy during this Government’s term of office. That is no way to foster economic growth.
It is a complete myth that people receive massive, generous amounts. Comparisons with actual living costs have consistently shown that what people receive is not generous to start with, but over the years there has at least been a recognition by Governments of all colours that allowances should be regularly upgraded to reflect inflation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) said, a decision to limit increases in the rate of income-maintenance benefits to below inflation for a sustained period is historically unprecedented. At a time when benefit allowances are down as a percentage of full-time earnings and prices of essential items are rising, this will lead to increased hardship and increased child poverty. House of Commons Library research shows that, as a result of these proposals, the real value of benefits and their value as a percentage of average full-time earnings will fall.
Much has been made by the Lib Dems of the raising of the personal tax threshold, but in reality this is a regressive measure. An analysis by Citizens Advice and the Resolution Foundation shows that the impact of capping benefits and tax credits will wipe out any gains from the increase in the personal tax allowance for those on low incomes—precisely the people it is meant to help.
I received a distressing letter recently from a woman who has been diagnosed with cancer that will require extensive surgery and follow-up treatment. She has been alarmed to discover the amount that she is expected to live on as statutory sick pay. She has worked all her life and made contributions. She has enough to cope with without having to worry about money. This Government’s Bill will make matters far worse for people such as her. To make a real-terms cut to statutory sick pay for one year, never mind three years, is an absolute disgrace.
This Bill will not help people on low incomes—in fact, it will make life extremely difficult for them—and neither will it help to get the economy going. What we really need is real growth strategy to get the economy going, and then we can talk about paying back the deficit.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is pantomime season and during much of today’s debate we have heard a lot of caricature, exaggeration and hyperbole, particularly from Government Members, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Members for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward).
I have sat throughout the whole debate and listened to insidious arguments in favour of this invidious Bill. It is a completely unnecessary Bill, a political contrivance. The Government are engaged in a classic act of misdirection. They are telling some of our people, “We are giving you the confection of increased personal allowances and taking you out of taxation,” and, “We are going to hit the spongers and confiscate from them,” but that is all designed to make sure that people do not realise that they will be hit with stealth cuts and stealth taxes. That is the plan and purpose of this Government. The theatre surrounding the Bill is part of that, which is why I am happy to oppose it. I am particularly glad that the official Opposition will also oppose its Second Reading, having many times found themselves boxed in by the fear of what the Daily Mail might say about some of this Government’s other measures.
The fact is that this Bill will not just hit the benefits of those people who are out of work through no fault of their own; it will also hit the circumstances and living standards of families who are working, struggling to work and who hope that they will still work, but do not know whether they will able to, as a result of this Bill. That is why it is so unfair.
The Bill is also unnecessary. I am not in denial about the scale of the deficit or any of the other hard choices that have to be made, but the idea that this is the measure that is needed now to deal with the deficit, and that it is absolutely necessary or in any way fair, is completely wrong. Nor do I believe the delusion accepted by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that this is a temporary measure. The Chancellor, who has inspired this Bill, has already said that he wants £10 billion-worth of cuts in welfare in the next spending review period and he will still look for those cuts.
It is only today that the Government have produced their impact assessment for a Bill with such major implications, even though all sorts of other foundations and think tanks, such as Citizens Advice, have been able to produce their impact appraisals sooner. The Government’s impact assessment tells us:
“The legislation is in place for two years after which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will review the up-rating of benefits annually in line with statutory requirements. In a similar way Government will consider the up-rating of Tax Credits and Child Benefit at appropriate fiscal events, Budgets, Autumn Statements etc.”
Just as we were given no notice of this Bill until the autumn statement, we should be under no illusions that there will not be a further grinding agenda if the Chancellor gets a mandate to get his way in the future. That is why the introduction of the Bill fundamentally changes things with regard to the commitments that we have all made to the social security system for all the reasons given by so many hon. Members.
I represent a constituency where enduring high unemployment is a chronic problem. For those who are in work, low pay and under-employment are too much a part of their experience. All those people will be hit. In a constituency such as mine, the problem is not a lack of work ethic, but a lack of work. A firm that opened recently interviewed 23 people for every job that it had. That is not a lack of work ethic. Those people who want jobs are being insulted by this Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Bill is part of a war on the poor, waged largely by the very rich, who are deliberately doing all they can to divide individuals and set communities against each other. It is a reckless and dangerous measure that is likely to be massively counter-productive and to destabilise already struggling groups in society, pushing them into greater despair and desperation.
The Bill is not only hugely socially divisive, but is likely to be entirely counter-productive, even in the economic terms that the Government say are driving this set of policies. It will be counter-productive because as people are pushed into greater desperation, they are more likely to be forced to make greater calls on the state, for example as those who are struggling to pay rent are finally pushed into homelessness or as those who are struggling with mental disability or mental illness are finally tipped into greater ill health. It will be counter-productive because, as many hon. Members have said, if we want to get the economy moving again, the best way to do so is to put money into the pockets of the poorest, because they are the ones who will spend it in the local economy, not the very rich.
This is a mean and miserable Bill from a mean and miserable Government. I hope that it will be reversed at the first opportunity. I apologise if I have missed this, but I would love to hear a firm commitment from Labour that if it forms the next Government, it will reverse this Act, as it will then be.
I have been asking myself how this wretched Bill has got any currency at all. It is, of course, because of the deliberate lies, myths and misinformation that have surrounded it. There is the picture of the shirkers on benefits who have apparently enjoyed a lavish 20% income increase over the past five years. What a neatly seductive and simple picture that paints, but what a false and unfair one, particularly to the 2,136 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency, who come to me on a regular basis, desperately searching for work.
What does this lavish 20% increase mean in cash terms? I checked with the House of Commons Library. It means that in 2007, JSA was £59.15 a week and that five years later in 2012, it had gone up to just £71 a week. That is hardly a princely increase. The truth is that 20% of very little is still very, very little—but how useful it is to the Government to spin this attack on the poor! No wonder they never say what the 20% actually represents in cash terms.
Similarly, there is the 10% increase in average earnings for people who are in work. Again, the Government never say what that percentage means. For people on average earnings, that 10% increase means an increase in their weekly take-home pay of about £11 in each of the last five years. That is not enough and I oppose the public sector pay freezes, but it is still nearly four and a half times more in hard cash terms than the £2.50 annual increase for those on JSA.
It is therefore an outrageous and disingenuous attack on people who are seeking work to suggest that they are getting more than people who are in work when, in cash terms, they have got more than four times less. As the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) said so eloquently, it is cash terms, not percentages, that mean the most to ordinary people.
Getting tough on welfare is lazy, mean politics. It relies on misleading people and on conning the public into thinking that the system is more generous than it is and riddled with fraud. A poll commissioned by the TUC shows that, on average, people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently. The Government’s figure is 0.7%. Instead of feeding those misconceptions, the Government should be challenging them. Instead of penalising the poor, the Government should be supporting them.
I say again that this is a mean, miserable Bill. I hope that Members will reject it and I hope that I hear from Labour that it will reverse the Act if it gets into government next time around.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
A lot of figures have been bandied about, so I will start with a few. There have been 34 Back-Bench speakers, including 13 from the Government Benches, two of whom were critical of the Government; and the Government ran out of speakers an hour before the debate was due to finish. What message does that send to people who want to know what the Government’s plans are and what will happen to their benefits?
We have heard a number of powerful speeches and a number of others that I do not think were what people watching the debate would have wanted to hear. There have been so many speakers that I cannot list them all, but Opposition Members have been consistent in standing up for the people whom the Government have consistently let down.
Ahead of the debate, this was described as a watershed moment. Perhaps it has turned out to be one, but maybe not in the way that the Government expected. On the very day of their coalition relaunch, the former Minister with responsibility for children and families, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), condemned the coalition’s policy on welfare, the Leader of the House of Lords resigned with an admission that he had criticisms of his coalition partners, and we heard that the Deputy Prime Minister is apparently not entirely comfortable with the coalition’s approach to welfare, but as ever he is going to go along with the policy anyway. On the back of a report showing that the Work programme has been worse than doing nothing, we hear that a senior Minister briefed that the much heralded universal credit plans are not just in disarray but a “disaster waiting to happen”. Far from a Ronseal relaunch, the Government have had to reach for the Polyfilla to try to plug the gaping cracks in their own ranks and in the coalition in general.
Let us talk about the Bill. We have been clear that we need to get the overall costs down, but we have heard that there are different ways to do that. There is the way that the Government propose, which we do not support, and there is the way that Labour proposes—getting people into work. Welfare spending is rising to pay for the costs of the Government’s failure on the economy. As we have heard time after time, the Bill will mean a real-terms cut in support for both people in work and those looking for work. It will mean a rise of 1%, while inflation is set to rise by between 2% and 3.7% over the same period.
The Chancellor, who I understand has not been able to make it back in time for the winding-up speeches, talked about the unfairness of those on benefits keeping their blinds down while others head out to work. Sadly, some Government Members—not all, to be fair—have used such language today. The Tories in particular have tried to continue the myth that the Bill will only hit people who are somehow slacking or skiving. As we have heard time and time again, the Library analysis shows that just 23% of the savings will come from out-of-work benefits. The harsh reality is that most will come from people in work and on the lowest incomes, whether from tax credits, child benefit, maternity pay or sick pay. It will come from the most vulnerable in our society—the people we should be protecting most.
We have heard about the research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which shows that more than 6 million people in working households are in poverty, while the Department’s own research shows that 60% of children living in poverty come from families in which at least one parent works. As the projections of the Institute for Fiscal Studies show, an extra 1 million children will be pushed into relative poverty by 2020 as a result of Government measures. Ministers ought to listen to that and take account of it, because that is all before we take into account the effect of the cuts that we are debating today.
The IFS figures confirm that all the measures announced in the autumn statement, including the rise in the personal allowance and the measures in the Bill, will mean that a one-earner family with children will be an average of £534 a year worse off by 2015. That might not seem much to some Government Members, or to the millionaires who will get a tax cut that will give them £2,000 a week while those who get jobseeker’s allowance will have an extra 71p and there will be an extra 20p on child benefit. However, as we have heard time after time from Opposition Members, for a family on a low income those few pounds every week make the difference between a nutritious meal on the table for the children and just a snack. It is the difference between a child being able to go to a club, after-school event or school outing, or keeping the heating on during the coldest days of the year.
The Chancellor’s view is of people who are out of work lying in bed with the blinds down, but many of those I know who are out of work are staffing charity shops, volunteering for food banks or helping out at the local youth centre. Those people would jump at the chance to have a job if there was one for them, and as we have heard, although they are unemployed at the moment, many have not always been so and may have moved in and out of work or had to reduce the number of hours worked during the week. Such people would take up the opportunities offered by our work guarantee scheme; they want to pay their way but need a job that will allow them to do so.
We are calling for an approach to welfare reform that focuses on getting people back into work. Some Members have asked what the Labour party would do were it in government, and we would look at the position of the economy at the time. We will, however, be tough and fair, and under our jobs guarantee scheme every adult who is long-term unemployed will get a job that will be paid at the minimum wage for at least six months. If a job exists, people have a responsibility to take it. Our scheme will be structured—this point is important for those who have asked about how it would work—in a way that will allow people to look for permanent work at the same time as getting experience, and over the course of a year we expect it to help around 263,000 people.
I was pleased to hear that the SNP will support the Labour party in today’s vote, but will the Minister clarify a point relating to disabled people—[Interruption.] There was me thinking that the cheer was for me being about to ask the Minister a hard question, but that turns out not to be the case.
I have a question for the Minister and if he does not know the answer perhaps he will check with the Secretary of State. Questions have been raised about the impact of these measures on disabled people, particularly those in the support group. Will the Minister clarify that the changes will indeed penalise disabled people, even those in the support group, because 70% of the out-of-work support they rely on comes from benefits that will be subject to the 1% uprating? That needs to be clarified in the context of the Secretary of State’s suggestion that disabled people will not be affected.
Cathy Jamieson
I must conclude because I have only a couple more minutes left.
If the Government will not listen to Opposition Members or to those on their own Benches, including the hon. Members for Brent Central and for Bradford East (Mr Ward), both of whom raised concerns, perhaps they will listen to the voices of people outside this House and the 69% of the public who believe that benefits should rise at least in line with inflation because that is the fair thing to do. Perhaps they will listen to those who work on the front line and see the effects of poverty day in, day out, or to charity leaders across the UK, including Oxfam, the Children’s Society, Citizens Advice and Barnardo’s who wrote an open letter earlier this week.
If that is not enough, will the Government at least listen to what they themselves have said in the past? It is good to see the Chancellor back in his place because in the 2011 autumn statement he said that he wanted to
“protect those who are not able to work because of their disabilities and those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs and are trying to find work.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 802.]
If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor really believe that, they need to show it in their actions. Unfortunately, we have today seen a real divide between the Government’s approach and the fair approach from the Opposition.
This watershed moment shows that those warm words have been replaced by a chilling reality—that the Government simply do not care. The true character of the Government has been exposed. There are tax cuts for millionaires while millions of working people pay the price for their economic failure. We need real welfare reform—Labour’s jobs guarantee—that is tough and fair, and that works. We do not need an unfair attack on striving families trying to do their best from this out-of-touch and failing Government.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
Let me start with some comments on tone. The Government have been wrongly accused by many on the Opposition Benches of using inflammatory language on this most important issue, but let me refer to some of the inflammatory language that has been used:
“Let’s face the tough truth—that many people on the doorstep at the last election felt that too often we were for shirkers not workers.”
Those are not the words of any Government Member, but those of the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so let us hear no more about tone from Opposition Members.
I thank all 36 hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate. They have shown how passionate they are about this issue, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Work and Pensions, who has devoted nearly a decade of his career to this important matter. While he was chairing the Centre for Social Justice and looking for ways to lift the poorest out of poverty, the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), was at the Treasury, dishing out money like there was no tomorrow. I therefore find it quite bizarre that he, the man who so eloquently summed up the economic legacy in another quote of his—
“I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left”—
has told us from the Opposition Dispatch Box how to spend even more. He has told us to commit more money to public spending—money he knows we do not have.
Spending money is something that the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition have an excellent record on. In the decade before the financial crisis and despite a growing economy, welfare spending increased by 20% and has continued to rise from 11% of gross domestic product in 2008 to more than 13% by 2012.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman should ask that question of the shadow Secretary of State. There is no money left! Let me put it simply: welfare spending costs the UK—
Sajid Javid
We are dealing with the economic mismanagement of the Government of whom he was part and the deficit is already down by 25% since we came to office.
We are spending more than £200 billion a year on welfare. That is almost £1 in every £3 raised in taxes—more than the budgets for health, education and defence combined. After 13 years of economic mismanagement and overspending, the British people want a country that lives within its means once again. We need to find savings across the Government, and the uprating measures announced in the autumn statement are forecast to save £2.5 billion by 2015-16. It is interesting that not one Opposition Member addressed how they would fill that funding gap by opposing the Bill. That proves they have no answers for the problems the Government face.
Sajid Javid
As a Treasury Minister, I know only too well how crucial those savings are—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The Minister has said he is not giving way, so we do not need people shouting from the side of the Chamber that he should do so. It is up to him.
Sajid Javid
I have five minutes left to sum up the whole debate and I need to take that time.
These savings are crucial. They show that the Government are dealing with the record budget deficit they inherited. They will help to build confidence that the UK is a country in which it is safe to invest in the long term. Meanwhile, in the short term, these are savings that we can reinvest to make a real difference for a stronger economy.
Several of my hon. Friends raised the issue of fairness, including my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). We need to continue to get Britain back to work, but we also need to ensure that being at work pays. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, those in work have seen their average earnings increase by 10%, while those out of work have seen their benefits rise by 20%. This is not fair on taxpayers. It is not fair for my working constituents to pay out more to sustain welfare benefits at the exact time they are facing pressures to stretch their wages further. Nor is it fair to benefit claimants if we ensnare them in a position where it pays to claim benefits rather than to get out and find work.
It is worth reminding the Opposition that those people who work in the public sector, whom this Government employ to carry out their work—such as the people whom the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill used to send out to buy his soup when he was a Cabinet Minister—have seen their pay frozen for two years and will see it increase by 1% for a further two years. The Opposition supported that course of action, but they do not think it is right to have the same restraint—a rise of 1%--applied to benefits and tax credits.
Several hon. Members also rightly raised the issue of protecting the most vulnerable. Welfare spending is all about protecting the most vulnerable members of society. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee), for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) made that point very well, and that is why the disability carer and pension elements of working age benefits and tax credits will be protected. It is why the basic state pension will continue to increase by the triple guarantee—the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%. Even in the most difficult times, we need to protect those most in need and the changes in this Bill will achieve just that.
We have heard some sensible opinions this afternoon, although it has to be said that they have come almost exclusively from this side of the House. We have also heard some vehement and misguided opposition from the other side of the House. The Labour party opposed the Welfare Reform Bill. The Labour party opposed the benefit cap. Now the Labour party opposes this Bill. The Opposition want to spend billions increasing benefits while people up and down the country face pay freezes. They want to spend billions increasing benefits when they have supported our decision to freeze public sector pay at 1%. Given Labour’s opposition to this Bill, they really need to tell the British people where they would find that £2.5 billion for 2015-16. Would they cut the jobs of 70,000 teachers, or perhaps 40,000 doctors? Perhaps they would raise income tax by nearly 1%. If they do not want to do any of those things, perhaps they need to be honest and admit that the Labour party is for something for nothing, and is the same old Labour party that would borrow billions more to pay for higher benefits. We are taking sensible, measured steps to put right the economic mess that the Labour party left behind, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss what may well be one of the most urgent and pressing issues affecting my city: the budgetary black hole currently faced by Newcastle city council as a result of the reductions in funding received from central Government, alongside ever increasing cost pressures faced by the authority. I am particularly pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who is keen to contribute to the debate.
Before turning to the effects of the reduction in funding for Newcastle city council, I want briefly to analyse the frankly dire financial position in which the council finds itself. To make up for the significant shortfall in funding that it faces, the local authority anticipates, following analysis by the city treasurer of figures published by Ministers just before Christmas, a shortfall of £100 million over the next three years. So about £39.3 million of the funding black hole is a direct result of reductions in central Government grant funding.
The remainder of the funding gap results from unavoidable cost pressures that the council has to absorb. They include rising costs caused by inflation—of goods and services, heating and electricity—and an ageing population that means that an increasing number of people require support to live independently in the later years. Worryingly, an increasing number of vulnerable children are also being taken into care.
The economic downturn is also having a big impact on the level of income that the council is able to raise from the goods and services that it provides, such as retail lettings and car parking. There is simply less money going round. The council could, of course, have looked to increase council tax to reduce its funding gap, but has decided that that would be the wrong decision at what remains an incredibly difficult economic time for household budgets. I support its decision, for which the Government have made some resources available.
In light of the severity of the situation, the council took the decision to publish a medium-term, three-year indicative budget, believing that an open and honest approach is the best way to ensure that core local services remain affordable and sustainable into the future. However, that three-year budget and the ongoing public consultation on the proposals that it contains have caused significant concern in Newcastle and beyond, as the council has been forced to make difficult, if not impossible, decisions about the services and activities it can simply no longer afford to fund.
Perhaps the most vocal has been the campaign against the council’s proposal to cut, in phases, 100% of its funding to certain local arts organisations, many of which are of national significance. Leading well known Geordies, including Sting, Jimmy Nail, Mark Knopfler and Lee Hall, have publicly castigated the council for the proposal, which would impact heavily on treasured assets such as the Theatre Royal, Northern Stage, Dance City, Live Theatre, the Tyneside cinema and Seven Stories, recently renamed the National Centre for Children’s Books. A campaign is also under way to protect Newcastle city hall—our 85-year-old music venue whose long-term future I genuinely hope can be secured. The council further proposes a 50% cut in funding to Tyne and Wear museums, which will mean a significant reduction for the Discovery museum, the Laing art gallery and the Great North museum.
Nobody needs to persuade me of the importance of any of those institutions to our city. Indeed, they have all played a central role in the remarkable culture-led regeneration that has taken place on Tyneside over the past decade or so under the Labour Government, and many of them mean that creative opportunities and experiences are available to people of all ages in Newcastle that simply did not exist when I was a child. A recent economic impact assessment for NewcastleGateshead Cultural Venues found that for every £1 of public money invested in cultural venues there was a return on investment of £4. These organisations directly employ about 1,000 people and support the local economy, procuring at least two thirds of their goods and services from north-east suppliers.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I am keen to work with the hon. Lady on trying to persuade the Government that, as with previous Governments, the funding formula is not satisfactory, but she must recognise that other authorities such as Labour Gateshead and Liberal Democrat Northumberland have not slashed 100% of their arts budget or closed their swimming pool.
Catherine McKinnell
I am pleased by the right hon. Gentleman’s support. I will go on to address the issue that he raises, because it is a matter of perception that needs to be properly understood.
By significantly improving the quality of people’s lives, these organisations make Newcastle a place in which people want to live, study, work, do business and invest. That is why I am angry about the invidious position in which Newcastle city council now finds itself in being forced to choose between services that make Newcastle the fun, vibrant, economically viable city it is, and services such as protecting the most vulnerable children in our community.
A further vociferous campaign by well known authors has been launched against the council’s proposal to close 10 of its 18 libraries across the city, which for my constituency will mean the branch in Dinnington closing in June this year and those in Newbiggin Hall and Fawdon closing in March 2015. As a mother of two young children, I am all too well aware of the vital role played by local libraries in our communities, whether in encouraging a love of reading, providing a place to study, or offering toy-lending services or access to IT facilities. I am dismayed that the council’s financial situation is so dire that it is closing what, to me, represents part of the great Victorian ideal of municipal service provision—facilities that, once closed, will probably be lost for ever.
Equally saddening are proposals to close City pool by 2016, and in my constituency to reduce funding for Newburn leisure centre while seeking alternative arrangements to manage Outer West pool and Gosforth pool. This scenario is frankly devastating coming just after what must have been Britain’s most successful ever sporting year and a London Olympics that was intended to “inspire a generation”.
Then there are the proposals to cut funding for play and youth services, while a £5 million reduction in funding will, by 2015-16, see the end of Sure Start centre provision in Brunswick, Fawdon, Denton and Westerhope, Lemington, Newbiggin Hall and Newburn—and that is just in my constituency. The importance of Sure Start services in supporting young children and families is absolutely invaluable, and I have serious concerns about the sheer number of places in my constituency that will no longer be able to access such facilities, which have become embedded in local communities.
Possibly of greatest significance in impact on individual lives is the proposed closure of Cheviot View, which opened only in 2008 in Newbiggin Hall to provide overnight residential short-break care for children and young people with disabilities. Many families are extremely concerned about the potential effect on their quality of life if the closure of Cheviot View is to go ahead.
Those are just some of the ways in which cuts to Newcastle city council’s budget will impact on local residents and organisations. Of course, the council is not just reducing front-line services; it is also cutting 1,300 of its remaining 8,000 staff over the next three years. I expect that the Minister will want to characterise these people as “pen-pushers” doing “non-jobs”, but let me assure him that they are not. They are dinner ladies, refuse collectors, people working in children’s services—real people with real lives and real families to support, now looking for work elsewhere at a time when opportunities are pretty scarce.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the misleading statement by the Prime Minister last week, and does she think that it is mere coincidence that the areas hardest hit are those with the greatest need?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I need the hon. Gentleman to rephrase what he thought about the Prime Minister’s statement. He cannot make that accusation. He can say another word rather than “misleading”, and I would like him to do it now.
Steve Rotheram
The Prime Minister has already admitted that the statistics he gave only last week were misleading. He said that he was poorly briefed, but the statistics were misleading.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and clarification. I will go on to address some of the misleading information that has been circulating and the concern that it has caused.
What has the Government’s response been to the situation in which Newcastle and other local authorities throughout the country now find themselves? Sadly, it seems to be one of complete disdain. I, like many others, am extremely concerned about the way in which the Secretary of State has attempted to dismiss and downplay the very real concerns about the impact of his funding decisions.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s withdrawal of funding is undermining local communities in Liverpool as well as Newcastle?
Catherine McKinnell
It is obviously for my hon. Friend to speak on behalf of the people of Liverpool, but I have no doubt that the cuts are impacting on all of the core cities and I will make the economic point about that later in my speech.
Baroness Eaton, who was until recently the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, described the Secretary of State’s understanding of the effect of local government cuts as
“detached from the reality councils are dealing with”.
I could not agree more. Meanwhile, Sir Merrick Cockell has called the cuts “unsustainable” and the Tory leader of Kent says that his county “can’t cope” with further reductions and is “running on empty”.
When deliberating on what I would raise in this debate —unfortunately time is short and it has been difficult to cut down my speech—I decided to think about what the Minister would say in response. That is fairly predictable, so I will use this opportunity to respond now to what I believe he will say.
I am sure that the Minister will claim, like the Secretary of State before him, that the average reduction in council spending power across the country has been only 1.7% and, indeed, that Newcastle has fared pretty well, because its spending power has fallen by only 1.5% in cash terms as a result of the recent funding settlement. I say to him that that is disingenuous at best and seriously misleading at worst.
The headline figure, which applies to only the first year of the settlement—2013-14—has in fact already been shown to be inaccurate and substantially understated, with the Department for Communities and Local Government double-counting the council tax support grant and council tax income for both 2012-13 and 2013-14. Other errors include the cut in the early intervention grant being significantly understated. Newcastle city council believes a more realistic estimate of the cut to be 3.2%, which is more than double the published figure, or a 4.9% cut in grant funding. I therefore ask the Minister to make a commitment this evening to ensure that statements made about the level of spending power cuts are formally corrected.
The 1.7% headline figure also completely masks the far greater cuts that will take place in year 2 of the settlement. Newcastle faces a 6.8% drop in spending power by 2014-15, compared with a 5.5% average fall in England and only 1.6% in Surrey.
The Minister will no doubt try to persuade me that the cuts being experienced by Newcastle are fair and not disproportionate when compared with other parts of the country, but the facts show clearly that over the next three years the cuts will be much higher in northern areas and a few inner-London boroughs. According to DCLG’s own figures, the cut in Newcastle’s spending power between 2012-13 and 2014-15 will be £218 per person, compared with a national average of £134 and a cut of only £27 per head in Wokingham.
I refer to Wokingham because, in returning to my predictions, I assume that the Minister intends to make the time-honoured comparison between Newcastle’s situation and that of the Berkshire town. He will inform us that Newcastle still has a spending power per household that is more than £700 greater than that in Wokingham. Nobody doubts that that is the case and let me be clear: I have nothing against Wokingham. I use that example because it is the one that Ministers always bring up whenever challenged on their approach to spending cuts.
I thought it might be helpful to clarify for the Minister precisely why Newcastle receives a higher grant than Wokingham—it is because our needs are higher. Newcastle has four times more children in care, greater homelessness needs, higher council tax support needs and fewer people who are able to self-fund their own elderly care. Compared with Wokingham, Newcastle receives four times as much funding for the statutory concessionary fares scheme, yet it faces costs that are nine times higher due to the sheer number of poorer pensioners who use bus services.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Catherine McKinnell
I am sorry, but I do not have much time to complete my speech.
Where local government finance becomes completely inexplicable is in the fact that Wokingham receives £124 more funding per household than Newcastle for “damping”, or protection against excessive loss of grant. Wokingham will receive an increase next year in resources to protect against excessive grant cuts that is three times greater than that in Newcastle. A system that was originally intended to protect councils from high levels of grant reductions is instead providing more protection to some of the wealthiest councils which have faced the smallest cuts in their spending power.
I suspect that the Minister will also mention the £16 billion in reserves, on which the Secretary of State believes councils are blithely sitting. However, he knows that the £16 billion figure across the country includes £12 billion of reserves that are earmarked for specific purposes, such as funding capital investment commitments in future years, meeting insurance claims, meeting equal pay or redundancy costs, and meeting the cost of flood damage that cannot be claimed under the Bellwin scheme. The latter point is of particular relevance to Newcastle, given the devastating flooding in parts of the city last year.
Indeed, reserves were referred to in the Secretary of State’s somewhat patronising document on 50 “sensible savings” that was published last month. I point out to the Minister that Newcastle city council has already made efficiencies of £100 million over the past three years and has undertaken almost all of the Department’s savings proposals.
In conclusion, Newcastle city council believes that it is in an impossibly difficult situation. Newcastle and other members of the Core Cities Group are having to write to the Secretary of State to inform him that
“there will be no money for anything but social care and refuse collection later in this decade”
unless the current funding plans are changed. The Secretary of State and his Ministers appear complacent, dismissive and even indifferent to the concerns that are being raised.
All I am asking is that they treat Newcastle city council and my constituents with the respect that they deserve and act urgently on their concerns.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this important debate for the people of the city that we both have the honour and privilege to represent.
It is an unfortunate fact that the map of the cuts distribution and the political map of England are almost identical. The average cut per head for Labour councils is £107, while for Tory and Liberal Democrat councils the average cut is just £36 and £38 respectively. Of the councils with a cut of more than £100 a head, 86% are Labour controlled and only 5.4% are Tory run. As a matter of urgency, the Government should review the way in which the funding formula distributes the cuts burden across different local authorities. I support the call made today by the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, to establish an independent body to determine objectively council funding arrangements.
Other issues are specific to Newcastle. In 2009, Newcastle was in the top seven of the 36 metropolitan councils in England for indebtedness. In 2004, when the Liberal Democrats gained control of Newcastle city council, the municipal debt was £431 million. By 2010-11, under the Liberal Democrat administration, that had risen to £962 million. The cost of servicing that debt is more than £40 million a year. That comes straight out of the local authority’s budget. It cannot be adjusted downwards, and if interest rates rise, it will go in the opposite direction.
Newcastle has to meet the costs of cared-for people, out of all proportion to its tax base. There are currently 522 children in care in Newcastle. That translates to 100 children in care per 10,000 children, compared with the England average of 59 per 10,000 children. The situation is the same with the elderly. In 2011-12, the council helped to support nearly 10,000 adults with substantial or critical care needs and more than 17,000 people with lower care needs. In Newcastle, 63 adults per 10,000 are receiving permanent or temporary residential or nursing care. The England average is 39 per 10,000 adults. Pressure on those services is mounting rather than declining, yet the existing position is not even inflation-proofed.
In 2003, the town of Gateshead and the city of Newcastle bid together for capital of culture designation and made a very credible case. The current Government’s policies have forced the council to consult on ending the culture budget, which totals some £1.6 million a year. That is so far removed from anything that Newcastle citizens would want, and from any rational, economic development-based view of the role of the arts in creating employment in a regional centre such as Newcastle, that it serves as an exemplar of how far the council has been forced into considering unpalatable decisions. The situation is all the more ironic because under the Liberal Democrat administration, the council scandalously spent millions of pounds on the mismanaged Waygood art gallery project, which totalled many times more than the council’s annual cultural budget today.
Even essential services such as Sure Start cannot avoid a reduction. The council has taken steps to try to reduce the cost burden on that important service in the short term, but with the added cuts announced by the Government it looks likely that larger reductions will be needed. That flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge to protect Sure Start.
We cannot even get help from the Government on relatively small things. Months ago, on 4 July 2012, I raised the issue of estate agents’ “To Let” signs. The Government promised to help, yet so far nothing has been forthcoming.
Overshadowing all that is the employment situation in the north-east. More than 3,200 people are unemployed in Newcastle upon Tyne East, nearly 1,000 of whom have been unemployed for more than a year. There are 10 jobseeker’s allowance claimants for every advertised vacancy at the jobcentre, and unemployment is heavily concentrated in the former shipbuilding riverside communities, with an unemployment rate of 14% in Byker and more than 18% in Walker, compared with an average rate of 9.5% for the north-east as a whole and 7.8% for England.
The council’s contribution to the economic development of the east end and the riverside is significant and underpins what is easily the best prospect for building the employment base of the east end of Newcastle. Logically, that should be in the Government’s best interests as well, and they should offer a helping hand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I first join the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) in congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to go through some of the principles behind the Government’s work on the local government finance settlement. As the hon. Lady will know, there is currently a consultation process. This week—I think on Thursday—I will be meeting representatives from the councils of Newcastle to go through specific issues, and I will take on board their comments.
The proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out on 19 December are out for consultation. I want to be clear that we believe that it is vital that councils continue to play their part in tackling the inherited budget deficit by making sensible savings and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. The settlement recognises the responsibility of local government to find sensible savings and make better use of its resources, and it marks a new type of settlement for local government based on self-determination and financial independence. It is a move from the begging bowl to pride in locality, and it is the start of the biggest shake-up of local government finance in a generation.
As the Secretary of State said, we are shifting power from Whitehall directly to the town hall, and we are providing a direct financial incentive for councils to promote growth and jobs in their area. From April, authorities will directly retain nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning it to the Treasury, and they will be able to keep the growth on that share of business rates. Striving councils will benefit by doing the right thing by their communities. If they bring in jobs and businesses, they will be rewarded. That could be particularly opportune in the context of the hon. Lady’s comments about the investment in culture that she feels the council should maintain. I will come back to that in a moment, but I hope she wins that debate with the council.
Research suggests that allowing councils to keep a share of the business rates could generate an additional £10 billion for the national economy by 2020. Our reforms will enable about 70% of local authority income to be raised locally, compared with a little more than half under the current formula grant system. That is a giant step forward for localism.
The start-up funding assessment, which gives each council a share of the funding, will mean £26 billion being shared between councils across the country, with the smallest reductions being for the councils that are most reliant on Government funding. Recent analysis by the House of Commons Library states:
“For each of the expenditure/funding measures the more deprived areas generally receive higher per capita allocations than less deprived areas”
and percentage reductions are
“generally smaller for the most deprived and larger for the less deprived areas.”
It goes on to say that:
“The group of authorities more dependent on formula grant to finance their budget—generally the more deprived areas—is set the highest floor level, representing the smallest reduction.”
We have worked closely with local government in developing the rates retention scheme and listened to what councils have told us during the extensive consultation process last year. For example, we have reduced the amounts we are setting aside for the new homes bonus and academies funding, which in total means an additional £1.9 billion for local authorities up front in 2013-14.
We have put in place a safety-net arrangement to provide protection for councils that might be affected by the closure of a large local employer. We have set the safety net at the most generous level in the range consulted on, meaning that councils will be guaranteed 92.5% of their original baseline funding under the scheme. Local authorities told us that they wanted a stronger growth incentive and we were happy to respond. We have made the scheme more generous, ensuring that at least 25p in every pound of business rate growth will be retained locally. The settlement leaves councils with considerable spending power.
Mr Graham Stuart
We have heard an impassioned case on behalf of Newcastle but the settlement inherited from the previous Government was not only a toxic debt but a situation in which funding for local government is 50% higher in urban than rural areas, despite the fact that delivering so many services in rural areas is more expensive. The real injustice is the historic underfunding of rural areas and the danger that that could be held in place all the way to 2020. It is not so much about Newcastle, although the challenges are everywhere, but we are seeing real injustice in rural areas.
Brandon Lewis
I have already met a number of councils that have made that case about rural areas. The detrimental impact of damping on some of those areas has been made clear to us in the consultation so far and we are very aware of the issue. My hon. Friend makes a strong point with great passion.
A small number of authorities will require larger savings to be made, but our proposals indicate that no council will face a loss of more than 8.8% in its spending power thanks to a new efficiency support grant. I will declare an interest and return in a moment to the figures mentioned by the hon. Lady because authorities such as mine in Great Yarmouth are suffering thanks to the problems inherited from the previous Labour Government’s funding structure. As the name implies, councils must improve services to qualify for the efficiency support grant. It is unfair to expect, as currently happens, the rest of local government to subsidise other councils’ failure to embrace modernity or move forward to a more efficient delivery of services. The settlement is not about what councils can take but about helping them take the most from what they can make.
Predictably, the doom mongers have been consulting their Mayan calendars and issuing dire warnings about the end of the world as we know it and a billion pound black hole in local budgets. Concerns that the poorest councils or those in the north will suffer disproportionately are well wide of the mark, as made clear in the report by the House of Commons that I cited a moment ago. In fact, the spending power for places in the north compares well—in fact, favourably—with those in the south.
Catherine McKinnell
As I said, it is concerning that the Minister and the Secretary of State are referring to just the first year of the budget settlement, rather than the full spending period. The way that core urban city Labour council areas compare with other places—I gave the example of Surrey and Wokingham—is quite significant over the full spending period.
Brandon Lewis
I think that Members from Surrey would make the opposite argument in terms of the effect that damping has on their areas, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will move on and try to answer some of the points raised. I have no doubt that some of these issues will be raised in a meeting with Newcastle councils on Thursday. She predicted, quite rightly, that I would mention some of the numbers involved, and I do not want to disappoint her.
As the hon. Lady will know, Newcastle has expected spending power per household of £2,522. She is right that that is almost £700 more than we proposed for Wokingham, but let us not single out Wokingham. I could reel off a list of councils that would love £2,500 spending power per household. My council in Great Yarmouth, which has two of the most deprived wards in the country, is on about £500 less per household. Such deprived areas get far less than areas such as Newcastle, so it is not right to pick out Wokingham.
I could run off a list of councils, but Madam Deputy Speaker would not thank me for listing the majority of councils, which get far less than Newcastle. The figure quoted at the moment compares well with Newcastle’s per household figure for last year, but as the hon. Lady has said, we are still in the consultation process. We expect that Newcastle could do better than the national average next year in terms of overall spending power, and for Liverpool, its co-signatory, to be at the average.
We have maintained the system of damping, which I have mentioned. Some authorities have concerns with damping, but the Government have set a floor below which council funding will not fall.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor recognised that the sector has risen to the challenge thus far. That is why, unlike most of central Government, local government was exempted from the further 1% top slice next year, which is worth approximately £240 million to councils. However, towards 2014 and beyond, local government needs to continue to find better, more efficient ways of doing things. We need to remember that the money is not created by a central Government money tree; it is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that—
Ministerial Corrections
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Murphy
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have served on tours of duty of longer than six months in Afghanistan; and what the (a) tour dates, (b) rank, (c) regiment and (d) reasons for the length of tour was.
[Official Report, 21 November 2012, Vol. 553, c. 491-92W.]
Letter of correction from Dr Murrison:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) on 21 November 2012.
The full answer given was as follows:
Dr Murrison
[holding answer 19 November 2012]: The Ministry of Defence does not hold this information centrally in the form requested, and in the interests of anonymity we do not release information of individual tours.
The MOD is able to confirm that at present around 110 posts out of 9,500 in Afghanistan are subject to tour lengths of longer than six months to provide continuity to the campaign. These posts are broken down as shown in the following table:
Army ranks (or equivalent) represented | Length of continuity posting (months) | Number of personnel (to the nearest 10) |
|---|---|---|
Staff Sergeant | 8 | 10 |
Warrant Officer Class 2 | ||
Warrant Officer Class 1 | ||
Captain | ||
Major | ||
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Captain | 9 | 20 |
Major | ||
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Staff Sergeant Major | 12 | 50 |
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Colonel | ||
Brigadier | ||
Major General | ||
Lieutenant General | ||
Major | 18 | <10 |
Private | 24 | 20 |
Lance Corporal | ||
Corporal | ||
Sergeant | ||
Major | ||
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Colonel | ||
Major General |
The correct answer should have been:
Dr Murrison
[holding answer 19 November 2012]: The Ministry of Defence does not hold this information centrally in the form requested, and in the interests of anonymity we do not release information of individual tours.
The MOD is able to confirm that at present around 110 posts out of 9,500 in Afghanistan are subject to tour lengths of longer than six months to provide continuity to the campaign. These posts are broken down as shown in the following table:
Army ranks (or equivalent) represented | Length of continuity posting (months) | Number of personnel (to the nearest 10) |
|---|---|---|
Staff Sergeant | 8 | 10 |
Warrant Officer Class 2 | ||
Warrant Officer Class 1 | ||
Captain | ||
Major | ||
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Captain | 9 | 20 |
Major | ||
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Staff Sergeant Major | 12 | 50 |
Lieutenant Colonel | ||
Colonel | ||
Brigadier | ||
Major General | ||
Lieutenant General | ||
— | 18 | 0 |
Staff Sergeant | 24 | <10 |
Colonel |
Cabinet Office
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
… Sir Daniel Bethlehem, a former legal adviser to the Foreign Office, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the flow of intelligence from the United States was being limited. He said that he did not want to exaggerate, but the point was that the trust of the United States had been weakened and that trust needed to be restored.
Letter of correction from Kenneth Clarke:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Clarke
… Lord Butler of Brockwell, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, told the House of Lords that the flow of intelligence from the United States was being limited. He said that he did not want to exaggerate, but the point was that the trust of the United States had been weakened and that trust needed to be restored.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sri Lanka
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
May I wish you, Mr Hollobone, and—through you—everybody in this Chamber, a very happy new year? I hope that this debate will mark a small step in the attempts of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka to gain justice.
I called this debate in response to last November’s publication of the United Nations investigation of its handling of war crimes in Sri Lanka, which concluded that the response from the international community to the tragedy of the Tamils was inadequate. According to the internal review, UN staff in Colombo and New York simply did not perceive prevention of the killing of civilians as their responsibility. Despite the International Committee of the Red Cross reporting an “unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe”, the UN suppressed information on casualty figures and hid the Sri Lankan Government’s responsibility for the lives lost. Following intimidation and threats from the Government, the UN unquestionably relocated its staff away from the fighting.
Rather than trying to stop the atrocities, the international community turned a blind eye. Tens of thousands of people were being massacred, yet at the time the international community pretended that it was not happening. Oppression on a barely imaginable scale took place. Thanks to the fearless reporting of a small number of journalists, the truth is out. Channel 4’s documentary, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, deserves special praise. Anyone who doubts why we need justice should watch that astonishing documentary. The images broadcast by Channel 4 are among the most harrowing ever to appear on television. They showed what the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings concluded was evidence of “definitive war crimes” and what the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts admitted was
“a grave assault on the entire regime of international law”.
Last year, I nominated “Channel 4 News” for the Nobel peace prize. In my nomination letter, I said:
“By bringing to light the breaches of international conventions by the Government of Sri Lanka in a bold manner and by piecing together numerous forms of evidence in a coherent way, the value of independent journalism to the building of a peaceful global order in the century ahead has been amply demonstrated.”
I want to pay my respects to the amazing Marie Colvin, one of the most astonishing people whom I have ever had the privilege to meet. Marie was a veteran war correspondent for The Sunday Times, and won numerous awards, including best foreign correspondent. She was fearless in her reporting of Sri Lanka’s troubles. In fact, she was so unafraid of getting close enough to find out the truth that, in 2001, she sustained shrapnel wounds to her eyes, chest and arms while reporting from Sri Lanka. In March 2009, I invited her to speak at a meeting of the all-party group on Tamils, which I then chaired, and she was hypnotic. She explained how the Sri Lankan Government tried to prevent reporting of what was going on. They would not allow in independent journalists, but, thanks to her persistence and courage, Marie was able to present evidence that the Government were firing cluster bombs, white phosphorus and rockets on civilian areas, including hospitals and so-called safe zones. She was a trailblazer and a wonderful woman. I was fortunate to meet her on several later occasions, and she made a lasting impression not just on me but on everyone who met her. Unfortunately, she was killed last year while reporting from Syria, where there are many parallels with Sri Lanka. Her death was not only a terrible loss for journalism, but a real blow to those of us who want to know the truth about conflicts that the rest of the international community is happy to keep under wraps. In relation to Sri Lanka, her bravery contrasts with the cowardice of the international community.
As the internal review has proved, the international community knew about the abuses that Marie Colvin put herself in danger to uncover, but it still failed to protect tens of thousands of innocent people. The international community’s weakness shames us all. We now need to deal with that shame. Human Rights Watch has said that although Ban Ki-moon
“deserves credit for starting a process he knew could tarnish his office, he will now be judged on his willingness to implement the report’s recommendations and push for justice for Sri Lanka’s victims.”
The international community was weak in its handling of this tragedy as it unfolded; we should not be weak when it comes to imposing justice after it has happened. No regime in the world should be able to think that if it commits the most heinous crimes, it will be left untouched. The UN has an overriding responsibility to protect that supersedes sovereignty. We should have used the responsibility to protect during the conflict. If we had, thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils would still be alive. We now surely have a responsibility to hold to account a Government who have treated their citizens in such an appalling way. As Amnesty International has said:
“This report is…a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes… The report clearly illustrates the Sri Lankan government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations. There is no evidence that has changed”.
Responsibility to protect is a concept at the heart of modern international relations. It has three core elements: first, states are responsible for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing and from their incitement, but, secondly, the international community has a responsibility to ensure that states fulfil that requirement and, thirdly, the international community—that is us—has a responsibility to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from those crimes. If a state manifestly fails to protect its population, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to do so. All three pillars of the responsibility to protect were broken in Sri Lanka.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and many others in this House on their work campaigning on the terrible and tragic war in Sri Lanka and the abuse and terrible suffering of many Tamils. She raises the issue of international pressure. Sri Lanka will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2013. Does she agree that unless the Sri Lankan Government live up to their promises and start a genuine process of peace and reconciliation, and unless there is an international inquiry, the British Government should not be represented at that summit?
Siobhain McDonagh
I strongly support the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which I hope to address later.
The UN internal review proved that war crimes and human rights violations took place, but it admitted that UN staff did not think that preventing those killings was their responsibility and that they deliberately suppressed casualty figures. According to the review, when the UN began collating information on casualties the
“reports pointed to the large majority of civilian killings as being the result of Government shelling and aerial bombardment, with a smaller proportion of killings resulting from the LTTE actions.”
However, the UN played down evidence about the scale of what was happening, and the truth was portrayed as propaganda from Tamil Tiger terrorists.
In fact, as outlined by the Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka in 2011, and as we were told by Marie Colvin in 2009, there was systematic shelling of hospitals and civilians by Government forces, as well as restrictions on humanitarian aid and assistance. The panel of experts speaks of “tens of thousands” of casualties—perhaps up to 40,000—and even worse figures are now emerging. The Bishop of Mannar, Rayappu Joseph, has stated that over 146,000 remain unaccounted for, and the former BBC journalist Frances Harrison cites a World Bank estimate of 100,000 people still missing. All that only emphasises the importance of having an independent, international inquiry into the conduct of both sides during the conflict. Credible investigations into war crimes allegations and human rights abuses are a duty under domestic and international law. However, Sri Lanka’s own inquiry, the so-called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, has failed completely to provide the accountability required. It has been described as “deeply flawed” by the panel of experts, which has called for an independent, international investigation into war crimes. The LLRC was not independent or international, and our fears about it have been shown to be well founded. Government forces were largely exonerated of culpability. Only military rather than independent courts of inquiry have been established to look into the few abuse cases that were deemed worthy of further consideration by the LLRC.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and pay tribute to the work that she has done over many years in exposing what has been going on. Does she recall that, in a previous debate on the LLRC, the Minister said that the Government would see what action the LLRC took, and if it were not substantial they would take much stronger action and do precisely what the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said and review again the decision to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo later this year? I hope that we will see such a view reflected in the Minister’s response today.
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all have faith in the Minister, and we ask him to take action.
As there is no justice or accountability with the LLRC, what we see instead is a culture of impunity—enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, gender-based violence as well as the recent trumped-up impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice—which is testament to the breakdown of the rule of law in Sri Lanka. Just as we had a responsibility to protect civilians at the time of the killings, so too do we now for ensuring that there is accountability.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that there are credible reports that torture is routinely being used against the Tamil community remaining in Sri Lanka? Constituents have come to my surgery with clear evidence of torture, which backs up the more widespread reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that torture is still going on routinely in the country.
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely accept what my hon. Friend says about the ongoing torture against Tamils in Sri Lanka. It must be said though that other ethnic groups are also being tortured now.
Without accountability, we are seeing torture, disappearances and killings, yet the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is still scheduled to take place in Colombo in November. What sort of message does that send out? The Commonwealth was right a couple of years ago to take away from Sri Lanka the honour of hosting a summit. If it was right to do that then, how can it be right now to let Sri Lanka have that honour when our fears about its Government have been confirmed? Canada has bravely stated that it will not attend the 2013 summit unless significant progress is made on human rights and accountability. Why cannot Britain show the same leadership? Why are we so determined to brush accountability under the carpet, just as the UN did with the evidence of atrocities four years ago?
In November, I wrote to the Prime Minister imploring him to do the responsible thing. I pointed out that the number of people who had been killed in the space of just five months was roughly the same as the entire population of the major towns of his constituency: Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton. Those poor people were herded into an area smaller than the Prime Minister’s constituency, tricked into believing that it was a safe zone and then relentlessly targeted while the institutions of the international community made a deliberate choice not to help, even though they knew what was happening. I pointed out that Britain’s Tamil community, which numbers more than 250,000 people, is still grieving. I asked what the British Government were doing to ensure that there is justice for Tamils now. In particular, I said that it would send out a terrible message if Sri Lanka were permitted the honour of hosting the CHOGM. I said:
“If a nation had systematically killed every single person you knew in Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton, raping and murdering in cold blood, I do not think that you would find it acceptable for that Government to host an event as prestigious as a Commonwealth summit, or for our Government to attend… The international community has admitted it failed to help Tamils before, and cancelling the summit will ensure that mistake is not compounded.”
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but does she accept that there were human rights violations on both sides of the community in Sri Lanka—certainly during the war and in the immediate post-war period—and that the relationship between the communities has improved in recent years? Secondly, does she accept that hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would mean that Sri Lanka had a global audience looking at it, and that that in itself may produce the result that she is looking for?
Siobhain McDonagh
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his motivations are entirely good, but he misreads how the Sri Lankan Government interpret representations from foreign Governments. If the Queen were to put her foot on the soil in Colombo it would be regarded as a vindication of the Sri Lankan Government’s actions—and this is at a time when at least 40,000 people are still dying or missing.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am startled by the view that if Her Majesty were to put her foot on the soil of Sri Lanka it would be an insult to democracy. Recently, Her Majesty had to shake the hand of the leader of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland in an effort to demonstrate that peace happens through process and progress. Sri Lanka should be hearing the message that we are here to help. We should stretch out our hand to Sri Lanka; we should not step on Sri Lanka. I must say that I am amazed by the hon. Lady’s position.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As he knows, the process towards reconciliation has taken 600 years in Ireland. It is a struggle with which I am well acquainted because of my own family background. Unlike the Sri Lankan Government, the British Government under different parties accepted that there were things that they could and could not do. I accept that there were atrocities and human rights violations on the part of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Democratically elected Governments are always judged to a higher standard.
Let me continue with what I said to the Prime Minister:
“The international community has admitted it failed to help Tamils before, and cancelling the summit will ensure that mistake is not compounded. I believe it is in the international community’s best interests—and the best interests of the United Kingdom, as well as of Sri Lanka—for there to be an independent international investigation into war crimes in order to bring a lasting peace in Sri Lanka after such a long period of ethnic conflict. However, while this continues not to take place, Sri Lanka should not be hosting the Commonwealth summit.”
The response was weak. The Prime Minister himself did not answer my letter, passing it instead to the Foreign Secretary. The reply was very disappointing. First, instead of supporting an international inquiry into Sri Lanka’s behaviour, he said that the Government
“believe that the process of reconciliation has a greater chance of success if investigations are Sri Lankan-led rather than externally imposed.”
He said that the British Government were concerned about the human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, such as
“disappearances, political violence and reports of torture in custody.”
However, what will the British Government do about them? We have not stopped deporting Tamils who are claiming asylum, even though most reasonable people would think that any Tamil who made a big deal about hating the Sri Lankan Government when they were in the UK might be most at risk of disappearance, violence and torture.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am aware of that report, and I have also read appeal judgments and documents from the Medical Institute for Victims of Torture. I am well aware of some of the cases involved; indeed, some of them involve my constituents or my hon. Friend’s constituents.
The Foreign Secretary said:
“We seek to promote progress through direct lobbying, working with international partners, and funding human rights projects.”
I have to say that it is not very reassuring to learn that the Government’s approach to getting Sri Lanka to behave is to give it more money.
Finally, the Foreign Secretary fails to offer any support for the idea of a boycott of the Commonwealth summit, although he says the UK Government
“believe that the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting should uphold the Commonwealth values of good governance and respect for human rights. We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to these values, both now and in the run up to the meeting in 2013.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could expand a little upon that in his response to the debate. In what possible way does he think that Sri Lanka is currently demonstrating “commitment to these values”?
I note that the Minister is going to Sri Lanka later this year. No doubt his presence will be portrayed by the Government there as yet another vindication of their murderous approach. If he wants to ensure that his visit is not another public relations victory for a regime that feels it is immune from accountability for war crimes, will he use his visit as an opportunity to warn his hosts that Britain and the Queen will not be attending a summit that is built on blood? When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) visited Sri Lanka in 2009, he was not afraid to confront the Rajapaksa regime. When the Minister visits Sri Lanka later this month, will he do the same as my right hon. Friend did, or will he have meetings about trade?
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions the fact that lots of people visit Sri Lanka. May I ask her when she last visited Sri Lanka? She has mentioned lots of second-hand evidence in her speech so far, but when did she last visit Sri Lanka and see for herself—at first hand—some of the things that she is alleging are happening there?
Siobhain McDonagh
I have never been to Sri Lanka, but I respect the views of the UN special envoy to Sri Lanka, the UN, the Canadian Government, the Australian Government, the US Government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Are all of those organisations bogus? Do we not believe anything that any of them say?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) made exactly the same point that I will now make. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that those organisations are bogus, or that the claims of constituents are bogus. We are asking the hon. Lady about her opinion.
Siobhain McDonagh
Just as I have not been to Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and—it has to be said—most countries in the world, I have not been to Sri Lanka and I determine my views of the country on the basis of the evidence provided by those organisations and by people whom I respect, including the many organisations that I have just named and my own constituents.
In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to give an apology to my constituents because in 2008 and 2009, when they told me that cluster bombs were being dropped on their relatives by a democratically elected Government and that tens of thousands of people were being herded into a tiny area, I did not believe them immediately; it was only when they became more desperate and told me more that I began to believe them. The problem is that too many of the institutions that we respect did not believe them either and did not accept what they were saying, which is precisely why we are in the position that we are in now.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I can thoroughly understand the hon. Lady’s approach to this whole debate. It is on a very emotive subject, and more to the point there have been atrocities committed on both sides—that is evident. However, I say to her that we are now years ahead from where we were. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is living proof of reconciliation—after 600 years—here in this House.
We should move on. As I say, I understand where you are coming from and I also understand what you have said has happened. I think that everybody in this Chamber accepts that there have been some irregularities in Sri Lanka, to say the least. But we are at a point now where we must move on, we must help Sri Lanka to improve and we must have reconciliation. I have been to Rwanda and I have seen what has happened there. The perpetrators of war crimes there are back in their own communities and being productive.
If you go to Sri Lanka, and I am sure that the Government there will invite you, and probably have invited you already, you will see what progress has been made—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Thank you, Mr Morris. Interventions on another Member’s speech should be brief. Also, I remind new Members, who have now been in the House for more than two years, that they should not use the word “you” to refer to another Member in the Chamber.
Siobhain McDonagh
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have never been invited to Sri Lanka? Generally, I do not do international travel in my role as an MP, because I am constituency-focused. I secured this debate, and I have become involved in the Tamil cause, because of the Tamil community in my constituency and because of the information that I have received from them. I have become aware of the despair and distress that they experience. My own experience as someone who is London-Irish—I have Irish parents— is that people cannot just ignore what happened in the past. People cannot just move on and forget, because people do not forget. If we do nothing now, we will say to the next young generation that violent struggle will continue. We must address the issues now, in order to make progress.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on her work and I urge her to resist the temptations from the Sri Lankan Government lobby that is in Westminster Hall today and trying to claim that all is well in Sri Lanka when the reality is that it certainly is not. Furthermore, holding the Commonwealth conference in the country would be an endorsement of the Sri Lankan Government’s policies on the Tamil people, and would be extremely damaging to the cause of human rights, to the image of Sri Lanka and indeed to the prospect of a peaceful future for the country.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will obviously take his views on board.
Mr Thomas
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. As she knows, I had the privilege of being a Minister in the Department for International Development during the last Government. As a result, I saw the private assessments of the situation in Sri Lanka, the type of which the Minister now has the opportunity to see. What was clear then was the scale of the human rights abuses that were being perpetrated. I do not think that we knew then the level of detail that has come out since, but we certainly knew that the Sri Lankan Government—through their military and paramilitary police, for example—were perpetrating considerable human rights abuses.
That was part of the reason why Britain led in Europe on the withdrawal of the GSP plus trading arrangements—the generalised scheme of preferences—which signalled our concern about human rights. My hon. Friend is rightly demanding that this Government show the same commitment as the last Government in demanding action by the Sri Lankan Government. It is a pity that we have not yet heard cross-party support for the aspiration for our Government to get a bit tougher with the Sri Lankan Government.
Siobhain McDonagh
I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. Although I completely understand the duty of any Government—most importantly during a recession—to travel to gain more trade and support, I ask the Minister to consider whether that is appropriate in the case of Sri Lanka.
I say that because the last thing that the international community needs right now, after the failings of the past few years, is for Governments such as our own to put the pursuit of profit ahead of the responsibility to protect. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and the developing situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—two countries that I have never been to—both show why we need to be strong. A credible and robust approach to international relations by the UK, and more widely by the international community through the UN, is vital. When the UN internal review was published in November, Ban Ki-moon said:
“Our obligation to all humanity is to overcome our setbacks, learn from our mistakes, strengthen our responses, and act meaningfully and effectively for the future.”
However, I am very much afraid that the international community would rather move on and pretend that these events in Sri Lanka never happened, just as it turned a blind eye while the atrocities in the country were taking place. If we are not strong now, we will abdicate our moral authority over Sri Lanka. Regimes such as those in Syria and DRC will see that there is nothing to lose and that justice will not be served.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the international community’s failures in Sri Lanka are addressed. Accountability and reconciliation must take place. When the 22nd session of the UN’s Human Rights Council commences next month, our Government should take a lead. The issue of whether Sri Lanka has complied with previous resolutions on accountability and reconciliation should be a priority. The UN’s HRC, with Britain to the fore, must be prepared to take urgent action to initiate credible, independent investigations in Sri Lanka. For the sake of other civilians around the world who are under threat from their own Government, we have a responsibility to be strong. We should tell Sri Lanka in no uncertain terms that we cannot support its hosting the Commonwealth summit while its reputation is under a cloud. We have a duty to protect, and we cannot fulfil that responsibility by continuing to be weak, weak, weak.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Seven Members contacted me before the debate seeking to speak, and another Member has contacted me from the Floor. In a moment, I will call the first speaker, Lee Scott, followed by Barry Gardiner. With Members’ consent, I propose that the running order will then be Robert Halfon, Ian Paisley, James Wharton, Jeremy Corbyn, Aidan Burley and Simon Hughes. Personally, I am keen for all those Members to contribute, but if they are to do that, Members will need to keep their remarks to within five minutes; if they run over, the last speakers will not be called. I propose to call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman at 10.40 am and the Minister at 10.50 am.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this vital debate.
Perhaps I can prevent any interventions and save some time by saying that I, too, have not visited Sri Lanka: someone who is criticised for everything they say because none of it suits the Sri Lankan Government is hardly likely to be taken to Sri Lanka and shown what they want to see in an uninhibited way. Like the hon. Lady, I would be delighted to make an unfettered, unhindered visit to Sri Lanka so that I could go wherever I wished to go, ask whatever questions I wished to ask and see whatever I needed to see. In that spirit, I look forward, in my role as the chairman of the all-party group on Tamils, to me and my deputy chairman receiving such an invite, but I will not hold my breath.
You will be pleased to hear, Mr Hollobone, that I am not going to repeat what has been said and that I want to look at different aspects of this issue. It is easy to say that one should forget the past, but if we do, we predict what will happen in the future. Should we forget Auschwitz, Rwanda or the atrocities committed in Northern Ireland? No, we should not. That would be an insult to the memories of the people who lost their lives on all sides, and that is not acceptable.
If we are to move on, there must be reconciliation and true justice for all. It is not my role as a non-Sri Lankan and a non-Tamil to say who was or was not responsible. Anyone who has watched “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” or listened to independent evidence knows that atrocities were committed, and people need to be brought to justice. Simply saying, “It wasn’t us who did it” is not acceptable. Someone took out women and children, someone raped people and someone interned people. Someone has not said where missing children are, when relatives in the Tamil diaspora around the world want to know what has happened to their families.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are nearly 94,000 internally displaced Tamils without proper facilities, following the terrible tragedy that took place a few years ago?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Those who are listed to speak should bear in mind that they will have a turn. By making an intervention, they will just knock somebody else off the end. Please can we restrain ourselves so that we can get everybody in?
Mr Scott
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. Can I have 30 seconds back for that?
All I really want to say is that I want justice for the Tamil people and for all Sri Lankans. For that to happen, however, the UN must play its role. Over a number of years, it let down the Tamil people and allowed things to happen that should never have been allowed.
Mr Thomas
I note the Chair’s comments about the time, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that it would be wrong for Britain to attend the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka unless there is a dramatic change in the situation on the ground?
Mr Scott
Where do I stand? I am sorry, Mr Hollobone. The hon. Gentleman and I should not be having a conversation across the room. I apologise for that, as I am sure he does. Where do I stand? I want to see reconciliation and justice before any such thing happens. I think that is clear.
In my final 20 seconds, I should say that the Tamil people have suffered, and their diaspora suffers. There must be justice for all, but most importantly, at the UN’s meetings in March, I would like to hear what the Sri Lankan Government will do to ensure that an international inquiry shows what has happened and who is responsible so that those involved are brought to justice. I have gone five seconds over, Mr Hollobone, so I apologise.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She knows more and has researched more than anybody in the House, and she has done more to keep this issue at the forefront of its debates and of the Government’s mind, as they consider their obligations to the international community.
I arrived here this morning with a speech that detailed many of the things in the UN internal report and the way in which the UN had looked at its own failure. It is important to understand that it was extraordinarily courageous of Ban Ki-moon to establish a report looking at the UN’s failure properly to protect people and to intervene at the right time in the war in Sri Lanka. Although it was a courageous report, however, it now needs to be followed up. It highlighted many of the actions that took place at the time, but the international community must now see whether the reconciliation that we all wish for has actually taken place.
My hon. Friend spoke of the LLRC. At the time, many of us said it was a smokescreen intended to avoid having the independent international review that was being called for. However, the Minister said, “Let’s give it space. Let’s see what it comes up with. Let’s see whether it actually delivers. If it does, we should judge it on that basis.” Well, it has now produced its report, but it has not delivered. The international community, from the UN right through to Amnesty International, has acknowledged and documented the LLRC’s failings. Initially, the commission made absolutely no mention of war crimes; subsequently, under pressure, the Sri Lankan Government made further moves to switch the international community’s focus. When the Minister sums up, I would ask him to be true to his words in our previous debate: we should judge the Sri Lankan Government by their actions. On any international standard, they have failed.
I said I had come with a speech that I had prepared. What I was not prepared for, however, was the schoolboy nonsense from the Government side—“Oh well, have you ever been to Sri Lanka?”—and the sniggering when my hon. Friend said that, no, of course she had not been there. Does that in any way reduce the value and the quality of her research? Absolutely not.
I wish I had not been to Sri Lanka, because I could have stood with my hon. Friend, but I have been there. A decade or so ago, the then Foreign Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), asked me to become involved in the second tier of the negotiations that were going on at the time. I was partly responsible for Anton Balasingham coming here with his wife, Adele. I also went to Sri Lanka and met all the parties there.
When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I invited Mahinda Rajapaksa to dinner there to discuss speaking to the communities in Northern Ireland to see exactly how reconciliation could be achieved and how a country could move on. At that stage, I hoped he would go back to his country to try to implement some of those ideals, but he did not: he went back and turned Sri Lanka into a kleptocracy, in which the Rajapaksa family controls absolutely everything. How is it that the President’s brother, Gotabaya, is Secretary of Defence? Another of his brothers, Basil, is Minister of Economic Development. Chamal, the third brother, is Speaker of the Parliament. They have carved up the country between them and there is absolutely no economic freedom.
If we take the Commonwealth Heads of Government or the Commonwealth Business Council there, what will we be doing? We will be putting money into the pockets not of Sri Lankan people, but of one family: the Rajapaksas. Anybody who pretends to be part of this debate without acknowledging what is going on in that country currently is fooling themselves. Those Members on the Government Benches may or may not have gone to Sri Lanka, but if they have, they have not looked into the detail of what is happening in that land, because it is corruption and it must end. The Government of this country should not allow Her Majesty the Queen to set foot on Sri Lankan soil.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, this morning.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has set out three compelling arguments, but before I go on to those, I want to say that I have never been to Sri Lanka. I would not want to go to Sri Lanka as it is currently constituted, just as I would not want to visit President Assad or the President of Iran—because I would be going to a bloodstained nation.
First, with every day that passes, it is clear that there is terrible persecution of the Tamils, especially of students, women, journalists and families. Secondly, because of our historic relationship and our economic ties, we can make a difference. I welcome what the Minister is doing to exert pressure on Sri Lanka’s rulers. Thirdly, the international community must show the Sri Lankan regime that there will be consequences if it does not respect and implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the tone of the debate so far? Should not we all agree that both sides must be held accountable for the crimes that are committed and that there has to be a genuine process of reconciliation? Until that starts, the Government need to think carefully about the level of representation at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Robert Halfon
I agree that it is important that we have a debate on both sides, but my firm view is that the emphasis must be to expose what has really been going on in Sri Lanka and how the Tamils have been maltreated.
Like the hon. Lady, I believe strongly in the responsibility to protect. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acknowledges on its website, after the civil war ended in 2009, approximately 300,000 Tamil civilians were displaced or caged in internment camps. The FCO website states:
“The Sri Lankan Prevention of Terrorism Act permits prolonged detention without charge or trial.”
We know that that power is routinely abused, most recently with the detention of four Jaffna university students just before Christmas. They were locked away without trial or any meaningful right of appeal. The regime also forbids the free movement of people, especially journalists, in many Tamil areas.
At the end of November 2012, an estimated 94,000 people were still internally displaced. In November 2011, the UN Committee against Torture even reported that the Sri Lankan military behave as if they are above the law. In 2011, Sri Lanka was ranked fourth highest in the entire planet for cases of unsolved journalist murders. Tens of thousands of Tamil men and women continue to live without security, shelter or independence.
I believe that Britain can put peaceful and diplomatic pressure on Sri Lanka. We are already Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner, their second largest investor behind China and their main source of western tourism. If the UN were to move towards economic sanctions under the responsibility to protect, British involvement would have a huge impact on the Sri Lankan economy. It is very rare for me to disagree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but the Government need seriously to consider, as the Canadians have done, boycotting the Commonwealth event. I do not believe that appeasement works. If the Government said that there would be a boycott unless things dramatically improved, that would have a significant impact on the Sri Lankan regime.
On the responsibility to protect, the lesson, as we have seen in recent years, is that in almost every case where the UN has shouldered its responsibility and stepped in, such as in Iraqi Kurdistan in the 1990s or more recently in Libya in 2011, catastrophe has been averted and it has led to economic growth and the beginnings of democratic reform. Where the United Nations has done nothing, such as in Syria, things have worsened.
We have to use everything at our disposal to make it clear to Sri Lanka that it can no longer behave like a rogue nation. Concrete steps have to be taken to demilitarise the north and east, civil administration should be restored and Tamils should be given their basic human rights: the rights to life and a fair trial, freedom of expression, movement and assembly, property rights and the rule of law. Sri Lanka should publish a list of all prisoners and where they are being held. The International Committee of the Red Cross must have access to all detention centres and a neutral commission should be appointed by the UN to safeguard property rights in Tamil areas and all resettlement programmes. Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission should implement the recommendations made in its interim report. Above all, Sri Lanka must comply with the recommendations of the report by the UN panel of experts and arrive at a durable justice for the Tamils.
Clearly the Tamil Tigers are no longer a threat to the Sri Lankan Government and can no longer be used as an excuse, but persecution continues. The excuse of security was used as a cover for genocide, and it is now being used for an attempt to wipe out the inheritance of the Tamil-speaking minority. The UN, as the hon. Lady said, has a responsibility to protect if a regime is abusing its own people. If we can put peaceful, legitimate but tough pressure on Sri Lanka, whether through sanctions or a boycott of the Commonwealth summit, that is what we must do.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On my journey to the House this morning, I drove through the memorial gates near the Mall. The words “Sri Lanka” are carved in granite on those gates to remind us that the Indian subcontinent, during the two great world wars, gave 5 million volunteers to this nation to defend freedom. When we hear the aggression from Argentina over the Falklands this week, we are reminded that the only country that stood with us in the international community in the original attempt to take back the Falklands was Sri Lanka. When a country that has supported us in the past comes under pressure, we should not kick it in the teeth. We stretch out the hand of forbearance and say, “We will help you through the difficult, post-conflict situation that you are clearly in. We will give you our experience and our help. We will not give you our hatred and our anger.” That is an important lesson that we, in a nation part of which is in a post-conflict situation, should recognise.
I have visited Sri Lanka on a number of occasions, both as a private individual and with constituents who had business there, as well as on a cross-party parliamentary trip. My experience was very different from what I have heard from propagandists not in Sri Lanka. The people on the ground gave a very different message from the out-of-touch one that I have heard from the self-appointed diaspora, both in Canada and here in the United Kingdom.
I have visited Jaffna, the most disputed part of Sri Lanka in the north. There I saw new housing settlements, with Tamils living in them. I had tea with some of those families, whose interests are fishing and farming. They did not talk to me about the past, even though they had opportunity to do so. Indeed, when I raised the past—I was with them on my own—they wanted to talk about their future, their children and their new housing settlements, which were supported by money given by our country through the EU to help rebuild their country. They wanted to talk about moving forward. I have met both Tamil and Sinhalese families, and their united wish was to present a picture of hope for their country, not a picture of division. It was a community that wanted to move forward. They did not want to hear the international community talking about what happened in the past; they wanted the international community to help them to move to a better future.
On one occasion, two of my guides were a Tamil gentleman and a Sinhalese gentleman who had been at war with each other. At the end of my visit, in tears they embraced each other, and they spoke about how they were now new brothers in a new land. Whenever I raised with them issues that I had heard in the propaganda in the United Kingdom, they could not understand them. They said that they bore no resemblance to their reality on the ground. In many aspects, Sri Lanka has made more measurable gains post-conflict than Northern Ireland. That is what I have seen on the ground, and we should recognise it and stop the suffocation of a country by its past and help Sri Lanka to move forward to a better future.
I took a day out and spent it with the leader of Tamil National Alliance, Mr Sampanthan. I spoke to him and his party colleagues at length, and I waited for him because I wanted to hear from him at first hand, without his being pushed or prodded into some of the difficult issues about the past. He did not raise with me the issue of the disappeared; he did not take time to raise with me the issue of war crimes; he did not take time to talk about routine torture, in his country, of his people. He had a politician with him from this nation and he did not want to talk about those things. In fact, he actively applauded the Government, whom he opposes. He applauded them on their investment in the country—in parts of the north—and he said that the most effective thing that many of his people required was practical help to get bicycles and other tools to help them to work and run their country. That was the message of the man who is leading the opposition.
If people took the time to speak to the active politicians on the ground who are representatives of their community, they might have a slightly different perspective than that in some of the propaganda that we have seen and heard. I urge the Minister to appeal publicly today to Sampanthan to stop his boycott of the political process, to lead his people and his party, and to join with other parties in the parliamentary select committee of Sri Lanka to find a political solution to the problems. We learnt the lesson the hard way.
People find a political solution by engaging in politics, not by asking for a boycott or for the international community to do their work for them—they do it themselves. I appeal to our Government to say to Sampanthan, “Lead your people and do not boycott the process any longer.” Politics, not a boycott, will work. The international community will not solve Sri Lanka’s problems. It will be the people of Sri Lanka, living in Sri Lanka, who will fix the problems of Sri Lanka, and we should actively encourage them in that. The biggest mistake that this Government could make would be to send the message to Sri Lanka that they were going to pull out of the Commonwealth talks later this year and punish a country that needs help, not more persecution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If our remaining four speakers take no more than four minutes each, they will all get in. They are James Wharton, Jeremy Corbyn, Aidan Burley and Simon Hughes.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who speaks passionately, with experience of post-conflict life and of rebuilding communities after a very difficult period. He gives us all cause to pause and to reflect on what the debate is really about. There was a great deal that I wanted to say, but as I have a very short time, I will significantly cut down my comments.
I have been to Sri Lanka a number of times, and the visits are all declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have gone there with colleagues, some of whom are here today. What worries me is how much misinformation is out there about what is happening on the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who follows matters in Sri Lanka keenly, has a different position from mine, but it is a genuinely felt one. He was absolutely right to say that we must not forget the past, but we must not misinterpret or misrepresent it either.
A problem that Sri Lanka has faced in the debate in the western world, in this Parliament, in the media and in other places across the globe is that, for a variety of reasons, too many people try to change what happened in the past, to change the accepted facts of what went on. The reality is that a lot of what we see is not based on facts or in reality. I have raised the point before in the House that even the Darusman report, which preceded the UN report that has led to the debate today, specifically states, in paragraph 53:
“This account should not be taken as proven facts, and any effort to determine specific liabilities would require a higher threshold.”
It is made clear that the report establishes a narrative that can be used to work forwards but that none of the data—for example, on the numbers of casualties—should be quoted as specific figures. The facts on the ground regarding the provision of food and medical supplies are starkly different from some of the evidence given by unnamed sources to the expert committee that put together the report.
I am conscious of the time, so I just want to draw the House’s attention to a few areas in which progress is being made in Sri Lanka. Most of the 300,000 internally displaced persons have now been resettled. I visited Menik farm, one of the welfare camps set up to house the huge numbers of people displaced by conflict in January of last year. There were about 6,000 people left, and the camp has now closed and the people have gone home. They have been able to do so because demining operations have proceeded at an amazing pace, with more than 900,000 mines and unexploded ordnance having been cleared, primarily by the Sri Lankan army but also by the HALO Trust with support from UK aid, and I congratulate the UK on its contribution.
More than 120,000 houses have been constructed in the north and the east, nearly 600 child soldiers have been rehabilitated and more than 10,000 adult combatants have been rehabilitated or reintegrated into Sri Lankan society. Some 900 Tamil speakers have been recruited into the police force in the north and east, and that is important in building trust in a community that does not have historic trust in its Government and the organisations that represent it. Investment is key, as is infrastructure, so that the economy can grow and people can improve their lives.
When I went to Sri Lanka with the charity International Alert, we visited a group of young Tamil people in the Vanni, and they talked about jobs and employment prospects, about what they were going to do and what they wanted to do. They talked about the challenges that they faced at home and about how they wanted to get education and the cost of education. They talked about the same things that young people in colleges in my constituency talk to me about; they share some of the same problems. They wanted to look forward and go forward.
The tone of debate in the House too often worries me, because we focus on what we can do to punish the Government of Sri Lanka, whether by the removal of the generalised system of preferences or the UK’s pulling out of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Such things will not damage the Government of Sri Lanka; they will damage progress towards peace and the prosperity of the people who live in Sri Lanka. The tone of the debate here needs to change. We need to work constructively with the Government of Sri Lanka to put pressure where it is due and, where we can, to deliver improvement.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I will be brief, Mr Hollobone, so that the other Members can get in. I compliment you on your chairing of the debate and on your announcing in advance the line of speakers. That is helpful, and it is a good precedent for Westminster Hall debates.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on their contributions and on their work within the all-party group for Tamils and in support of the Tamil diaspora. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and I have been involved in issues regarding the Tamil people and Sri Lanka ever since 1983, when we were both first elected to the House, and I have never forgotten the huge demonstration that took place in July of that year in London because of the problems that there then were in Sri Lanka. There has been a litany of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka for the past 30 years and beyond.
It is not an accident that there is a large Tamil diaspora in London. Many Tamil people came to this country to seek a place of safety because of the civil war in Sri Lanka in the 1980s and the years before. I pay tribute to the diaspora community for pulling together. It supported the hunger strikes that took place out here in Parliament square and mobilised 200,000 people to march through London in support of the rights and survival of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. Mobilising 200,000—almost the entire diaspora community—was a remarkable achievement; but, disgracefully, the British media routinely and almost totally ignored it. They were more concerned about traffic disruption in Parliament square than about human rights in Sri Lanka.
I recognise that things have changed and that things have to move on. There has to be a peace process, reconciliation and a reckoning with the past, which we are looking at to move forward.
My two essential points are that the UN report of last November specifically refers to the shelling of hospitals and civilian areas by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the way in which UN staff were driven away from the areas of conflict in 2008. I hope those issues will be seriously examined at the UN Human Rights Council meeting next month, which I hope to attend, as I have attended many Human Rights Council events
If we do not consider those issues, if we do not ensure the closure of what I do not refer to as welfare camps—at the end of the conflict, they were more like concentration camps—and if we do not address rights and opportunities for Tamil people in Sri Lanka, the war will return in a different form at a later stage. It is not a question of the Sri Lankan Government claiming victory over the Tamil people and the Tigers, as they have done; it has to be a question of their perception of the future of that country, otherwise in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time, if any of us are still here, we will be debating the same thing again: yet another massacre of Tamil people and yet another wave of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka trying to flee to a place of safety.
I hope that the Minister is able to tell us that the Government will be robust on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and will play a robust role at the UN Human Rights Council next month to show that the UN, the Human Rights Council and the human rights of the Tamil people matter in bringing about long-term peace in Sri Lanka.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Many speakers this morning have started by declaring whether they have visited Sir Lanka, and I intervened on the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) to ask whether she has done so, because I visited Sri Lanka in July 2012 and spent eight days travelling all over the country. I did not just fly into Colombo; I went to the north, the east and the south. I went to Jaffna and Kilinochchi, Trincomalee, Kandy and Hambantota. I went to all the rural areas, not just to the towns and cities.
I went to the Jaffna teaching hospital and discussed the lack of medical equipment with some of the doctors. I went to the chamber of commerce and discussed inward investment with business leaders. I visited resettlement projects in Ariyalai and mine clearing in Kilinochchi with the HALO Trust, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned, is partly funded through the Department for International Development.
I met the President in Kandy. I also met, Mr Sampanthan, a leader of the opposition, for several hours in Trincomalee—I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)—and I remember him telling us that he wanted a bicycle for every one of his people, which is his main priority.
I have detailed my trip because I strongly believe that people can only speak authoritatively and honestly about a subject if they have first-hand experience, seeing things with their own eyes and forming their own impressions, rather than just watching a Channel 4 documentary. After all, would a person buy a house just because someone told them it was nice, or would they want to see the property first hand? Would a person move to an area just because someone said it was a nice place to live, or would they want to visit the area first?
Everywhere I went on my eight-day trip to Sri Lanka last year, I saw the same thing first hand: Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims living harmoniously with each other, getting on with their lives and rebuilding their country. I saw the different communities and faiths living beside one another after their horrendous civil war. I saw Sinhalese boys and Tamil girls playing together in the playgrounds of the schools that we visited. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate. The UK should be helping Sri Lanka, our former colony, to rebuild itself. British politicians should understand Sri Lanka’s reconciliation and help it to demine, so that communities can move back to their own lands. I saw that happening with my own eyes; I saw the minefields being cleared through the HALO Trust, and I saw houses being rebuilt and crops being grown on the old minefields. That is constructive. We saw HSBC and Marks and Spencer in Sri Lanka. I learnt that the software that runs the UK stock market is based in Sri Lanka.
All that is positive—it is about jobs and livelihoods—and we should be having a debate on encouraging trade to Sri Lanka. British politicians should be leading business trips and delegations of British companies to Sri Lanka to encourage Sri Lankan and British businesses to work together. Britain has the second-highest number of tourists to Sri Lanka—a country that desperately needs tourists’ pounds. I do not believe this debate will help that rebuilding process; it is a negative debate that perpetuates old myths and stereotypes and is based on narrow interest groups in the UK that have their own agendas.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that he was astonished to see the Sri Lankan Government lobbying here. I know lobbyists for the Sri Lankan Government. My constituency is 99% white, and there is no diaspora. I have no candle to hold for the Sri Lankan Government; I am just recounting the first-hand impressions that I witnessed for myself by bothering to go to the country. The hon. Lady should go to Sri Lanka and speak to the people of Sri Lanka, not to the people of Mitcham and Morden, and listen to what they have to say. I found a country at peace with itself. That is what we should be debating and supporting: helping Sri Lanka to build a better future for itself, rather than letting extremists in the UK divide it.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I appreciate the initiation of this debate by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I remind some colleagues, who I think have forgotten, that the subject of the debate is Sri Lanka and the UN responsibility to protect. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, I have taken an interest in the subject during all my time in the House—not because I have a significant number of Sri Lankan, Tamil or Sinhalese constituents, but because I am a human rights lawyer and I think minority rights need to be protected.
I have been to Sri Lanka, and I paid for myself—I had political meetings some years ago. I was not allowed to go everywhere I wanted to go, particularly in the north. I regularly engage with Sri Lankan Ministers and high commissioners, sometimes very frustratingly, when they have been in this country. I am a co-founder of the all-party group on conflict issues. I have worked with the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Elders to ensure that young people from both communities have gone to Sri Lanka.
I found the civil war one of the most depressing, frightening and unhappy periods of my time in the House. I was with the Tamil community out on Parliament square pretty much every day, and I arranged to go with them to the White House to try to get the US to press the UN and the Sri Lankan Government. They met the Commonwealth secretary-general and the leader of the European Foreign Affairs Council. I had a conversation with the UN and the Tamils, and the UN was unable to do anything; it failed abysmally. The UN agreed in 2005 that there should be a responsibility to protect, but it did not do any protecting. The UN pulled out, which was absolutely scandalous and shameful. The UN proved itself to be a totally ineffective organisation at that time.
My interest now is to ensure that the UN learns those lessons, with the UK’s help, and that the Sri Lankan Government learns those lessons, too, because Sri Lanka is not yet a wonderful democracy. Sri Lanka is nepotistic, as has been described. Disappearances have not been explained. Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for journalistic freedom in the world on all objective indices. Assassinations have happened, and no one has been brought to trial for them. Not all people are allowed to go back to their own community, and I say that not because I am pro-Tamil and anti-Sinhala—I am a member of both all-party groups—but because, so far, minorities have not had an equal opportunity to play a part in Sri Lanka.
I know the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to peacekeeping and bridge-building from our work together over the years.
Given that the UN set up its panel of experts, which reported to Ban Ki-moon in November 2012, and given that the UN Human Rights Council agreed a resolution in Geneva—we supported that resolution, which will come back for assessment this spring—what are we doing to ensure that the UN responsibility to protect means something in future? That responsibility does not yet mean something, and an amendment to the way that the Security Council and the UN work is needed.
What will we do in Geneva in the next few weeks to ensure that the accountability that was sought is implemented? What do we do to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government are held to account for war crimes? There were war crimes on both sides, but Governments have a particular responsibility not to commit war crimes, and they need to be held to account.
What will we do about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting? It should not have been agreed to hold it in Colombo. Unless Colombo shows that it is moving in a fundamentally different direction, the UK should not support the Commonwealth, which has been weak on the issue, or endorse the Commonwealth’s support for the regime by its presence in Colombo. That would not be the right approach for the British Government. I hope that the Minister will be robust. We need Britain to be robust, in the interests of everybody in Sri Lanka and of a successful future for Sri Lanka as a whole.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Hollobone, I join in congratulating you on how you have chaired this debate and managed to call all the speakers. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. I have participated with her in previous debates on Sri Lanka, and she is not just passionate but knowledgeable about the situation there, despite not having visited the country.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) discussed the eight-day trip to Sri Lanka in July, which was arranged by the Sri Lankan high commission. Nine Conservative MPs went on that trip, plus the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I certainly was not invited. As I am the Opposition spokesperson on Sri Lanka, one might think that I would have been the first port of call if the high commission genuinely wanted it to be a cross-party trip. It is obviously useful and important to visit countries and see the situation on the ground, but the experience on such trips and the lessons learned tend to depend on what one is shown and who is the host. This debate has amply demonstrated how going to see things on the ground does not necessarily give the whole picture.
Kerry McCarthy
I will not, because it is important that we give the Minister time to respond. I want to use less than my time if possible.
Like the Government, we welcome the report of the internal review panel on UN action in Sri Lanka, and we note the panel’s conclusion that the Secretary-General took a courageous step in commissioning the review, but that in itself is not enough; we must learn lessons from it. We must not just focus on the extent to which the Sri Lankan people were let down by the international community; we must see how we can move forward.
The temptation with any review is to focus on the past. We should not forget the atrocities committed on Sri Lanka’s killing fields, the tens of thousands who needlessly lost their lives during the civil war or the many other civilians who have been affected. I do not support calls to draw a line under those atrocities; I do not think that the time has come to say that we can now move on and forget what happened. Many people have not been held to account for the crimes that they committed, and we must still focus on that. I thought it quite shocking that one Government Member referred to irregularities in the past. They were much more than irregularities. It is also shocking that people cast doubt on the evidence, such as was shown in the Channel 4 programme, about what happened in Sri Lanka. It is well documented by international organisations.
As the head of Amnesty International’s UN New York office stated, the review is
“a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes”.
Amnesty warned that there is “no evidence” that
“the Sri Lankan Government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations…has changed”.
The most pertinent conclusions on which we must now focus are that the report’s recommendations provide
“an urgent and compelling platform for action”
and that the
“UN’s failure to adequately respond to events like those that occurred in Sri Lanka should not happen again.”
Many have been shocked by the review’s finding that UN staff
“did not perceive the prevention of killing civilians as their responsibility”.
On the concept of a responsibility to protect, the review warned:
“Differing perceptions among member states and the Secretariat of the concept’s meaning and use had become so contentious as to nullify its potential value. Indeed, making references to the responsibility to protect was seen as more likely to weaken rather than strengthen UN action.”
The panel concluded that there is an
“urgent need for the UN to update its strategy for engagement with member states in situations where civilian populations…are not protected”.
Will the Minister outline the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s current interpretation of the responsibility to protect doctrine? What discussions have the Government had with international colleagues about the internal review and how the situation can move forward?
During the past year, the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has been published, but as has been widely acknowledged, it failed to address the credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both sides in the conflict, as highlighted by the UN panel of experts. The LLRC’s composition and narrow terms of reference were deeply flawed, as is borne out in its report, which fails even to mention torture, despite the fact that the UN Committee against Torture noted “continued and consistent allegations” of its widespread use.
The LLRC was in no way adequate, but some of its recommendations offered a foundation on which we could build, providing that they are properly implemented. In accordance with the UN Human Rights Council resolution passed in March, the Sri Lankan Government developed their national action plan, about which I have asked the Minister before, but there remain few signs of meaningful progress, as noted by many countries and non-governmental organisations during Sri Lanka’s universal periodic review towards the end of last year. What contact has the UK had with the Sri Lankan authorities since the periodic review? Will the UK set out identifiable goals that can be assessed at the UN human rights plenary session in March, which must take the opportunity to reassure the people of Sri Lanka that the UN can help them?
The year 2013 could prove to be a crossroads for Sri Lanka, but the UN is not the only institution with a pivotal role to play. Many Members have mentioned the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit later this year. The UK’s stance to date has been ambiguous compared with, for example, that of the Canadian Prime Minister, who stated unequivocally that, unless there were clear signs of improvement in Sri Lanka’s human rights record, he would boycott the summit. Is the UK Prime Minister’s attendance at CHOGM provisional? If so, what conditions must the Sri Lankan Government meet if the UK is to be present?
We must also consider the UK’s duty to protect. Will the Minister update us on the Foreign Office’s discussions with the Home Office regarding deportations to Sri Lanka, which other hon. Members have mentioned? Finally, given the UN’s clear failures to protect civilians and recognise the Government’s human rights abuses and the shortcomings of the LLRC, does the Minister agree that the people of Sri Lanka deserve an independent international investigation to provide not only answers and accountability but a clear way forward for their country?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I add my thanks to those of my colleagues, Mr Hollobone, for your chairing of this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her brevity and her remarks. I start, as always, by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. Her deep and committed interest in Sri Lankan issues is well known. I welcome the opportunity to state the Government’s position and the opportunity that she has once again provided the House to discuss the issue.
I welcome the interventions of a number of colleagues in this debate. They have been passionate, thoughtful and honest. The difference of views expressed across the Chamber emphasises the complexity of the issue. In an effort to defuse a little of the heat, may I say that, bearing in mind the history of the issue and who was in Government in 2009, a degree of humility in all parties is helpful? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The contributions of colleagues with personal experience of reconciliation in parts of the UK were particularly important in bringing to the surface some of the difficulties involved.
The UK’s relationship with Sri Lanka is long-standing, strong and based on close historical, cultural, educational, commercial and family ties that will not weaken. The United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large Sri Lankan diaspora community, which contributes much to our rich and diverse culture. Over the past couple of years, I have met regularly with Sri Lankan Ministers, parliamentarians from different parties and members of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. As has been noted, in two weeks’ time, I will make my second visit to the country.
The hon. Lady suggested that my visit might be taken as a vindication of the Government. I assure her and the House that judging from experience over the past couple of years, my remarks are not always taken in that way by the Government, who are entitled to see them as they wish. I do not think that that is a particular risk.
There are different ways of visiting a country. People do not always have to go on a Government-sponsored visit; non-governmental organisations are operating, for example. People should declare everything and of course they must be on guard, no matter who takes them on a visit. It is helpful to visit and get a picture, if it is possible to do so, although that does not preclude views from those who have not visited but know a great deal about the issue.
The decades-long war in Sri Lanka, which ended in 2009 with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, devastated the country and deeply scarred its population. Sri Lankans deserve lasting peace and reconciliation and where the United Kingdom and international organisations, such as the UN, are able to encourage and support the process it is right to do so.
I want to deal with three elements that came out of this debate: the situation of the UN; progress being made in Sri Lanka; and issues to do with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In essence, I agree with and support the remarks made by the hon. Lady. It is right that the UN has been through an intense process, examining its role in relation to the conclusion of events in Sri Lanka. We welcome the report by the panel of experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General in 2011, which found credible allegations that both sides were involved in violations of international humanitarian law, and its setting up its own independent internal report to consider what happened with regard to the UN’s role. We agree that shortcomings were identified. In following that up, we note that the UN has moved swiftly to put in place a lessons-learned programme overseen by a panel chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General’s office. It is there that we will make our contribution to how the UN is going to repair what it failed to do in relation to the responsibility to protect, and we will follow that panel’s progress closely. I expect that questions will be raised about that over time.
We are committed to and support the concept of responsibility to protect, which was supported by all UN member states in 2005. The difficulty that was found in 2009 was that a pillar III responsibility-to-protect response required the agreement of the UN Security Council. It was clear at the time—former Ministers in this Chamber know this better than I—that there was not widespread support in the wider international community for a more assertive position towards the parties to the conflict. This turns out to have been a tragedy. The United Kingdom’s primary concerns during the final offensive were to ensure unimpeded access by humanitarian agencies and compliance with international humanitarian law, including investigations of allegations of violations. The UK focused, therefore, on the parties’ obligations to protect the civilian population.
Barry Gardiner
In the light of what he has just said, will the Minister comment on paragraph 15 of the internal report? It says that there was
“concern that the moment that humanitarian organizations leave, the Government will begin bombing Killinochchi town and that the physical security of the civilian population will be at increased risk”.
It is implicit that there is safety by the UN organisation’s very presence and that there is supervision.
Alistair Burt
Yes. As we have all said during the debate, the UN is examining its processes carefully as it finds fault in what it did in the past and emphasises the importance of UN engagement in the most difficult circumstances. Of course, we see in Syria today how difficult that has become. No doubt, the UN panel will look carefully at how it failed to meet that obligation and what might be done in difficult circumstances in future.
The LTTE is a brutal, ruthless organisation that rightly remains proscribed in the UK, but a military victory alone cannot deliver the stable, lasting peace all Sri Lankans deserve. Addressing events during the final days of the conflict is important and the UK has consistently called for an independent investigation into allegations of violation of international humanitarian law on both sides. There needs to be a more fundamental approach that goes beyond accountability. Colleagues have mentioned this in terms of the context of the future of Sri Lanka being for Sri Lankans themselves and how they take this forward. Therefore, we support the view, widely held in Sri Lanka and outside, that long-term peace can best be achieved through an inclusive political settlement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. Such a settlement must also take into account the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all Sri Lanka’s communities.
On the progress that has been made, the Sri Lankan Government recognised that in appointing the LLRC, which submitted its report in December 2011 and made more than 200 recommendations, including calls for credible investigations of alleged judicial killings and disappearances, demilitarisation of the north, implementation of impartial land-dispute resolution mechanisms and protection of freedom of expression.
Although we welcome the recommendations that were made, as I said at the time, the Government’s view is that the report left gaps and unanswered questions on alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. We were disappointed by the report’s conclusions and recommendations on accountability. None the less, as colleagues have said, the recommendations, if implemented in full, would go a long way to achieving the reconciliation that we believe will achieve lasting peace.
What progress has there been and, in answer to colleagues who have asked what we are looking for, what have we measured? The UK recognises and welcomes progress made in various areas. UK officials have visited all nine provinces of Sri Lanka in the past 12 months and have seen much to welcome. The absence of conflict has brought greater security and opened up economic development—the demining was mentioned by colleagues—with UK financial support, freeing up yet more land for resettlement and agriculture. Rehabilitation of thousands of ex-combatants, including child soldiers, has allowed many individuals to integrate back into society. The majority of internally displaced persons have now moved out of camps, although there is still work to be done in ensuring that “permanent homes” means just that, and does not mean people being deposited in places that they came from. Troop numbers are well below those in 2009. Although that is positive, there still remains more to be done to ensure that there is lasting peace and prosperity.
The March 2012 Human Rights Council resolution, supported by the UK and a number of member states, called on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the LLRC recommendations and address alleged violations of international law. I assure hon. Members that we will be robust in pursuing that in the March 2013 council meeting. We wish that action plan, with deadlines from early this year for the implementation of LLRC recommendations, to be carried forward. It only covers about half of the LLRC recommendations. When I go to Sri Lanka in a couple of weeks, I will see if Sri Lanka will consider implementing all the recommendations and, if so, how to take it forward.
It is too soon to talk about our attendance plans for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We will not move from that position for a period of time. Sri Lanka was scheduled to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011, but given ongoing concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation, the UK and other Commonwealth members did not support its bid. However, Commonwealth members decided that Sri Lanka would host in 2013. To reopen that decision would require a consensus of all member states and I do not think that is likely.
I have listened carefully to exchanges between hon. Members. The intensity of views and the sharp divide between colleagues emphasises how difficult and complex the situation is. A decision on the location of CHOGM is not for the UK; it is for the Commonwealth. The meeting will discuss many issues, not just Sri Lanka, but as Sri Lanka well knows it will inevitably shine a spotlight on the host country, demonstrating either its progress or lack of it. It is up to Sri Lanka to choose what will be seen. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we expect the Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate that they uphold the values of the Commonwealth.
Colleagues have said that the UK should not let Her Majesty the Queen go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It is important to clarify that she attends that meeting as head of the Commonwealth, not the UK Head of State. Her attendance is not a decision for the UK Government. If she were to ask for advice, it would be from all Commonwealth members.
Following the resolution of the conflict, it is clear that long-term reconciliation is an issue. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), perceptive as he often is, said that unless that is done the problem will come back at some stage to haunt everyone in Sri Lanka. The process of reconciliation is not easy. Some progress has been made in implementing some of the recommendations in the LLRC report. More needs to be done. The LLRC needs to be given time and good will must be there on all sides to see the process through. Nothing has been swept under the carpet and we are mindful of what has happened in the past and of the wishes of all Sri Lankans for the future.
Female Genital Mutilation
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, which I have done on many occasions.
I am delighted to have secured this important debate on what I believe to be a national scandal, with thousands of victims violated and failed every year. Although the scandalous practice of female genital mutilation is shrouded in secrecy, the Government estimate that 20,000 girls under 15 in England and Wales could be at high risk of FGM. That is more than 50 young victims every day. It is happening now, as we speak in the debate. The issue is not party political, and has been raised by Government and Opposition Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is recognised in this place and outside the House for her tremendous work in raising the matter.
Eradicating the practice will take not only cross-party support but cross-departmental work involving the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Foreign Office. The subject is complex, but I want to use today’s debate to understand the Ministry of Justice’s role in dealing with FGM and to press the Minister responsible for victims of crime on what the Government are doing to ensure that those voiceless victims are protected. I want to know what her Department is doing to champion that cause and what she is doing not only to prevent people from becoming victims in future, but to seek justice for existing victims. I understand that several failings fall under the remit of the Home Office, but my concern is that no Minister is specifically responsible for FGM. Given that there are 20,000 victims every year, the victims Minister should perhaps shoulder a fair proportion of that responsibility.
Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence in this country since 1985, but some may argue that it has been a criminal offence for much longer, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In my respectful submission, FGM is without a shadow of a doubt grievous bodily harm. It is an appalling practice. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 made it illegal to take children abroad for the purposes of FGM. Despite that, however, it is astonishing that there has not been a single prosecution. I welcome the recent efforts of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the publication of the Crown Prosecution Service action plan. Keir Starmer QC stated:
“It is critical that everything possible is done to ensure we bring the people who commit these offences against young girls and women to justice”.
Right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that commitment, but those words need to translate into justice for thousands of victims.
Despite those recent developments, I am confused as to why it has taken such a long time for basic questions to be asked about why there has been a failure to prosecute this most despicable child abuse. It is a criminal offence, and it is not good enough for the prosecuting authorities to try to mitigate inaction by suggesting that prosecutions are made difficult, or even impossible, merely because young girls do not present themselves at a police station to report their parents for this vile abuse. It is a criminal offence and it needs to be tackled.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured today’s debate. When I raised the issue of female genital mutilation and questioned the lack of prosecutions, the problem did not seem to be at the Crown Prosecution Service end; the police were simply not referring cases to it. I think that there were three cases in which the CPS had to make a decision on whether to prosecute, but it felt that there was not enough evidence. Does he agree that the police also need to make female genital mutilation a much greater priority?
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has raised the issue on several occasions in the House. She is absolutely right that the police need to do much more, and they need to work with other authorities.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I am pleased and grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing today’s debate. To pick up on that last point, there is one thing that the police need to think about. There was a recent and well-known exposé in a major national paper. Some hon. Members were present at the annual general meeting of the all-party group on female genital mutilation when the Director of Public Prosecutions explained that prosecutions were not possible on the back of that exposé. However, the idea of going after the aiders and abettors, for which the 2003 Act more than makes provision, is one thing that we need more heft behind, because it is obviously a more promising route than trying to get children to report their parents.
Karl Turner
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I had the opportunity through Hilary Burrage, who has campaigned tirelessly on female genital mutilation, to meet the leading French prosecutor. What the hon. Lady suggests is exactly the action being taken in France. Working in that way clearly helps to prevent perpetrators from committing the offence.
I am pleased that we now have a victims commissioner. It is not a party-political point, but it has taken at least 12 months for that to happen. I am sure that Baroness Newlove will do an excellent job and continue the good work of Louise Casey. I want to know the Minister’s thoughts on how much the victims commissioner should prioritise female genital mutilation.
Over recent months, we have heard many positive words, but I am concerned that positive words are not reducing the shocking number of victims on the ground or delivering the justice that victims deserve. The NSPCC rightly states that preventing future victims should remain a priority, but we need to see justice for the 50 victims who will suffer the abuse this very day.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other measures ought to be brought into play? In other countries, nurses in schools automatically have to ensure that the authorities are informed about such matters. That does not seem to happen in this country.
Karl Turner
I agree with the hon. Lady that the authorities need to work more closely together, and to share information with teachers, nurses and GPs. I have spoken to many professionals who avoid the issue either because of the sensitivities or, as was suggested to me recently, because they are struggling with their departmental budgets. They avoid dealing with the matter. The hon. Lady does not seem terribly impressed at that comment, but that point was put to me very recently. The reduction in social services budgets is definitely an issue, because female genital mutilation is not the priority that it should be.
The lack of evidence and witnesses is also an issue. The lack of prosecutions is compounded by many factors. The police are not investigating FGM with enough vigour, as was suggested earlier. It is estimated that of the 20,000 suspected cases some 6,000 will be based in London. The Metropolitan police’s Project Azure was set up to tackle the problem, but a freedom of information request showed that the team consisted of only two police officers—one full-time and one part-time. It is ridiculous to suggest that such policing is sufficient to tackle this shocking issue.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Has he considered whether the authorities can work with individuals in the communities involved who are concerned about what is happening? Does he have any views on that?
Karl Turner
I do have views, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has raised the matter in the House on numerous occasions. An issue that follows from that is the obvious lack of data collection. It is accepted that robust data collection and assessment of the problem are urgently needed. A Government equality impact assessment was published last year and stated:
“Lack of data is an ongoing issue in the government’s work to prevent and tackle FGM.”
It will be impossible to tackle the problem without robust systems in place to identify its true level and at-risk children. I am pleased that this is now a priority in the Crown Prosecution Service’s action plan, but the Home Office assessment said that a large-scale community-based study would have a very high cost, and that the Department will continue to examine alternative options and to consider how existing data may capture information about FGM.
Jane Ellison
I apologise for intervening again. On that specific point, the House may like to know that nearly a year ago Quality Now! led a Home Office-funded two-day expert methodological workshop. It made specific recommendations on how robust data could be gathered in ways that would be less expensive than those that the hon. Gentleman described. That report and the recommendations have been sitting in the Home Office for almost a year. It is good that it funded the original workshop, but a plan exists and could be funded cross-departmentally to get us away from relying on data that are extrapolated from the 2001 census. Hon. Members will be aware of how much Britain’s demography has changed since the 2001 census.
Karl Turner
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She is more expert in the matter than I am, and has raised the issue consistently since being elected to the House. I welcome her thoughts on the issue.
I have said previously that the Crown Prosecution Service action plan is a step in the right direction, and I welcome it, but I would be interested to know whether the Director of Public Prosecutions believes that current legislation should be reviewed, and whether evidence to prosecute under other legislation is easier to support. The CPS action plan is not the silver bullet. We need a national action plan—an integrated cross-departmental plan—that is adequately funded to stop this despicable crime.
I am concerned that for many years there has been interdepartmental buck passing. When I say that the issue is not party political, I mean that sincerely. The reality is that the previous Government failed dreadfully in tackling the issue. They had 13 years in which to take the matter on, and since then the current Government have not done a lot. We must have a national action plan because the issue needs strong political will, not just warm words.
Given that this crime produces 20,000 victims every year, I suggest that the Minister’s Department has a single Minister with specific responsibility for providing justice to victims. As the NSPCC rightly states, female genital mutilation is a form of physical child abuse that should be dealt with through the child protection system. Reticence or failure to intervene effectively is not acceptable in other instances of child abuse, nor should it be in the case of FGM. We need a standardised FGM data collection policy. I wholeheartedly welcome last month’s landmark passing of the UN resolution calling for a global ban on FGM, and I hope that the UK will now act on the issue with focused priority.
Finally, I suggest that statutory teaching of sex education in primary school may assist in helping to eradicate this vile practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. I earnestly congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate on victims of the abhorrent crime of female genital mutilation. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on their important interventions. I congratulate particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on her tireless work over many years, and as chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation.
Female genital mutilation is an extremely painful and harmful practice that blights the lives of many young girls and women. The Government roundly condemn the practice and are determined to see it eradicated in this country and elsewhere. In my joint role as Minister with responsibility for victims and the courts and Minister for Women and Equalities, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of responding to this debate.
The practice of female genital mutilation is an age-old one that is deeply steeped in the culture and tradition of practising communities. Those who practise it no doubt genuinely believe that it is in their children’s best interests to conform to the prevailing custom of their community, but that does not excuse the gross violation of human rights. It is wholly unacceptable to allow a practice that can have such devastating consequences for the health of a young girl. The physical and psychological effects can last throughout her life. The mutilation and impairment of young girls and women have no place in a modern society where equality is prized.
My Department is responsible for the criminal law in this area. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 extended significantly the protection that the law affords these vulnerable young victims. It created extraterritorial offences to deter people from taking girls abroad for mutilation. To reflect the serious harm caused, it increased the maximum penalty for female genital mutilation from five to 14 years. Sadly, like the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 that it replaced, the 2003 Act has yet to result in a successful prosecution, which is a source of considerable frustration. That is not, as some have suggested, a reflection of the effectiveness of the law itself. The law is perfectly capable of dealing with perpetrators if offences are reported to the police, and evidential and public interest tests for prosecution are met. At the time of mutilation, however, victims may be too young, too vulnerable, or too afraid to report offences, and they may be reluctant to implicate family members. The simple fact is that no law can be effective in this area unless the barriers to prosecution are overcome.
Karl Turner
Before being elected to this place, I practised as a criminal lawyer, and I worked on behalf of defendants who were charged with serious sexual abuse of children. It is not often suggested that it is difficult to bring such cases to prosecution, and the same issues are involved. Will the Minister explain her point?
Mrs Grant
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s criminal law experience. The law is robust, extensive and adequate but, unfortunately, dealing with the issue often involves very young children who are frightened and reluctant to take action against family members. There is often pressure within their community not to give evidence and not to say anything.
Mrs Grant
I would disagree, but obviously, the adequacy of the law is something that we will always keep under review. I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions has had conversations with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials—I think the hon. Gentleman is aware of those—on the effectiveness of the law, and whether new laws or other legislation, such as the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012, might help in those areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be kept under review, but I will discuss a number of other things in my speech that can be done in the interim.
Jane Ellison
The Minister may well be moving on to this point, but I just want to agree with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said. If the police wanted to go after the people who were organising this, they could. I hope that the Minister will address in her remaining comments the fact that, ultimately, there is a lack of will. We all know that children are not going to report it. They are too young. They are not going to report their parents, but people are setting up the travel and the medical care when the children get back, and they are meeting them at the other end. Where there is a will, there is a way. This has been held back by some misguided notion that it would be racist to pursue the issue. It is racist not to. If these girls were white middle-class children, we would be protecting them a lot better than we are now.
Mrs Grant
I hear everything that my hon. Friend has to say, and I am aware that she knows a considerable amount about the matter. I do not accept that there is a lack of will, but I hear what she has to say, and I will make sure that as much action as possible is taken to deal with the issues that she highlighted.
I very much welcome the action plan that the Director of Public Prosecutions published recently, with a view to bringing a successful prosecution for female genital mutilation. The willingness of victims and others to come forward and give evidence in court is crucial. We need to create a climate in which victims, and those close to them, feel able to report offences to the police and to receive the help and support that they need to give evidence, so that perpetrators of this unacceptable, dreadful practice can be brought to justice.
Of course, the law is only one part of tackling the problem of female genital mutilation in this country, and prosecution after the fact does not relieve the victim from a lifetime of pain and discomfort. Ideally, we want to prevent the mutilation from happening in the first place. We need to educate people and change their attitudes— sometimes long-established attitudes. A holistic approach and a multi-agency response are vital.
Heather Wheeler
The Minister talks about a multi-disciplinary approach. I wonder whether she could open up discussions with the health authorities, because I understand that, under the NHS, restorative medical treatment is not granted automatically.
Mrs Grant
I note what my hon. Friend says. I shall come on to health and cross-Government, inter-agency multi-practice in a moment, but if I do not cover her specific point, I will be happy to write to her.
A joined-up approach within Government is also important. The Government’s approach to tackling female genital mutilation is set out in our “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” action plan. Our key focus is prevention, and cross-Government work, co-ordinated by the Home Office, has seen significant progress in raising awareness of female genital mutilation and supporting professionals to intervene. Central to that work are the multi-agency practice guidelines on female genital mutilation, which were published in February 2011. They highlight the risk factors that teachers, nurses, GPs, police officers and social workers should be looking out for in their work, and they set out what action they should take. Above all, they stress the need for a collaborative effort to protect girls at risk. A review of the use and effectiveness of the guidelines was launched by the Home Office in August 2012, and a report on the findings of that review will be published later this year. Additionally, over 40,000 information leaflets and posters about female genital mutilation have been distributed to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country.
We also continue to support front-line organisations that work with communities to challenge their long-held beliefs about the practice. The Home Office launched a £50,000 fund in November 2012, from which organisations may bid for grants of £2,000 to £5,000. That follows from the success of the 2011 fund, which supported 10 organisations working to tackle FGM across England and Wales. Another recent initiative is the declaration against FGM launched by the Home Office in November. Based on the Dutch document known as the “health passport”, it sets out the law and penalties for female genital mutilation. It is supported by and carries the signatures of relevant Ministers, including my own and those of the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), as well as that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Department of Health continues to ensure that health professionals are able to respond appropriately to girls and women who may be at risk of genital mutilation and to those who have already been subjected to it. In May 2012, the then Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), wrote to the royal colleges and NHS agencies encouraging them to raise awareness of the problem among professionals, and the Department’s chief medical officer and the director of nursing, with the support of the royal colleges, wrote to health professionals drawing their attention to the multi-agency practice guidelines. It is clear from the responses received that all are committed to playing their part in eradicating this dreadful practice.
Work is continuing across Government to look at all possible ways of tackling this complex issue. To that end, in two days’ time, the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention, my honourable Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, will be co-hosting, with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a round-table meeting with key professionals. The meeting’s purpose is to explore how those working with children can work together to detect potential victims of FGM and deter those from considering carrying out the act. The public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, and the Minister with responsibility for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), will also be attending.
Ultimately, the eradication of female genital mutilation in this country will require the practising communities themselves to abandon this awful practice. It is a sad fact that older women, who are themselves victims of genital mutilation, are often the strongest advocates for the continuance of the practice. Such attitudes are deeply ingrained.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked what the victims commissioner’s role might be in relation to the issue. The victims commissioner has a statutory duty to promote the interests of victims of crime, including victims of female genital mutilation. I hope that she will be taking up her position later this month, and I look forward to working closely with her on those matters. He also asked about my role as victims Minister, with particular reference to female genital mutilation, and I can tell him that I will be working closely with the Home Office in a cross-Government capacity on an issue that, as I think he knows, is also very close to my heart.
In a wider context, I am responsible for looking after victims and doing everything that I can to care for, support and help them, including, of course, victims of female genital mutilation. I will be working with the police and crime commissioners to make sure that they do everything that they possibly can to eradicate the practice, and working with the police in their new capacities. We will be reforming the victims code, which will hopefully make it easier for victims—including victims of female genital mutilation—to navigate their way through the criminal justice system, which can often be very confusing and intimidating, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, having worked in it for many years.
In conclusion, the Government remain committed to protecting young girls and women from the abuse, and to ensuring that those living with its consequences get the care and support that they need and deserve. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that it will serve to keep this important issue firmly on the agenda.
Liverpool Care Pathway
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Mr Weir, I would like to say how much of a pleasure it is to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow Celt. I declare an interest as a board member of Living and Dying Well, which specialises in research into and opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide.
I shall begin with a summary of the current position. The “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient” was developed by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool as a framework for health professionals to use to ensure that people who are dying have as comfortable and dignified a death as possible. The pathway was developed and has been in use since the 1990s. Today, about 130,000 of the 450,000 patients who die in hospital care every year die while being cared for on the pathway. It has also been exported and is now in use in more than 20 other countries.
However, during the past few months, the Liverpool care pathway has been the subject of some very serious criticisms and allegations in the media, which has led to questions about whether it is indeed a worthy process. I shall explain why I sought this debate and the outcomes that I would like to achieve before considering in greater detail the criticisms that have been made of the pathway.
By any measure, the Liverpool care pathway plays a very significant role in how the end of life is managed in our country. Its role is much greater than most of us realise: 30% of patients who die in hospital care die while on the pathway. The sheer scale of this is why I believe that debate about it is too important to be led by national newspapers, although I certainly do not criticise those newspapers for reporting stories in the way they have done. Indeed, they have served a valuable purpose by raising public awareness of such an important issue. However, there is, almost inevitably, a tendency for newspapers to couch the debate in sensationalist terms. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that this complex and potentially controversial issue is subject to balanced and thorough debate in the House of Commons.
The outcome that I seek today is calm reflection by parliamentarians, including those on the Front Benches, on this most sensitive of issues—calm reflection on the issues without encouraging the spread of alarm and despondency among those entering care, which can result from sensationalist allegations. I also seek a response from Government—from the Minister—that they will ensure that the review on which they have already embarked includes careful and thorough investigation of the allegations that have been made of bad practice. It is important to know whether the allegations are accurate and, if they are, where the weaknesses lie and what needs to be done to put those matters right.
I am a supporter of the Liverpool care pathway, but my aim today is not to defend or to attack the pathway, those who have made allegations of shocking bad practice, or the media, which have given the allegations such great publicity. It is to promote open and genuine debate in Parliament. In any case, I am not in a position to judge how much substance there is to the various criticisms that have been made, but I do know that we cannot avoid death and I also believe that most people do not fear death so much as they fear the process of death. The aim of the Liverpool care pathway is to ensure that the process is as compassionate, dignified and free from pain and discomfort as possible and, importantly, consistent with public safety. Our aim should be that the pathway is used in a way that retains public confidence—that it is being used in accordance with the principles on which the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute developed it.
I hope that the Minister will agree that we must ensure that the pathway is subject to the very highest levels of scrutiny and that the framework can be allowed to be implemented only against a background of total transparency. There must be discussion with patients or with patients’ families or carers and there must be clearly available avenues through which complaints and concerns can be channelled. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the very serious allegations reported in the media will be thoroughly investigated and that, if any examples of bad practice are found, action will be taken to expose those responsible, to hold them to account and to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. The experiences at Winterbourne View and hospitals in Worcestershire and the appalling and chilling events that took place in Stafford are too raw in the memory to allow anything else. It is only through audit and disciplinary measures, if and when appropriate, that the Liverpool care pathway will retain the integrity needed for it to be acceptable and the confidence of those who might use it.
Two years ago, I had never heard of the Liverpool care pathway. I first took an interest in it as a consequence of my concerns about and opposition to the legalisation of assisted dying. I was hugely surprised by how widely the pathway was in use. I had no idea that 130,000 patients in hospital care died while on the pathway every year and I do not think that many people realise that today.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a fellow Celt. I congratulate him not just on securing the debate, but on the tone in which he has introduced it. He referred to the number of people who are on the Liverpool care pathway, but to help the debate has he done any work on the expansion in numbers since the 1990s? Did we swiftly move to 130,000? Is that a consistent number, or has there been a gradual increase over time? I ask that because of course it is the rolling out of the pathway that may lead to some people having less expertise—less skill—and then, as a result of that, some of the instances that my hon. Friend refers to some poor reporting of?
Glyn Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the need for training and expertise for all those who are responsible for putting people on the pathway and for looking after them when they are on it. I want to come to that later in my comments.
The negative coverage in our national media has probably increased awareness of the Liverpool care pathway. To that extent, I think that it has been a very good thing, but because I do not believe that the scale of the pathway is widely known, I think that it is right to say something about what the Liverpool care pathway is and what it is not in order to set out the context of the debate,. It is certainly not and must never be any form of “euthanasia by the back door”—a phrase that I have heard—nor is it a form of clinical treatment or even any specific type of care. It does not instruct doctors or nurses to provide this or that treatment. What it does is prompt them to consider whether certain treatments are appropriate in individual circumstances. It supports—it does not replace—clinical care. It is no more than a framework of good practice, backed up by training and education, to guide doctors, nurses and other health professionals towards delivering the high levels of palliative care that have been available in hospices for many years. It enables them to be transferred to hospitals, care homes and patients’ homes. It is about the appropriate way to look after a patient who is clearly dying through the last few days and hours of life.
Some other points should be made in this debate. The Liverpool care pathway does not recommend, as some have suggested, that dying patients should be deprived of food and water, although food and water may be withdrawn in individual cases if clinicians believe that that is the right step to take. The Liverpool care pathway does recommend to doctors and nurses that they explain to dying patients, or more often their next of kin, exactly what is happening and why. Secrecy forms no part of the Liverpool care pathway whatever.
It is also important to emphasise that there is nothing irreversible about being placed on the Liverpool care pathway.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this very important debate. I, too, share some of his concerns about the consistency with which the Liverpool care pathway is implemented across the country. I made some inquiries in the hospitals that serve my constituents, but information seemed to be lacking on the implementation of the care pathway. I am particularly concerned that patients placed on the pathway may have no opportunity to be taken off it if they improve. There are no figures on the number of patients for whom care has been reintroduced after being placed on the pathway. One of the hospitals told me, anecdotally, that no one there could remember anyone being taken off the pathway. I find that worrying.
Glyn Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Patients on the pathway should be monitored regularly, and if the patient shows signs of rallying, as does happen in a minority of cases, the treatment should be modified to support recovery. If that is not happening, the pathway is not being implemented properly. The Liverpool care pathway is not a pathway to death —a phrase I have seen used often, but which I think is unbelievably awful. It is a travesty of the truth to describe it as a form of euthanasia.
Why have we reached the point of huge public controversy, which has caused so much angst and fear? It has arisen from allegations—serious allegations, some of them from doctors and nurses—that the pattern of end-of-life care I have described has not been followed in some cases. There have been stories of dying patients being deprived of the food and water they needed and others being kept continuously sedated until they died; and of patients being placed on the pathway without consultation with them or their families, or to meet targets. The fear of that is especially shocking, and I hope the Minister will comment specifically on the issue of targets.
Let me look at some of the allegations in more detail. According to the Daily Mail in June last year,
“NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds”.
The report is based on a presentation to the Royal Society of Medicine by Professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist. He stated:
“The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.”
That is the debate being led by the Daily Mail. Professor Pullicino continued:
“Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”
Imagine how a frail elderly person entering hospital a few weeks after reading that would feel. Professor Pullicino added:
“Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.”
According to the Daily Telegraph, in September, a group of experts stated in a letter that
“dying patients…can…have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.”
The letter—again according to the Daily Telegraph—spoke of a “national crisis” in patient care, and
“a national wave of discontent…building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”
According to the newspaper, some patients were wrongly being put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die. The report continued:
“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway”,
and,
“many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.”
Those are shockingly serious allegations. If they are true, urgent corrective action is needed.
There is another side to the equation, however. More than 20 respected organisations, including the Department of Health, Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Macmillan Cancer Support, and the Royal Colleges of Physicians, General Practitioners and Nursing, have signed a declaration that
“Since the late 1990s, the Liverpool Care Pathway has been helping to spread elements of the hospice model of care into other healthcare settings”.
It mentions:
“Published misconceptions and often inaccurate information”—
referring, I think, to the stories in national newspapers I have quoted. Our task and the Minister’s is to reconcile the support of all those organisations for the Liverpool care pathway with the allegations made—in good faith, I am sure—by people who believe that the pathway is what they call a pathway to death.
Any tool is only as good as the workman who uses it. The declaration states clearly that the Liverpool care pathway
“Relies on staff being trained to have a thorough understanding of how to care for people who are in their last days or hours of life.”
We have to face the fact that, in most professions, there are instances of excellence and malpractice, and health care is no exception. It would be surprising if, when 130,000 people a year are dying on the Liverpool care pathway, there were no cases in which the pathway had been misapplied. That applies to every branch of medicine and, indeed, every occupation. There are good and less good doctors and nurses; there are well run and less well run hospitals; but to lay the blame at the door of the Liverpool care pathway is like tearing up “The Highway Code” because there are some bad drivers. Where there is bad practice and poor care, it should be rooted out and replaced with good care.
It seems to me that the review the Government recently launched provides an excellent opportunity to consider thoroughly all those issues. It is urgently needed. The review should call for any evidence of poor end-of-life care. We need the Minister to assure us this afternoon that the stories I have quoted will not simply be taken at face value, but will be investigated in detail, so that we can establish the scale of poor end-of-life care, and understand the causes and correct them.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the important points the hon. Gentleman is making. My constituents John and Mary Roche lost their mother five years ago. They came to see me because, having seen the media reports, they were concerned about her care toward the end of her life—she had been admitted to hospital and subsequently had her food and nutrition withdrawn. Does he think my constituents and others like them should be encouraged to share their stories, so that they can be taken into account in the Government’s review of the Liverpool care pathway and its appropriate use?
Glyn Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, because I most certainly do agree. I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, more people will come forward to put their experiences, especially of bad practice, in front of the Minister and the review.
We must not forget that it is necessary not to allow the shortcomings of some end-of-life care providers to undermine the outstanding work that the majority of doctors and nurses perform. It is easy to forget that, for those caring for people in the last days and hours of their life, alarmist stories cause real problems, misleading vulnerable people and their relatives into thinking that the unhappy experiences reported so prominently are typical of end-of-life care as a whole, making them reluctant to accept care that is genuinely beneficial, and generating fear of going into any sort of care setting. My sense is that the high profile given to these serious allegations, unaccompanied by supporting evidence, is analogous to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. We need to know that the Minister will consider all the allegations that are made, including those that have been reported, look at the evidence, and institute whatever changes are needed to ensure safety and thereby confidence in the integrity of the Liverpool care pathway.
I end with a general observation. I was appalled, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber was, by the recent revelations of poor care in a Worcestershire hospital, in Winterbourne View and in Stafford hospital. I was moved, as many of us will have been, by the observations made in the main Chamber before the Christmas recess by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) regarding the inadequate and cruel care given to her late husband. We are reading about too many such cases. Considerable advances have been made in medical science, but we must ensure that, at the same time, we do not lose commitment in the NHS to basic care. I cannot help wondering whether the examples of poor end-of-life care that some relatives believe was given to their loved ones stem from the wider malaise of forgetting how to care for the sick, rather than from any specific clinical protocols such as the Liverpool care pathway.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Several Members wish to speak. I want to call the first of the Front Benchers no later than 3.40 pm. A quick calculation suggests that, if Members keep their speeches to about seven minutes—and interventions are brief—I will be able to call everyone.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this essential and timely debate.
As hon. Members and the Minister will know, opinions on this end-of-life care framework tend to be polarised, but I believe that fundamental questions need to be answered about how the Liverpool care pathway has fallen into such disrepute, when it was developed to help doctors and nurses provide quality end-of-life care for the dying. That involves palliative care options for patients in the final hours or days of life, not a procedure that some members of the public now regard as a way prematurely to kill off the terminally ill or senior citizens.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has outlined the process in which the Liverpool care pathway should work, involving significant communication if possible with the patient, but certainly with their next of kin and family. I share his support for the framework when it operates properly and allows the dying to die with dignity and free of pain. Why are there so many stories in the press of distressed families complaining that they did not know that a relative had been put on the pathway? The huge problem lies in the human application of the rules, not necessarily in the rules themselves. One in three families of those dying say that they never received the leaflet explaining the LCP process that they should have been given. Why is it not mandatory to evidence in the notes discussions with the patient or the family about the Liverpool care pathway?
Some would say that the difference between a multidisciplinary team decision, taken with the family’s knowledge and consent, and a decision taken in isolation could be seen as murder or at least manslaughter. The stark reality of the Liverpool care pathway is that 57,000 patients a year are dying without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. In some respects, there are parallels with the cases of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, which were supposed to be operating the same system as that in every other NHS trust in the country and yet somehow ended up abjectly failing their patients, so that people died unnecessarily. The sheer scale of the failure to inform people, or their relatives, that they are on the pathway opens up the practice to attack.
People talk about back-door euthanasia and some say that it is tantamount to assisted death, except that in 57,000 cases people were not aware that they were being assisted. That has to be added to the cocktail of the timing and the context of where we are now. The NHS is saving £20 billion over four years. There are service pressures—the lack of available beds and severe cuts in social services budgets that result in bed blocking, together with the demands of an aging society—but, frighteningly, as we have become aware via the press, at the same time hospital trusts receive financial incentives for achieving certain performance targets in putting people on the Liverpool care pathway.
Let me be clear—not for one second am I suggesting that those factors are part of the decision-making process; I use them merely to highlight the fundamental problem of the pathway and the perception that exists in the wider public, especially among the elderly.
Why do hospital trusts require any financial incentive to follow the Liverpool care pathway? For me, that question goes to the very heart of our national health service and our absolute understanding of what the medical profession stands for in people’s eyes. We believe that it is the role of the NHS and medical professionals to take every conceivable step to preserve life until the options are exhausted. The Department of Health has proposed to enshrine in the NHS constitution, as a patient right, an entitlement to be informed of any consideration about placing a patient on the Liverpool care pathway. Why can that not be made a legal requirement, so that everybody knows—and we are sure that everybody knows—and can be assured that taking such a decision is right?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this important debate. To go back to the hon. Lady’s point about the financial incentives for hospitals, it appals me, too. Surely, if patients or their families are not consulted, the Liverpool care pathway is not being followed, so any payment by the Department of Health to a hospital for having supposedly had someone supported by the pathway is money paid wrongfully, deceitfully and possibly unlawfully. Does she therefore agree that the Department should tell hospitals that have failed to consult family and friends or the patients themselves that the Department wants back some of that money?
Rosie Cooper
That takes me back to my earlier point that we should document the conversations with families, so that that would be the tick box for payments. I am running out of time, so I shall move on quickly.
Will the Minister elucidate how the NHS constitution requirement will make a difference? Procedures are already in place, yet 50% of patients on the pathway were not informed, or their families were not consulted. It is time that the soundbite, “No decision about me without me” became a principle and a value, rather than the vacuous phrase that it currently is. There is no politics in that—it is really important; it is the core of everything.
Through Lord Alton of Liverpool, I am aware that Liverpool medical school requires all its students to undertake one month’s training in the care pathway, working in a hospice during their fourth year. Such good practice should surely be a core component nationwide, and in the light of a recent study, there is perhaps an argument for making it mandatory across the country. That kind of training needs to be given to those already qualified and working on our wards—not just doctors, but nurses and all members of the multidisciplinary team who are called on to make decisions. If there have to be financial incentives, they should follow the training to ensure that all those who care for the terminally ill and dying are properly equipped with the skills that they need, in what for all concerned are traumatic and often complex situations. Good training costs money and must be externally validated, and I invite the Minister to respond specifically about that need.
I see merits in a system that manages end-of-life care effectively—it is a measure of our humanity that we seek ways to ease suffering—but my concerns about the application of the Liverpool care pathway remain. There is far too little reassurance in the system, which has allowed the pathway to move from an end-of-life care system to one that is held up as hastening death. We can talk about the theory of how the LCP should be followed, but the fact remains that, in practice, it is not always implemented as intended. It should never be seen as a conveyor belt to the cemetery. Some 80,000 patients are supported by—not put on—the Liverpool care pathway, and many receive the finest care, but many is not good enough. It is said that about 1% of cases go badly wrong, but just one case—never mind 1% of cases—is one too many. Those who founded the pathway did so because of their respect for the dignity of patients; those who implement it need to understand and share that view or face the legal consequences and their own consciences.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
When I first entered the House of Commons some 30 years ago, I became the founder secretary of the all-party hospice support group, and Jack Ashley was the founder chairman. I am glad to say that that group has now become the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and palliative care. During those 30 years, an enormous amount of work has been done on enhancing palliative care in hospitals. We are fortunate in this country in having an outstanding hospice movement. Part of the purpose of the Liverpool care pathway was to ensure that the good practice of palliative care, which had been developed in hospices, could be spread to other health care settings, such as hospitals and care homes. Extending it to people’s own homes was also important because if people are asked where they would like to die, most say at home. The reality for each one of us is that we will die.
The Liverpool care pathway requires staff to ensure that all decisions to continue or to stop treatment are taken in the best interests of each patient, and emphasises that patients should be involved in decisions about their care and that carers and families should always be included in the decision-making process. An evaluation in 2011 showed that in 94% of cases, there had been such involvement. The idea of documenting conversations, which the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) mentioned, is sensible. In our own professional lives, and, indeed, as Members of Parliament, we all know that people, especially family members, do not always take on board news that may be distressing. Often it is quite a shock to be told that a loved one is near to death. Very often, the instinctive reaction is to want to ensure that life can be preserved for as long as possible, but we also have a duty of care to ensure that in people’s last days and hours they die well and painlessly and with as much dignity as possible.
I was very struck by two contributions in the Library briefing. One was a brave article by a specialist registrar who herself is a terminally ill cancer patient. Of the Liverpool care pathway, she said:
“It prompts us to have open discussions with relatives, and, if possible, patients, to stop unnecessary medication, to discontinue futile medical interventions, and to shift our focus of care to symptom-control, comfort and dignity… Most patients on the LCP, in my experience, are too poorly to eat or drink, but where a patient is alert enough to swallow we certainly continue to offer them food and fluids in my hospital. They are not ‘starved to death’. The problem with intravenous fluids is that cannulae need to be inserted to administer them. This is painful, often very difficult and sometimes near impossible in patients who have been in hospital for a number of weeks.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Although the hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, surely the issue must also be about those people who are not convinced about the system and who are suspicious and worried about what they have been told. There are people who have been denied fluids, and also drink and food. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there should be some protection in the system for such families so that they can feel assured that there is care? The point I am trying to make is that this should be about care and not killing, but many of us suspect that there is more emphasis on the killing than on the care.
Sir Tony Baldry
Very few of us can have the confidence of Cardinal Basil Hume who, in his book “The Mystery of the Cross”, observed:
“Death is a formidable foe until we learn to make it a friend. Death is to be feared if we do not learn to welcome it. Death is the ultimate absurdity if we do not see it as fulfilment. Death haunts us when viewed as a journey into nothingness rather than a pilgrimage to a place where true happiness is found . . . Death is not the end of the road, but a gateway to a better place.”
Few of us, irrespective of our faith, have that clear courage and confidence, but we all recognise that we will die. There is nothing about 21st century medicine that is going to keep the hon. Gentleman or myself, or any of us, alive for ever. Death, and the process of death, can be extremely painful, and it is our collective duty and responsibility to try to ensure that people die as painlessly as possible and with as much dignity as possible.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that people do not go into the medical profession to kill. My father became a doctor and my mother a nurse to ensure that they could give people the best quality of care. Although the press have published a number of stories about relatives who have expressed concern about how the local care pathway has been used, there is no systemic evidence to suggest that the policy is being abused. A consensus statement was published last year by several non-governmental organisations and charities, all of which are much respected in this House, supporting the Liverpool care pathway. They include Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Heart Foundation, Help the Hospices, Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Royal College of Physicians.
Sir Tony Baldry
No, I will not give way because others want to speak. This is an important issue, but we must ensure that we put it in perspective. If we are not careful, all the work that has been done over the past 30 years by a whole number of organisations, including those that I have just mentioned, to enhance and improve palliative care could be undone. Sadly, people die every day; that is the reality. It is not a failure of the NHS that people die. It is only a failure of the NHS if people do not die well. We need to ensure that all improvements, whether they be to records or to communication with patients and their families, are undertaken, but nothing should deter us from trying to ensure that everyone in this country gets the best possible end of life and the best possible palliative care.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this debate on such an important issue.
I represent St Joseph’s hospice on Mare street in Hackney, which is a beacon of good practice in end-of-life care. Under the expert leadership of its chief executive, Michael Kerin, its medical director, Dr Anjali Mullick, and the Sisters of Charity, who founded it more than 100 years ago, the hospice ensures that people in their last stages of life receive care and die with the respect and dignity that they deserve, and that is what we are talking about today.
It is worth reiterating here what end-of-life care should offer. It is about treating someone who is dying as a person, and not as a number or a patient, and about looking at that individual’s needs in the round. It is not about giving a mechanistic response. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) said, surely once a clinical decision has been made about someone’s life chances, we, as a compassionate society, should try to ease suffering and support them to die well. The Liverpool care pathway, which is used only when someone is in the last hours or, in some circumstances, the last days of their life, aims to provide the tools to enable rest and care rather than making active interventions that would cause a person to die less well.
Those fine principles are great, although they may not always be adhered to fully. Good leadership and training of staff are vital, and that is one of the issues I want to address in the short time I have to speak.
We face an important challenge as a society as we consider the end-of-life care we aspire to. Most of us want a choice of where we die. If we had a free choice, most of us would choose to die at home, supported by organisations such as Marie Curie or hospices such as St Joseph’s, whose nurses go out and care for people in the community. Where individual practitioners are out and about and are not being overseen, that will create greater challenges in the future for regimes such as the Liverpool care pathway, but that is no reason to dismiss it or not to see it as an important way of helping and supporting people as they die.
That raises an important issue for us as a society. If we agree that dying well is important, we need to recognise that practical and policy issues need to be addressed. Patient and family choice about where to die works only if proper 24/7 care is provided, whether in the home, the hospice, the hospital or another setting, and we need to make sure that proper resources and support are available. Often, that is about training practitioners in general so that they know what best practice is. If we look to our inner humanity, we all know what we would want, leaving aside all the medical trappings, if we were dying: we would not want to be poked and prodded in the last hours of our lives; we would want to have a good, well-supported death.
Training and development are vital, and I welcome the work done by trainee doctors in Liverpool, which my hon. Friend mentioned. When the hospice movement started, it was rare for doctors to get proper training; indeed, I think they spent about a day on the bedside manner for dealing with a dying patient and speaking to their family. Things have moved on a lot since then, and it is vital that, in the debate about the Liverpool care pathway, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The LCP has done good things, although improvements could probably be made at any point to any such approach. None the less, it is vital that we maintain the approach that dying well is important and should be available to all in every setting.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) not only on securing the debate but on the calm and measured way in which he introduced it—his was exactly the constructive tone in which we should discuss this concerning issue.
Last year, an 83-year-old widower was taken into hospital feeling very unwell. His eldest daughter visited him every day. No particular illness was diagnosed, but he was certainly weak and frail. After a few days, the daughter asked a nurse in the corridor, “How is he today?” Almost casually, the nurse said, “Oh, he’s not very well at all. He has not long to live. We are putting him on the Liverpool care pathway.” There was no discussion, no explanation, no consultation—just an announcement, a statement of fact, almost in passing. The daughter was shocked. As his eldest child, she thought, “Surely there should be more formality, more dignity, more of a clear process.” What gave her particular cause for concern was that her mother had become frail just two or so years earlier—admittedly after a brain tumour operation—and had been put on a regime of limited food and fluids. It had taken her weeks to pass away, which was agonising for her and heart-rending for the members of her family, as they waited and waited for their wife and mother to die. Again, there was no discussion or consultation with the daughter, although perhaps there was with the father. He was an elderly man in his 80s, and he was now lying in bed himself, about to be put on a similar regime.
After her mother died, the daughter felt a terrible guilt. Perhaps it had taken too long for her mother to die. Perhaps the daughter should have asked more questions. Perhaps she should not have let her mother suffer so much. With no medical background, however, she was left rather sad and confused. When the nurse announced that the hospital was putting her father on the Liverpool care pathway, the daughter, knowing a little more about it by this time, immediately contacted her sister, and the next day their father was moved to a nursing home. There, his needs were attended to in a positive and caring way. There, he did not die; in fact, he got better.
Now, well over six months later, that elderly man is very much alive. He is still being cared for. He is eating well, getting up when he wants to and resting when he does not want to get up. He enjoys visits from his family, although he does not enjoy it when his favourite football team loses in the last minute or so of a match, as happened last Saturday. He is listening to tapes of Sadler’s Wells opera company singing Gilbert and Sullivan, and he is joining in with “Songs of Praise”. He is having intelligent and considered discussions about his finances and looking forward to his 85th birthday. It is not a fantastic quality of life, but it is a life, and as he told his doctor in the nursing home, “I want to live.”
Minister, Mr Weir, concerned Members, I know all that is true, because the lady who passed away so distressingly was my mother, and the elderly man I have described is my father. I, their daughter, witnessed all those events first hand. In one sense, I am not sure I need to say much else to support the points that have been made, but the application of the LCP needs to be looked into.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and it is obviously painful for her. Does she agree that there is a distinction between accepting the notion that a life must end and accepting that there is an inevitable time frame in which that life must end? We must not make premature assumptions about that period, so it is critical that there is a clear understanding of what the Liverpool pathway means and how it can affect the timings of an event we do not know the actual trajectory of.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that intelligent comment, and I will talk further about that.
I want to speak now as a vice-chair of the all-party group on dying well and the all-party pro-life group. Despite my personal experiences, I believe the main intent of the Liverpool care pathway is compassionate and good. It is fundamentally aimed at what is increasingly called a good death. When correctly administered, the principles behind it are those of good palliative care, and they are fully in accordance with the view, which I hold, that all life is God-given and should be allowed to run its course, without death being hastened through unnatural intervention.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the passionate way in which she has dealt with this issue. Does she agree that it is important that those who work in the Liverpool pathway are highly skilled? If such care is left in the hands of those who are less skilled, there is a possibility that what could be termed voluntary euthanasia will take place. Does she agree that only highly skilled people should be involved in the Liverpool care pathway?
Fiona Bruce
I do, and this is where training is so important. Without the proper application of the Liverpool care pathway, death can be hastened, and that is not the intent of the pathway. Occasionally, even with correct application, it can be the unintended consequence—for example, through the use of narcotics to alleviate severe discomfort and facilitate a more peaceful passing.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s decision to hold an independent public inquiry into the LCP. I have met him, and I thank him for his open-minded, calm and reasoned approach and for the fact that he has had ears to hear concerns about the LCP. Without wishing to prejudge the terms of the inquiry, may I make the following suggestions for it to consider?
First, a number of pressures might subvert the proper implementation of the LCP, and I am grateful to Professor David Albert Jones of Oxford, who is an authority on this topic, for highlighting them. He says they are:
“the subjective character of judgments about how soon someone is going to die…the fact that the LCP may be initiated by people who are not senior clinicians familiar with the individual patient’s case and have not consulted with palliative care physicians… the influence of managerial pressures to reduce bed occupancy …reluctance to face the difficulties of continuing care of certain difficult patients…the euthanasiast outlook of some clinicians…the possibility of doctors or nurses regarding the LCP as a set of ‘tick boxes’…rather than assessing the needs of the patient…Other NHS organizational/staffing procedures or constraints”.
He adds:
“Research shows that care of the dying is poorest in the hospital setting”
in contrast to care in hospices, which I believe we all admire.
I also urge that the inquiry consider the following measures: that no patient should be placed on the LCP unless they are imminently, irreversibly and inevitably dying, which I understand to mean perhaps within 36 hours; no one should be placed on the LCP without its being discussed with a designated relative or carer; every patient placed on the LCP must be continuously monitored and reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team; documentation must be simplified and standardised, so that those implementing the LCP can easily follow the guidelines; training and supervision should be mandatory, as well as standardised and improved; non-clinical priorities in the use of the pathway must be eradicated and every patient must be treated solely according to their needs; payment for such care must be reconsidered; and the communication to relatives should be substantially improved.
I believe that, if it is well used, the LCP can improve standards of end-of-life care, especially in hospitals. It should promote better palliative care and support the kind of good death that we would all wish for ourselves and our loved ones. I sincerely hope that the independent inquiry will be a major step in facilitating that.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on introducing this important debate in such a measured and sympathetic way. It was effective indeed.
I do not like the term “Liverpool care pathway”; I prefer talking about guidelines for palliative care. That is probably a less contentious way of discussing it. The Liverpool care pathway was developed in Broadgreen, and I was born in Broadgreen. More importantly, my grandmother died there, having been readmitted several times. The last time she was admitted she had declined somewhat at home and I can remember the expression of horror on her face indicating that that was not the right way to treat her. She knew that she was going to die and she wanted to die at home, and she was being admitted unnecessarily to hospital. I regret that we arranged for that to happen. It is very important to get the last years, months and weeks of people’s lives correct and we certainly did not; hence there is a need for things such as the Liverpool care pathway and a more understanding, measured and sensible approach to affairs.
There is a need for the hospice movement, but the reality is that most people do not die in hospices; they die in the NHS and there is a need for the NHS to have some clinical guidelines to follow. That is particularly the case for those in their last hours, day, weeks and months, whose death is imminent and who cannot have that death prevented or, realistically, postponed. That is quite a high threshold to be met, and finance should in no way come into meeting that threshold. When finance does come into it, it can only corrupt the process. The Liverpool care pathway guidelines imply constant review and no one wants that coloured by financial incentives. After all, there is always the remote possibility of people getting the diagnosis wrong.
That is not a case against having guidelines at all or against thinking that we sometimes need to opt for a palliative choice rather than a remedial one, if there is no realistic remedial choice available. If that choice has to be made, there is no in-principle case for involving relatives and the patient in it, with the important caveat that what is done should be in the patient’s interest. I am not always sure there is an obligation to clarify the situation for the patient or their relatives, if they prefer to die in hope or expectation of recovery and find the thought of their inevitable demise insupportable, particularly if it will not change clinical behaviour and the only option is palliative care for that person. That is a difficult issue, which every clinician needs to face and be guided on in facing it.
There is certainly a need to inform the patient and/or relatives if expectations about care are starting to differ, or if the nature of the palliative care offered is unclear. That might be the case if a patient is wrongly categorised, or if there is a debate about the palliative care itself, and it is seen as substandard. Some of the episodes of dehydration that have been described in the national newspapers have seemed to me to be substandard palliative care. The bottom line is that palliative care should not worsen the condition or augment the suffering of somebody who inevitably will die, unless the patient chooses it. In certain circumstances, I can imagine somebody trading pain for more life.
Care can be worsened in two quite different ways: it can be worsened by disruptive, painful, pointless, futile interventions, and it can equally be worsened by neglect, and indifference to people’s symptoms and the manner of their decline. My aunt recently died in the Royal Liverpool, which has taken over Broadgreen. I remember going to her bedside and seeing the signs that said, “Nil by mouth”, and wondering whether we should offer her a drink while we sat there and talked. We never managed to get round to having a sensible conversation about that with the medical staff. I was never sure what I was confronted with. It might have been wise care; there may have been a genuine risk of choking, which I believe is one of the reasons why people are not given liquids at that stage. It might just have been neglect or absence of thought. What did not happen—and should have—was a discussion about treatment: a sort of negotiation.
If palliative care is the path chosen—it should only be chosen when it is, in a sense, the only path—there needs to be a negotiation. It is the trick of getting that negotiation right that is the difficult thing. We need to respect the rights of all people concerned, and the patient’s rights sometimes differ slightly from the family’s rights. The family fearing bereavement can only wish the patient to live at all costs. That may not always be the patient’s aspiration in that circumstance. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has started us along the path of having a measured discussion and review of these matters and I hope it continues.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I respect what my hon. Friend says on communication with the patient, but I would like to clarify something. A survey by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians said that half of those on the LCP are never told that they are on such a pathway. Also, the LCP is not just a framework of good practice but a pathway, taking the patient towards the presumed outcome of death. Surely, therefore, it is important to make it clear that there should be communication with the patient; it should not be only the best half who know.
John Pugh
That in part is the dilemma. I know that the saying is “No treatment about me, without me”, but there are certain circumstances that we will all be aware of where the patient is dying and the clinician is in an acute moral dilemma over whether to inform them that that is the case—that there is no hope and that they will be given purely palliative treatment. I am fairly confident that a good number of people will die in our hospitals for years to come, despite the Liverpool care pathway or any other guidelines that we put in place, who will, until the moment of their decease, expect recovery.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
We have just under 12 minutes left and two speakers to go. I ask that they bear that in mind.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am glad to have this opportunity and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for raising this important subject. We all know that the Liverpool care pathway was devised with the best of intentions. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) that none of us wants to end or take away palliative care. We all want to relieve pain and we all want people to die with dignity, but there are serious concerns about the Liverpool care pathway and that is why this debate is so important. Those concerns have been expressed by physicians. It was physicians—ethicists—who started this debate, not the newspapers. The newspapers did not start the ball rolling and we should be aware of that. Professor Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the university of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, have warned of the risk of “backdoor euthanasia”—their words—and that economic factors are being included when treatment is considered. We must be aware of these concerns, which were originally expressed by clinicians. However, I believe that it is one of the chief duties of those of us in this House who are not clinicians to speak up in defence of the vulnerable, the voiceless and those who are sometimes forgotten.
It is simply unacceptable that vulnerable people, including the poor, the elderly and those who do not have close friends and family to look after them, come to a premature death—an unnecessarily early death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others have said, in numerous cases, even friends and family caring for a loved one have not been informed that they have been put on the LCP. May I say that my hon. Friend’s speech was a wonderful speech? It drew on her personal experience and was one of the most moving speeches that I have heard in this place over many years.
I sat with my best friend, Piers Merchant, as he was dying; he was a former MP and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) will remember him well. I saw the morphine being pumped through his body. I am sure that he died early—perhaps a few hours or even a few days early, I do not know—from the morphine. Those of us who loved him wanted him to be cared for properly, but we also did not want him, or any of our loved ones, to be put on an irreversible path to death where that was avoidable.
I welcome the statement by the Department of Health that it
“has consistently made clear that care provision, including for people at the end of life, should be based on need.”
But the question that we need to ask in this debate is this: how are the Department’s intentions implemented on the front line of medicine and hospital care? No doubt there is wonderful care being given in many hospices, but is that gold standard being replicated in all our hospitals?
It is undoubtedly true that the LCP has led to the premature death—it may not be premature by much, but it is still a premature death—of as many as 130,000 hospital patients each year. This is a vital issue that we must address in this House; with 450,000 hospital deaths in Britain each year, that figure of 130,000 is about 29% of the total number of hospital deaths. In fact, this is a frightfully serious issue.
Mr Leigh
Does the hon. Gentleman mind if I do not give way? I just want to make my speech and give my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) a chance to speak too.
Professor Pullicino, who was quoted earlier, has himself personally intervened to have a patient taken off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated. So, despite the fact that we must listen to clinicians, it is simply impossible to determine satisfactorily that a patient has hours or days left to live, which is one of the worrying flaws of the LCP.
In November, an independent inquiry into the LCP was announced, and I welcome that announcement. My hon. Friend the Minister is doing his job extremely well in this regard, and we respect him as somebody who will genuinely try to get to the truth. He himself has said that there have been too many cases of patients dying on the pathway while their families were not informed, so he is quite right to zero in on that issue. He has said, “This is simply unacceptable.” I echo those words and I hope that he will repeat them when he winds up the debate.
Of course there are people who speak on both sides of this issue, but I believe that any inquiry must be conducted by a suitable variety of individuals and not just by supporters of the LCP. It is not good enough to state, as the Department of Health sometimes does, that the LCP is not euthanasia. It might not be euthanasia and, of course, if it is implemented properly it is not euthanasia. However, it has become obvious to many people that the LCP can be employed, and indeed has been employed, in cases that are highly questionable.
I say to those who have spoken today that what worries me is this: why is it that the average time to death on the LCP is 33 hours? An identical figure for average time to death was found in two consecutive national audits that were conducted two years apart. In the view of many people, that shows that the LCP has a machine-like efficiency in producing death within 33 hours, and that is why some people say that the LCP is in effect a “lethal care pathway”. Statistics suggest that fewer than 5% of patients put on the LCP are taken off it. Why only 5%? There is something wrong here, and the inquiry needs to get to the bottom of it.
I believe that we should appoint a member of the judiciary rather than a medical expert, to carry out the inquiry. Of course, they will have medical advisers, but we should appoint a member of the judiciary rather than just a medical expert to lead the inquiry, so that they can look at this complicated issue with a fresh perspective and a judicial mind.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Weir. In conclusion, I believe that we have a duty to instil confidence in each of the citizens and residents of this country that they live in a society that believes in their inviolable dignity as human beings, and that takes the necessary steps to ensure that they are cared for and looked after when they are ill, especially in the closing moments of their life.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Weir, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under you.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this important debate. I suspect that I am not particularly well qualified to speak about the Liverpool care pathway, but neither are an awful lot of my constituents. Therefore, it is very important that what we talk about today is how we can look after their interests, and the interests of others, in this regard.
I am very aware of what kind of death I want to end up having. Some six years ago, my father died while driving his car. He came out of his office, at the age of 89, to go and have lunch with the Archdeacon of Canterbury. My father had a massive heart attack, pulled over to the side of the road—thank goodness he did not take anyone with him—and duly died. It was just yards away from the church and I know very well that God decided, probably in his infinite wisdom, that the one thing that he was not going to do was allow my father, a former naval commander, to give the archdeacon a difficult time. However, I am very aware that—frankly—an awful lot of us do not have that kind of option about how we end up dying, if we have an option at all. Many people find themselves having to go into hospital, and dying there.
Many of us have a great deal of notice about dying. So, in the next few minutes, I want to talk about an individual constituency case that I had—an appalling story about the death of the father of one of my constituents in the Derriford hospital in Plymouth. In doing so, I want to ensure that the public are aware of the controversial approach to ending life and that we have a discussion about it.
My constituent’s father went to Derriford hospital from Mount Gould hospital, which is also in Plymouth, in April 2011 because he had become bedridden. He was put on the Liverpool care pathway without any food and water. That was supposed to last for up to two days, but he lived for 12 more days, finally dying on 8 May 2011. My constituent claims that during the time that her father was on the LCP, he perked up and was even watching television. Despite that, he remained on the LCP.
My constituent’s family feel, and I rather agree with them, that giving someone 12 days to die is not what this system should be about. Although Derriford hospital claims that staff spoke to the family on the ward, my constituent and her siblings dispute that. They claim that they did not know that their father was on the LCP until the car park attendant told them.
To give Derriford hospital its due, the chief executive—who is new to the job and was not at the hospital when this case happened—has dealt with the case subsequently, recognising that the clinical teams may not have explained fully to my constituent’s family what was going to happen and what was actually involved in the LCP. The family feel that they were forced to watch their father die under very distressing circumstances. Despite having his food, water and medication withdrawn, the family were horrified to see him biting the sponge that was being used to wipe his lips, because he was so hungry and thirsty.
Unfortunately, my constituent has also had a subsequent —and completely different—experience of the LCP when her brother-in-law died at a hospice. It must be remembered that hospice staff are specialists in helping patients at the end of their lives, and the more that we can encourage people who are suffering in that situation to be dealt with by hospices, the better. Certainly a lot of hospitals are very busy indeed and their staff do not necessarily have the time to carry out the kind of checking that we feel they should do.
I am very aware that the death of a close relative is a traumatic time. One should remember that patients’ relatives do not always take in the full story that they are being told and that they can become confused about what they are being told. However, we must ensure that a system is in place that avoids those kind of complications.
I am very aware that the Government are taking this whole matter very seriously and I am grateful to them for that. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues for the review, about which he wrote to me just today, and their proposal to produce a new pledge on care planning. To help my constituent, and many other people like her, we need to ensure that we have a timetable for that.
I pay tribute to bereavement charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care. They do an enormously good job in helping families through the whole grieving process. I ask for more training, and for more information for families so that they can be assured that their relatives will get the best care possible. By giving detail to the Government’s proposals, the Minister would be giving certainty to Benjamin Franklin. Members might remember that he wrote, in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy in 1789, that the only things we can be certain of are birth, death and taxes.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this extremely important debate and on his heartfelt but calm and thoughtful opening speech, which set exactly the right tone. How we care for the dying is a measure of how we care for all sick and vulnerable people. It is a litmus test not only for the NHS and the wider care system but for society as whole.
This debate comes at an important time because, as the hon. Gentleman said, in recent months growing media attention has been paid to the Liverpool care pathway. Several Members have talked about the misconceptions and the inaccurate information that has been published about it. I have read the recent consensus statement from 22 patient and professional organisations and also the full care pathway documentation, and it is clear to me that the Liverpool care pathway is not in any way about ending someone’s life but about supporting the delivery of excellent end-of-life care.
The pathway does not seek to replace clinical judgment; it is not a treatment but a framework for good practice. It does not seek to hasten or indeed delay death, but to ensure that the right type of care is available for people in the last days or hours of life, when all the reversible possibilities for their condition have been considered. I do not believe that it is a deadly or lethal one-way street. Precisely because it is not always easy to tell whether someone is very close to death, the pathway emphasises the need for constant and regular review, and if a patient’s prognosis changes, their care needs should be reassessed and, if appropriate, the use of the pathway stopped.
The pathway does not preclude the use of clinically assisted nutrition or hydration; in fact, it explicitly states that patients will be supported to eat and drink for as long as possible. It absolutely emphasises that wherever possible patients must be involved in decisions about their care, and that carers and families should always be included in decision making. Such involvement of patients and families is enshrined at the very heart of the Liverpool care pathway.
Robert Flello
Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is no consultation, and there is denial of care and of treatment that eases pain, it is not the Liverpool care pathway?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree. The issue we face is less about the pathway itself and absolutely about how it is implemented in practice. The pathway document states on its very first page that the pathway is only as good as the teams who use it.
There has clearly been an issue about taking a pathway that was developed by experts in one part of the country over several years, with regular training and audit, and trying to implement it across the wider NHS. Individual patients and families—as we have heard—and also the national audit of the Liverpool care pathway, suggest that there are genuine problems with communication. Too many patients and families are not properly informed about what the pathway is and how it works, and they are not effectively involved and their consent not sought at every stage and on all the necessary decisions. One incident in which patients and families are not fully and sensitively involved is one too many. It is not acceptable, and it directly contradicts the very essence of the Liverpool care pathway and its key principles and values.
Liz Kendall
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way as I do not have much time.
I welcome the fact that the issues are now being looked into. I understand that three separate reviews are being undertaken. The national end-of-life care programme is doing a short, snapshot review of complaints about the use of the Liverpool care pathway, the Dying Matters coalition is working with families whose loved ones have been on the pathway, to see what worked well and what did not, and the Association for Palliative Medicine and a range of other national organisations are talking to clinicians, to get their opinions regarding integrated care pathways in the last days of life, of which the Liverpool care pathway is one.
In November, the Minister said he would appoint an independent chair to co-ordinate the work of the different reviews, so I ask him: has a chair now been appointed? Will the chair, the Department of Health or any other organisations consider any additional issues, alongside the work that is under way? For example, will the way in which the Liverpool care pathway is paid for be reviewed? It is important that hospitals receive proper payment for the care they give and for any associated training, but any evidence that patients are being put on a pathway for financial reasons is a serious matter and is totally unacceptable.
Will there also be a review of the education and training in end-of-life care for new and existing staff, in particular training in how to discuss difficult, complex and emotional issues with patients and their families? One of the real challenges is that the process of death and dying is so uncertain. A patient’s prognosis is not always clear; the situation changes. Doctors are used to treating and curing, giving clear evidence, treatment and advice—or they are trained to do so—but it is not always possible.
I want to finish on a broader point, which is important for us in this House. The difficulty that NHS and care staff, the media, families and the public have in discussing end-of-life care reflects wider society’s lack of familiarity with death and dying, which was not the case 100 years ago. Age, cause and place of death are generally very different now from what they were at the beginning of the last century, when a far greater proportion of deaths occurred in childhood or early adult life, often from acute infections, with most people dying at home. Now, more than two thirds of the 500,000 deaths a year are among people aged over 75, most of them following a long-term illness such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory disease or dementia, and most are in hospitals and care homes.
Many people do not, therefore, experience the death of a loved one until they are well into mid-life. We do not see dying people and dead bodies—not for real. We see them on television and in computer games but not in real life, and we do not talk openly in society about death. I know that in all our families it is difficult to discuss death, but in the century of the ageing society, with chronic conditions as the major cause of death and disease, that must change.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said, death comes to us all, and we should strive for as good a death as possible. That will, of course, mean different things to different people—I would like to go quickly, and I hope that the people I love go quickly, too, and do not have a long, slow death.
Liz Kendall
Indeed, or have a premature death. For many of us, a good death means being treated as an individual with dignity and respect, without pain and suffering wherever possible, and in a familiar environment surrounded by the people we love. We need a full and frank debate about these difficult issues, handled calmly and sensitively and based on evidence and fact rather than on myths and misconceptions. Dying matters, not just to the NHS and the wider care system but to us all, and for that reason I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for securing the debate.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I do not have a Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind me, and I am most grateful therefore to you, Mr Weir, for your assistance with some Members’ constituencies.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate, and on the sober, serious and rational tone he deployed in his contribution. The whole debate, in fact, has been exemplary in that regard. I suspect that all of us in this room are after the same thing; it is how we secure it that matters so much. I have just over 11 minutes, which is not really enough to do justice to every contribution, so as soon as I possibly can, I will write to all the Members who have taken part, to update them.
I take the Liverpool care pathway extremely seriously. It has been much discussed recently: many hon. Members and members of the public have written to the Department of Health expressing their concerns, and there have been numerous parliamentary questions, too, all of which stems from a lot of media interest over the past few months. Several stories have appeared discussing the ways in which the LCP is used and what it is for. In particular, there have been a number of reports in the media alleging that patients are being placed on the LCP secretly, with no consultation with them or their relatives. It has been suggested that the LCP routinely involves medical staff withdrawing treatment, including food and fluids, from patients. Perhaps most seriously, the LCP has been accused of being a way to kill patients to save the NHS money. There have been suggestions that the Department of Health bribes hospitals with extra money for every patient placed on the pathway.
Those accusations paint a misleading picture of the purpose of the Liverpool care pathway, yet I take seriously the concerns raised by the families of patients who have experienced extremely poor end-of-life care. I am horrified by some of the stories that people have told me about the withdrawal of food and fluids from sick relatives in hospital and about the failure to inform loved ones that the patient has been placed on the pathway.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke movingly of her experience, and I am pleased that she came to the round table that I held to discuss those concerns. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made clear, the concerns are legitimate and should be taken seriously, not dismissed because of exaggerated reporting. What happens on the front line and how we translate theory into practice are so important.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh). I dislike the jargon: what on earth does “Liverpool care pathway” mean to patients and their families? We must use language that ordinary people understand, particularly at a most traumatic time for all involved. That is one thing we need to address.
One aspect of care that receives almost universal praise, as the hon. Members for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) have made clear, is the hospice movement, which grew from Dame Cicely Saunders’s belief that, however ill, people matter at the end of their life and should never be abandoned. That is why the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, led by Professor John Ellershaw, developed the Liverpool care pathway in the late 1990s. The pathway was designed to transfer the principles of hospice care—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), made this point—so that terminally ill patients always get the best treatment, even if they do not receive specialist palliative care.
The Liverpool care pathway is not a treatment but a framework for managing treatments, which is important to understand. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made clear, the LCP, when used correctly, is one way to ensure that the last hours or days of a patient’s life are as comfortable as possible. The guidance for using the LCP makes it clear that the aim is to support, not replace, clinical judgment. Sometimes there are questions about clinical judgment, but not about the pathway itself.
The Liverpool care pathway guidance sets out the following objectives and considerations for taking care of patients: determining whether any further medications and tests would be helpful; ensuring that the patient is as comfortable as possible—surely we all agree with that; helping the patient to take on food and drink for as long as possible, which means not denying them food and drink, as we sometimes hear; and taking care of the patient’s spiritual and religious needs, which is of acute importance to many people. The guidance reminds clinicians that unnecessary treatment or tests may cause harm rather than good.
The guidance states that regular review is acutely important. If their condition improves, the patient should be taken off the pathway. The 5% figure to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred is of concern and should be considered; it is essential that the medical team discusses the pathway with the patient, their family or their carers. Those people need to be fully involved in decisions about end-of-life care, even though those discussions may be very difficult. Obviously, those conversations need to happen as quickly as possible.
The Liverpool care pathway can work as intended only if each patient is fully consulted, unless that is not possible. Even then, the family must be fully involved. Through his interventions, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) made that point strongly. The opening section of the information sheet that comes with the pathway cites the absolute importance of discussion with the family. Staff must talk to the patient and their family as much as they need and want, to explain what is happening and why. That is non-negotiable. Any failure to do so is completely unacceptable.
The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) mentioned documentation, which is best practice and should always happen so that everyone can see what has been discussed. She also mentioned the constitution, and we are considering how we can give it greater traction. There is a sense that everyone agrees with the constitution, but what value is it? How can we make the constitution provide real power to patients in the NHS?
I agree with the shadow Minister’s concerns about translating across the whole system something that has been designed by experts. Such translation can be problematic and needs further attention.
Norman Lamb
I am conscious that time is tight. I will write to the hon. Lady. If she wants to raise issues with me later, I will be happy to address them, but I need to respond to the debate.
From what people have said, it is clear that there are too many cases where patients have been put on the pathway without proper explanation, without the involvement of their family and sometimes without any notification, which is totally unacceptable. Yet again, we see how right Dame Cicely Saunders was when she said:
“How people die remains in the memory of those who live on”.
The impact is profound. My wife works for Cruse Bereavement Care, which does magnificent work helping people who have suffered bereavement. We have a duty to give such people the best possible experience as they lose a loved one.
On 26 November, I hosted a round-table meeting with patients, families and professionals—both supporters and critics of the pathway were represented—and at that meeting I announced that we will appoint an independent chair to consider how the LCP is used and experienced and to examine the accusations made in the press. We expect to announce the chair of that review very soon, and we expect that the chair will want to identify a small panel of independent experts from a range of backgrounds, including representatives from faith groups, which is important. I reassure hon. Members that the review will be independent.
The Liverpool care pathway is internationally recognised as good practice, and it is widely supported by organisations involved in end-of-life care. If people do not feel that they have received the best care or, worse, if patients cease to trust the pathway, that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Training is fundamental, as the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Congleton and the shadow Minister said, and it will be considered as part of the review. The review will systematically examine the experience of the Liverpool care pathway by patients, families and health professionals, and it will seek evidence to support or refute the accusations and to see where improvements might be needed. The review will hear directly from families. There will be a session dedicated to families so that they can tell the panel about their experiences.
The review will also consider the role of financial incentives in the use of the LCP. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, the hon. Member for West Lancashire and others, I have concerns about the use of financial incentives. The review will report both to the Department of Health and to the NHS Commissioning Board by the summer.
Everyone wants their loved ones’ final hours to be as pain-free and dignified as possible. Used as intended, the Liverpool care pathway can help achieve that. The pathway prioritises comfort, dignity and appropriate care, but all that is undermined if the public distrust the pathway and if clinicians do not apply it properly. We do not dismiss people’s concerns, which I take extremely seriously. Instead, we have to ensure that care in the last few days and hours of life is always of the highest standard. Reinforcing the absolute importance of involving patients and their families in discussions on their care and treatment is essential.
Education Funding (Cambridgeshire)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue affecting every pupil in Cambridgeshire.
Educating our young people to the highest possible standard is vital for a fair and stable society. Every child should be given an equal and fair opportunity and educated to the best of their ability, no matter what their skills. Education should be the priority. Whatever financial situation that we find ourselves in, we must never bankrupt our children’s future. They get only one shot.
The pupil premium was on the front page of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and we are now delivering it in government. In Cambridgeshire, our schools are getting £1.8 million to help 2,100 children from poorer backgrounds get a good start in school, with critical flexibility for heads to work out how best to spend it for their pupils. Every child deserves a fair start in life. However, Cambridgeshire has a systematic problem with basic funding for pupils.
Ever since the Tory county council under Baroness Blatch cut funding for schools in the 1980s, Cambridgeshire schools have been consistently under-resourced. Her cuts have been perpetuated, as central funding for schools has been based on previous years’ funding, with no opportunity to close the gaps that have grown. The Tory cuts have been perpetuated by the Labour Government and this Government so far. Children now are paying for poor decisions made in the ’80s.
Pupils in Cambridgeshire get far less funding than pupils almost anywhere else in the country. In 2009-10, Cambridgeshire got £34 million less funding than the English average, and that trend has continued. For the financial year 2012-13, the dedicated schools grant placed Cambridgeshire 143rd in funding out of 151 local authorities. That funding covers nursery provision, mainstream schools, special schools and all high-needs pupils.
The Government’s new approach makes the problem even more obvious. Basic school funding is, reasonably and sensibly, being separated out from early years and high-needs funding, so that people can see what is happening. The schools element of the funding for 2013-14 gives Cambridgeshire the least of any of the 151 local authorities, at £3,950 per pupil per year. The English average is £4,550.
What possible reason can the Government give for why pupils in Cambridgeshire deserve 13% less funding than the rest of the country? Other than historical accident—I hope that the Minister agrees that it is wholly wrong to punish kids now for political decisions made in the ’80s—why do pupils in Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Peterborough deserve more cash?
Of course schools serving more challenging communities should receive more funding, but that is supposed to be addressed, at least in part, by the pupil premium, and Cambridgeshire has challenging communities. Educational attainment in the north of Cambridge and the north of the county, in the fenland area, is significantly lower than it ought to be. I can see why people in expensive areas could argue for more funding—teachers must be paid enough to be able to afford to live near their schools—but Cambridge is a very expensive area. The Cambridgeshire Schools Forum has been campaigning for a number of years to narrow the funding gap between the higher and lower-funded local authorities. I have been delighted to support it over many years, both when I served on Cambridgeshire county council and now as MP for Cambridge.
Two years ago, on 7 February 2011, I raised the issue in education questions:
“Cambridgeshire gets less school funding per pupil than almost anywhere in the country. If we received the per pupil average across England, we would have some £34 million more for education. Can the Secretary of State explain why pupils in Cambridgeshire deserve so much less money, and will he review that?”
The Secretary of State for Education replied:
“They deserve to be treated like every other student. We are reviewing funding and will be publishing a paper in the spring to try to ensure greater equity in the allocation of schools funding.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 19.]
I agree with everything that he said. Pupils in Cambridgeshire deserve to be treated like every other student. That is all we ask.
The Cambridgeshire Schools Forum and I, and many others, were delighted by the promise of greater equity in the allocation of schools funding. We know that it takes time, and we know that we may not end up exactly at the English average, but a commitment to greater equity was what we wanted.
Instead, the gap has widened. We receive £600 less per pupil than the English average for schools block funding, and with 73,800 pupils, according to the Department for Education’s figures, so we are now short by £44.3 million across the county, compared with the English average. For an average two-form entry primary school, that is a difference of £250,000 a year in funding—enough for seven teachers on average pay. Alternatively, the money could be spent on more teaching assistants, better teaching materials, more activities or better school buildings; there are so many options. Yes, the national budget is limited, but Cambridgeshire kids deserve what everyone else gets.
We had hoped that the national funding reforms might start to address those inequalities. However, it now appears that the earliest any such change might be possible is 2015-16. That is having a real effect on children’s lives. Philip Hodgson is chair of the Cambridgeshire Schools Forum, and I served with him as a governor. He says that
“standards in Cambridgeshire are slipping in some areas or not improving at the same rate as better-funded local authorities. Cambridgeshire schoolchildren will suffer from the underfunding for even longer unless action is taken now to begin the introduction of fair funding”.
The gap in Cambridgeshire is widening because there is not enough resource to close it.
I have been in contact with my local head teachers to ask them about their individual situations. They are positive about the pupil premium. Many heads have said that it allows them to do things they had never been able to do before. At Chesterton community college, for example, the principal, Mark Patterson, has been able to fund specialist reading teachers to deal with the handful of pupils who reach secondary school every year unable to read at an appropriate level. Rather than having them continue to fall behind, he can give them the right support to keep up, which is fantastic. However, all the heads are concerned about the tightness of the funding that they in Cambridgeshire face.
Chris Beddow of Abbey Meadows says:
“As a school serving a challenging demographic area, we receive a considerable amount of extra funding. However, when compared to a school of similar size in Peterborough, we receive £80,000 less, due to funding differentials between authorities. How is this justifiable as our costs are the same? Cambridge is growing and as a school we are building extra capacity and growing. This year will see our numbers grow by 10%; however, our funding will only grow by 6%. Again, I fail to see how this gap is justifiable.”
To give another example, I recently heard from Steve Jordan, the head teacher of St Paul’s primary school in my constituency. The school, which is small, has been working on an extremely tight budget. Although it has been just about able to stay in the black, it has had to keep eroding its reserves to do so. It has a capital budget of about £7,000 a year. The school’s management cannot maintain the standard of the school site as they wish. The school field needs replacing. It is becoming a health and safety hazard, with rubble beneath the soil gradually working through, and drainage is being affected by tree roots in the pipe work, which the school cannot afford to repair. It is shocking that schools such as St Paul’s are so stretched that they cannot carry out small but necessary repairs. It is not a new problem; it has happened because decades of under-investment have compounded it in those schools.
I welcome the Government support for new school buildings. Cambridgeshire has a demographic bulge at the moment, and the county is frantically opening new primary school places to cope. The bulge will then move on to secondary school, and we will then need financial support to deal with that. I specifically welcome the inclusion of the Manor school in the Government’s priority school building programme. It will make a huge difference to the school, which was visited by the Minister’s predecessor, and the services that it can provide. It is especially welcome because it will be a grant, not tied to any PFI constraints. While I am mentioning the Manor, I pay tribute to Ben Slade, the school’s former principal, who was energetic and inspirational to many pupils and others.
Our problem with schools is that the deal is simply unfair. In Cambridge, there is a range of 16-to-19 education providers, including the excellent Cambridge regional college, which will sponsor the new university technical college in Cambridge, and two sixth-form colleges, Hills Road and Long Road, which educate thousands of 16 to 19-year-olds to a consistently high standard. I have spoken to both principals, Linda Sinclair and Chris Sherwin. They describe a funding situation in which they are struggling to keep their heads above water.
The problem is not unique to Cambridgeshire. Sixth form colleges across the country are suffering from the same problems. Although there are only 94 sixth- form colleges in England, they educate more than 150,000 16 to 19-year-olds and send more people to higher education than independent schools, with almost a third of those young people coming from the least advantaged areas of the country. Almost three quarters of those colleges are rated as either good or outstanding by Ofsted.
Hills Road sixth form college does phenomenally well at getting pupils into Oxbridge, beating every school in the country, other than Westminster and Eton, which is a great achievement for a state-funded school. The state sector can work wonders at much lower cost than any private education, but it needs appropriate funding and does not get that.
Sixth-form colleges face particular inequity. They have to pay VAT on goods and services, with a couple of exemptions, whereas schools and academies are reimbursed for those costs. That costs the sixth-form college sector some £30 million per year—about £320,000 per college—which could be spent on education. Can the Minister try to persuade the Treasury to fix that bizarre discrepancy, which also applies to regional colleges? Anne Constantine of Cambridge regional college highlights that
“The VAT bill on revenue spend at this college in the last financial year was £1.2 million of non-recoverable VAT, most of which was incurred in relation to 16-18 learners, a sum”
that could be reinvested in learning if they were treated the same as schools.
Pupils at sixth-form colleges are ineligible for free school meals. Will the Minister support the Association of Colleges “No free lunch” campaign to ensure that students in sixth-form colleges get the same as they would at a maintained school sixth form, an academy, a free school, a university or a technical college?
Sixth-form colleges are funded less than the alternative providers, and that funding is also being reduced. Hills Road sixth-form college, for example, devised a plan to cope with average funding of £4,500 per student—a fairly small amount, compared with what is available at key stage 4 in a number of other providers—but the more recent announcement of a simplified pro-rata funding scheme from 2016-17, at a rate of £3,900 per student, means a further 13% budget cut. That pro-rata funding system is a redistribution of funding between 16-to-19 institutions and not a national cut—it does not save money for the national purse—but it means that sixth-form colleges, such as Hills Road, that deliver large programmes with high success rates will lose heavily. They will no longer be able to act as an exemplar in the state system.
The new figure of £3,900 per pupil per year is less than is available at key stage 4, but must be used for the much wider aspirations of those aged 16 to 19. It does not allow for enrichment activities and does not cover extra costs of subjects, such as experimental sciences, and does not allow pupils to have funding to study a fourth A-level, which is particularly important for those who want to do double maths and go on to study sciences at a number of universities. A particular problem is that sixth-form colleges cannot cross-subsidise between different age groups, because they have only a narrow intake.
A particular issue affects Long Road sixth-form college. There is large growth in sixth-form places, as schools and academies expand into sixth-form provision, benefited by their financial advantages over sixth-form colleges, but without the matching increase in the numbers seeking to go on to sixth form. That makes the financial pressures far worse at Long Road, for example, and both Hills Road and Long Road colleges are facing serious cuts to their budgets. That will affect their ability to provide the quality of education that their students deserve.
It is not even clear how these changes will affect those colleges. Institutions that currently deliver larger than average-sized programmes, such as Hills Road, will have to reduce them by 2016-17 to match the new funded level. That will have to be managed gradually over the next three years, because the prospect of doing it all at once in 2016, as they face the cliff edge, would be too painful to contemplate. Can the Minister confirm whether institutions that reduce their programme sizes gradually over three years will be fully protected until 2015-16, in terms of funding per learner, by the formula protection mechanism, or will they be penalised for trying to avoid a cliff edge? Can he confirm—this is an issue for Long Road in particular—whether guided learning hours that are focused on enrichment, rather than specifically on qualifications, will also be included in that protection? If the Minister needs further details, I am sure that the principals will be delighted to talk to him.
Sixth-form colleges are not clear how their funding will operate. They need certainty. They are also concerned about the combined impact of all the changes happening at once. The decrease in income due to the decrease in student numbers as a result of expanded post-16 provision without demographic growth, the continued removal of entitlement funding and the decrease in income as a result of the new funding methodology will all hit at the same time, and they are already being hit. The 2011-12 funding impact survey of sixth-form colleges showed that almost half of sixth-form colleges have already had to drop courses. Several reported that science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses were removed from the curriculum, and a quarter indicated that at least one modern foreign language had been dropped. They are also having to reduce or remove enrichment activities, such as sport, music and drama and careers guidance.
Schools and sixth-form colleges in Cambridgeshire do a good job on limited resources. I am not asking for favours or special treatment. I simply ask for fairness: fair funding for Cambridgeshire pupils, so that they no longer get the least per pupil in the country, and fair treatment for sixth-form colleges, so they no longer face lower funding and higher costs than other providers. If we are to build a strong economy and a fair society, we must ensure that everyone can get on in life.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this important debate, which will be of great interest in his constituency and in the county that he represents. I am grateful for the opportunity to address a number of issues that he has raised.
The Department accepts that Cambridgeshire is, on our latest figures, the 143rd lowest-funded authority in England. My hon. Friend knows that the Government are determined to address the injustices in our funding system and to seek, over time, to introduce a fairer national funding formula. We are still committed to doing that. I will explain later precisely how we will deliver that in the years ahead.
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, head teachers and college principals from his constituency in the weeks ahead if he feels that there are further points to be made about funding fairness for Cambridgeshire and the other issues that he has mentioned, and should he want the opportunity for head teachers and principals to put those points directly to me.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the important concerns that were raised today, which will be of interest to many families in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire and many of the people who work in the educational establishments that my hon. Friend mentioned.
We intend to move to a fairer funding formula across the country, and I will explain how we will do so. Our aim is for every child to be able to succeed at school, regardless of their background and where they live. That is why the Government, despite having to make difficult decisions on public spending since we took power in May 2010, have protected pre-16 school funding in real terms over the spending review period. As part of that, we introduced the pupil premium, which we advocated in our general election manifesto and which, by the end of this Parliament, will have targeted an additional £2.5 billion per year to disadvantaged pupils.
My hon. Friend mentioned how much additional money his county—his constituency—is receiving. He will be pleased to know that the per-pupil amount of the pupil premium will be rising from some £623 per pupil in the current recent educational year to £900 per pupil in the year that we are heading into, which will be a big help to many educational institutions with a large number of disadvantaged youngsters. However, we need an underlying system to support that investment and to ensure that pupils are not disadvantaged as a result of a national school funding system that, frankly, does not distribute funding fairly.
My hon. Friend has highlighted some reasons why the current system for funding schools is in desperate need of reform. It is based on an assessment of need that dates back to at least 2005-06 and it has not kept pace with the changing demographics and needs of pupils. It is also complicated, so head teachers, governors and parents are unable, usually, to understand how their school budgets have been calculated and what the justification is. In addition, the current system is not designed to support the successful expansion of academies. Therefore, it is difficult to demonstrate that schools maintained by local authorities and academies are being funded equitably, which is the Government’s intention.
For the lowest-funded authorities, such as Cambridge, that outdated system may well mean an allocation that does not reflect the current needs of schools in the county. It is not right that schools with similar circumstances in different areas of the country can receive vastly different funding for no clearly identifiable reason. That is why, on 26 March 2012, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced our intention to introduce a new national funding formula during the next spending review period. That formula would distribute money fairly across the country, targeting need and getting rid of some of the anomalies that make the current system so unfair and irrational. However, reforming such a complex system—particularly in an environment where, for understandable reasons, all Departments’ budgets are so constrained—is far from easy, and it is important that we do it at a pace that schools can manage, including schools in parts of the country that have been better funded in the past. The last thing that we want is to cause destabilising changes to school budgets, which cause anxiety and distract schools from delivering high educational standards for their pupils.
We are moving gradually towards introducing a new funding system at a pace that gives us sufficient time to agree to the construction of a new formula and that allows schools enough time to adjust to changes in their funding arrangements. At present, we are planning to introduce the national funding formula in the next spending review period. In the meantime, from April, the local system will be simpler and more transparent, meaning far less complexity for us to untangle when we come to address the national system.
Our first step is to ensure greater transparency and consistency in the allocation of funding locally. For 2013-14, the dedicated schools grant has been allocated in three clearly identifiable spending blocks: schools, early years education and high-needs pupils. We set each block for each local authority using details of its spending in 2012-13 and then agreed the blocks with each authority. The spending blocks provide greater transparency over how much has been spent in each of those areas.
We are also making changes to how funding is allocated to schools, so that, within local areas, pupils to the age of 16 begin to attract similar funding regardless of where they go to school. Moving to a more consistent way of funding schools may mean that local authorities and their schools forums have to think radically about how they distribute money to their schools, and a new local formula will inevitably generate shifts in school budgets. That may be uncomfortable, but if we can start to iron out some of the inconsistencies and unfairness that pupils and schools currently experience, that will ultimately help to pave the way towards a fairer, more pupil-led system.
Local authorities have worked hard under the new arrangements to build new formulae that adequately reflect the needs of their schools. However, for some areas, particularly Cambridge, that has proved problematic, and some schools are facing considerable budget changes. I also understand why in Cambridge, as a lower-funded authority, my hon. Friend is worried about how the changes will be managed. Although the budget changes are necessary to reflect a new system, we are clear that they should not be unmanageable, not least in areas such as his. That is why the Secretary of State announced in June that schools will continue to have planning certainty through the minimum funding guarantee. Therefore, in most cases, schools will not lose more than 1.5% of their budget per pupil in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and many schools will gain. In addition, the Secretary of State and I confirmed in October last year that we will continue to operate a minimum funding guarantee beyond 2014-15. We cannot confirm its exact value until the new spending review period, but we are absolutely committed to protecting school budgets from unmanageable changes.
I reassure my hon. Friend that we will carry out a thorough review this year of the impact of the new simpler formula on pre-16 funding, making any necessary changes based on that evidence in 2014-15. Over the coming weeks, we will start to work with local authorities to explore the effects of different factors, such as the lump sum and deprivation factors, so that we can ensure that a robust system is in place for 2014.
The Secretary of State announced on 2 July 2012 that, from April 2013, we are introducing a new national funding formula for 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training. That new formula will be based on the principle of funding per student, rather than the existing system of funding per qualification, which my hon. Friend mentioned. That will allow sufficient income for each student to undertake a full programme of study, whether vocational or academic.
Our objective is to introduce a system of fair funding that will provide a place in education or training for every young person who wants one and will support full participation by 16 and 17-year-olds by 2015. The new formula will give many benefits, including taking into account the needs of the disadvantaged, implementing the recommendations of the Wolf report and supporting the envisaged A-level reforms. The new formula will fund full-time students for an average of 600 teaching hours, which will be sufficient to offer a significant programme of study. The formula will mean that all students aged 16 to 19 will be funded using the same formula, removing the historical differences between schools and academies and sixth-form colleges.
I understand that some school sixth forms and sixth-form colleges that offer a predominately academic programme to their students, such as Hills Road in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are concerned about their funding under the new 16-to-19 funding formula. I am aware of that institution’s reputation, not only in Cambridge, but across the country. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, I confirm that we will provide at least three years of full funding protection from the formula changes, while we continue our reform of qualifications, including the forthcoming A-level reforms. I also confirm that the 30 hours currently focused on enrichment activities are included in that protection. Detailed allocations of funding for 2013-14 will be announced in March. Arrangements beyond 2014-15 will not be announced until the next spending review has been completed. As part of the process, we have established a ministerial working group with key sector representatives to consider the best way to implement the reforms to programmes of study and associated funding changes, as well as to help us to ensure that the reforms work in the best interests of all young people.
My hon. Friend mentioned VAT, and I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed about the different VAT treatment that sixth-form colleges receive from the Government. I have asked officials to raise the matter with the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to report back to me.
On free school meals, it is only the entitlement to a free meal that is different for schools and academies compared with colleges. There is no actual funding given by the Department for free school meals for sixth- form pupils, even in the school and academy sector, which complicates dealing with the injustice in entitlement. We are currently looking at options for extending eligibility further across the 16-to-19 sector.
We also seek to address concerns around capital funding, which my hon. Friend mentioned. We have more than doubled the capital funding that will be made available in this spending review period to support specifically the provision of additional places to those made available in the same period by the previous Administration. We have made £2.8 billion available for basic needs in this spending review. Most recently, in last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor announced £980 million of additional capital funding for basic needs over the next two years. That will help us to expand good and outstanding schools where there are shortages of places and to establish new academies and free schools where there is that basic need.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention in this relatively short debate to the funding issues faced by schools and sixth-form colleges in Cambridgeshire. I hope that I have provided some reassurance that our aim in making these reforms is ultimately to ensure that England has a fair and transparent funding system precisely to deal with some of the injustices that areas such as Cambridgeshire may have suffered in the past. A new national funding formula will reassess need across the country and will allocate funding accordingly. A refreshed distribution of funding will renew confidence in the system, but only if we put the right formula in place. The Department is working actively on the issues now in the run up to the spending review that will happen before the summer, and it is a preoccupation of mine. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and any representatives from the education sector in his constituency to discuss this further.
Charities (Donations)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Weir, to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate. Towards the end of last year, charity donations had dropped by 20%, and one in six charities said that they face closure in 2013. We rely on charities to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and when 73% believe that they are unable to fulfil their philanthropic goals because of lack of funding, there is real cause for concern.
In May 2010, the Government launched their big society idea. The Prime Minister said that it was about allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power to neighbourhoods, and making government more accountable. We are now relying on charities to provide much needed support, but only yesterday Sir Stephen Bubb, head of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said:
“The reality many charities now face is crippling spending cuts”.
The Government would like us to rely on charities, but they have neglected to support them in their time of need. What we need now is a Government initiative to support, not one led by charities. In recent years, the public have become increasingly wary of giving to charities following reports of aggressive campaigning. That may be going too far, so we need innovative solutions to access gift aid money, instead of pestering people to give more than they can afford.
Some charities are the only providers for many people, and sometimes they provide niche services to the most vulnerable people in communities. The Marie Collins Foundation provides support for children who have suffered sexual abuse via the internet or mobile technology and has unique expertise in this area. The One in Four charity supports people who were sexually abused as children and is facing an unprecedented amount of work following recent media attention. It relies on donations and volunteers, yet 80% of its clients are referred by the NHS. It is clear that those charities play a role that is genuinely needed in our society.
The problem lies in the reduction of grants and funding available to charities. The SHARE Community says:
“There’s less money available from charitable trusts, and more competition for what there is.”
This debate is not about the fundamental structural changes needed in Government financing to give better support to our charities, although I am sure that an assessment of how that works would be appreciated by many. It is about how to harness the British public’s generosity into a more successful donation record for charities, big and small.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Robertson
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did not come to me before the debate, so I will not give way.
People want to give, but they simply cannot afford to give as much as they used to. The problem is reaching breaking point. With the recent child benefit reductions and welfare reform at the forefront of hundreds of thousands of people’s minds, charities are being stretched in two directions. For many families, the reduction in income will mean they simply cannot afford to give as much as they used to, leading to reduced budgets for charities. We recently had a debate in the Chamber on food banks, which are classic examples of the strain facing charities during the financial crisis. For example, in the last year, the Trussell Trust almost doubled the number of food banks it oversees from 149 to 293. The BBC recently ran a report about a mother who is a full-time carer to one of her children and is relying on that charity for emergency food parcels. Her words echoed those of many people throughout the country:
“I choose between whether to pay my electricity company...or feed my kids”.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that I often criticise energy companies for their selfishness when raising their prices, and that should be addressed, but we can help to ease the burden in the face of corporate greed by making it easier for charities, such as the Trussell Trust, to secure donations. Similarly, the homelessness charity, Shelter, has seen an 80% increase in demand for homelessness services in the last three years. Additional funding is needed immediately to support its work, and as we enter the coldest part of the year more will be needed.
Elderly people—I have many in my constituency—are also struggling with cuts and rising living costs. In Glasgow, there are now more senior citizens than 16-year-olds. That is a growing trend, and the growing proportion of elderly people will put more strain on our resources. Charities such as the excellent Glasgow Old People’s Welfare Association face rising demands on their resources and rely heavily on increased donations. We must support their work so that they can support elderly people. Demand on such charities will only increase as people start to feel the pinch of years of austerity policies.
Last week, there were reports that a triple dip recession is feared, so 2013 will be a difficult year for many. More and more people will turn to charities for support in their time of need. The Margaret Carey Foundation says:
“Were the charity sector to go into steep decline, the state would have to step in or…just stand by and watch people suffer as a consequence of not having a support system.”
Due to the enormity of Government cuts, I fear it would be the latter. Supporting our charities is an absolute priority, but 20% say they fear they may close this year. We must do something urgently to secure their financing structures.
Unlike many businesses, charities do not have the luxury of reserves to cover income shortfalls, and this year will be a breaking point. The Charities Aid Foundation reports a £300 million deficit in the funds of more than 90% of small and medium-sized charities, and those not facing closure will reduce services.
A key aspect of harnessing donations is to make them more secure and effective, especially with the 20% drop in the last year. It is increasingly difficult to get the other 80%. Cystic Fibrosis Dream Holidays says:
“It is becoming more and more difficult to raise the funds we need. We seem to be doing twice the work to raise half the income!”
The Refugee Youth Project, a charity that provides support to young people who have fled to the UK, relies heavily on donations. Some significant costs on charities are not covered by project budgets, so they desperately need unrestricted funding, primarily from donations, to stay alive. Funding from donations is also used to develop research and to pilot new initiatives with young people, allowing the charity to grow and to increase its effectiveness. Project budgets may be financed by Government grants, but that is no good if the backbone of the charity is not supported by donations.
Many charities also rely on the selling of unwanted goods in shops around the country, but Age UK has noted a 20% drop in doorstep donations of unwanted goods, and I am worried that that will only increase as the world moves to online shopping. Online marketplaces, such as Amazon, make it easier and quicker to sell unwanted items, and that is increasing. The British people are finding that they cannot get such books, CDs and other items in charity shops, and the number of those shops will decline. Comic Relief and Sport Relief are doing an excellent job, but we cannot rely all the time on the money that they are raising. It is easier for them to do so, but the lifeline and money that are needed are not there. The fact that charities now have to consider UK problems as a more pressing priority means that international charities will get less, so there will be a reduction in money to developing countries. Donations from UK residents are dropping, and I suggest that, if that trend continues, donations to charities that distribute in the UK will be given priority by donors. That is shown by the food banks that we discussed earlier.
Some things must be done. I was privileged to chair the Committee that considered the Small Charitable Donations Bill, which aimed to make gift aid simpler. However, in the face of such a crisis, that is simply not enough. Charities employ the most successful fundraisers and they are very good at what they do, but a few steps from Government could make a huge difference to the amount they receive. Over £750 million of gift aid goes unclaimed each year. It is clear that more needs to be done to get that to those who need it most.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
That is a significant amount of money—£750 million unclaimed. Do my hon. Friend or the Minister have any idea where that money is and how it can be accessed by charities, including a number of charities on my own patch? Erskine, which looks after disabled service personnel, would very much welcome access to that kind of money.
John Robertson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Erskine hospital fund is greatly supported by many companies, as well as many people in the Glasgow area, but it may find that it does not get the funding that it has had in the past. Perhaps the Minister could answer what happens to that £750 million. Please do not tell me, Minister, that it goes back to the Treasury, when people really need it and we can direct it to some of those charities, rather than giving it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We desperately need to modernise an outdated system. The fact that people fill in a gift aid form each and every time they donate is ridiculous. We could have a central database of gift aid donors, which would allow charities to claim it much more easily. They could check their donor quickly and easily against the system, so that they would not need to rely on people making extra effort each and every time they donate.
We also need an awareness campaign on the gift aid scheme. Many people do not use gift aid, because they simply do not know it exists. An awareness campaign could encourage thousands of people to take that extra step and allow gift aid, which is a great benefit to charities, at no additional cost to the donor. If charities were able to claim gift aid on doorstep donations, we could also mitigate the crisis with our charity shops. Charities may see donations decreasing, but that step from Government could see smaller amounts of donations go further. Following the reduction in donations, Age UK has seen a real-terms reduction in potential income of £750,000. Payroll giving—whereby money is taken out of employees’ pay packets—is also massively underused. Only 2% of employees use it, and yet giving £10 could cost them as little as £5. We need to push that further, and education is needed.
We also need to help charity donations to move into the new millennium. Many small charities cannot benefit from text donations due to high—actual or perceived— set-up costs. However, a key issue is that Apple, for example, does not allow direct donations from applications on smart phones. That is ridiculous. It would be simple to donate. The Government have been looking publicly into the issue since around 2011, so why has nothing been done?
We also need the Government to act on data about donating habits. We know that older people donate more. Why, and how can we harness that? We know that younger people donate less. How can we target them specifically? Are the Government scrutinising that data? We welcome the Innovation in Giving Fund, which will give rise to the use of new technologies targeting that group, but we need to ensure that any innovations are available to smaller charities as well.
As our move towards new technologies may reduce the role of our charity shop culture, we need to look at how we can move it online. It seems that the rise of e-books, for example, is a huge blow to the second-hand book trade. With Amazon taking a huge profit from that technology—while paying no corporation tax, it must be stressed—here is a chance for it to play a role in facilitating a charity book culture online. Could Kindle users donate their old books to a charity marketplace, and could they be resold with donations shared between Amazon and chosen charities? Could the same work be done with music? We owe it to Britain’s charities to look into how such a scheme might work, and how else online shopping could be used to benefit our voluntary organisations. We also need a way for people to identify how their donations are distributed and what percentage actually gets to the people who are being targeted.
There is some concern that a small minority of charities are not reputable. We believe that it is necessary to encourage people to trust the majority of charities that truly help people. Therefore, I would like to see a central portal where we can see how reputable they are and how donations are spent.
Finally, we need to protect our smaller charities. They are often disadvantaged through a lack of expertise in fundraising techniques. We need a system of sharing that knowledge. The Government should work together with charities of all sizes to provide training on fundraising techniques and on the ways in which they can reach the full potential of each donation given. There is also a role for business to play in training, and employees should be encouraged to donate their time to smaller charities to help them to modernise fundraising systems.
We are facing a crisis in the economy and a knock-on crisis in the charity sector. People want to donate, but I do not believe that they know the full potential of what they can do. Charities provide a vital service that we cannot do without, and we need to tackle the problems now before it is too late. I call on the Government to set to work on a comprehensive strategy to save our charities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) for a thoughtful, wide-ranging speech, and I welcome the additional comments provided by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). I venture to guess that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) was going to mention his valuable work on introducing the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which I congratulate him on as well.
I turn to the comments made and the issues raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West in the debate today. I agree that charities play an important role in our society, and I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the charitable organisations in this country that work so hard, and to those who work in them. They will be glad to see us taking these issues seriously in the House, and I know that there is much more that we must do.
I start with a general point that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of. Matters pertaining to donations to charities in Scotland are, of course, devolved matters. He is nodding, and he will know as well as I do that it is for the Scottish Government to comment on those matters. Perhaps they have a clear idea of what they wish to do in the long term in Scotland about such things, but he and I can take that into a different debate any time that he wishes.
I turn to the broad issue of current donations and the health of the sector, which was raised in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and in reports a short while ago. Much has been said about the health of the sector generally, and I add that the picture is very mixed. Clear trends are not easy to discern at this stage. The evidence of recent reports from the Charities Aid Foundation suggests that charitable donations are down, while other evidence, such as the Taking Part survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, finds that there is a slight increase in the proportion of people giving to charity. Similarly, the overall effect on the health of the charitable sector is unclear.
There are, however, grounds for optimism. Some reports suggest that the total income of registered charities has grown from £52 billion in 2009 to almost £59 billion now and that there are 2,000 more registered charities now than in 2009. Those figures are to be welcomed and cast an interesting light on the debate that we are having here today. What appears clear is that no one can say for certain whether donations are decreasing and certainly not at what rate. There is some debate in the sector about whether a decrease is what charities are experiencing on the ground.
We will need to wait and see if there is a clear trend in donations, but regardless of what trends emerge, it is also true that life goes on. We need to acknowledge that it is a challenging environment for charities and, clearly, for the people they serve. We should all make every effort to help the sector to raise money efficiently and effectively to meet the challenges, and that is exactly what we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will go on to deal with a couple of ways in which the Government are seeking to play their part.
The hon. Gentleman referred to face-to-face fundraising, often referred to as chugging. That is certainly seen regularly in Norwich. Indeed, only recently I was corresponding with a constituent on exactly that matter. It is an important and successful method of fundraising, which can bring millions of pounds into the charitable sector every year, but I welcome the announcement in November by the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association and the Local Government Association of an agreed template for voluntary site management agreements as a way for local authorities to control chugging in their areas. I think that more than 50 site agreements are in place, with more being negotiated.
Much more is being done by this Government to support the sector, including by supporting a culture of giving both money and time—an important area of debate—by opening up new sources of income and finance through social investment or delivering public services where organisations decide that that is right for them and by providing wider support for the sector, thereby making it easier to set up and run a charity or social enterprise. All those actions support the health of the sector, either through increasing access to income of various kinds or through reducing costs and burdens, so that that income goes further.
The debate has focused on charitable donations, and perhaps the biggest help that the Government give to the sector is gift aid, which the hon. Gentleman went through in some detail. He will know that it is a matter for the Treasury. Although I used to be that Minister, I would not dream of going on to such territory here today, but he did mention his pride in chairing the debates in Committee on the gift aid small donations scheme, and I was the Minister responsible for much of the work on that and was deeply proud to be so, because it is a very good avenue of further help—up to £100 million a year, we hope—for the sector. I shall say more on that in a second.
I want first to deal with the administration of gift aid and ways in which traditional gift aid can be made better for the sector. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn statement that an examination would be carried out to identify ways to improve the administration of gift aid to reflect new ways of giving money to charity and, in particular, digital giving, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
John Robertson
I accept what the Minister is saying. I have no doubt that she is right and I think that gift aid is a good idea. The problem is that the small and medium-sized charities seem to be suffering the most, and they do not seem to have the access to gift aid that the larger charities have.
Miss Smith
I shall be very happy to answer that, but first I shall take the other intervention.
Richard Fuller
On a similar note to what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), rather than looking to reform gift aid, would my hon. Friend the Minister consider scrapping gift aid entirely and putting in place a system whereby people can make direct deductions from their taxation? If we want to create a culture of giving, nothing is better than letting people write a cheque to a charity. That is one way in which smaller charities would benefit, rather than having to go through the more cumbersome process of gift aid.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point, and I am always very interested to hear his ideas, some of which I have time to debate at length with him in this Chamber. I shall ensure that that idea goes where it can be well considered.
In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, the instigator of the debate, I think that the most important way to help smaller charities is to reduce the costs and burdens associated with what the state can provide to charities. That includes what we did in Budget 2011, which made it clear that we intend to make it easier for charities to claim gift aid by introducing a new IT system that will allow charities to claim gift aid online and through, as I mentioned, the gift aid small donations scheme, which will allow charities of all shapes and sizes—we hope that it will be of particular benefit to small local charities—to claim top-up payments equivalent to gift aid on small cash donations of up to £5,000 a year, without the need to have gift aid declarations from donors. That scheme should commence in April of this year, and as I mentioned, it is expected that it will increase the amounts received by charities by about £100 million a year. It is my sincere hope that it will be put to very good use by smaller charities as well as others.
Jim Sheridan
Can the Minister confirm whether the figure of £750 million is correct and, if it is correct, how small charities in particular access it?
Miss Smith
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall have to write to him on the figures because I did not catch the one that he was referring to. I will ensure that he gets the correct Minister’s response to the figure given. He does give me the opportunity to answer a question that was posed earlier: what happens to unclaimed gift aid? I think that both he and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned a £750 million figure in that regard. If they will forgive me for making a particularly political point at this stage, it is important to note that there is no such thing as a Treasury coffer that just sits there. There is no such thing as the Chancellor wishing to stockpile. There is every such thing as public spending, and if money that is within the public finances is not spent on one thing, it is spent on another. That is a very important point to note. I could also note plenty of other things that past Governments failed to do with public spending, such as control it properly, but I think that what is most helpful in this debate is to come back to the reasons why gift aid may be unclaimed. I want to return to that because I think that it is the constructive area for us to debate. We need to ensure that everyone who has a reasonable business claiming gift aid can do so easily, without costs and burdens.
I want to go on to payroll giving. The Cabinet Office, the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will come together to produce a joint consultation document on payroll giving in due course. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Glasgow North West on some of his points. We are further supporting giving at the top end by ensuring that people who donate at least 10% of their estate to charity will be eligible for a reduction in their inheritance tax bill from 40% to 36%. That is an incentive to help giving as well.
The hon. Gentleman suggested a number of other ideas to increase giving, and I am grateful for them. We will look at many of them; we will constantly look at this issue. We are making £10 million available to the Innovation in Giving fund. Many of the schemes use technology to further their aims. That fund will be delivered by NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. In England only, I should note, the fund will find and support the growth of the most promising ideas with potential to create a step change in giving. That is something that we can all welcome.
In addition, the Institute of Fundraising, which is one of Government’s strategic partners, provides training and guidance to small organisations on fundraising issues. We are also doing much to support the giving of time and wider community action, such as through the National Citizen Service, which gives young people the chance to do voluntary activities, meet new people and put something back into their communities. We are supporting Join In, to encourage people to volunteer and get involved in local sports clubs.
We are also supporting the sector to find other forms of income. We launched Big Society Capital with up to £600 million. That is the world’s first social investment institution. We have provided support with a wider package of social investment measures. In addition, the Cabinet Office recently published guidance entitled “Making it easier for civil society to work with the state”, which brings together the range of reforms across the Government and the wider public sector. That is aimed at making it easier to set up and run a charity. Part of that is that charities and social enterprises should be able to shape and deliver public services.
We are doing much to support charities to work better, including finding sources of income, through the £30 million Transforming Local Infrastructure fund, to help 74 local support organisations to improve their performance in supporting front-line organisations locally. We have looked at the bureaucracy that frustrates charities and adds to their costs and expenses. We are making good progress in implementing the recommendations on red tape that Lord Hodgson made in 2011 and are undertaking a red tape challenge for the civil society sector.
I should like to make one brief point on the international aspect, which the hon. Gentleman’s comments very interestingly turned to. I am sure that he would welcome, in both the coalition agreement early on and yesterday’s mid-term review, the reinforcement of this country’s aim to give 0.7% of our GDP to development aid. That is an important way to fulfil the aspiration that his speech articulated, and we should not forget it.
The Government recognise that charities face a challenging time in the current economic conditions. We will continue to work with the sector to help them.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competition and Markets Authority
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am pleased to announce Alex Chisholm as the new chief executive-designate of the Competition and Markets Authority. This follows the appointment of Lord Currie as chair-designate on 3 September 2012.
Alex Chisholm will commence his appointment on 25 March 2013. His appointment will be subject to parliamentary processes including the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which establishes the Competition and Markets Authority, receiving Royal Assent and will be for a five-year term.
The appointment has been made in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioner’s recruitment principles.
Alex Chisholm is currently commissioner and chairperson of the Commission for Communications Regulation, Ireland. He has been communications commissioner since October 2007, and chairperson of the commission since February 2010. Since April 2011, Alex has also served as chair of the economic regulators network in Ireland.
The Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) is the national regulatory agency responsible for regulation of the communications sector in Ireland.
Prior to joining ComReg, Alex held a number of executive positions in the media, IT and communications industries. He began his career at the Department for Trade and Industry and spent four years at the Office of Fair Trading, specialising in competition and the communications and financial services sectors.
A copy of Alex Chisholm’s biography will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
South London Healthcare Trust
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I wish to inform the House that the trust special administrator appointed to South London Healthcare NHS Trust provided me with his final report on 7 January 2013. It makes recommendations to me in relation to securing a sustainable future for services provided by that organisation.
Details about the appointment of the administrator, Matthew Kershaw, were given in a written ministerial statement issued on 12 July 2012, Official Report, columns 47- 48WS.
The report was provided to me in accordance with chapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006, as introduced by the Health Act 2009, and has today been laid before Parliament and made publicly available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/health/2013/01/south-london-healthcare/
Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
I would like to thank Matthew Kershaw for the work he has carried out in producing his report. This is the first time the trust special administrator’s regime has been used since the last Government introduced the provisions which were enacted in the Health Act 2009. In accordance with the legislation, in addition to producing his recommendations on the future of the trust, Mr Kershaw has also been responsible for managing South London Healthcare NHS Trust and maintaining services for patients while the board is suspended pending the outcome of the regime. I do not underestimate the demands this has placed on him.
In triggering this regime, the Government’s priority was to ensure that patients continue to receive high-quality, sustainable NHS services. At the time Mr Kershaw was appointed last July, South London Healthcare NHS Trust was overspending by £1 million a week. In the last financial year, the trust had a deficit at over £65 million, the largest in the country. Left to itself, the trust’s very severe financial position would have continued in a downward spiral of continuing deficits and ultimately threaten the quality of care for patients across south-east London.
The challenges facing South London Healthcare NHS Trust are complex and long standing. To date, it has not proved possible to ensure that South London Healthcare NHS Trust is able to secure a sustainable future for its services within its existing configuration and organisational form. The Government’s priority is to ensure the delivery of a long-term, viable solution for services provided by the trust if it cannot be made sustainable. All responses to my predecessor’s statutory consultation on whether to trigger the regime, including from South London Healthcare NHS Trust itself, stated that a solution for the trust cannot be viewed in isolation from broader service provision within south-east London.
In accordance with my statutory duty, I will consider the trust special administrator’s recommendations carefully and make a final decision by 1 February that can secure sustainable services for the people of south-east London. In considering the recommendations, I will examine particularly:
whether the recommendations are likely to provide a sustainable long-term financial position which will secure high-quality services in the local area for the future; and
whether the recommendations have regard to the Government’s four key tests for local service reconfiguration. These are support from GP commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support for patient choice.
Ultimately, my priority is to ensure that all NHS hospitals live within their budgets and achieve the best quality care, best patient outcomes and best patient experience for all their NHS patients.
I will inform the House of my decision as soon as reasonably possible afterwards.
Victims Commissioner
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
On 21 December 2012, I announced that Baroness Helen Newlove has been appointed as the new Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—the Victims Commissioner.
The role of the Victims Commissioner, as set out in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses, encourage good practice in their treatment and keep under review the operation of the statutory victims code.
We are committed to strengthening the voice of victims who too often feel like they are treated as an afterthought in the criminal justice system. The appointment of Baroness Newlove as the new Victims Commissioner will ensure that as our strategy to improve services and support for victims and witnesses is implemented, the views of victims are represented.
Youth Justice Board Triennial Review
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Administration Select Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango state” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).
The Youth Justice Board is an Executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice established in 2000 by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Its principal aims are: monitoring the operation of the youth justice system in England and Wales; advising the Secretary of State for Justice on the operation of the youth justice system, national standards, and on how to prevent offending by children and young people; making grants to youth offending teams and other organisations to support development and delivery of good practice; placing young people in custody; and providing secure accommodation for both remanded and sentenced children and young persons.
To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability the Youth Justice Board will be subject to a triennial review. As part of the triennial review process, the Ministry of Justice, as the sponsoring Department, has today launched a consultation which will last until 15 February 2013 inviting views. The review will be conducted fully in line with Cabinet Office guidance: “Guidance on Reviews of Non Departmental Public Bodies” and will consider the following:
the continuing need for the Youth Justice Board to carry out each of its functions in their current form; and
where it is agreed that the individual functions should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a range of stakeholders of the Youth Justice Board. In addition, the triennial review will take into account evidence collated during previous reviews where still relevant.
In 2011, the Government decided not to pursue abolition of the Youth Justice Board as part of the Public Bodies Act 2011, re-stating their commitment to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. It is against this backdrop that this triennial review is taking place.
The final report and findings will be laid in this House.
Grand Committee
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I start by reassuring your Lordships that while this order will abolish British Shipbuilders as a public corporation, its liabilities will transfer to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. On this basis, there will be no impact on the ability of British Shipbuilders’ former employees to claim legal compensation for industrial diseases suffered as a result of their employment with British Shipbuilders.
British Shipbuilders was constituted by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. British Shipbuilders owned and managed large parts of the UK shipbuilding industry. British Shipbuilders privatised all its active shipbuilding subsidiaries, initially through the privatisation of the war shipbuilding yards in 1985 and 1986, and subsequently through the sale of the merchant yards and the one remaining engine manufacturer.
British Shipbuilders is no longer a trading enterprise and does not have any funds of its own. It exists mainly to meet residual liabilities to its former employees. This legal responsibility is funded in total by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Funding these residual liabilities currently costs the department about £7 million a year in health-related compensation payments. These payments are mainly as a result of asbestos-related diseases.
British Shipbuilders was considered as part of the Government’s public bodies reform programme and our commitment to reduce the number and cost of quangos. British Shipbuilders does not perform the functions for which it was originally created and does not need to remain a public corporation. The Government therefore put forward a proposal to abolish it using the powers of the Public Bodies Act, which received Royal Assent in December 2011.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills launched a consultation in February last year on the proposal to wind up British Shipbuilders and transfer its property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The department received four responses to the consultation, none of which objected to the proposal but two of which wanted reassurance that the transfer would not impact on the ability of former employees to make legal compensation claims for industrial diseases suffered as a result of their employment with British Shipbuilders. The department confirmed that the transfer would have no impact on the ability of former employees to claim legal compensation for industrial diseases suffered as a result of their employment with British Shipbuilders. An impact assessment in relation to the abolition of British Shipbuilders was not carried out as the savings from the abolition will amount to around £15,000 per year. This saving will reflect the reduced need for company secretarial services post abolition.
A firm of solicitors is contracted to manage all industrial disease compensation claims of British Shipbuilders. A separate company is contracted to deal with pension services, which involves investigating and handling unrecorded claims from former employees. These contracts will be transferred to the department immediately prior to abolition.
As required by the Public Bodies Act, the Government have obtained the consent of Welsh Ministers for this order. We are also in the process of seeking consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will consider this order over the coming weeks.
Following the abolition of British Shipbuilders, the department will be responsible for the contracts that deal with the industrial disease claims and pension queries. Post abolition, future compensation claims will be paid directly by the department and will be included in the department’s annual accounts. For these reasons, I beg to move that the Committee do consider the order.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s assurances on any outstanding compensation or pension claims. I do not think I need to make any further comments in these circumstances. I am not establishing a precedent for any other debate, but we can start the new year on a happy note.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for considering the order so briefly, which is appropriate in these circumstances. British Shipbuilders is effectively a shell company, with its main remaining function to act as a vehicle through which the long-term disease liabilities of former employees are managed. As British Shipbuilders has no funds of its own for this purpose, it is completely dependent on the financial backing of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. As I have already mentioned, the abolition of British Shipbuilders will not impact on the ability of former employees to claim legal compensation. After the consideration against the criteria set out in the Public Bodies Act, the Government have concluded that British Shipbuilders does not need to be a public corporation in order for the Government to meet its residual liabilities. Abolishing British Shipbuilders as a corporation will avoid the need for it to function as a shell company, employ a company secretary and produce an annual report and financial accounts. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to the debate and commend the order to the Committee.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) Order 2013
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal was established by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. It was created to determine any question or dispute which was expressly required by the Act to be subject to arbitration or any matter in respect of which jurisdiction was specifically given to the tribunal by the Act. In practice this meant considering disputed valuations of assets at the point of nationalisation.
The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 nationalised three aircraft companies and most of the major shipbuilding companies that were based in England and Scotland. The Act created British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders as public corporations. The tribunal was established in 1978 and considered two applications, one from stockbrokers in respect of Cammell Laird and the other on behalf of Vickers auditors. The tribunal completed its determination of both cases by 1981 and has not met since. British Shipbuilders subsequently sold its shipyards and British Aerospace was privatised.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills launched a public consultation on the abolition of the tribunal in February 2012. This was a six-week rather than a 12-week consultation as the tribunal had been defunct for such a long time. The department sent copies of the consultation to the relevant trade body and to the companies that had been part of the public corporations and continue to operate following privatisation. The department received two responses to the consultation, both of which supported the proposal to abolish the tribunal. An impact assessment has not been produced because abolition of the tribunal will not generate any savings. It is a tidying-up matter.
The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal was considered as part of the Government’s public bodies reform programme and the Government’s commitment to reduce the number of quangos. The tribunal has been defunct for 30 years and does not have any further cases to consider. The Government therefore put forward a proposal to abolish the tribunal using the powers of the Public Bodies Act. The Government are in the process of seeking consent for this order from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I understand that the Assembly will consider this order over the coming weeks. The Government have consulted Scottish Ministers as required by the Public Bodies Act and, although it is not required under the law, have consulted Ministers in Wales. For these reasons, I beg to move that that the Committee consider this order.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered and courteous introduction. I rise to support not to oppose what he proposes. I note that both orders carry the date of 1977 as a start point. In an attempt to give brief context to these orders, I point out to the Minister that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act was hugely controversial at the time of its enactment. I was present in the other place as a Member of the then Administration, and I would be the first to say that 35 years is a very long time. It is just possible that the Minister, with his expertise and his group of able advisers, will also remember when the legislation was enacted but, if not, perhaps a few brief remarks on whence the orders have sprung may not be amiss.
The legislation engendered massive confrontation in the Chamber of the other place. It was hugely controversial. As the legislation made its way in the Committee corridor, it was often almost impossible to enter the Committee Room because of the huge number of interested parties—in shorthand you might say they were lobbyists, of the most honourable kind—from the industries concerned. Also there were trade unionists who knew that they had a problem concerning their long-term employment. In the Chamber itself, on the fateful night, the nature of the legislation was challenged. Was it a hybrid Bill or was it not? The consideration of such proposals by the then Administration was hugely controversial. In the vote of that night, there was a tie, and it was for Mr Speaker Thomas, as he was then known, later Lord Tonypandy, to make the decision. In terms of tradition, he cast his vote where the Government’s proposals lay—a time-honoured practice. At that time, the then Secretary of State for Industry was Mr Eric Varley, who subsequently entered your Lordships’ House, having had a distinguished political career. Mr George Thomas, as he then was, came under huge pressure on that night and in the months leading up to that fateful vote, because his decision in the end on advice from his clerks would be crucial. I thought that your Lordships would need to know the content of this set of orders.
It was historic because, in the early 1970s, the Upper Clyde shipyard was occupied, and the occupation, which was very controversial and huge in Scotland, was led by a legendary trade unionist, Mr Jimmy Reid. He enunciated a famous principle in the thick of the fight, saying that a rat race was for rats. I pass hurriedly by on that. Following the occupation came the astounding requirement to nationalise the iconic Rolls-Royce factories.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I, too, support the order. As usual, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jones for a tour d’horizon and history lesson. Some of it I remembered well, and some not so well—so I was exceedingly grateful. I hesitate to correct him on one matter, and he can tell me whether I have got it wrong, but I thought that, in relation to the Upper Clyde, it was not just an occupation but a work-in that Jimmy Reid organised, which was unusual at the time.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I know that because it was not so long ago that there was a programme on Radio 4 relating to it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, was right to give us that historical context and to set the scene.
I have read the report from the committee. There was some concern about the consultation, but I think that in the end it was prepared to accept that it was sufficient, so I have no further comments to make.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Young of Norwood Green. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, because he put into a fine historical context some of the dilemmas of that part of our industrial history. I took on board the point about manufacturing. One of the challenges that we have had in this country is that we have not thought as much as we should have about how we ensure that there is a British manufacturing base. I particularly took on board the noble Lord’s point about aircraft.
There is good news on motor vehicles, where we are now beginning to see some very good statistics on the production of vehicles. In fact, if my memory serves me right from a briefing a few months ago, we are now manufacturing more cars than we are importing. It is a great accolade to the management and the workforce for working so well together that we have these successes.
However, returning to the job in hand in regard to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal, as I have said, it has been defunct for more than 30 years and has no assets, employees or further cases to consider. After consideration against the conditions set out in the Public Bodies Act the Government have rightly concluded—and noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have agreed—that the tribunal no longer needs to exist and that abolishing it would tidy up the regulatory landscape. It is for those reasons that I commend the order to the Committee.
Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to introduce a financial threshold of £1,000 for the enforcement of charging orders by an order for sale where the charging order was made to secure the payment of money owed under an agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A charging order made in such cases may not be enforced by way of an order for sale where the amount owing, including interest, is less than £1,000.
Before I go into greater detail about the order, let me briefly provide background on charging orders and orders for sale. When a creditor has not received payment for a court judgment, they may apply to the court to enforce that judgment. They have several enforcement options open to them, including applying for a charging order on a debtor’s property or asset. While the majority of charging orders are made against property, the provisions themselves also cover land and stocks and shares.
The purpose of the charging order is to secure the debt. It does not, in itself, lead to repayment of the debt until the debtor sells their asset. The creditor may also choose to pursue other enforcement options or make a further, separate application for an order for sale. This application seeks the court’s permission to enforce the existing charging order by ordering the sale of the property, or other asset, either immediately or at some point in the future if a suspended order is made.
Both the application for a charging order and the further application for an order for sale are always listed for hearing before a judge and so are subject to case-by-case judicial discretion and case law. In each case the judge will consider, among other things, the proportionality of the debt as set against each of the parties’ assets and commitments; whether—if it is a property in question—it is the primary residence of the debtor or a secondary residence or a commercial property; who else may reside within the property, including children; the balance of rights between the creditor and the debtor; and whether the debtor should be granted additional time to pay, resulting in a suspended order.
Evidence shows that under the existing arrangements only a very small proportion of charging orders—some 0.5%—result in an order for sale, and some of these may be suspended orders. This is in part due to the fact that the process of applying for, calculating potential equity in and administrating the sale of a debtor’s property is economically risky for creditors. This, together with case-by-case judicial discretion, means that it is very rare for debtors to lose their homes as a result of a charging order.
With that background, I turn to the reason for the regulations before us today. Although it is indeed very rare for debtors to lose their homes as a result of a charging order, it is important that the Government ensure that all appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that this does not happen as a result of what might have originally been relatively small, unsecured borrowing. The coalition commitment to introduce a threshold for orders for sale applications reflects this. However, it is also essential that protection for debtors is balanced against the rights of creditors. The Government believe that responsible creditors who are owed money and have gained a judgment in court have the right to enforce that judgment. Without effective enforcement we risk jeopardising the authority of the courts and public confidence in our justice system, as well as there being a negative impact on the economy if lenders are not confident that they can recoup money that is rightly owed to them.
Following extensive public consultation, we intend to introduce a £1,000 financial threshold, as set out in the draft regulations. While this differs from the £25,000 threshold set out in the coalition agreement, it was concluded to be the most appropriate level at which the necessary balance between the rights of debtors and the rights of creditors could be most effectively struck. While stakeholder opinion was, perhaps predictably, split between creditors and debtors, there were other groups who also held strong opinions—for example, the legal profession and the judiciary.
A number of arguments against a high financial threshold, or even any threshold, were given. With a high threshold, such as £25,000, there is a risk that creditors may seek to recover their debt by initiating bankruptcy proceedings as an alternative to enforcement. This would be a more draconian outcome for debtors than an order for sale. As many noble Lords will be aware, bankruptcy often results in debtors losing their homes, whereas the protections which are already in place within the enforcement system—and which will continue to be in place if these draft regulations are approved—protect most debtors from losing their homes.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Minister has outlined the position in relation to charging orders and orders for sale but has omitted—with respect—a couple of highly relevant factors. The first is that we are here dealing with consumer credit arrangements and the lender has already priced in the possible risks of not recovering his money. Therefore, we are seeing something like double jeopardy, with the debtor having in any event to pay a higher rate of interest than would normally be the case—and would certainly be the case in the event of a secured loan—and also having now to face the possibility of an order for sale based on a charging order.
I have to confess that I certainly had not taken note of the regulation introduced last October which allows charging orders to be made—not the order for sale, but the initial charging order—even before the debtor has defaulted on the loan agreement. In other words, it is effectively at the option of the creditor to convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan, even before any default has been made. That is surely not a satisfactory proceeding. The coalition is to be commended for its original agreement to establish a significant threshold. Moreover the last Labour Government, who I am bound to say facilitated some of these proceedings, are to be congratulated on not in fact proceeding with their original intention of making orders rather like these and explicitly withdrawing from advancing such orders in 2009.
The accompanying Explanatory Notes and evidence base for this order disclose quite clearly that there is a significant number of cases under £25,000, but there is not much in the way of detail. Indeed, paragraph 211 of the report openly admits that the data set is very limited, meaning that any conclusion drawn from it is not robust. What is significant is that at the moment something like 10% of applications for charging orders are below £1,000. That is not a large number; in fact, it is almost so insignificant as to make one wonder why the Government are bothering at all to proceed with these regulations. The number of charging orders made for loans above £25,000 is very small indeed—some 6.7%—and there are not a large number of cases altogether. However, what is significant is that it would appear that in 2009-10 ultimately 566 orders for sale were granted, which was double the number of orders made as recently as 2005. Therefore, on the face of it, there is a growing trend to rely on these orders.
One reason advanced for not having a threshold higher than £1,000 is that it is open to a creditor to pursue bankruptcy proceedings on any debt exceeding £750. However, that of course then raises the question of whether that is a reasonable level in itself. Why have the Government not addressed the level at which bankruptcy proceedings might be instituted and aligned it properly with a reasonable level, particularly bearing in mind, as I said, that the risk has already been priced into the cost of the loans by these creditors? These are not normally small concerns; they are consumer credit agreements and it is often large firms that lend money in this way.
It seems that the Government are missing an opportunity to carry out one of their more welcome pledges in the original coalition agreement and that they will achieve virtually nothing in the way that these regulations have been put forward. Furthermore, looking at the timing, it is rather surprising that the regulations referring to charging orders were put through quite separately from these regulations. It seems to me that in principle they are linked and that it would have been better if the two had been considered alongside each other at the very least, because the former has clearly paved the way for quicker action by creditors, who see an opportunity to collect their debt via this process.
Citizens Advice has long campaigned on this issue and it produced a report called Out of Order some three years ago. It raised some interesting points not only on the matters that we are discussing today but also by asking what the Government might do about non-consumer credit agreements, for which these protections, such as they are, are not available. I am bound to admit that this is somewhat beyond the scope of these regulations but I ask the Minister to indicate—if he can today but, if not, perhaps subsequently by letter—whether the Government are looking at non-consumer credit agreements. Clearly, particularly in the present economic climate, there is a risk of many more debtors falling into greater difficulty and creditors pursuing them by these means. That might lead not only to difficulty for borrowers and their families but ultimately, in the event of orders for sale proceeding, to a greater charge on the public purse.
Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out and as the Explanatory Memorandum and other documents indicate, judicial discretion has to be considered, although it has to be said that, in the view of Citizens Advice, it is by no means clear that that discretion will be frequently exercised in the face of pressure from creditors. Citizens Advice takes the view that orders for sale should be permitted only where there is a willing default—that is, where it is not a question of somebody having a capacity to maintain the payments but where they decline to do so. Citizens Advice agrees that where a wilful default is made by people who can afford to meet the debt, a charging order and an order for sale will be an appropriate last resort. The trouble is that, as matters have developed, it is more likely to come about much earlier than as a last resort for people without the capacity to pay and, equally, without any wilful component in their behaviour, thereby exposing vulnerable people to what might well be regarded as predatory action by less than scrupulous creditors. That would be an unfortunate outcome which I am sure the Minister—because I remember some of his remarks when we discussed this in debates on the Crime and Courts Bill—would have little sympathy with but it may perhaps be an unanticipated consequence of the regulations before us.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for that constructive response. I know from our exchanges during the Crime and Courts Bill of his long-standing interest in this area and I understand why he continues to probe on the matter. The Government remain committed to providing more protection for debtors and we are taking appropriate action to ensure that that happens. When we debated this on the Floor of the House, and again today, the noble Lord pointed out that the coalition agreement talked about a £25,000 limit and we now talk of £1,000. I suppose that the honest answer is that that was the outcome of the consultation. We now feel that the balance of what we wanted to do is better met by the guideline of £1,000 rather than £25,000, not least because we were advised that the higher limit could steer creditors more in the direction of bankruptcy solutions, with the impact that I indicated on house ownership, rather than a settlement under these regulations.
We were also very much influenced by the judiciary, which believes that a very low threshold, with a great deal of judicial discretion, provides a far more guaranteed protection for the creditor than the protection afforded by a higher level—
Lord McNally
For the debtor, yes; I am sorry.
With these things it is always a matter of judgment. The judgment that we have come to, and the level we have set it at, is the result of consultation, with the aim of striking a right and proportionate balance that will give power and flexibility to the judiciary and a degree of protection for the lower levels of debt.
The noble Lord asked about early enforcement of parts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Following the Solving Disputes consultation paper we implemented Section 93 of the TCE Act. It closes an existing loophole, providing a greater degree of security to creditors and encouraging debtors who are in financial trouble to make more reasonable yet affordable offers to pay.
The Government consulted on introducing this section in 2010 in their Solving Disputes in the County Courts paper. Some 74% of respondents supported its introduction, arguing that it offers protection both for creditors, for whom a charging order is often the only effective long-term solution to recovering a liability, and for the debtor. By commencing Section 93 of the Act we have given creditors a certain ability to convert unsecured loans to secured loans. I am sorry—I had better clarify that. One of the criticisms that has been made is that we have given creditors the ability to convert unsecured loans to secured loans by extending the use of charging orders in this way. We do not believe that that is true. Charging orders are used to secure an unpaid judgment debt, not a loan. Legitimate judgment creditors who have obtained a valid judgment through the courts should have the right to enforce the judgment by the most appropriate means available.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a couple of matters. He referred to the order allowing charging orders to be applied for, but is he aware that under the regulations enacted last October it would be possible to do that without the debtor having at that stage defaulted? That would seem to convert an unsecured loan into a secured one.
My second question relates to responses. Am I right in thinking that the balance of responses reflects the fact that most of those responding were creditors rather than debtors, their representatives or organisations interested on behalf of debtors?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the balance reflected the interests of the responders. The noble Lord is quite right: the creditors had one set of priorities and those speaking out of concern for debtors had others. That is the nature of consultations, as the noble Lord will be aware. I also pray in aid the strong view of the judiciary that it wants to retain as much judicial discretion as possible. In my remarks I listed the clear considerations that a judge takes and the fact that these matters come before a judge.
On the issue of whether it is pre-emptive, as it were, under the measures that we took last October, as I explained, it gives debtors who are in financial trouble the opportunity to make more reasonable and affordable offers to pay. The noble Lord appears to be saying that adjustments can be made only after disaster has struck, but that is not my reading. If I am not right in my interpretation I will write to the noble Lord. However, it seems to me that it provides an opportunity to intervene in a constructive way when people are running into difficulty.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, as I understand it, the order does not require the debtor to be in any difficulty or to have made any default at all before the charging order can be applied for. That does not mean, of course, that the order for sale would automatically follow, but it is a precursor to that and can arise even before any default has taken place. We are unable to take this much further today, but I invite the Minister to look at the situation in due course.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the proceedings have moved very quickly and we are missing some speakers for the next debate. I therefore propose that the Committee adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, I suggest that the Committee adjourn until half-past four, which is 10 minutes.
Sri Lanka
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment to date of the implementation of the independent report from the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission in Sri Lanka, and of the challenges facing Sri Lanka in implementing recommendations still outstanding.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, first, I thank colleagues who wish to say something about Sri Lanka this afternoon. I appreciate that very much indeed. I would like to place on record the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Sheikh, are in the sub-continent and send their apologies to the Committee for being unable to be here this afternoon.
As I think the Committee well knows, I have no interests to declare other than the fact that I have been interested in Sri Lanka for 50 years, since I first worked there for the Reckitt and Colman group in 1963. I had absolutely no political interests at all at that time. I have paid two key visits among many. One was in January 2009 at the height of the war, which seemed to me an appropriate time to go, if I may use that phrase, to see exactly what was happening. The second was earlier this year when the peace was firmly established.
This debate is about the LLRC, as I will call it in shorthand. It is not about the Supreme Court and what has happened there, although I will allude to that later in my contribution. A war lasting 30 years or thereabouts is a very long war. A number of colleagues in the House came through the Second World War, which lasted only five years. Change is inevitable when a war ends and Sri Lanka is no different from anywhere else in that respect. However, one thing was different in Sri Lanka. I remember the sheer joy of VE Day, as I am sure do others. Initially, there was a sense of sheer joy in Sri Lanka but it was very quickly clouded by allegations of war crimes and allegations that Sri Lanka had abused certain other international laws. My analysis leads me to the conclusion that one of the key reasons why this happened was that although the Tamil Tigers were defeated on the ground in Sri Lanka, the network that they had set up across the world was still intact, many of the senior operatives were still in place, certainly vast funding was still available, and the propaganda machine was alive and well in the sense that the propaganda was still being pumped out. That affected particularly the million or so members of the Tamil diaspora who had left because of the conflict. They were clearly leant on—we know this from the evidence gathered in many countries—and as a result western Governments understandably felt that they had to listen. Whether or not they felt that they had to act is another matter.
In my view, if today’s debate is to do any good, we need to look impartially at what has happened. The LLRC was set up on 15 May 2010, one year after the defeat of the Tigers and the end of the war. The very fact that it was set up deserves a tick as that was a good action. The more than 1,000 oral and more than 5,000 written submissions indicate that an awful lot of people responded to it. The key point is that the report was published in full, is extremely thorough and is based on the key principles of restorative justice rather than retributive justice. Those of us who know south and south-east Asia well will appreciate that it very much reflects the philosophy of the five principles of Buddhism and indeed the principles of Hinduism. People of real eminence in that society were appointed to the relevant body. Sri Lanka has been criticised for doing that and for not inviting international observers to participate. However, we chose to have “good eminent people” from our own Civil Service, and people from that sort of background, on our Chilcot commission. The report we are discussing was produced just over a year ago, whereas three years on we still do not have the Chilcot report and none of us really knows when it will come out.
The other people who were making noises at that time were the human rights groups, the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty. Sadly, each refused to give any evidence at all on the grounds that they did not like the make-up and, in their view, the independence of the eminent persons. I think that that is a great pity and shows non-objectivity on the behalf of those groups. I am astonished that Amnesty in Canada has now accepted funds from the LTTE. I find it quite extraordinary that a human rights group should receive funds from the LTTE. That is its right, I suppose, but it somewhat undermines its moral standing. Now those same three groups are chasing up the Sri Lankan Government and saying that they are acting far too slowly to implement the recommendations. And yet—I have done a little bit of research on this—all over the world there are quite a lot of investigations going on into former wars and dictatorships, and some of them are taking an extraordinary length of time. Some of them are taking 11, 12, or 15 years. To take two that we might know a bit more about, one is in Bangladesh, which is again in south Asia, which set up in 2011 an inquiry into what happened in the 1971 war of independence. That has not reported. And, dare I mention it having been PPS in Northern Ireland, the inquiry into Bloody Sunday has now gone on for 40 years and still remains totally unresolved.
So what has happened on the ground? That is by far and away the most important thing. First, when I got there in the end of March, all the way through to the middle of April, there was peace on the ground. There were no bombs; you can travel wherever you like in Sri Lanka, by day and by night, with no security checks. I spoke to a Tamil cook of a friend of mine—my friend is also Tamil—just outside Bentota. He had come down from Jaffna overnight, not requiring any special pass or anything; he booked a ticket in a bus station, got off at Colombo, changed buses, and came along the corridor through to Bentota. Asked by me whether he had had any problems, he said that he had no problems at all and that it was as easy as anything. So life for ordinary people in Sri Lanka is good at the moment. Plus, one has to say, British tourists have responded en masse—in fact, almost too readily in the sense that there is obviously a shortage of hotel accommodation, particularly in the east, where people want to go, and in the north, although they are trying hard to get on and build more hotels. So that is real positive benefit on the ground.
I went to Menik farm, where the 297,000 rescued from the war fled. First, I put on record that I saw the head of ICRC with no one else present and asked him whether ICRC was restricted from going into Menik farm. The answer was no. It is true that certain other UN bodies were restricted but, in my book—as one that has done a number of these types of events—ICRC, or the Red Cross, are the key people. Secondly, my wife is a qualified retired doctor and we looked at the reports on malnutrition to see whether there was malnutrition in those coming into the camp, and there was hardly any at all. I shall not go into the food dimension but I do have data on that. That place is now closed and those 297,000 are now all rehoused, which is pretty good in that time span: near enough 300,000 rehoused in a relatively short period. On top of that, a number of the Muslims, who were ethnically cleansed out of Jaffna by the Tamil Tigers, have also been rehoused.
Demining is happening and I say a big thank you to the UK Government, both the former Labour Government and the coalition Government, for the money given to Halo, which is doing a good job on the ground. I spent a whole day with Halo: the team is very good and I thank DfID and, in particular, the Government. I make a plea that when that work is completed somebody does an analysis on Jaffna’s needs and, in particular, the hospital, which I went to look at in some depth. I would be very happy to prepare a draft paper if that was found to be helpful.
The rehabilitation of combatants has been excellent and there is a good case history. Eleven thousand of them have been rehabilitated, with 260 judicially mandated. Child soldiers, of whom there were 595, are all now back with their families. Land issues are being taken very seriously but are proving very difficult to resolve after 30 years. The situation is not unlike that in England, where if you own a bit of land for 12 years you have legal rights to it; I think that it is 10 years in Sri Lanka. The high-security zone, which I visited, is down to 40% of what it was. It has to remain because of the problems in Tamil Nadu. The country’s massive infrastructure, housing and official language policy are all working well. A great issue has been made of abductions. I have looked at the figures: in 2011 there were 239, with 226 now traced; in 2012 there were 225, with 207 now traced.
Lord Naseby
No, I have been speaking for 10 minutes. I am taking injury time. I am taking my time from the annunciator.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
The debate started at exactly 4.30 pm, so you are now in the 11th minute.
Lord Naseby
With great respect, Lord Deputy Chairman, if a time is up there, it is the time that I am speaking from. I cannot look down here.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is the time for the Chamber. I am sorry, but that is what that is showing.
Lord Naseby
With the permission of the Committee, I should like two minutes to wind up.
On the numbers killed, four reports have come out recently. One was produced by the UN Country Team, which was never published. My plea to Her Majesty's Government is to ask for that to be published. That indicated that 7,000 were killed. A satellite analysis by the Americans indicates that fewer than 2,000 were killed within the graves that can be found. The recent census by Tamil teachers, again, indicates that just over 7,000 were killed. There were not 40,000 killed.
The second problem that the Government of Sri Lanka face is the ever-present threat of the LTTE overseas and the propaganda that is put out. However, Sri Lanka is an excellent member of the Commonwealth. It helped the UK in its hour of need at the time of the Falklands. There are those who, I know, want to downgrade the conference, but what greater stimulus can there be to Sri Lanka today to move forward on the areas that still have to be dealt with than to hold this conference? After all, the CPA held its conference back in September, attended by 700 parliamentarians from 54 countries. That went extremely well, as are preparations for the forthcoming conference.
Here we are in the Moses Room. I suggest that we need the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job, and let us not forget Kipling’s remarks that,
“A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East”.
Lord Wills
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has done your Lordships’ House a service by enabling this important issue to be debated here today. The civil war in Sri Lanka was a prolonged, brutal and bloody business. Estimates of the numbers killed vary; most of the estimates that I have seen are considerably higher than those put forward just now by the noble Lord—I have seen estimates of more than 100,000. Many thousands of people were killed; tens of thousands more were wounded, tortured and raped. The LTTE, the Tamil Tigers, was a brutal adversary. It was guilty of terrible atrocities against civilians, including the widespread use of suicide bombing and deployment of child soldiers and human shields. However, there were also appalling atrocities committed by the opposing forces of the Sri Lanka Government. These have been well documented by the UN and by the Channel 4 films, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, which showed the deliberate targeting of hospitals and civilians by heavy artillery, deliberate denial of food and medicine to civilians in the no-fire zone, summary execution of civilians and Tamil Tiger fighters, and sexual violence against women members of the LTTE.
The opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that the report from the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, set up by the Sri Lankan president, is independent is not shared widely outside Sri Lanka.
In presenting the Government’s response to that report, the Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt MP said,
“we continue to believe it is important that an independent, credible and thorough mechanism is put in place to investigate all allegations of grave abuses”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/01/2012; col. 21WS]
The International Crisis Group—a distinguished group of diplomats and politicians whose trustees include a Member of your Lordships’ House, a former Secretary General of the United Nations, former presidents, former prime ministers and former foreign ministers—said that the report,
“fails in a crucial task—providing the thorough and independent investigation of alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that the UN and other partners of Sri Lanka have been asking for”.
Sri Lanka can never rebuild itself adequately after its terrible civil war until there is full accountability for the atrocities committed in its course. This is a moral imperative, but it is also a practical one. How can the significant Tamil minority ever be reconciled to a regime that treats war crimes and crimes against humanity insouciantly? More important than implementing the recommendations still outstanding of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is the establishment of an independent investigation of these alleged atrocities and then a calling to account of everyone responsible for them.
I appreciate the efforts that Her Majesty’s Government have made to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to set up such an independent and credible mechanism to investigate these human rights abuses. Sadly, however, the Government’s efforts so far have not worked. To date, there has been no such investigation and no accountability secured for any of the well documented atrocities and other human rights violations committed by state forces. The International Crisis Group has concluded that,
“Sri Lanka is suffering from a crisis of institutionalised impunity for human rights violations by state forces and those working in collaboration with the state”.
The longer this situation continues, the more likely it is that those responsible for these atrocities will think they have got away with them, to the shame of the international community.
We should never accept that those responsible for horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity can escape responsibility for what they have done. Moreover, there are well substantiated reports that human rights abuses continue in Sri Lanka to this day. For example, the Amnesty report documented,
“numerous cases of disappearances which have taken place after the end of the conflict…there are reasonable grounds to believe that enforced disappearances have taken place in Sri Lanka as part of widespread attacks on the civilian population and they amount to crimes against humanity”.
Last month, the British Government expressed their concern about the current situation in Sri Lanka by saying that they,
“continue to have concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including the rule of law and individual freedoms”.
Now a critical decision is looming for our Government. In November, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is due to be held in Sri Lanka. The Canadian Prime Minister has made it clear that he will not attend,
“unless there is measurable progress in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka”.
The Government will soon need to decide whether they will adopt a similarly principled stand. There can be no evasion here because there can be no doubt about how attendance by the British Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen will be construed by the regime in Sri Lanka.
When the then Culture Secretary decided to spend his Christmas holiday in Sri Lanka just six months after the end of this brutal war, the state-run broadcaster in Sri Lanka reported that,
“his arrival, despite the accusations made by the British Government on the human rights record of Sri Lanka, is an indication that the charges have not been authenticated”.
What does the Minister think would be the reaction in Sri Lanka of the Sri Lankan Government and the state media when the visitor is not just a Culture Secretary but the British Prime Minister—and not just the British Prime Minister, but Her Majesty the Queen as well? We cannot allow our Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen to be used to cleanse any regime of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I recognise the strength of the arguments that Governments should not grandstand, that strident public denunciations of other Governments could be counter-productive. I understand that; I understand that they can strengthen such Governments domestically and can turn the issue into one not of human rights abuses but of national sovereignty. There is always a case to be made for persistent, resolute, behind-the-scenes diplomacy as being the best way of effecting change but, so far, such diplomacy has produced no significant results. In such circumstances, there is a strong case for more resolute diplomacy to demonstrate the limits of impunity for human rights abuses. Ronald Reagan understood that when he stood up to the Soviet Union; Margaret Thatcher understood that when she stood up to Argentina over the Falklands; and this Prime Minister understood it when he stood up to Colonel Gaddafi. Do this Government now understand that they have to stand up to the Sri Lankan regime? Are this Government prepared to follow the principled stand of the Canadian Prime Minister?
As the Minister considers her answer to that question, I should like to remind her what her colleague, the Justice Secretary, wrote in the Daily Telegraph just three weeks ago about his vision of human rights. He said:
“As Conservatives, we remain absolutely committed to the importance of human rights around the world”.
He identified as fundamental principles of a democratic nation the right to life, the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial. Those are all rights which have been denied to tens of thousands of Sri Lankans. I hope that the Minister can tell your Lordships today that these fine words, written by her colleague, the Justice Secretary, were more than just words and that they will be translated into action in relation to Sri Lanka.
I am sure that in addressing that question the Minister will also be aware that human rights, for which the Government of Sri Lanka have not shown very much respect, is one of the core values of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I should be grateful if, in replying, the Minister could answer these questions. First, have the Government already made a decision about whether to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka and, if they have not yet made it, why not? If they have not yet made it, when do they expect to be in a position to do so? Secondly, does the human rights situation and what the International Crisis Group calls a crisis of,
“institutionalized impunity for human rights violations”,
in Sri Lanka have any bearing on the Government’s decision on whether to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? If so, what action do the Sri Lankan Government need to take before the Government will decide to attend the meeting? I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer all these questions today but, if she cannot, I should be grateful if she could write to me with the answers.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for securing this debate. I have similar antecedents to those of my noble friend, having visited Sri Lanka a number of times. I was there first in 2009, when the civil war was raging, and I again visited the country when the war came to an end. My last visit was undertaken as a member of the CPA bilateral delegation, which gave me the opportunity to learn first-hand about the reconstruction, resettlement and reconciliation work in progress there.
Much has happened since then. We have the report of the UN Secretary General’s review panel on UN action in Sri Lanka, the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, referred to in this debate by my noble friend Lord Naseby, and the International Crisis Group report, which spells out the grievances of Tamil and Muslim leaders that still need to be resolved through the political process.
I am well aware that there are deeply held views about the war and its aftermath in Sri Lanka. This debate is not the place to confirm or deny what did or did not take place during that time. Evidence and its rejection have formed the basis of much publicity in recent times, and I have no doubt that this will continue. War may solve a few problems but it creates many others. History should not be forgotten but there must be a way forward towards building a stable and secure democracy which all the country’s citizens can enjoy.
We should not underestimate the task facing the Sri Lankan Government. To continue to sustain parliamentary democracy at this difficult time is commendable. There are bound to be difficult times ahead. The political process must work towards uniting the nation after 30 years of war.
During our visit to Sri Lanka, we were able to learn about the transition from operating and sustaining democracy during the civil war to running a democracy during peacetime. Politicians must be fully aware that winning the war does not mean that problems will go away. For this reason, there is a need to ensure that the rule of law applies to all citizens equally. It is a pre-requisite condition of a successful and stable democracy.
During our visit we were impressed with the success that Sri Lanka has in the education and healthcare sectors. It has a literacy rate of more than 90%. I ought here to single out the work of the British Council. Queues of students at the British Council offices provide clear evidence of the council’s success in assisting with the process of education. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the visa system does not discriminate against Sri Lankan students as there is evidence that they are now looking at Australia rather than the UK for their advancement.
Sri Lanka has free and accessible healthcare available throughout the country.
Despite the concern about our safety, we were allowed access across the north, east and west of the country: there was no constraint on our movement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I met IDPs and those in camps. We could see at first hand the post-conflict reconstruction. It will still take a great effort to ensure that there is no disparity in the development and construction work in the north. To an extent, we were aware that the demining process was actively pursued but it has a lot of bearing in preventing the north of the country from opening up.
We are all aware that terrorists have no mandate and that oppression perpetrated by terrorists and those in power cannot achieve a peaceful society. The Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland and the Truth Commission in South Africa demonstrated that a peaceful transition is possible only through an acceptable process. It is for this reason that we should attach importance to the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which was set up in May 2010.
There is no dispute that excesses were committed by the warring parties—the collateral damage has been substantial—but there is now a need to move forward. Terrorism and violence have ended but suspicions still remain: the scars of the war will take a long time to heal. What is now required is an all-inclusive political process of dialogue and accommodation so that conflict by other means does not continue. This is one of the key recommendations of the report.
The LLRC report sets out some clear recommendations on human rights issues arising out of the conflict. It received a large number of representations alleging the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of people affected by the conflict. The LLRC had no hesitation in stating that its recommendation on these human rights issues were critically relevant to the process of reconciliation.
This is not simply a job for the Government: it is also a task for all state institutions, civil societies and citizens to exert all possible efforts towards this end. The LLRC report and its recommendations require clear action. For example, the report pulls no punches when it states:
“There is an urgent need to assist the victims and their families to overcome the trauma they suffered due to the conflict and to bring the perpetrators of any human rights violation to justice”.
I, for one, welcome this report for its brevity. It is not a whitewash and it is not easy to ignore. It is a good starting point towards the process of reconciliation and nation building. There is also a further important recognition that this process must reach out to the minorities and that the minorities must reposition themselves in their role vis-à-vis the state and the country.
I have known Dr Chris Nonis, the High Commissioner for Sri Lanka, for some years know. I know that he is keen to build links with the large Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora in the United Kingdom. In turn, I hope that the British Tamil community will play its full part in rebuilding Sri Lanka. It is here that we can play an important role and I hope that the Minister will see what help he can give to build this dialogue.
Sri Lanka is a nation that deserves to be at peace with itself. It will take time to build the confidence of all communities, who have suffered enough during the civil war. It has the potential to eradicate poverty and to take its place among the democratic nations of the world. It will require the will of all its people, in Sri Lanka and in countries abroad, to make this possible. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I believe that the 2013 CHOGM summit in Sri Lanka should offer all of its experience towards building a peaceful, democratic Sri Lanka.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Naseby for securing this important debate. My interest is around the issue of conflict. I have never visited Sri Lanka and were it not for the opportunity provided by this debate and the outstanding brief prepared by the House of Lords Library for it, I would have known a great deal less about the tragedy that has hit that country.
However, I have followed and witnessed what has happened in a number of areas of the world which have been recovering from conflict and the hallmarks of that difficult path are all too evident in what is happening in Sri Lanka at present. The question is: what are the solutions?
We have learnt lessons from other areas—I am thinking in particular of our own issues in the Balkans and in Northern Ireland—and we know how difficult it is. In debates on foreign affairs in this House there is sometimes a level of arrogance where we pretend that we have got it all sorted and that we can lecture the rest of the world on how to get it right. However, the fact that a country like ours—with our wealth and our history of parliamentary democracy and justice—is still wrestling to achieve a settlement and peace in Northern Ireland should make us tread carefully and humbly into other people’s conflicts.
The first thing we learn from these kinds of conflicts is that, in the long term, violence never succeeds. The second thing we learn is that freezing-out never works: people need thawing out in conflict situations. In that sense, peace needs to be given a chance to take hold. In this circumstance, the conflict went on for 26 years and the peace treaty was signed two or three years ago. I guarantee as a fact that the people of Sri Lanka will still be wrestling with this issue in not five years’ time but in 50 or 100 years’ time. We know from our own experience that that is the kind of timescale that people need. History and the facts presented show that what we have now is a moment of opportunity for the international community to involve the parties to the conflict because, inevitably, they must be the parties to the peace.
I refer briefly to the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. I have read the entire report and it seems to me that the Sri Lankan Government are self-critical, which is an encouraging sign. I am disappointed that all other parties did not take part in it because ultimately, somewhere along the line, there will have to be another try at this and outside bodies will have to give their advice. I know that the Indian Government are trying to help. Potentially, South Africa would be much better placed to offer insight and help to people in this process.
I refer particularly to page 382, paragraph 9.255, of the report which contains a series of interesting recommendations. I say again that this conflict is no different from any other: we are very familiar with it; we know what needs to happen; we know that it is a long-term process; and we know that we have a moment of opportunity before us which we should seize. However, one hallmark of this Government, of which I am most proud, is the way in which they have been working at conflict prevention rather than intervention, and the Conflict Pool is an essential part of that.
There is one part of the report where it seems to me that we could make a big difference. The report identifies that a lot of work needs to be done in the area of peace education. It talks about a trilingual policy and the need to ensure a much broader ethnic mix of student populations, with a choice of courses offered in all three languages. The commission is also of the view that sport builds up interpersonal contacts among people of different communities, which is essential for the process of reconciliation. Perhaps I may refer the Minister, who I know will take these matters seriously, to that particular section. I know that there has already been a tremendous amount of work on clearing landmines—my noble friends have referred to it—but in the specific area of peace education and bringing international students together, I wonder whether the sporting legacy of the Olympics and the legacy of the Olympic Truce are things that we might be able to seize and build upon.
If all the countries simply look at ways in which they can offer practical help and provide support for all the different parties in working through this tremendous difficulty, I think that there will be a chance of long-term stability. The prize for that will come through economic growth. The worst catastrophe that comes from all conflict is that it impoverishes people not only morally but financially. We see from the briefing note that the cost of the war in Sri Lanka over 26 years ran to some $200 billion, which is five times its annual output. It is an enormous cost. Therefore, it is very encouraging that since the conflict has ended there has been significant progress and growth. The proportion of people living below the national poverty line has declined from 26.1% at the height of the conflict to 8.9%. With annualised growth in the region of 6%, 7% or 8%, getting into tourism, getting the economy going and giving people jobs and hope, as well as a future, and allowing them to move forward are things that we ought to be encouraging. Anything that Her Majesty’s Government can do to support and encourage the Sri Lankan Government in that way would seem wise.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I, too, have read the report very carefully. It has real strength but it also has significant weaknesses, and I think that it is as well to look at the balance. After all, it covers a war which raged from 1983 to 2009, with pauses in it until Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed. Whatever is said about the figures, an estimate of between 60,000 and 100,000 deaths looks to be relatively credible in terms of the reports made by international bodies. I certainly have no reason to think that they are much in doubt. As my noble friend Lord Wills said—
Lord Naseby
I hate to intervene but there is no credible report that mentions 60,000-plus deaths. There are reports of 40,000 deaths from the UN and there are reports of between 7,000 and 8,000 from other UN bodies. If the noble Lord has a copy of any such report, I should be grateful if he would make it available to me, as chairman of the all-party group.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I will go back through the UN figures and will provide the ones that I have seen. I was going to go on to say, as my noble friend Lord Wills did, that it appears that in the final stages the figure of up to 40,000 comes near to the death toll. The 18-month inquiry, which concluded in November 2011, covers all 26 years.
One thing is absolutely plain to me: in any civil war of that duration and intensity, the pain between the combatants and the communities from which they come is going to be very great. Significant inter-communal violence, which is very up-close, raw violence, has on the occasions when it has occurred led to the division of countries—for example, India and Pakistan—rather than to an attempt to keep one country in one form.
It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, that one sees a good deal more evidence of peace, which is very good news, but it is also true that there are credible reports of civil rights abuses. I add my appreciation to that already expressed for the United Kingdom forces involved in the de-mining exercise. I had the great privilege of being with those forces in Colombia in South America and saw just how amazing and dangerous their work was. I remember how relieved one felt to be able to go away at the end of a phase when they could not always do so.
Both sides have made credible claims; both have eye-witness accounts; and both seek retribution. One side has sought prosecution of perpetrators, with greater emphasis focused, perhaps understandably, on the shelling of hospitals, which, by common consent, caused considerable civilian casualties. However, I also note that the commission expressed findings even on this issue, stating that it was impossible to say who had been responsible for that shelling.
The report contains findings on many other issues. It apportions blame for the causes of the war pretty evenly between politicians on both sides. It makes it clear that there were no steps taken by the Sinhalese which could have placated the Tamil people. It makes it clear that Tamil politicians worked up passions for militant separation which were impossible to accede to.
While there was support for the report, there has also been significant criticism. A lack of independence in the report has been alleged. Not even minimum international standards of protection of witnesses was accorded to many of those who might have given evidence.
However, I share a view with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby: that the decisions of Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch not to take any part can scarcely have helped the process. It would have been better had they taken part and I am not sure that their reasons for not doing so are sustainable.
Many of the commission’s recommendations could be detailed very extensively, but I highlight those to deal with long-term detainees individually, to publish full lists, to ensure that freedom meant freedom—that is, once people had been released, they should not be re-arrested—to overcome legal delays in process, to disarm illegal groups immediately as a priority, to ensure that there is free movement in the country, to normalise civil administration and to make sure that documents were in languages that people could understand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I often feel—maybe I would—that sport can play a significant role in giving people the opportunity to see each other in circumstances that are not quite so gruesome.
However, people plainly want more, and herein lies the central dilemma. Reconciliation processes seldom satisfy those who have suffered the sharpest distress or grievances. No one in the United Kingdom would willingly accept any process where there was impunity. I do not know that it would ever speak well in our culture; nor do I think that it would speak well in anybody’s culture, because people want their most serious grievances addressed. As we have seen elsewhere, retributive justice after a war of this kind is very unlikely to achieve reconciliation—these are not easy choices to make—but that does not answer the question of impunity. That is why it is an audacious route to take to seek reconciliation in this way and why it is seldom welcomed by all those who seek complete justice or even confirmation that the evidence that they have provided, and on which they rely, is the only accepted truth that should be accounted for.
I am with the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Dholakia, in believing that one has to be clear on both sides about the conditions for success if this is the route that one wants to take. The first condition is that there should be sufficient independence in the inquiry to command support—and I support what Her Majesty’s Government have said about that, which is useful and correct.
Secondly, reconciliation can work fully in my view, even against all the odds, only if substantive outcomes can be achieved in the programme of reconciliation that is recommended. I make these points here not because the international groups have all written to me and urged that they should be made but because I hope for the success of the country and want to think about how that might be achieved. The outstanding evidence is clear; the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the first and perhaps most important point, that political processes have to encapsulate the rights for all groups and the rule of law, and that is fundamental. The aid agencies must be able to reach those needing aid, especially with medicines and medical facilities. I do not believe that there is evidence that that has fully happened, and I wonder whether the Minister has an observation on that.
There are clear failings in the existing IHL regime in respect of internal conflicts in both state and non-state armed groups. Does the Minister feel that there may be progress there? A large number of allegations have been made of abduction, arbitrary detention and disappearances—what is called a different kind of white van syndrome. There do not seem to me to be such clear outcomes as have been presented, and I wonder whether the Minister has views on that. I know from the work that was done in Argentina and Chile that, until those issues are fully nailed down, the families do not go away—and you can understand why. It will never satisfy them. The independent police commission has to function properly, and I am not absolutely clear from what I have read that it does function. I wonder whether the Minister has any observation.
I make one quick observation on Channel 4. Jon Snow is, in my view, one of the outstanding journalists of this generation. He has amazing standards and amazingly good personal, ethical values, which contrast with some others in the media. Yet questions persist about the authenticity of some of the footage of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. It is not for the Minister, but could Parliament perhaps encourage “Channel 4 News” to consider whether it has been deceived in any respect?
Lord Wills
I am very curious about this, because I did a lot of work researching all this, including reviewing those particular films. I looked at an Ofcom judgment; there were a lot of complaints about those films— hundreds, I think. Channel 4 was found not to be in breach at all by Ofcom, so I wonder whether my noble friend could specify what doubt there is. I am sure that he is aware that much of the footage in those films was filmed by Sri Lankan soldiers on their mobile phones. What possible doubt is there about the veracity of that footage?
Lord Triesman
My Lords, if my noble friend had allowed me just one more sentence, I was going to go on to say that I personally had no doubt about the authenticity of the films—that is my view. But when people, particularly in the current media climate, believe that it is important to be absolutely certain of these things, an excellent news programme such as I believe “Channel 4 News” is would do itself no harm if it repeated the exercise if it gave greater confidence. I personally have no doubt about the veracity, but my view may not be significant.
Finally, steps could be taken before the conformation of the final arrangements for the state visit, which is also very important—it is not just CHOGM. This is a real opportunity, in the spirit of Commonwealth standards and reputation, not least because the Commonwealth has an outstanding Secretary-General in Kamalesh Sharma, to ask questions, discuss progress and articulate a possible programme and means of verification of the programme. I know that that kind of Commonwealth role appealed enormously—it did in its time to me, and certainly it has done to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and I know that it does to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. For those reasons, I always attach great importance to what can be achieved by that kind of process. If it is done properly, it may well be that the value of the Commonwealth and of CHOGM in this instance will be very well demonstrated.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for securing this debate. I know that he and others within both Houses of Parliament have taken a close interest in Sri Lanka. The timing is most apt, a year after the publication of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, or LLRC, report, that has been referred to today.
Let me first note that the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka have a long-standing historical connection, and present-day ties include business, family, tourism and education. I assure my noble friend Lord Dholakia that large numbers of bright, talented Sri Lankan students continue to come to study in the United Kingdom and the diaspora community of around 400,000 people contributes significantly to our economy and rich cultural diversity. We are friends and it is a friendship that we value, even on the cricket pitch, despite being knocked out in the World Twenty20 in October by the host, Sri Lanka.
The 2009 defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, brought an end to decades of conflict in the country, but a military victory alone cannot deliver the stable, lasting peace which all Sri Lankans deserve. It is for this reason that the UK supports the view, widely held within Sri Lanka and outside, that long-term peace can best be achieved through an inclusive political settlement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. Such a settlement must also take into account the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all Sri Lanka’s communities. The Government of Sri Lanka recognised this in appointing the LLRC, which submitted its report in December 2011. The report made more than 200 recommendations.
In January 2012, following the publication of the LLRC report, my right honourable friend Alistair Burt issued a Written Ministerial Statement in which he welcomed publication of the report and urged the implementation of its recommendations. The recommendations, if implemented in full, would go a long way to achieving the reconciliation which we believe will achieve lasting peace. Those recommendations included calls for credible investigations of alleged extrajudicial killings and disappearances, demilitarisation of the north, implementation of impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms and the protection of freedom of expression. However, as Alistair Burt said at the time, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, referred, in the view of this Government the report left gaps and unanswered questions on alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and we were disappointed by the report’s conclusions and recommendations on accountability.
Sri Lanka has made some progress against the LLRC recommendations. The UK recognises and welcomes the progress that has been made in a number of areas. UK officials have visited all nine provinces in the past 12 months and have seen much to welcome. Most importantly, the absence of conflict has brought greater security and opened up economic development. Demining, which has been referred to in today’s debate, including with UK financial support, is freeing up more and more land for resettlement and agriculture. Rehabilitation of thousands of ex-combatants, including child soldiers, has allowed many individuals to integrate back into society. The majority of internally displaced persons have now moved out of camps, although there is still work to be done in ensuring that all have permanent homes and are, where possible, able to return to their places of origin.
Despite a visible military presence, troop numbers in many areas are now well below 2009 levels. Infrastructure development is opening up the country, creating conditions for economic growth and enabling easier travel. All these are positive developments. However, the picture is not all positive. Much remains to be done in order to tackle the roots of conflict and ensure lasting peace and prosperity. The need for progress was highlighted in a March 2012 Human Rights Council resolution, supported by a majority of member states from around the world. It called on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the LLRC report recommendations and to address alleged violations of international law. In July 2012, the Sri Lankan Government published an LLRC action plan, with deadlines from early this year for the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. However, it is notable that the action plan covers around only half the LLRC recommendations. We hope that the Government of Sri Lanka will reconsider and look at implementing the LLRC report in full.
This is not a case of unrealistic expectations. The UK has never suggested or expected that resolution following a long-running conflict can be instantaneous. We realise that the LLRC recommendations cannot all be implemented immediately. We have our own experience of reconciliation from Northern Ireland, and we know well that such a process is complex and can take time. I thank my noble friend Lord Bates for outlining possible and potential pathways. He is right: this process will take time. I will take back his suggestions regarding building on the Olympic legacy and, indeed, the Olympic Truce. He is also right that we must look to a future for all, but in the case of Sri Lanka true reconciliation is unlikely to be possible without a brave, open and comprehensive review of the painful past, and addressing the deep-seated issues in the LLRC report requires a long-term approach, tenacity and co-operation.
There are, of course, inevitable barriers to swift progress in some areas—for example, the need to broker agreements between various parties, undertake changes to legislation and devise equitable solutions to complicated issues such as land rights. However, to make this long-term progress requires a sense of urgency and it has to be on a positive trajectory.
I regret that a number of the recommendations have not been tackled at all or have been tackled in name only. The military presence in many areas is less invasive than at the end of the conflict but armed forces continue to occupy large areas of civilian land, now classified as high-security zones or military cantonments. Military involvement in civil and commercial activities has been reduced in some areas but still remains widespread and a source of tension. Not only has there been no agreement on political settlement but a recent Bill seeks to further centralise currently devolved powers. Moreover, almost four years since the end of the conflict, there have been no prosecutions for alleged misconduct during the conflict.
The Government of Sri Lanka face considerable challenges but they face them with the support of an international community eager to see lasting peace in the country. With this support comes scrutiny, and in 2013 this is set to be particularly intense. In March we have the anniversary of the Human Rights Council resolution, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which Sri Lanka is due to host in November. The CHOGM is an opportunity either for Sri Lanka’s progress to be showcased around the world or for bad news to be amplified. The UK believes that the host of CHOGM should uphold the Commonwealth values of good governance and respect for human rights. We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to these values both now and in the run-up to CHOGM. A key part of this will be addressing long-standing issues around accountability and reconciliation after the war. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be aware that Sri Lanka was scheduled to host CHOGM in 2011 but, given ongoing concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation, the UK and other Commonwealth members did not support its bid. Commonwealth members decided that Sri Lanka would host it in 2013, but at this stage it is too soon to talk about the UK’s attendance plans. I cannot give further details today, but we will be looking to Sri Lanka to demonstrate the Commonwealth values expected of any CHOGM host.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised current, ongoing concerns about the human rights situation. International concerns about human rights violations in Sri Lanka are not limited to the years of the war but remain since the end of the war as well. The UK has been candid in private and public about our concerns. In the 1 November UN Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, the UK raised concerns about the attacks on and intimidation of journalists, human rights defenders and the legal professions. We recommended that the Sri Lankan Government investigate alleged grave breaches of humanitarian law during the conflict. This recommendation was accepted, along with 110 of the 210 recommendations made in that review. We also recommended that the Sri Lankan Government ensure a climate in which all citizens can express their opinions freely. This recommendation was rejected, along with recommendations to invite the UN special rapporteurs to visit and recommendations to ensure independence of the judiciary. We continue to have concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including disappearances—to which the noble Lord referred—political violence, reports of torture in custody and restrictions on free speech. We raised our concerns directly with the Government of Sri Lanka and called upon them to investigate reports of human rights abuses whenever they occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, also raised the issue of missing persons. A legacy of decades of conflict is that large numbers of missing people remain an understandable cause of considerable distress for many families. The LLRC report is committed to establishing a decentralised database of the missing by February of this year and we look forward to progress in this regard.
Events as recently as the last eight to 10 weeks are a source of concern for us as well as for other states and international organisations. These include impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice, which coincidentally followed a number of rulings against the Government; violent disruption of student remembrance events in Jaffna and the detention of students; and the violent suppression of a riot at Welikada prison in which 27 inmates lost their lives. On 5 December, our high commissioner joined other EU heads of mission in a public statement expressing concerns about the rule of law and individual freedoms in Sri Lanka.
Following the end of the conflict, we want to see Sri Lanka win a peace that can be enjoyed by all its citizens. Progress has been made but is lacking in a number of areas necessary to ensure long-term peace and stability. We remain committed to helping the reconciliation process, recognising the Sri Lankan Government’s legitimate authority and looking to the Government to implement the LLRC recommendations in full.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way but I intervene as I suspect that she is about to conclude her remarks. I asked a number of specific questions. I quite understand that she cannot answer them today but will she confirm that she will write to me with specific answers to those specific questions?
Baroness Warsi
I will certainly do that. UK support includes funding activities on rehabilitation, access to language rights, community policing support and positive dialogue within and between communities in Sri Lanka and, indeed, engaging the UK diaspora. We recognise the need for a long-term approach but firmly believe that this must include some early evidence of progress. It is right that Sri Lanka’s friends should raise such concerns alongside more immediate human rights issues. As Alistair Burt said in his Written Ministerial Statement last January:
“Our long-term interest is in a stable, peaceful Sri Lanka, free from the scourge of terrorism, and as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, conforming to the standards and values which Commonwealth membership requires”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/12; col. 21WS.]
That position remains unchanged.
I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his continued interest in Sri Lanka and for securing this debate today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. Therefore, the Committee stands adjourned.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Rees-Mogg
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, on 29 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Leader of the House
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, in leading the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I am able to be the first to welcome formally as his successor the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, is already very well regarded and liked by this House, and I both welcome his very imaginative appointment and look forward to working with him closely in the future, but he has a very hard act to follow. The departure from the Front Bench of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is a moment of great significance for this House. We shall all miss him, and especially so at great occasions, such as Prorogation, through the clerk not having to read out his full name, as that will mean that the Prorogation ceremony will be a good deal shorter.
A former Member of this House, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—Harold Wilson as was—once very acutely observed that, “A week is a long time in politics”. Having done 25 years on the Conservative Front Bench, I calculate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has done 1,300 weeks in politics, which is a very long time indeed. In that time, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has covered the ground. He entered government in 1988, appointed by the now noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as a junior Whip in the old Department of Trade and Industry. There, as I understand it, he met a very young researcher from the Conservative Research Department called David Cameron, a contact which has clearly stood him in very good stead.
Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, when, after the inconclusive result of the 2010 general election, David Cameron entered a room full of journalists to make his,
“big, open and comprehensive offer”,
to the Liberal Democrats, slipping into the room beside him—the only person to do so—was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. So when the Prime Minister yesterday said in response to the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that to him personally he had always been a,
“staunch friend and wise counsel”,
I suspect that was the heartfelt truth.
I am less confident about just how comfortable the noble Lord has been with the results of that big, open and comprehensive offer—that is, the coalition. When it was put to him on “Channel 4 News” last night that he had been reported as saying he despaired that the coalition had broken down in the House of Lords he didn’t quite knock the story down completely when he replied:
“I’m sure that at times … over the … last 18 months I might well have said that.”
Of course, one of the most difficult issues that he has had to deal with since coming into government, again in the coalition, has been House of Lords reform, and in particular the exciting and very well thought-through proposals from his now ex-Cabinet colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister. Tom Strathclyde is, of course, a natural House of Lords reformer. He has shown nothing but utter loyalty to the Government’s now-abandoned proposals for an all or mainly elected House of Lords. We on these Benches of course completely believed him, and saw no signs at all of one of the biggest political winks in parliamentary history. All I would report is the view of one Member of this House from his own Benches who said, this morning, about the noble Lord and Lords reform: “There were times when Tom’s tongue was so far in his cheek that it was almost coming out of his ear”. As another of the noble Lord’s colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, once so brilliantly put it: they might very well say that, but we on this side of the House could not possibly comment.
The noble Lord has had a long and highly distinguished political career. Indeed, he was Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships’ House for an astonishing 14 years, serving four leaders of his party in the Commons from 1998 to 2010 among the total of six Tory leaders he has served under. As Leader of the Opposition now, I both admire and am staggered by his tenacity, which was signalled very early on in his political career when in 1983 he bravely stood in the Conservative interest as an MEP candidate in Merseyside East. As natural a Scouser as he is a Lords reformer, sadly the noble Lord did not succeed on that occasion, although I am sure the European yearnings which that effort clearly showed will place him naturally in line with his mentor, the Prime Minister, when he makes his long-awaited speech on Europe.
Both as Leader of the Opposition and leader of his own party in Government, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has always been a highly capable political operator, a straight dealer and a man of his word. Even so there have been difficult times, of course, but it really cannot have been part of the coalition’s plan for this House, with the coalition’s huge inbuilt political majority, that we on these Benches and others would defeat the Government 59 times so far since May 2010. If on occasion this has led the noble Lord to be pretty robust in his dealings with the House, his own wit and charm, and sometimes pretty old-fashioned bluster, have more than got him through.
I would say that the noble Lord has always been personally warm and friendly to me in our private dealings, even when texting to inform me that the following day’s business has been pulled. I thank him now for his judgment, his trust, his confidences and his counsel. Among the most difficult times we have seen in recent years were the issues we faced over allowances and Peers’ conduct. As leaders throughout that difficult period, we both worked hard to make sure that there was not the slenderest of cigarette papers between us in the service of the House. He played a particularly important role at a decisive moment in getting the new allowances arrangements agreed.
It is true that some of the noble Lord’s strongest fans have not always been found among some of my colleagues on these Benches, especially when he has picked individuals up personally on points in the Chamber. However, politics can be a rough old trade and there can be no doubt that the noble Lord has served his beloved Conservative Party and, in his public duties, the people of this country well and loyally. In particular, I know that noble Lords will want it said that he has served this House well and loyally. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be greatly missed and from these Benches we thank him for all he has done. We wish him well in his future life beyond Front-Bench politics and we look forward to his maintaining strong and deep connections with your Lordships’ House from a different perspective to his extraordinary contribution from the Front Bench during a quarter of a century of dedicated service.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, when Talleyrand died and Metternich received a telegram saying, “Talleyrand is dead”, he pondered and thought, “Now what does he mean by this?”. There has been something of a similar reaction to the resignation of my noble friend. After his 14 years as a leader in this House and 25 years on the Front Bench, our great media have had to speculate on why he is going. There was even an outrageous suggestion in some of the papers that he could no longer tolerate working with the Liberal Democrats. As my noble friends will confirm, there have been no more harmonious meetings than when Tom Strathclyde has come to give the Liberal Democrats one of his regular pep talks. Indeed, if he were so minded, I would be able to persuade two or three of my friends to make way for him here on our Benches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned the name. What is in a name? Certainly not much for the William Hickey column of the Daily Express, which says that “Charlie Strathclyde” has departed as the leader. One would have thought that it would get the name right. I had to face—as the noble Baroness said—the annual humiliation at Prorogation when the clerk would read out Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Strathclyde and Tom McNally. At one time I thought of adding Plantagenet just to give it a bit of class.
Lord Laming
My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues in the Cross-Bench group, I, too, wish to be associated with the warm and very well earned tributes that have been paid already to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Although still relatively young—in my terms, very young—he has given many years of his life to being an outstanding public servant.
During the years when he was the Leader of this House he always aimed to act in the best interests of the whole House and his many talents and energy were much admired. My colleagues and I very much hope that the House will continue to have the benefit of his vast experience and wisdom. The noble Lord very much respected the position of the Cross-Bench group, and, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he very much valued the individual contributions of its Members. He also supported the position of the Convenor and well understood that role in treading carefully—sometimes ever so carefully—between the different party political interests in the House. On a personal note I very much enjoyed the regular meetings that I had with him and I will always be grateful for the generous support and encouragement that he readily gave. I wish him well.
Finally, I also take the opportunity to welcome to this important role the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford. The House rightly has a great regard for him and personally, I have valued enormously my contact with him, especially in safeguarding children and young people. On behalf of the Cross-Bench group I welcome him to his new responsibilities and look forward to working with him.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I speak briefly to associate those of us on these Benches with the generous, worthy and well earned words for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. On these Benches, we are transient. We come and go because, as noble Lords know, we observe a retirement age. By contrast, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is just like a part of the furniture. He is an institution and has been here throughout the time that virtually all of us on these Benches have been here, so it will be a big change for us. My colleagues have been very keen to say how much we appreciate his support, wisdom and guidance for the Lords Spiritual to enable our contribution to the work of the House. Speaking personally, I marvel sometimes when he has to stand at that Box and deal with some rather difficult things coming across the Chamber. I always admire the fact that he is calm, has a twinkle in his eye and generally responds with buckets of common sense. That seems to be a very good way of leading a House and creating the right kind of atmosphere and frame for us.
We also extend our welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. To be honest, on these Benches we have mixed feelings. He has done a wonderful job as Education Minister and has been a great friend to the Church and the Lords Spiritual. In many ways we are very sad to see him leave that post. He has done outstanding work, and I have always admired the way he can stand at the Dispatch Box and, without really referring to his notes, be able to answer the questions and be very astute and quick-thinking on his feet. That is a remarkable gift and one that we look forward to him exercising in his new role. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and say thank you very much indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his help, support and guidance.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
My Lords, I rise to pay tribute and give warm thanks to my noble friend on behalf of the Association of Conservative Peers for all that he has achieved for this House and our party during his long and distinguished career to date. Those of us who have served in government and on opposition Front Benches for a number of years are fully aware of the all-consuming and unremitting pressures and strains that that service brings—and, like other noble Lords, I think I have done my bit. However, we can only marvel at the unbroken record of my noble friend over 25 years as a Minister in many departments, as Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees—briefly—and as a member of shadow Cabinets and Cabinets. Few in either House can rival my noble friend’s record and it is entirely understandable that he should now wish to find time for another life and to pursue the many other interests that have inevitably languished during those years.
The House has changed much since 1999, both in its role and value. It is perhaps true to say that, in earlier years, its contribution was sometimes underestimated among the higher reaches in the other place. That is no longer true today, and my noble friend has played a notable part in bringing that about and in developing our House’s modern role in today’s world. Many of us have discovered that behind the jovial exterior and merry manner lie a shrewd brain, an immense capacity for work and a devotion to the tasks in hand. I will give one example of the latter. No one should underestimate the difficulty of repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place following a European Council or other high-level international meeting, at which he was not present and where decisions were inevitably sometimes made in the middle of the night. After possibly only one or two hours’ briefing at the most, my noble friend would have to cover a vast range of issues on which it would be easy to drop a brick; yet he always carried out that role with aplomb. All that experience and understanding of the House and its modern role was brought to bear, in my view, with the skill and subtlety with which he has handled the issue of Lords reform.
As Leader of the House, my noble friend has shown devotion to this place above party politics. As leader of the Conservative Party in the Lords, he has always worked closely with colleagues in the ACP in developing policies, and his door has always been open to us. We welcome our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, as a very worthy successor, and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, warmly and extend every best wish for success and happiness in whatever avenues he now wishes to pursue.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I wholeheartedly support the sentiments that have been expressed across the House about my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Some play has already been made about his name. My noble friend Lord McNally may feel short-changed with a surname like McNally. I say to him, “Try the surname Hill”. This afternoon’s tributes are a testament to the great dedication that my noble friend showed to this House in his remarkable quarter-century of service on the Front Bench.
My noble friend was a gifted and agile Leader of the Opposition for almost 12 years, before rightly taking his place as an outstanding Leader of this House, working over that time with five different Leaders of the party opposite. Indeed, he led the Conservative Benches for longer than any Peer, save for two distinguished Marquises of Salisbury and the Duke of Wellington. That is not bad company for a Conservative Leader of the House to keep.
Both in opposition and office, during a long period of time in which the House faced change unprecedented in generations, his immense experience and knowledge of—and, I may add, loyalty to—this House have been to the huge benefit of us all. That was given recognition yesterday when the Prime Minister recommended the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the Order of the Companions of Honour, an appointment which brings distinction and due recognition to the work he has done here and as a Minister over so many years.
As a relative newcomer to the House, I am certainly in his debt for the guidance and support he has given me since May 2010. It is rather disconcerting to stand here at the Dispatch Box today without the benefit of his occasional instruction, delivered in a forceful stage whisper from the direction of my right elbow. Since the general election, my noble friend has steered the House with great skill through some unusual and testing times, with the establishment of a coalition Government for the first time since the Second World War. It is not just the Government for whom he has worked tirelessly, but the whole House, whose interests I know he has always guarded at every opportunity.
It is therefore a tremendous privilege to follow my noble friend in serving this House and these Benches as Leader. I have enormous respect for the work of this House, for its role in our constitutional arrangements and for our traditions and courtesies—which, like my predecessors, I hope to be able to help uphold.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde leaves a large hole on our Front Bench, as well as perhaps a little more space for the rest of us. To succeed him as Leader of this House is therefore an honour that I view rather nervously, but I take great encouragement from the generous remarks that noble Lords have been kind enough to make this afternoon.
Airports: Capacity
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the average percentage of total capacity used at London’s commercial airports over the past six months.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, between May and October 2012 there were 525,000 commercial air transport movements at the five largest commercial London airports: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City. These air transport movements used around 86% of the available runway capacity.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, why are we allowing the London airport system to run out of capacity?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are not. We have set up the South East Airports Task Force to look at short-term measures to gain some capacity at Heathrow. In the rather longer term, we have the aviation policy framework, which we are committed to publishing in March 2013. Finally, we have set up the Airports Commission, headed up by Sir Howard Davies.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Is it not likely that non-British airports will heartily welcome the Government’s unpardonable delay in selecting an international hub airport, whether at Heathrow or elsewhere? What does the Minister say about that?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this problem was not unforeseeable. It has been coming for many years, including when noble Lords opposite were in government. We need to get a consensus and find a lasting solution that will survive a change in Governments.
Lord Bradshaw
I hope that the noble Earl will ponder the following: a great deal of the heat in the debate about air capacity is caused by the bidding war that has broken out between various airports and airlines. Will the noble Earl ensure that the Davies commission will, to the best of its ability, be governed by the fact that we should create extra capacity only when a real need is demonstrated?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am confident that the Airports Commission, headed up by Sir Howard, will consider all relevant matters.
Lord Soley
The Minister will know my opinion on this but I put it to him very strongly that just about everyone in business has been saying that delaying this infrastructure project is crucially bad for the British economy. It is the delay that is causing the problem. If the Government picked up the previous Government’s policy and continued with it we would not be in this situation now. That would not cost a single penny of public money. Please, please move on this for the sake of the British economy, investment and jobs.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important for businesses to put their own submissions in to the Airports Commission, as I think the noble Lord has already done himself.
Lord Elton
My Lords, institutions can scarcely run at 100% capacity, any more than you can have 100% full employment. There has to be some slack in the system. How long does my noble friend think that the 14% capacity that he says is now available will last? What steps are being taken to meet the moment when it is full?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, DfT aviation demand forecasts suggest that with no new runway Gatwick Airport could become full from around 2018 and Stansted from around 2030. That is why we have set up the Airports Commission to advise us on viable options for solving this problem.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, to come back to the original Question, there is a 14% underuse capacity in the five major London and south-east airports. What plans do the Government have to utilise that capacity, given the failing to direct daily flights to some of the major economies around the world and new developing economies? What can be done immediately and what will the Government do?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important to understand that we are very well connected by Heathrow Airport. It is connected to the rest of the world better than most other places in Europe.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, my noble friend’s Question referred specifically to commercial airports, but not far from Heathrow lies Northolt—principally a Royal Air Force airport but used for some other domestic and international semi-commercial flights. What problems and constraints exist in the further use or development of Northolt to add value to what otherwise would be part of the same hub of London airports?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand that there are some difficulties with the runway orientation of Northolt airfield. I am sure that that is a factor that the Airports Commission will take into consideration.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, in his opening response the noble Earl referred to the fact that a consensus was necessary to make progress over the considerable period of time needed to expand airport capacity. Although he quoted 86% for the south-east airports, we know that Heathrow is at over 99% utilisation and has no scope at all for development. The Opposition have offered to the Government for more than a year now the opportunity to establish a consensus by joint talks. Could the noble Earl at least persuade his ministerial colleagues that these should take place, and that they would be aided by a somewhat earlier timetable for the commission’s report? Why is it having to report after the general election when the urgency of the situation is apparent to everyone?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord makes a strong point. The Airports Commission will report with its initial findings by the end of the year. I would be delighted to talk to the noble Lord privately when we get that initial report. But it takes time to do the job properly.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister might remind the House that capacity at Heathrow is for 90 million passengers per year. Currently it has only 70 million passengers a year, because airlines are using small aircraft in order to keep their slots alive and are developing most of their flights within the UK and near continent, not for the long distance routes. Will he explain to the House that capacity is far more complex and that there is a great deal of capacity with the potential for much better utilisation already in London?
Earl Attlee
I agree with my noble friend that if you use bigger aircraft you can get more passengers through Heathrow for the same number of flights.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, what proportion of the capacity at Heathrow do the Government estimate will be released if their plans to build High Speed 2—initially to Birmingham and then to Manchester and Leeds—are fulfilled? Is it not the case that when high-speed railways are built on the continent, domestic aviation diminishes and as a result there is spare capacity at airports?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord makes an important point, but it will not solve our underlying problem that we will still eventually run out of capacity at the London airports.
Housing: New Homes
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to build more homes in the south-east of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
The Government do not set down Whitehall housing targets for the south-east of England or any other part of the country. It is for elected local councils to determine where development should and should not go, and how best to meet housing need through their local plans.
Lord Sheldon
I take notice of the points that the noble Baroness has put forward, but Britain has been building fewer homes in London. In 2011, 18,000 new homes were completed. More houses are needed and they have to be built to meet the requirements.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, nobody will disagree that we need more housing. I have said that many times in this Chamber. Everybody knows that we have an underhousing situation in this country for our population. Therefore, there is great pressure from my department to ensure that housing targets are built up. However, it is for local authorities to decide where that housing goes and how much they need in their local area. A great number of houses are in the pipeline, due to be built.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that she is willing to support the approval of the financial scheme of guarantee to help small builders who desperately need the work and who could provide many homes for the people who are so badly in need of them?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the encouragement for small businesses is there. Our position is already to help small businesses. Of course, some small businesses, although not necessarily building a big number of houses, are making a major contribution.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in carrying out housing programmes it is very important to take into account two recent developments? First, following the Olympics, housing programmes should not infringe on sports grounds and, indeed, should make greater provision for sporting facilities. Secondly, steps should be taken to ensure that housing does not take place in areas that are liable to flooding.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, again, local authorities and their local plans need to take account of both those matters. It is certainly true that we hope to see the preservation of playing fields, and that the legacy of the Olympics is to be encouraged—exactly the point that my noble friend has made. Of course, it does not make sense, as we have seen recently, to build on flood plains if it is not necessary. However, that is a matter for local authorities’ judgment in terms of the amount of housing they need and where they need to put it.
Lord Kinnock
Is it not clear that the cap on housing benefit means that very large numbers of people now working and living in central London will not, in the course of this year, be able to live near their place of work? Does that not make it a matter of emergency for the Government to undertake a building programme that will mean that affordable housing is available to the people who serve this great city in both the public and private sectors in all capacities? Is it not a dreadful reality that the combination of the cap on housing benefit and the paucity of affordable housing in the public and private sectors will be monstrous in its effects on lower-paid people in this city?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is also monstrous that we are left in the financial situation that we are. That is one reason why the welfare budget has had to be looked at over the past few years. There is also little evidence, except in one or two of the major boroughs, that people are having to move out of London to find housing as a result of the housing benefit situation. We are pushing very hard for the building of affordable housing in the light of whatever local authorities believe they need.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, does the Minister agree that bringing homes that have been empty long-term back into use can make a useful contribution to housing supply? What scope does she think that there is in the south-east for that, and what are the Government doing to help communities that want to bring long-term empty homes back into use?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Government have a number of projects that have just come into being to support the bringing back into use of empty homes. Yes, they are a waste and it is essential that long-term empty homes—because some are not empty for long-term reasons—are brought back into use. The Government have this year already committed £160 million. That will bring 10,700 empty homes back into use. There is £100 million for affordable housing, including £70 million of funding for 95 projects, which will bring more than 5,600 properties back into use across the country. My noble friend commented on the south-east but, as I explained, that is across the country.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, a recent study by BNP Paribas looked at the extent to which local authorities were changing their housing targets from the regional spatial strategy levels. It found that local authorities in the south-east and the south-west were making the biggest cuts. For the south-east, this amounted to around an 18% reduction. Does the Minister think that that position is satisfactory?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I go back to what I said to begin: it is now for local authorities to decide on their housing need against the overall housing position. The noble Lord talks again about the south-east, but the south-east has many local authorities, which are making decisions on housing as we speak.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of construction jobs that are not being fulfilled in the present climate. Although the Government’s approach to unemployment and apprenticeships is one that everyone endorses and supports, is it not possible for that to be re-enacted in a vigorous and real way to ensure that people in apprenticeships in the construction industry have the opportunity to test their skills in building in the south-east, as housing is important for everyone?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, apprenticeships are of course allied to companies in the housebuilding business. We very much hope that any apprenticeship taken up in the construction industry will go on to ensure that that person has a full-time job as long as the companies are able to build, which they are.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, as I made clear before the House voted on 3 December, if the fatal Motion was carried, the LASPO Act would not provide legal aid in the cases specified in the rejected statutory instrument. That remains the case.
Lord Bach
Does the Minister understand that that Answer is entirely unsatisfactory and does no credit to the Government? This House declined to accept the order because it represented a breach of a government undertaking given to another place to get the legal aid Bill through and because what it offered was too mean. Why are the Government taking absolutely no notice of the will of this House of Parliament? Are they not behaving more like a spoilt child than a mature, responsible Government, protecting the legal rights of some of the poorest citizens under their care, including many with disabilities?
Lord McNally
Well, we have had heard it over two years and both Houses have come to decisions on the LASPO Bill. As regards fatal Motions, I can speak from experience. I was part of engineering a fatal Motion on the casino Bill. That fatal Motion was carried by the House. The Government of the day did nothing further on the casino matter. If I may coin a phrase, as it says on the tin, fatal Motions mean what they say.
Lord Pannick
Given that the House rejected as inadequate the limited concession on legal aid in First-tier Tribunals, is it not truly perverse for the Government to respond by withdrawing even that?
Lord McNally
The Government have not withdrawn that concession. This House passed a fatal Motion meaning that that concession was no longer part of the Bill. That was the decision of the House. If I may so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of all those who voted for it, I made that very clear to the House before the vote.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Instead of continuing to sulk, would it not be proper for the Government to bring forward another order, in which they honour the commitment rightly given to Parliament by the previous Lord Chancellor?
Lord McNally
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, again alleged that that commitment was made. It was not made by the previous Lord Chancellor. The commitment was to examine the case for the First-tier Tribunals. As I have reported back to the House on numerous occasions, the decision was that in the circumstances it was far too expensive. It would be nice to have fatal Motions as yet another round in the legislation process, but I ask the House and the Official Opposition to think carefully. If fatal Motions are going to be used in this way, they have great repercussions, not least on our relationship with the other place.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that legal aid remains available for advice on appeal from the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal in welfare cases? Can he also confirm that where there is a point of law on which an appellant has a reasonable prospect of success, legal aid is and will remain available for the preparation and presentation of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal?
Lord McNally
Yes, that is case. It is also worth making the point that some of the noises from the other side make it sound as though the Government have been totally unfeeling and refusing to listen.
Lord McNally
Well, it is worth reminding noble Lords that when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill was published the initial idea was that legal aid was not required in any welfare benefit cases, other than for judicial review or for a small number cases based on the Equality Act 2010. Throughout the course of the LASPO Bill the Government were urged to rethink their position on removing legal aid for onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal, which had to be on a point of law.
The Government listened to these concerns and offered concessions during the passage of the Bill to bring into the scope of legal aid advice and assistance for welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and representation for the welfare benefit appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. These were concessions in which my noble friends played a considerable part in achieving. The idea of an unlistening and unfeeling Government is simply not true. If the House forces through fatal Motions, it must take the consequences.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Does the noble Lord not understand that the initial position put forward in the LASPO Bill was totally untenable? That is why it was amended. Does he not also accept that after the House has spoken on this fatal Motion, the Government are obliged to listen—and by “listen” I mean do something in response?
Lord McNally
The noble and learned Baroness suggests that the Government, as if in some game of poker, have to produce another offer in response to a fatal Motion. A fatal Motion is what it says—it is fatal. As I have pointed out, there was the example of the casino Bill in the previous Parliament. One of the reasons why successive Oppositions have thought long and hard about using fatal Motions is that they have implications about where and when the arguments and discussions about a Bill come to an end and how that relates to the relationship between the two Houses. Such Motions can be very toxic. I warned the House and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of that, but he pressed ahead. A fatal Motion was passed and it has been fatal.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the Minister’s whole approach in answering questions today gives the House a great deal of explanation for why he sometimes finds it difficult to get Motions, including fatal Motions, through. He clearly misunderstands the procedure, which is as follows. Yes, an order can be defeated by a fatal Motion, but a Minister given to conciliatory thinking—something that apparently does not appeal to him—should then go to the opponents of the order and suggest to them various possibilities for ways in which an order could be put before the House and might then pass. Such negotiations may or may not be successful, but the Minister at least owes it to the House to tell us precisely what efforts he has made to ensure that an amended Motion can be put to the House that might command its support.
Lord McNally
I am making no efforts to make such a proposal. The fatal Motion is fatal—that is the end. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has gone around this track, but in a parliamentary process there must come a point when a Bill becomes an Act and a law is passed. If the Opposition’s plan, and it would be interesting to know this, is to use fatal Motions on a regular basis to try to keep alive issues that have been decided by both Houses through proper Bill procedures, then we are going into new territory. I am sorry but the House heard my warning and ignored it, and the Bill is now an Act.
Economy: Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff” Solution
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the “fiscal cliff” solution in the United States on the United Kingdom economy.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Office for Budget Responsibility based its December 2012 forecasts for the UK economy on the assumption that fiscal policy would be tightened in the US by between 1% and 2% of US GDP. This is what is now happening. The Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act, the measure agreed by Congress last week, is that it will produce a fiscal tightening of 1.7% of US GDP.
Lord Barnett
Of course, my Lords, the cliff-edge solution did not solve any fundamental problem, any more than our fundamental problem in this country has been solved. That problem requires us to achieve sustainable growth. The Government are taking a few steps in that direction with their infrastructure plans but none of those will do anything now, and urgent action is needed now. Does the noble Lord accept that one way of doing that would be for the Government to find some modest capital, comparatively speaking, because companies are simply not willing to borrow, whether under guarantee or not? The Government will have to kick-start infrastructure if they want to see growth start. Does he agree that that would be a way forward?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that in the Pre-Budget Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced another £5.5 billion of additional capital spending on roads, science infrastructure and schools, and that earlier in the autumn we passed an Act providing guarantees for £40 billion for infrastructure and another £10 billion for housing. The Government are making considerable efforts to increase the amount of infrastructure activity.
Lord Peston
My Lords, as a life-long opponent of the death penalty, I might make an exception for whoever—I hope it was not an economist—invented the expression “fiscal cliff”. Do the Government accept the analysis that if the US goes more deeply into recession it will have devastating adverse effects on the whole of the European economy and no policy envisaged by this Government would be any use whatever?
Lord Newby
I think the noble Lord slightly overstates it. The fiscal cliff—elegant or inelegant—has been avoided and the expectations and the forecast for the US are that it will see relatively modest, but substantive, growth in 2013. As the noble Lord will know, the latest employment figures in the US suggest that there has been a significant addition to the number of people employed. Therefore, the chances of the kind of meltdown in the US economy that he is worried about look extraordinarily remote.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the US faces an even worse fiscal cliff in seven weeks. As the British Government are unlikely to have much impact on Republicans infused by the Tea Party, I suggest that it would be a better strategy for this Government to put their efforts into getting formal negotiations on EU/US trade in order to take away the technical barriers that the US is using at the moment to limit UK exports in pharmaceuticals, medical services and advanced electronics. That might be a more positive way forward.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Baroness. That is why the Prime Minister has set promoting a US/EU trade agreement as one of his top priorities for the G8, as well as moving forward on other trade agreements, such as that with Canada, which are already a long way down the pipeline.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, will the noble Lord consider answering the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Barnett? He asked what the assessment was of the impact of the fiscal cliff solution on the UK economy. As the noble Lord said, this had led to a 1.7% increase in the fiscal burden on GDP, and the debt ceiling debates in seven weeks’ time referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, may add further burdens to the US economy. Is this good or bad for Britain?
Lord Newby
Whether it is good or bad for Britain, it is what is happening in the US. What I said in my original Answer was that the estimates, which were published by the ONS at the time of the Autumn Statement, were based on an assessment of what was likely to happen, which is exactly what has happened. The Bill passed last week is having an impact of 1.7% on US GDP. The ONS assumed that the Bill passed last week would have an impact of about 1.7% on US GDP. We factored that into our calculations and the growth forecast produced for this year will be unchanged because what has actually happened is what we thought was going to happen.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, before my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord Howe repeat the Answers to the Urgent Questions asked earlier in the House of Commons, perhaps I may remind the House that we recently agreed a new trial procedure and this is the first occasion on which we are able to take advantage of it and see how it begins to run.
My noble friend Lord Taylor will first repeat the Answer to the Urgent Question in full. At that point the Clerks will start the clock running for 10 minutes. During those 10 minutes, questions and answers will follow. We have anticipated that the first question is likely to come from the opposition Front Bench. It was decided that the usual channels, if they wished, could dispense with that but that has not happened today so I would expect the opposition Front Bench to come first. The rules that follow for questions and answers are the same as those for a Private Notice Question of this House.
Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I will now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The Answer, given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, is as follows:
“On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, failed to report for his overnight residence requirement. As I told the House yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded, and his whereabouts are currently unknown.
On 31 December, at the request of the police, I asked the High Court to revoke the anonymity order that was in force in relation to Magag. The police subsequently issued a public appeal for information that might lead to his location and apprehension. The Government took steps to inform Parliament of this incident as soon as it was lawful and operationally possible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke to the chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on 31 December. This was followed by letters to both committee chairmen, to the shadow Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies of those letters were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.
The statements that the police issued on 31 December and on 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public. The TPIM notice in this case was intended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. The Government do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking this matter very seriously.
The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although I cannot give operational details, I can confirm that the police, the Security Service and other agencies are devoting significant resources to the search for Magag. Members of the public with any information relating to the search should contact the confidential police anti-terrorist hotline.
Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again, I would like to remind the House that this is not the first abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of control orders, there were seven absconds. Of those seven cases, six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond is serious, and the authorities are doing everything they can to locate him. I will update the House when there are further developments as soon as it is possible to do so”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. He will understand that it is of enormous concern that Ibrahim Magag, who is subject to a TPIM—a terrorism prevention and investigation measure—has been able to abscond, particularly when the judge who reviewed his previous control order said that,
“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London, even for a short period”.
The Minister referred to how many people had absconded under previous control orders, but the key issue was relocating those subject to an order. My understanding was that none absconded after they had been relocated. However, the Government took the decision to remove the power to relocate suspects when introducing TPIMs. Given that they allowed him to move back to London from the West Country, to where he had been relocated by the previous Government’s control order, can the Minister confirm whether that made it easier for him to abscond? Was he subject to any surveillance at the time?
Finally, is it true that he absconded by hailing a black cab?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can confirm the latter point. The last time he was seen, he was reported as getting into a taxi.
The noble Baroness misconstrues the nature of the TPIM system, which succeeds the control order system but is designed to provide proportionate supervision for people where evidence does not exist to secure a conviction. The only true way of dealing with terrorists is to find the evidence to convict them and to put them into prison; that is the only secure place that we can put them. That is a process of law for which we require evidence. TPIM is a mechanism whereby we can at least prevent the movement and control the location of individuals in the way that we have done.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, Parliament rightly put TPIMs at the heart of our intelligence, but in the case of Ibrahim Magag they obviously did not work. Is the Minister satisfied that the system, particularly the machinery and equipment available, is adequate for the operation? If not, what further improvements are necessary?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We can, of course, always review the circumstances of this particular incident in the light of experience, but we know that the resources available to deal with people such as Magag are considerable, and that they have been designed to prevent things like this from happening. As I said, it is very difficult to prevent people from absconding. We know that it happened under the old regime; this is the first—unfortunate—case under a TPIM.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Does the Minister not understand that he misses the point? We all understand and accept that control orders and TPIMs are extraordinary measures. We understand that the ideal is to have a trial in a court of law with sufficient evidence. That is agreed. Nevertheless, the point is that, although control orders were inadequate—the Minister pointed to some absconding under them—the power to relocate was the biggest weapon in that inadequate arsenal. After the use of that no one, to my knowledge, absconded. However, the point is that the Government removed that one effective vehicle in the control orders when they brought in TPIMs. Will he now bear that in mind and at least assure the House that he will review the operations of TPIMs to see whether what I am saying is correct?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot accept what the noble Lord says, but I accept that he speaks from considerable experience in this area. Governments would be very foolish not to learn from experience. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the fact that Magag was here in London particularly assisted his absconding on this occasion. I accept, as the noble Lord said, that incidents like this should be reviewed, and they will be.
Lord Laming
Will the Minister say what lessons have been learnt from this experience, and what steps have been taken to ensure that further lessons will be acted upon?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that I have just given the noble Lord an indication of the way we think about these matters. It is too soon to say whether lessons can be learnt. The most important thing is to ascertain the whereabouts of this person and to apprehend him.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Will the Minister accept that the fact that Mr Magag did not abscond while subject to a judicially approved relocation order, and that he absconded when that was removed, is in itself clear evidence of the poor decision to remove relocation orders? Will he also acknowledge that nobody absconded while subject to a relocation order, and that there were no absconds at all during the last four and a half years of control orders?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Again, the noble Lord speaks with a great deal of experience on this issue. I note the point that he makes, but I have given my answer and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, when I took over as Minister for Security we pushed hard to allow people to be moved out of the places where they were causing so much trouble, and from that moment not a single person absconded. Quite clearly, therefore, the fact that these people are not moved has an impact. Is it not true that TPIMs also take up more effort from the agencies and Security Service as well? Although none of us liked control orders, they were a way of ensuring the safety and security of our nation, particularly with those movement orders. I am afraid that the TPIMs, having removed those movement orders, put people at risk.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I believe that I have given the noble Lord the answer, which I have given before. Of course, we will learn from this experience, but there are no current plans to reintroduce controls over movement.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Will the Minister inform the House how many individuals are currently subject to TPIM orders, and how many of those individuals have been made subject to such orders on the grounds, if I have followed the noble Lord correctly, that they have been raising finance for foreign terrorists?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can inform the House that 10 people are subject to TPIMs. I cannot give the grounds for any of those orders having been made.
Lord Dubs
The Minister said that this was an instance where there was not enough evidence to take the person to court. Perhaps I may say to the Minister, if we were to use intercept evidence, would we not be able to bring all these people to court? Is it not time for the Government to move forward on working out a system whereby intercept evidence could be used in these cases?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord moves the argument on considerably. We will have an opportunity to discuss all sorts of elements. Intercept is not communications data, but such data have been discussed in pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses. Therefore, these matters are under consideration.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not in a position to give an answer to that. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand why.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I have listened with great care because I have great respect for the Minister, but I do not hear a single argument in favour of getting rid of relocation. Will the Minister tell me what that argument is?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
When it was introduced to the House, the legislation did not provide for relocation as being a proportionate measure to be taken in such cases. It was debated by Parliament and the provision was made. Therefore, that provision currently does not exist in TPIMs.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Does my noble friend agree that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which several Members of the opposition Benches were members, examined control orders extensively in 2009? It recommended wholeheartedly that relocation to distant places away from family and support systems was no different from house arrest and was deeply disproportionate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that, in terms.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have given the view of the Government that it is important to establish proportionality in all these cases, which is why TPIMs are constructed as they are.
NHS: South London Healthcare Trust
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat as a statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place earlier today to an Urgent Question on the report of the trust special administrator to South London Healthcare NHS Trust. The statement is as follows:
“I have today published the final report of the trust special administrator to South London Healthcare NHS Trust and laid it before Parliament. I received the report yesterday and must now consider it carefully. I am under a statutory duty to take a decision by 1 February on how best to secure a sustainable future for services provided by the trust.
The trust administrator began his appointment on 16 July. He published his draft report on 29 October, and undertook a consultation on his draft recommendations between 2 November and 13 December. More than 27,000 full consultation documents and 104,000 summary documents were distributed during the trust special administrator’s consultation, sent to 2,000 locations across south-east London, including hospital sites, GP surgeries, libraries and town halls. A dedicated website was established to support the consultation, the TSA team arranged or attended more than 100 events or meetings and the consultation generated more than 8,200 responses.
I understand the concerns of honourable Members and, indeed, the people living in the areas affected by these proposals, especially the people of Lewisham. They have a right to expect the highest-quality NHS care, and I have a duty to ensure that they receive it. However, they will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to give a view now on the report’s recommendations, only one day after receiving the report. To do so would be pre-emptive, and would prejudice my duty to consider the recommendations with care and reach a decision that is in the best interests of the people of south-east London.
However, I have made it clear that any solution would need to satisfy the four tests outlined by the Prime Minister and my right honourable predecessor with respect to any major reconfigurations. The changes must have support from GP commissioners; the public, patients and local authorities must have been genuinely engaged in the process; the recommendations must be underpinned by a clear clinical evidence base; and the changes must give patients a choice of good-quality providers.
The challenges facing South London Healthcare NHS Trust are complex and long-standing, but to fail to address them is to penalise other parts of the NHS from which resources must be taken to finance the biggest deficit anywhere in the NHS. To date, it has not proved possible to ensure that South London Healthcare NHS Trust is able to secure a sustainable future for its services within its existing configuration and organisational form. In appointing a trust special administrator to the trust, the Government’s priority was to ensure that patients continue to receive high-quality, sustainable NHS services. I will consider the special administrator’s report with that objective in mind”.
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. We commend the work of the trust special administrator and support a number of the recommendations developed from previous reviews. However, it is difficult to understand how the Government consider this report to constitute the full strategic review of the sustainability of services across south-east London that is required. The TSA has overstepped its remit under the Health Act 2009 by including service changes to Lewisham hospital; and the parallel work by King’s Health Partners on reconfiguration under three other south-east London trusts has yet to be completed.
Can the Minister explain why the rules on making changes to hospitals have been changed to allow back-door reconfigurations in this way without proper scrutiny and consultation? What public consultation will there be on the King’s Health Partners report? Can he reassure the people of Lewisham that they will have their full consultation rights to challenge the closure of their A&E services and the other major changes being proposed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I understand the concerns that she has raised.
The first question she asked me was whether I considered the trust special administrator to have overstepped his remit. The clear advice that we have received is that no part of the NHS can exist in a vacuum. The independent trust special administrator is responsible for developing recommendations to deal with the severe failings at South London Healthcare Trust based on local discussions and consultation. I hope that the statement I read out gave the House a flavour of how extensive those consultations have been. His recommendations must secure high-quality care for local people in a financially sustainable way.
However, as I have mentioned, each NHS trust is part of a complex, wider health system, and it is quite clearly the view of the administrator in this case that it is not possible to find a solution without considering the possible impact on other hospitals in the areas. That conclusion is one that my right honourable friend will have to consider very carefully, but Ministers have received clear advice that it is within the powers of the administrator to make recommendations about necessary changes to other local providers if they are a necessary and consequential part of finding a long-term solution to securing high-quality services for patients at that trust. I emphasise that I do not in any way wish to pre-empt the decision that my right honourable friend has to take within 20 working days. However, he will have to consider advice on the clinical, legal and financial aspects of the administrator’s recommendations and I have no doubt that concerns raised by the noble Baroness will be central to his consideration.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I declare an interest as the former chairman of the provider agency in the London SHA area who grappled with some of these problems in south-east London which, to the best of my knowledge, have been around for at least 20 years. I congratulate the TSA on the work that he has done in trying to resolve this. Could the Minister explain a little more about the involvement of Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital and King’s College Hospital? The TSA is to be congratulated on involving them much more than has been the case in the past in finding solutions in this area because the failure of those two powerful hospitals to get involved in sorting out the mess in south-east London has bedevilled earlier solutions.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who I know well appreciates the scale of the problem with which the administrator was grappling. This trust was losing more than £1 million a week. That is not a sustainable position in the current NHS, or even when times were rosier as regards the financial settlement. It is important for me not to say anything that will pre-empt my right honourable friend’s conclusion, but I am aware, from the press release issued today by the trust special administrator, that, as the noble Lord rightly says, the wider health economy has been taken into consideration, including the role of Guy’s and King’s College Hospital, in a number of areas, including, in particular, in emergency care and in obstetrician-led maternity care. I would commend to the noble Lord a summary of the recommendations, which is on the department’s website today. I hope he will find that helpful in giving him a sense of the breadth of the administrator’s purview.
Baroness Donaghy
Is the Minister aware of the extreme anxiety among the population in Lewisham about the possible future closure of the A&E department in Lewisham? The population of 250,000 is estimated to rise to 300,000 in a very few years’ time as a result of a huge increase in the birth rate. There are very deep social needs and there is no doubt whatever that there is unanimity among the professionals and the population about the importance of maintaining that hospital. Is the Minister also concerned that one report that was produced, which was supposedly a clinical report, in fact turned out to be written by the communications department? Is he satisfied that the process has been a fair one and that there has not been a prejudgment in the consultation exercise?
Earl Howe
My Lords, all questions of process must be for my right honourable friend to consider, including that one. I emphasise the Government’s approach to reconfiguration decisions. When the Government came into office, we took a very clear decision about four tests that needed to be applied to any sustainable reconfiguration within the NHS: the changes, whatever they were, had to command support from GP commissioners—that is to say, the clinical community; the public must be engaged in the process; the recommendations must be clinically sustainable and sound; and, as the statement mentioned, they must leave patients with a clear choice of good-quality providers. Those safeguards were not there before, but they are there now and my right honourable friend will be looking at those tests when he considers not just the matter of Lewisham but the totality of the administrator’s recommendations.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, today it is the South London Healthcare Trust, and there is anxiety abroad that tomorrow it could well be another trust. Can the Minister tell the House how many trusts are in the “at risk” box today and what role is being played by Monitor and others in these cases?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is important to stress to my noble friend that a trust will be put into special administration only when all other options have been exhausted. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is aware that that was the situation we faced in this instance. Where possible, NHS providers will be supported to return to sustainability in both the clinical and financial sense. Our priority is to do what is best to ensure that patients receive high-quality care and special administration is a last resort. However, as my noble friend knows, a number of trusts are facing financial challenges. The department is working with Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority to oversee the performance of those trusts. I would just say that while some organisations are in difficulties, currently there are absolutely no firm plans to trigger the regime for any other trusts at all.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl recognises the experience I have had as chairman of the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust, which went through a similar exercise that took many years. First, however, I want to associate myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Warner, and I support the action that has been taken. I recognise what my noble friend said about the concerns of the local community, but that will always be the case. However, what is most important is to make the decision and secure the support of outlying hospitals. My own trust is working towards a partnership with the Royal Free Hospital, although we are not there yet. The move could have been considered much earlier, which would have prevented a lot of pain and heartache for many people. My advice and plea is to stick with what is being done. That did not happen for Barnet and Chase Farm. As noble Lords know, a number of holds were put on what we were doing that made things worse for the community and for the staff. They almost ensured that the services we were providing were harder to deliver.
Earl Howe
As ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her perspective from the front line. I think it was with that in mind that the previous Government drew up the legislation which my right honourable friend now has to abide by, in that there is now a very tight timescale of 20 working days for him to take a decision. That is not a long time but it is indicative of the need for urgency in arriving at the right solution. The TSA has done his work and we must now judge whether the recommendations are the right ones.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Public Service Pensions Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 15, Schedule 4, Clause 16, Schedule 5, Clause 17, Schedule 6, Clause 18, Schedule 7, Clauses 19 to 24, Schedule 8, Clauses 25 and 26, Schedule 9, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 10, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 11, Clauses 31 to 38.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, this Bill is primarily a deregulatory measure in support of the Government’s decisive actions to put the country’s economy back on a stable footing and to restore growth. The challenges we face mean that we must constantly keep in mind what more needs to be done to encourage innovation and economic growth, to create more jobs and to tackle anything which acts as a barrier to this happening. That is why the Bill focuses on reforms that will boost Britain’s infrastructure, get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and ensure that our planning system operates effectively. It brings forward provisions that will remove constraints on economic development caused by the planning system, help to unlock land for housing growth to ensure that sufficient housing can be built for future needs, speed up the essential delivery of superfast broadband—country-wide, but particularly in rural areas—remove barriers and delay to major infrastructure projects, introduce measures to support business directly by providing certainty on business rates, and introduce a new employment status.
Turning to these themes in the Bill itself, perhaps I may start by addressing Clauses 1 and 6 on planning and housing. Despite the improvement in housebuilding starts across England, which were 29% higher in 2011 compared to 2009, and the publication of a comprehensive housing strategy, there is far more to do to provide homes to meet Britain’s demographic needs and to help generate local economic growth. Following the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework there is now a more positive and inclusive planning system. The framework remains at the centre of our planning policy and the measures within the Bill are all aimed at simplifying and improving the locally led planning system so that it works effectively for local communities and businesses.
Most councils are already dealing with planning applications efficiently; the approval rate is at a 10-year high of 88%. However, a small number of local planning authorities make unnecessarily slow decisions. They consistently fail to meet the statutory time limits within which councils should process major applications, as agreed by Parliament. Others see a relatively high proportion of their decisions to refuse applications overturned at appeal. That is a particular issue with major schemes, given the relatively high cost of preparing them and their importance for growth. Clause 1 therefore provides an incentive for poorly performing councils to improve and an alternative route for developers if they do not. However, as the Planning Minister has made clear in the other place, we fully intend that these provisions will be applicable only to a small number of planning authorities and we would be delighted if it were not necessary for any local authority to be designated under this clause, with all local authorities making sound and timely decisions on applications.
Turning to Clause 6, the need for housing—particularly, affordable housing—remains high. The Government are committed to unlocking stalled sites where previously negotiated affordable housing obligations are unviable because they are currently economically unrealistic. Clause 6 presents an opportunity to stimulate housing growth and will be a vital component in the drive to get more affordable housing built. Stalled sites mean that there is no local growth, community benefit, or new or affordable housing. Across the country there are 1,400 stalled sites, with the capacity for 75,000 homes. Clause 6 will enable developers to challenge the local authority on the affordable housing elements of its Section 106 requirements in a fast-track decision-making process. It presents a real opportunity to ensure that consents are viable and realistic. Furthermore, it addresses the reluctance of some local authorities to renegotiate currently unrealistic affordable housing requirements, agreed in different market conditions. We recognise, of course, that many local authorities have already opened such negotiations, but not all have.
As well as the measures in Clauses 1 and 6, the Bill makes a number of other changes, through Clauses 2 to 5 and Clauses 7 and 9, which will make the planning process simpler while retaining important safeguards. Clause 2 expands inspectors’ powers to award and recover costs at planning appeals. Clause 3 corrects a legislative anomaly to enable the Secretary of State to award costs between the parties when a compulsory purchase inquiry is cancelled and when a party does not appear at an inquiry that is held. Clause 4 will help to ensure that best use is made of existing buildings and brownfield land by making changes to existing powers to grant permitted development rights. Clause 5 will ensure that information requests made by local authorities are genuinely related to planning and the nature and scale of the development proposed. Clause 7 will make it easier for local authorities to choose, if they wish, to dispose of surplus land held for planning purposes, which will help to get more brownfield land back into productive use. Clause 9 will allow mineral planning authorities in England greater discretion as to whether and when to undertake a periodic review of the mineral provisions.
I turn now to Clause 8, which I left out in addressing the first nine clauses. Because of its critical importance to the United Kingdom’s long-term economic future, the Government’s ambition is for this country to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. Clause 8 is particularly important as it will potentially help to give over 4 million more people access to fixed superfast broadband, particularly those in rural and hard-to-reach areas of the country.
Let me be clear that it is not our intention to use the Clause 8 power to remove prior approval requirements for mobile masts. We intend to use it for fixed infrastructure: cabinets and poles only. The clause makes no distinction between fixed and mobile infrastructure because of EU regulatory requirements for the communications sector. Article 8(1) of the framework directive requires technology neutrality so far as the primary implementing legislation is concerned. However, the requirement for neutrality does not apply to secondary legislation, and therefore the consultation we will publish later this month on the changes that we will bring forward through secondary legislation will make clear that we propose to use Clause 8 for fixed infrastructure—cabinets and poles—and not mobile masts. In the 1980s, deregulation led to the modern communications industry we enjoy today, through the abolition of special TV licences for satellite dishes and the introduction of permitted development rights for those dishes. The Bill seeks to provide the same impetus to the rollout of 21st-century superfast broadband technology.
Clauses 10 to 16 take forward a number of recommendations from the Penfold review to remove overlapping development consent regimes, where multiple permissions from different government agencies are required on top of planning permission. However, I shall focus today on the proposed reforms to the system for registering town and village greens in England, which will harmonise with the democratically accountable planning system. The changes will prevent green applications being used to stop or delay planned development. Another aim is to reduce the financial burden and red tape for local authorities and landowners. For the avoidance of doubt, the reforms will not affect existing registered town and village greens, which will continue to be given strong protection. We have also set out a new local green space designation to give special protection to local green areas, including recreational land, which local people can affect through local and neighbourhood plans. We have set out in the National Planning Policy Framework how local people can use the designation, together with important safeguards for existing open spaces.
Clause 13 introduces landowner statements. Landowners will be able to deposit with the commons registration authority statements which bring to an end any use of their land up to that point as being “as of right”, which is one of the criteria for registering land as a town or village green. This mechanism will allow landowners to tolerate any recreational use of their land without fear that the land could be registered as a town or village green.
Clause 14 covers interaction with the planning system. This is achieved through making changes to the Commons Act 2006 which will prevent green applications being made where planning permission has been granted or where a planning application has been publicised and the decision is still to be made. Equally importantly, the changes will prevent town and village green applications for land identified for potential development in local and neighbourhood plans, including draft plans.
Clause 15 amends existing fee-making powers for applications to amend the registers of common land and town and village greens under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006. The purpose is to provide greater flexibility and targeting of fees, in particular to allow them to be levied by different bodies where more than one authority is involved in determining an application.
Clauses 17 to 24 include a number of measures to support the development of the infrastructure that is vital to economic growth. Clauses 17 to 20 have the potential to unlock thousands of new jobs and millions of pounds of new investment in energy projects, and Clauses 21 to 24 will remove delays that can hold back major infrastructure projects. Ofgem’s proposed £160 million gas network innovation competition, specifically the funding mechanism, is currently being delayed because of regulatory ambiguity in the Gas Act. Clause 17 puts beyond doubt Ofgem’s ability to put in place conditions allowing the gas network innovation competition to proceed.
Clauses 18 and 19 enable holders of Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 consents for power-generating stations to have them varied to take account of significant technology and design changes without the need to make a new application under the Planning Act. Clause 20 provides legislative clarity on the requirements for development consents relevant under the pre-Planning Act regime.
Clause 21 makes clear our commitment to expand and improve the one-stop-shop approach for non-planning consents for national major infrastructure projects, while ensuring that interested and affected parties continue to be consulted on proposals. In line with the deregulatory theme of the Bill, Clause 21 and some parts of Clauses 22 and 23 remove the need for a number of additional certificates and consents to be issued separately and allow for the relevant issues to be covered during the development consent order process, which will provide savings to business.
Clauses 22 and 23 update existing legislation on the special parliamentary procedure to ensure that nationally significant major infrastructure projects are brought forward as quickly as possible. The Bill makes changes that will reduce the number of circumstances in which the special parliamentary procedure is triggered. It will also address inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation to limit consideration under the special parliamentary procedure to the compulsory acquisition of special land. This responds to a joint report in 2012 on special parliamentary procedure by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees, which urged the Government,
“to rectify these anomalies as a matter of priority”,
and to a commitment made by the Government to reform special parliamentary procedure for nationally significant infrastructure projects at the earliest opportunity.
It is vitally important to the health of the United Kingdom economy that the development of projects of national significance that are needed should go ahead with the minimum of delay. But the speed with which large-scale major applications are determined is falling: the number of cases taking more than 52 weeks to decide has increased from 8% to 13%. Clause 24 therefore includes a measure to broaden the scope of the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime so that developers of business and commercial schemes can choose whether to apply to the local council for planning permission or to request to use the infrastructure regime.
Clauses 25 and 26 concern business rates. As well as measures to streamline planning and boost investment in housing and infrastructure, the Bill includes measures to support business directly. Clause 25 provides certainty by postponing the revaluation of business rates from 2015 to 2017. Tax stability is vital to businesses looking to grow and to help improve the economy. Postponing revaluation in England from 2015 will avoid sharp changes and unexpected increases in business rate bills over the next five years.
As business rates are linked to inflation, there will be no real-terms increase. This reform will provide certainty for business to plan and invest, supporting local economic growth. Independent initial estimates published in full by the Valuation Office Agency suggest that 800,000 premises would have seen a real-terms increase in their rates at a 2015 revaluation. As local government finance is a devolved matter, Clause 26 provides the Welsh Assembly Government with the power to make a similar postponement if they so choose.
Finally, Clause 27 sets out a new employment status of employee shareholder, which will give both companies and people more options. Simon Walker from the Institute of Directors said:
“This scheme has the potential to reduce the employment law burden on companies and make employees better off at the same time”.
Stuart Rose, a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, said:
“This is a win-win for entrepreneurs and employers in small and medium-sized companies that need a flexible dedicated workforce focused on growth”.
Of course, it is important that existing employees are not coerced into this new employment status. That is why the clause adds a new unfair dismissal right and a right not to suffer a detriment if an existing employee turns down the offer of an employee shareholder contract.
The new status will have all the rights associated with employees, including discrimination rights, except for certain unfair dismissal rights, rights to statutory redundancy pay and certain statutory rights to request flexible working and time to train. Employee shareholders will be required to give 16 weeks’ notice of their intention to return from maternity, adoption or additional parental leave. Importantly, employee shareholders will be given shares in the company of at least £2,000, with the gains made on the first £50,000 of shares exempt from capital gains tax. This new employment status is about increasing choice and flexibility in the employment relationship.
This Bill brings together a range of measures that will simplify the planning system, boost investment in housing and infrastructure, and help businesses and growth. I commend it to the House.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill. We look forward to working with her as we scrutinise it in detail. I am fortunate to be supported on the Front Bench by my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Tunnicliffe.
The Bill does a few worthwhile things, including removing restrictions on the disposal of land for less than best consideration, some of the energy provisions and allowing the stopping up or diverting of highways and public paths to run alongside the planning process. However, the meat of the Bill is less appetising. Its unifying theme is not growth but weakening local government. That contradicts not only the coalition’s own previous policy of localism but the excellent report on growth by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He condemned what he called the “drift to centralism” as an impediment to local economic regeneration and said that,
“as Whitehall has taken more powers so its distrust of local decision makers has increased. At the first sign of trouble, further powers are wrested back to the centre. At the same time—and I would say as a result—the involvement of local business people in the governance of their communities has dwindled, and their energy and innovation has been lost”.
Yet what does the Bill do but precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, criticised? On the unsubstantiated claim that local authorities are not giving enough planning consents quickly enough, it wrests power back to the centre, authorising Ministers to suspend local planning authorities entirely for the first time since the modern planning system was established after the Second World War. It does this in the very first clause of the Bill, whose opening words are:
“A relevant application that would otherwise have to be made to the local planning authority may (if the applicant so chooses) be made instead to the Secretary of State”.
That is the antithesis of localism and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine.
The suspension of local democracy in the Bill is only supposed to be in cases of failure, but it is no surprise that the Government are finding it hard to define failure. When attempting to give the House of Commons a concrete example of a failing local planning authority, the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, cited Hackney. He then had to correct this to Haringey, and apologised unreservedly to Hackney. No doubt the confusion was caused by Hackney and Haringey both beginning with the letters “Ha” and ending in “ey”. I hear that Mansfield and Macclesfield, not to mention Hertfordshire and Herefordshire, are eyeing each other warily and sending maps to CLG with their locations, spelling and other vital statistics clearly distinguished.
The criteria for failure are not set out in the Bill but are at ministerial discretion and are being consulted upon separately. When she replies, perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us how many local planning authorities would be liable for suspension under the latest draft of the criteria, as they keep changing, and which ones are liable for suspension.
I note that in respect of the speed of deciding major planning applications, which is one of the criteria for failure, the three slowest local authorities in the country are Kensington and Chelsea, Torbay and North Norfolk. I particularly look forward to the views of the noble Baroness on the competence of Kensington and Chelsea.
On the national situation, in 2011-12, councils approved 87% of applications, which as the noble Baroness herself said is a 10-year high, with 82% decided within eight weeks and 93% decided within 13 weeks. This is not a plausible argument for failure and developers can already appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination in the required time under Section 78(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
To be fair, I suspect that in her heart of hearts, as a distinguished former local authority leader, the noble Baroness does not actually want the power to suspend local planning authorities, but she has been told by the Chancellor that an example has to be made, in Admiral Byng fashion, of some supposedly obstructive councils, so she has got to find a few to shoot at dawn “pour encourager les autres”.
Localism and local government have strong supporters in all parts of the House, and I hope we can work constructively to get a better balance between local democracy and Whitehall control in this Bill. The same applies in respect of its other anti-local provisions. There is concern at the restrictions on the designation of village greens and town greens in Clauses 13 and 14. My right honourable friend Hilary Benn describes this as a “positively Kafkaesque” proposal, in that under the Bill the moment a planning application is published, citizens are banned from seeking to register a green. As he puts it:
“Since the first that most people will hear of an application is when it is published, this seems to be a pretty clever way of stopping people exercising their rights, unless they happen to be mind readers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/12; col. 617.]
Also of concern are the wide powers to take planning applications away from local communities in Clause 24, which significantly extends the lists set out in the Planning Act 2008 by including business and commercial projects. Clause 8 overrides the requirement to preserve the beauty of national parks in the siting of masts and overhead cables, which appears entirely unrelated to the imperative to extend broadband, which the national parks strongly support. I welcome the assurances of the noble Baroness about that in her speech and I hope that they meet this point. I will study her words with care.
There is a good deal of concern about Clause 6, which sets aside affordable housing requirements through the Section 106 process. This appears to be another straightforward case of Treasury knee-jerkism. It is obviously vital that housing developments in areas of need are economically viable; but no case has been made that Section 106 is holding things back, whereas without Section 106 there is a real danger that fewer mixed communities will be created and there will be less affordable housing.
Asked about Section 106, the National Housing Federation said:
“No evidence has been provided to suggest that planning obligations are routinely stalling development."
The Council of Mortgage Lenders said:
“We are not convinced that Section 106 obligations are necessarily the key sticking point”.
When the planning Minister was asked by the Commons Select Committee, he could give no statistics on the number of developments being held up by Section 106 difficulties. He suggested that there were some 1,200 sites and 75,000 homes being stalled, based on something called the Glenigan database. The noble Baroness has just referred to 1,400 sites rather than 1,200. These numbers clearly vary depending on the Minister.
When asked to publish the Glenigan database, the planning Minister said he could not do so because it was commercially sensitive. When asked the straight question of how many were stalled because of Section 106 requirements, he replied:
“It is very difficult to say”.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us when she replies. If she cannot, surely Parliament should not be giving her the power to override local democracy on cause unseen. This is not a minor matter. Thousands of affordable homes are provided each year under Section 106 agreements. I should add that the Local Government Association estimates that 400,000 homes have planning permission but are yet to be built, which points to much wider economic factors at play than the planning system. So much for planning and local democracy.
The other critical concern about the Bill relates to Clause 27. This is the so-called shares-for-rights scheme. The House will recall the origins of this idea: Adrian Beecroft’s controversial plan to abolish employment rights in respect of unfair dismissal, even as the period of qualification for such rights was in many cases being doubled from one year to two years. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, vetoed the original Beecroft plan, saying:
“Britain has already got a very flexible, cooperative labour force. We don’t need to scare the wits out of workers with threats to dismiss them. It’s completely the wrong approach”.
We on these Benches, and, I suspect, most of our friends on the Lib Dem Benches entirely agree with those sentiments.
The trouble is that Vince changed his mind, or had his mind changed for him. At the instigation of the Chancellor, the Beecroft proposal reappeared, tied to the allocation of shares, in Clause 27. Clause 27 is Beecroft by the back door. It creates so-called employee shareholders, who have been given shares worth between £2,000 and £50,000 on the day of issue, who will have no rights to statutory redundancy pay, no rights to request flexible working, no rights to request time off to train and no rights to claim unfair dismissal.
It is important to separate the issues of employment rights and wider share ownership in this regard. We strongly support wider share ownership among employees and many of the detailed and well considered proposals to that effect in the Nuttall report, published only six months ago. However, that is entirely different to trading shares for basic rights in what is generally an unequal employment relationship, which is the very reason why employment rights exist in the first place and why they have been built up by Governments of all parties for more than a century.
There is nothing well considered about this shares-for-rights plan. On the contrary, it makes the back of the envelope look like Magna Carta. The proposal was announced on 8 October. The consultation started on 18 October. It was completed on 9 November. All of that was happening while the House of Commons was approving the very plans supposedly being consulted on. The consultation demonstrated almost universal criticism and lack of support, but the Government proceeded anyway and, a mere two months later, your Lordships are now all that stand between the back of the envelope and the law of the land.
A host of critical issues about shares for rights was not addressed properly in the House of Commons and need to be addressed by your Lordships. First, what protection will there be against people being forced to take up no-rights jobs? As the noble Baroness just stated, in the Commons, the Government agreed to statutory protection in respect of existing employees, but what about new employees? In particular, what about those on benefits who stand to have their benefits withdrawn if they do not take up no-rights jobs? The employment Minister, Michael Fallon, only exacerbated those concerns in the House of Commons. He refused to accept a Lib Dem amendment to give protection to benefits claimants from having to take no-rights jobs. On the contrary, he said:
“The Government believe that jobseeker’s allowance claimants must actively seek and be available for work … it is right that employee-shareholder jobs should be as much a part of that consideration as any other”. —[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 649.]
He said that, in such cases, the unemployed person should “normally accept the offer”. Let me stress that. In the view of the Government, jobseekers should normally accept jobs with no rights when offered. The only concession that the Minister made was that if some of the withdrawn rights were “appropriate”—for example, the right to request flexible working could well be crucial for a parent with young children—that could be taken into account in deciding whether benefits should be docked in cases where a no-rights job was declined. Michael Fallon went on to say that the DWP’s decision-makers’ guidance would be amended accordingly. Can I ask the noble Baroness if she will circulate the new DWP guidance before we consider this matter in Committee?
Far from meeting concerns about compulsion to accept no-rights jobs, the Government are parading compulsion as positively desirable. Paul Callaghan, a partner in the respected legal firm Taylor Wessing, said that these shares-for-rights contracts,
“will be optional to the extent that eating and drinking is optional”.
Secondly, in respect of employees facing redundancy or dismissal there is the obvious point that without existing rights those who are aggrieved will be encouraged to migrate to claims of discrimination, which are generally far more onerous and time-consuming when they come to tribunals. This is not just because discrimination claims will be the only avenue open to the aggrieved, having lost their other rights. To make another obvious point it will often be true that discrimination is involved since it is purely rational that an employer would seek to dismiss, or make redundant, first those who have no rights to compensation—in other words to discriminate against them unfairly.
Thirdly, what about tax avoidance? These shares-for-rights contracts will go up to £50,000 worth of shares, as the noble Baroness said. The Government say that they will get favourable tax treatment, although they still have not given the details. They expect us to pass Clause 27 into law without knowing what the precise tax treatment of these shares will be, unless the noble Baroness can enlighten us when she replies.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes Clause 27 as a “billion-pound lollipop” for tax avoiders which looks as if it will foster a whole new avoidance industry,
“just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour”.
When she replies can the noble Baroness give me her estimate of the likely cost in lost tax revenue of these new employee shares?
In my entire time in Government and in the House I have never seen such unanimous opposition to a proposal from those whom it is intended to benefit, namely companies themselves. Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, who was on the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, says that the policy is,
“not what we should be doing”.
He went on:
“What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?
He continued:
“Our agenda ... should be making employing people easier and less costly”.
Only five of 219 consultation responses welcomed the proposal. The Law Society says that it will be likely to create more red tape not less. It will raise substantial risks of costly litigation and it will create serious potential claims of discrimination. The proposal is not even welcomed by the Employee Ownership Association, which says of Clause 27:
“There is no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership”.
We have our work cut out on this Bill. Local democracy, affordable housing and the rights of employees at work are not small matters. They go to the heart of our society and our economy. Moreover, none of them is an impediment to growth. To get growth we need vibrant local leadership, more affordable housing, and self-confident, not fearful, companies and employees. Alas, this Bill weakens all three.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor on a London borough council, which is also a local planning authority. I thank the Minister for the careful and thorough way in which she introduced the Bill. It sounded as if she might be choking on one or two statements that she made, but I think that is much more to do with the state of her throat than anything that is in the Bill.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I was reminded, not for the first time in the past couple of years, of something that was said to me by a Conservative local government leader when I first became a councillor nearly 40 years ago. He said to me that there were really only two parties. As a Liberal I thought that I knew what was coming. In fact he said that they were the central government party and the local government party. The more we have these debates in your Lordships’ House on the Bills that come forward from a Government committed to localism, the more I am reminded of that Conservative councillor’s statement. In some of his comments, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, also reminded me of it.
I take some comfort, though, from the way in which Ministers in the other place showed a willingness to listen to, and sometimes also to hear, reasonable arguments that were put to them and to agree to amend the Bill accordingly, or at least to provide welcome reassurances as to the Government’s intentions. I have no doubt that this listening and hearing approach will continue in this House, as it always does with the Minister, and I welcome again the constructive approach that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has promised us from the opposition Benches. I feel sure, therefore, that by the time we get to Third Reading we will be able to say positively that the Bill will do some good rather than that it will do little harm, which I fear is probably the reality at the moment.
I think that we all share at least some of the objectives of the Bill. For instance, we all wish to achieve sustainable growth and we all want more new homes, particularly affordable ones. We may start to differ on how and where to achieve these objectives, but the overall objectives are shared. At the least, therefore, we should start by welcoming a Bill that seeks to achieve them and commit ourselves to making it better able to do so.
Clause 1 of the Bill concerns the planning system. It seems to assume that the major inhibitor to growth is the planning system and local planning authorities generally. There is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. If we are to legislate for what I believe is such a draconian measure, were it to be implemented, then we need to have from the Government the evidence that tells us that it is necessary. I do not believe that that evidence is there. Indeed, Ministers have implicitly accepted that by saying that they expect, as well as that they hope, that these provisions will never actually be used. That is all very well when we have such a benevolent Government and a Secretary of State so demonstratively well disposed to local government, but when this is set in legislation it is there for all time, and it is conceivable that one day there may be a Government and a Secretary of State who are less benevolently disposed and are able to use these provisions in a less constructive way. We need to be aware of that.
I understand very well why no Government would want to set the criteria for designation in primary legislation; they need to be flexible and to be able to respond to changing circumstances. However, I hope that the Government will understand that others, local planning authorities in particular, need to see some safeguards in the criteria to be used for designation—if that is to happen—for the future when that less benevolent Secretary of State may be in office.
I hope, though, that we will look not only at what is in the Bill that could be improved or even removed, but at what is not yet in the Bill that could make a significant improvement in achieving its objectives. To me, the most obvious absence is the biggest cause of the failure of growth, particularly in the housing sector. I refer to access to finance, whether for SMEs or, more particularly in this context, for purchasers. For instance, between 2007 and 2011 gross mortgage lending dropped by 61%, the number of mortgages fell by 50% and the average deposit for a first-time buyer doubled. The Bill does little or nothing to address this issue. I hope that we will be able to address that important omission before the Bill leaves this House.
There are some interesting proposals from the Community Investment Coalition that seek to achieve this and which fit very well with a localist agenda. The CIC argues, and I agree, that to deliver a real impact the Bill needs to focus on providing local areas with the tools to hold financial services providers to account in order to improve access to credit on fair terms for both households and businesses.
I turn to some of the other provisions of the Bill, starting again with Clause 1, on which I am sure we will spend much time in Committee. On first reading it is hard to understand how this could have come from a Government who only a year or so ago promoted a Localism Act. In the other place, as I said previously, Ministers have gone to considerable lengths to put this proposal into a more welcome, or at least less unwelcome, context and to stress that they expect it to be rarely, if ever, used. Indeed, I would expect that any sensible developer would never want to use it, except in the most extreme circumstances.
One of the many failings is that it seems to put speed before quality—speed of decision-making before the quality of the decisions being made and the decision-making process. I know we will discuss more fully how we are going to balance that. Most of us would agree that we need both—a fast but above all a good quality decision-making process. I look forward to the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on how many local planning authorities will be caught under the current proposed criteria. My understanding is that it is none at all. If that is the case I wonder why Clause 1 of the Bill is thought to be necessary.
Times have moved on considerably. These days most local planning authorities understand the needs of developers. They understand that developers need to make their schemes financially viable and developers understand the role of the local planning authority, not least in representing the interests of its local community. Of course there are conflicts and frustrations in reconciling these interests—there are hard negotiations and so there should be—but most of that is done before the planning application is ever submitted. Certainly that is the case if it is done properly. I hope we will all recognise that, as so often, we are legislating to deal with a small minority of the worst, rather than any representation of the norm, and that, as usual, we are doing nothing to reward excellence or to help the best to be better.
Of course, we accept that some planning authorities are not doing as well as they could or should. I know that the Minister—who I know well as a fellow former London borough council leader—will readily agree with me that designation must really be a very last resort and that a far better approach would be to provide help and support to enable those authorities to improve themselves. Perhaps she will say a little bit about the Government’s intentions in this regard. For instance, how much warning will the Government give that a local planning authority is on the danger list, and will that be sufficient to enable it to improve itself and to seek help from its peers to be able to do so?
Finally, on Clause 1, the Mayor of London is proposing that if any London local planning authority is designated the mayor rather than the Planning Inspectorate should be able to call in and consider appropriate planning applications. I have made clear my concerns about designation, but I can see some merit in that power going to an elected and accountable body that will at least have some knowledge and experience of local circumstances. I am sure we will consider that further in Committee.
I turn now to Clause 6, reflecting the modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements in Section 106 agreements. Again, we must recognise that the norm is that this happens already. All over the country local authorities are renegotiating Section 106 agreements with developers. It does not need legislation or friendly advice from a benevolent central government to enable that to happen. Of course those negotiations are hard. The developer, quite rightly, wants to get the best financial return and the local planning authority, equally rightly, wants the best for the local community, particularly with respect to much-needed affordable housing. Those negotiations take place. They are sometimes difficult and protracted but more often than not agreement is reached. Again, the Minister has said that some local authorities refuse to negotiate. I hope she can quantify that even if she does not wish—or is not even able—to name them now. The Local Government Association in its survey said that only 2% of local authorities are unwilling to negotiate. Before we legislate for that 2% we need to understand better whether that is just because they are very difficult and very awkward or whether there is some local reason or circumstance in a particular Section 106 agreement that brings that about.
It is very important that this provision is not seen either as any real or implied reduction in the Government’s commitment to the provision of more affordable housing, nor as an easy get-out clause for reluctant developers. We must also be assured that the Planning Inspectorate, if it is to be the arbiter, will be equipped for the task being given to it—although I question whether this is the most effective use of scarce resources. Again, I am sure that we will spend some time on this in Committee when we will be seeking reassurance and safeguards on these points. Again, we may wish to consider whether the Mayor of London has some role in this, as at least an elected and accountable body as distinct from an unelected and unaccountable one based some distance from many local authorities.
My colleagues speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches in this debate will raise other concerns about the Bill. In particular, my noble friend Lady Brinton will speak about those provisions relating to rural broadband and to employee ownership. I will leave that to her. I have just two further short questions for the Minister. Clause 24 would bring business and commercial projects within the Planning Act 2008 regime. Although I understand that this does not include retail or housing projects, can the Minister say how and by whom such projects will be defined as being of national significance, and what additional power this clause gives that does not already exist?
My final point concerns Clause 25 and the postponement of the business rate revaluation. The Minister has told us how many potential losers—I suppose we could call them that—there would be under such a revaluation. I wonder how many winners there might be. Presumably it is a lesser number, which is one of the reasons why we are doing this. In any revaluation, some are losers and some are winners; there is a balance in that. I also wonder whether the Minister can tell us what effect, if any, this will have on the localisation of the business rate that starts shortly.
I end as I began by saying that on these Benches we will work constructively with all sides of the House to try to make this Bill even better so that it meets the objectives which are stated in its title, and which we all share.
Baroness Valentine
I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit membership organisation that seeks to make London the best city in the world in which to do business. I am also a board member of Peabody housing trust. Wearing both hats, I have a strong interest in the efficacy of the planning system.
Too often, planning is seen by both those seeking approval for schemes and those charged with considering them as a confrontational process, in which one side wins and the other loses. This ignores the fact that good-quality new developments benefit both the developer and the local economy. As investment in infrastructure is a key to economic growth, I am also keen to see a constructive approach being taken to other areas such as utilities, on which I will touch later.
In forming my views on the Bill I had useful conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government, with the Greater London Authority and with local authorities, as well as with developers and utilities. From those discussions, it is clear to me that the Bill contains some very welcome measures. In particular, I welcome the proposals that enable the Planning Inspectorate to step in where the local authority has a track record of consistently poor performance in the speed or quality of its decisions.
In London, of course, the mayor has a specific responsibility for strategic planning, supported by a well respected team with established relationships with all relevant stakeholders. It seems that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested, it would make sense for London referrals to be made to the Greater London Authority, allowing the Planning Inspectorate to focus on areas of the country without such arrangements. This would surely be in keeping with the spirit of the localism agenda. However, no matter where it is used, this is a significant power, so we should be careful about how we designate an authority as “poorly performing”.
In its consultation on the relevant criteria, the DCLG suggests a focus on the speed with which decisions are taken on major planning applications and the proportion of decisions that are subsequently overturned on appeal. These are important metrics but they miss two further sources of delay: on minor applications and on the discharge of planning conditions. Minor applications such as changing the frontage of a small shop may appear to be relatively trivial, but the cumulative economic impact of delays can be significant. The risk is that short-staffed local authorities will prioritise major applications at the expense of processing minor ones. That, surely, cannot be the Government’s intention. Likewise, there is no point in having a speedy resolution of the planning application if it is followed by procrastination over the discharging of planning conditions. I urge the Government seriously to consider these two important further metrics.
I now turn to the difficult economic climate in which development has taken place over the past few years. There is often a considerable delay between an application being approved and the first shovel in the earth, during which time market circumstances can change. In such instances, local authorities have the ability to modify Section 106 agreements in order to make sure that the development they want goes ahead. However, a recent Local Government Association survey has shown that only one-third of respondents did so over the past two years, despite the deterioration in the economic climate. This lack of action has led to the stalling of perfectly good schemes, which have taken affordable housing and other amenities with them and have also contributed to the dire situation in the construction industry. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill which recognise the need for planning to take more account of changing market conditions and which allow for the renegotiation of planning requirements to make schemes viable.
In London I would advocate the mayor having the power to call in major schemes where the local authority has been notified of a Section 106 modification. This would ensure that London’s strategic needs are taken into account while maintaining democratic accountability in the capital, consistent with localism. Similarly, the Government need to ensure that the cumulative burden of the various levies that planning authorities can impose do not prevent development. This is a particular issue around the new Community Infrastructure Levy in London, because both the mayor and the boroughs can impose their own separate charge. A safeguard is needed so that this double-dipping does not stop growth. The mayor has proposed that he should have the power to ensure that any proposed borough levy is consistent with the growth objectives in the London Plan. I would support such a measure. This power should apply to planning applications not only for buildings but also for other strategic infrastructure such as power supplies. I urge the Government to include energy infrastructure on the list of new developments that should be referred to the mayor where they are of strategic importance to London as a whole, rather than to only one borough.
Unblocking planning obstacles is, however, only part of the equation. A recurrent concern is that energy infrastructure struggles to keep up with demand. For example, as Land Securities Group has found in its major development around Victoria station, developers often find that connecting new buildings to the grid is expensive and slow because existing infrastructure is already operating at capacity. At the root of this problem is a regulatory framework that discourages the distribution company from investing ahead of need. Imagine if every time you bought an electrical item you had to wait for a new power socket to be installed at home before you could use it. In effect, this is the problem that developers face. The difficulty of getting connected to the power supply is considered by many to be one of the top three risks when bringing forward schemes. The regulator, Ofgem, should address this, so that the distribution company can build more infrastructure in areas of intense business activity such as central London, in anticipation of high demand. This way, new development would be able to “plug in and play” rather than suffer sometimes years of delay.
Staying with infrastructure, I welcome Clause 8, which is intended to support the rollout of high-speed fibre broadband. In the 21st century, provision of broadband is as vital as access to water and power for both businesses and homes. It is good to see that such things are recognised as essential infrastructure and that their contribution to growth is acknowledged.
Finally, I will recommend a structural change that would cost the Government nothing but which could have an enormous impact on the efficiency of the planning process: that is, giving local authorities the freedom to charge businesses the real costs of considering planning applications. At the moment, local authorities charge fees according to a government schedule rather than to the costs they incur. This means that at times of acute financial stress, authorities cut their planning resources. This is one major reason why some authorities are poor performers. Poor and variable advice from inexperienced officers can add substantial delays and costs. Most developers would prefer fees to be structured in a way that guarantees clear and consistent guidance rather than suffer the greater cost of a poor process. We should allow more flexibility to provide authorities with the resources commensurate with the task at hand.
In conclusion, I commented earlier that investment in infrastructure was a contributor to growth. In naming this the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, rather than the other way around, the Government might be accused of putting the titular cart before the horse—but I can live with that if the outcome is a thoughtfully integrated approach to planning that enables the two objectives to be met. I believe that the amendments that I suggested would support such an approach and help give the planning process a key role in delivering economic recovery, rather than being a bureaucratic and inflexible brake. I urge the Government to consider them.
Lord Monks
My Lords, this Bill has an ambitious title. To the new reader, coming to it fresh, the title might give the impression that it has ambitious contents; that it is on the verge of giving effect to the Heseltine large-scale urgent initiatives call, which he made so well recently in this House on the basis of his report; that there would be a call for a renaissance of municipal values in the spirit of Joe Chamberlain and other Victorian civic leaders; and perhaps that there would be evangelising for employee share-ownership, and worker engagement and involvement, on a significant scale to shake up British boardrooms and to change some of the bad habits that exist.
However, if one looks at the Bill, frankly, there is none of that. As my noble friend Lord Adonis pointed out, there are no echoes of the impressive Heseltine report and no big ideas reflecting the way in which he approached the problems of growth and infrastructure. Instead, the two most prominent measures are to cut local authority planning powers—unfairly, in my view, blaming them for blocking growth—and to threaten workers’ rights with an implausible proposal to trade shares for rights. In my view, the Bill rather offends the Trade Descriptions Act. The Prime Minister is rather keen on the Ronseal advert, is he not? But the Bill does not do what it says on the tin.
I will leave others to deal with the local government aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made an effective start on chipping away at that pillar of the Bill. I shall concentrate my fire on shares for rights and what that might mean. First, I find it unethical that you can trade a statutory right for something in your contract in that way. Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether there is a precedent for this in British law; namely, that having a right is somehow a bargaining chip and something that you can buy and sell. I believe that it must be dismissed as a serious attempt to develop employee ownership: it is more a trashing of workers’ rights. From the list that the Minister read out, if this legislation goes through, the proposals that will have the biggest effect are those relating to redundancy. I shall draw attention to that point.
However, the objections generally are many and various. First, is this proposal really optional? Clearly, it will not be optional for new starters. If an employer says, “There is a job here and it has the status of an employee shareholder—take it or leave it”, the individual will have to operate within that framework. For the existing employee—clearly, I recognise what has been done in the other place about the new unfair dismissal right—there will still be plenty of scope for pressure to be applied to individuals, short of dismissal, to fit in with the employee-shareholder concept. I do not think that any employer, even the few who would be interested in this provision, will be particularly comfortable with having two categories of worker—those who are employee shareholders and others who are regular, standard employees. I shall come to one of the problems that that might create for an employer.
There are questions about how the shares would be valued. When would entitlements become due? Do you lose statutory rights under employment law the minute that you sign the contract? When do you get the money? When do you get rights to the shares? When does the £2,000 kick in? The share side of the equation is fuzzy and there is a lot of scope for the employer. The loss of rights, on the other hand, is absolutely crystal clear. How do you redeem the shares and what do you get from them? Does the employer decide? In the debate in the other place, the Minister said that it could be left to the good sense of the employer and the employee to work out something that is acceptable. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that is not an equal relationship, particularly if someone tries to cash in their shares when the company is in some difficulty.
Do the shares confer any rights such as full voting rights and representation in the boardroom, which are common in employee-ownership companies? Let us be clear: around 50% of new firms in this country fold within five years. Is there not a danger that an employee shareholder will find himself or herself with no right to redundancy pay and a bunch of worthless shares? In those circumstances, he or she will be more vulnerable than the standard employee, who will be entitled to redundancy pay. The employee shareholder will possibly be entitled to absolutely nothing. The employer will find it cheaper to get shot of employee shareholders. I believe that most employers will not touch this provision with a bargepole.
The Front Benches in this debate have mentioned different employers’ opinions and I will not repeat them. Those employers who have been critical and have damned the proposals with the faintest of faint praise make up by far the majority. It is not as though employee rights are extensive in this country. Only the United States and Canada offer less protection for the individual employee. The OECD ranks us third in having the most “flexible” labour market, whereby workers can be dismissed most easily. Let us also be clear that rights are being whittled down in other legislation that is before the House, has recently been carried through or is proposed—the latest being a consultation on reduction of the redundancy period. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is being considered in Committee tomorrow and will already curb employee rights.
I guess, however, that although most employers will not touch the proposals, some will—not least to explore some of the tax advantages that might apply and to do so in a way that will seek to minimise any real dilution of ownership from their embracing and welcoming groups of employees. If you are going to do employee ownership, the lesson that we have learnt over the years is that it is the companies that really believe in it and want it that make a success of it. The John Lewis approach does not come through coercion or taking rights away from individuals who might at some stage need them.
Employers who go down this particular route should be warned that the processes will be complex. For example, as regards maternity rights, one will need to check exactly who is a parent, how many children they have and all the rest of it. I was talking to my wife about this and we agreed that we are in the market to sell our parental rights, having long since disposed of any further use for them, and many Members of this House would be in the same position. With any powers of reflection, employers would also need to look at their own reputation and that of their brand, which would be at risk if they went down this route. I believe that the scheme will be a lot more trouble to them than it is worth.
I say to those Liberal Democrats who rightly criticised the Beecroft no-fault provisions that this, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, is a different way of introducing no-fault dismissal. However, I go a little further: it is no-fault dismissal with no compensation. At least Mr Beecroft proposed some compensation and did not go as far as this provision.
In May, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Nuttall report on employee ownership. In our view, it proposed a sensible way forward and did not include this turkey that we are debating today. So the Government are not entitled to claim the support of Nuttall. The noble Baroness did not do so today, but others certainly have.
I very much hope—it may be a vain hope—that the Government will reflect on the Bill and be prepared to put it to one side to await the response to the Heseltine report. The reports more or less call for the same things and the Bill pollutes the terrain over which the Heseltine exercise ranged so impressively. This messy, ill judged Bill, with a misleading, grandiose title, is not the way to start and not the way to organise a proper response to a serious piece of work. In the spirit of “all being in it together”, one nationism or whatever, in all corners of this House, it would be very wise to wait for the government response to an initiative which is, at present, attracting wide support from all quarters, and which will get behind genuinely ambitious proposals on growth and infrastructure, rather than taking this unworthy route of trashing workers’ rights.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, as my colleague and noble friend Lord Tope said, I shall speak principally to Clauses 8 and 27. I want to focus on the importance of rural growth and not just on the issue that I know concerns some people: of large telephone masts going up in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that the Bill excludes that. I start by declaring a past interest. I helped St John’s College, Cambridge to set up its innovation park in north Cambridge 20 years ago and I was a director of the St John’s Innovation Centre until 2010, working with entrepreneurs as they spun ideas out of Cambridge University. I was also deputy chair of the East of England Development Agency until 2005.
The Cambridge phenomenon spread out from Cambridge’s central areas 100 years ago when engineering support companies such as Cambridge Instruments set up in Milton, one of the necklace villages, to provide instruments and other essential products and telemetry for the Cavendish Laboratory and the engineering department to start to use. The phenomenon I shall talk about is not just one of the most recent 10 or 20 years of high-tech growth. Sixty years ago, Trinity College built the first science park on green land, housing some of the new era of spin-outs from the university, including Cambridge Consultants and many others.
Since then, spin-outs and sons and daughters of spin-outs have set up further and further away from the centre of Cambridge because a small medieval city cannot cope with large industrial growth in its centre. In the late 1980s, it became clear that the area around Cambridge was struggling with the problems of rapid growth, including rapid increases in commercial and residential property prices, shortages of qualified staff to work in the area and an infrastructure struggling to cope with a large influx of new residents who needed schools and other services. Some of the new small companies decided to move further out into the fens. Did noble Lords know that, in the 1990s, Ely was a hot spot for high-tech veterinary research products? Software companies have moved further out to places such as Chatteris. While perhaps one does not think of a fen village or town in that way, these companies have done it because they needed lower costs in order to recruit staff and, frankly, to house them.
As IT connections have become more important the lack of broadband—let alone high-speed broadband —has become a serious issue for companies in rural areas. In the past it was not used universally but now all businesses rely on broadband for their effective running, even those we think of as being low-tech. Some friends of mine run a pig farm out on the Norfolk fens; even they use computers and broadband for communications, orders, correspondence and results from veterinary testing—and for access to government advice, which can often be accessed only via the internet now. All of this is done via the superhighway. There has been a serious market failure in providing high-speed broadband in rural areas. Businesses in the fens of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and in the Suffolk coastal areas all suffer from the lack of this fundamental tool that urban and suburban organisations take for granted, even if it is not as fast as they want.
Clause 8 opens the door to removing the first hurdle faced by broadband suppliers by easing the planning regulations. However, as I have mentioned, it sensibly insists on taking account of areas of natural beauty, and I am grateful to the Minister for making it absolutely clear that Clause 8 will not mean easy access for telephone companies to put masts up everywhere. However, I should say that even I missed a mast in Norfolk which I realised later was actually a very tall Scots pine; they can be quite discreet.
Growth in our economy is vital to the future of UK plc; it is not just a city issue and therefore cannot be restricted to city and urban areas. However, all Governments tend to focus on urban areas. I believe that our rural areas will be key to sustaining and revitalising our villages and the countryside around them, as well as providing real income for the country.
I move on to Clause 27 on employee shareholders. The more conversations I have with Ministers and others about this clause, the more bemused I become. First, let us look at the general principles behind it: certain companies will want to offer ownership to employees in return for those employees giving up some or perhaps all their employment rights. These include redundancy pay, rights to training or flexible working, and parental leave. Three members of my immediate family are already employee owners: one in the food retail sector and two in high-tech leading-edge companies, one of whom has had his shares for more than 30 years. When discussing this clause with them and with senior and junior staff in a number of other companies, it emerged that every single person, from directors and managers to new recruits, said that a reduction in employment rights absolutely counteracts the benefits of owning shares because it demotivates the staff. Even senior directors have said this.
The Government argue that not all companies will want to use this mechanism and claim that small, often start-up high-tech companies are the likely beneficiaries. These are exactly the companies I have been talking to. My own experience in small high-tech businesses in the east of England and Cambridge, and my discussions with the owners of those firms, show the exact opposite. They know that they have to motivate their staff first. That is vital in the early days as specialist companies face product development costs with no sales and often have anxious funders looking over their shoulders. They are worried enough about the future of their organisations.
Let us take another illustration, that of a firm that has been going reasonably well in Cambridge for some time and in which virtually all the staff hold shares. It hit problems during the recession before this one. There was a staff discussion about how to help their company through those tough times, and the staff gave the company a series of loans over the two to three-year period it took to keep it going. Some of the staff in that organisation have said that if the company had taken away their rights, there would have been no motivation for them to say, “We want to save this company”. That is an example of good entrepreneurial spirit—a company where managers and staff work together.
I have two outstanding queries about this clause, one of which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and raised by my honourable friend Andrew Stunell in another place. It concerns the whole issue of a JSA recipient being offered a job with reduced rights in return for shares when entering a company. It cannot be right to penalise an individual who chooses not to take a job with reduced rights. I know enough people who have been made redundant from one, two or even more jobs who go into something asking, “Why would I give up any of the few remaining rights that I have?”. I want the DWP guidance to be absolutely explicit and statutory. If we do not get that guidance before Committee, I may well table an amendment to ensure that we see something.
I am also concerned about the information that employees will have about the size and nature of their shareholding. They must have access to independent legal advice, which should be paid for by the company and should set out clearly the likely path. Shares do not just go up and down; they are often diluted out of sight in rounds two and three of funding. Employees need to understand that they are taking a substantial risk not just in giving up rights but by having shares at all. Sadly, not all our companies succeed; they certainly do not always see growth. Of those that do, employees often find that a shareholding that looked quite attractive at even 1% in the early days is very small by the time the company is worth anything realistic at all.
Overall, my view is that this clause will not be used. All the consultation responses that I hear say that it will wither on the vine, but the two items that I have outlined will, I believe, provide some protection and cover some of the points that the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Adonis, made about rogue employers trying to use it. I, too, support the Nuttall report and the Deputy Prime Minister’s promotion of it earlier. I believe that it is a more effective way forward by giving employees the right, which my party has long believed in, to share in the benefits of growth of the company. Any company that grows helps UK plc, and is that not what we are all here for?
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I shall focus mainly on two areas of this disparate Bill: those dealing with affordable housing and the preservation of our national landscape. Outside those, my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have spoken eloquently about the folly and injustice of enabling businesses to buy the rights of their workpeople, which will have a particular impact on the position of women. To subordinate rights to a contract is a backward step indeed and I hope that there will be amendments to redress this.
Turning to my main concerns, the Bill’s provisions for renegotiating the proportion of affordable housing agreed under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are also a real step back from the excellent achievement of mixed housing developments, of which I have seen many successful examples. They spell ruin for the encouragement of sufficient, much needed new housing for the countless hardworking people whose pay does not cover market prices. Will the Minister say how enough new houses for people who are not rich can be assured? Of course, we desperately need growth and investment in infrastructure, but this Bill does not address the key issue in housing development, which is, of course, the bellwether of increased growth. The fact is that people cannot afford to buy and banks will not lend. House prices are rising at three times the rate of wages.
The Homes and Communities Agency wrote to my honourable friend Clive Betts MP, chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, to say that it was,
“not aware of any current issues relating to section 106 agreement on the very small number due to start on site this … year”.
I reiterate my noble friend’s question to the Minister: how many of the Government’s claimed hundreds of thousands of stalled sites have Section 106 as the cause? Certainly, another cause seems to be the reluctance of local communities to accept more housing. Here I can do no better than to quote Liberal Democrat councillor Adrian Dobinson, who in a letter in last Friday’s Guardian said that,
“people will allow modern housing ... if building design of our age is considered building design as good as the period buildings found in villages, instead of awful little boxes demanded by planners and weak-kneed architects unprepared to stand up to them”.
What can the Government do about that?
I turn to the landscape. The powers in Clause 8 which seek to remove essential protection for our national parks are aimed at speeding up the introduction of faster broadband, facilitating tall poles, cabinets and overhead lines, as the Minister explained. A very large number of serious and representative organisations have asked us to remove this provision. I declare an interest as president of the South Downs Society, the co-ordinating NGO for that area.
The introduction of faster broadband for the countryside is very important, and I fully understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but it is absolutely not necessary to do this at the expense of the potential desecration of our most cherished landscapes. The limited time allowed in the Bill for getting new structures up will be a further disincentive to a careful process for managing our irreplaceable beautiful landscapes. I am not aware of any evidence that it is the planning process in protected landscapes which is holding back the advance of broadband. Will the Minister please give the House examples, if any exist, in the national parks? As it happens, the national parks authorities are already active in ensuring that the relevant infrastructure is installed in a way which minimises visual impact. I could cite Northumberland, the Peak District, Exmoor, my own South Downs and many others.
It is of course quite true that there have been delays in rolling out superfast broadband in our countryside, but not because of the planning system. Receiving state aid clearance from the European Union was the main culprit: £530 million of expenditure on broadband has only just been approved, covering perhaps half of the local broadband plans, which would enable 90% of the people in the UK to access superfast broadband. Does the noble Baroness agree?
These provisions go against paragraph 115 of the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework and defy the intention of the great National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: to conserve and enhance our most important landscapes. I am sure the noble Baroness does not want to play any part in imperilling our natural heritage, which is already so vulnerable, or deprive future generations of the immeasurable benefits of the national parks’ beauty. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have also represented the council ward of Bingley Rural in West Yorkshire since 1986. I rise to speak with some unease, since I take no real pleasure in criticising any government legislation. I am a strong supporter of the coalition’s endeavours to correct our economic situation and return us to a safe financial footing, and I firmly believe that the Government are making great strides in that direction. However, sadly, I see this legislation as a step in the wrong direction, which will not deliver its main objective of widespread economic growth but rather move us dangerously on a narrow winding path away from the golden road of localism down which we have, to date, made much progress.
My main concern is that the Bill focuses on something which is not proving itself to be a barrier: the planning system. We have heard from the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tope, of the 10-year record success rate for planning applications and the fact that 87% of planning applications were approved in 2011-12. People will note the 87%, but we all need to recognise that some planning applications jolly well deserve to be refused.
We have heard also that there is a building backlog of some 400,000 new homes across the country, all of which have planning permission but are waiting to be built by developers. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that such evidence indicates that the only recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework, which she and her ministerial colleagues should be complimented on introducing, is starting to do its job of delivering sustainable development. Would it not be better to allow the NPPF to bed in before we once again redraw the lines around the planning system? Why is it always local government that is blamed for delays—and all the ills—when there is no evidence for this, as we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Tope?
With regard to democratic accountability, my successor at the LGA, Councillor Sir Merrick Cockell, made the point very well when he described the legislation as,
“a blow to local democracy”.
This Bill takes authority away from locally elected representatives and gives it instead to a national, unelected quango, the Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol. I fail to see how the inspectorate can appreciate the local individualities that impact upon planning and the built environment of, say, Bradford—or any other authority—better than the local council. Can the Minister indicate how much additional resource the inspectorate will be given and why the funding is not devolved instead to the local level to properly resource those planning authorities that are struggling or, according to the Government, deemed to be failing? Surely this could address the Government’s concerns.
There is a very real threat that the Bill will be counterproductive, since the removal of local decision-making risks denting public trust. This could mean that some communities will be increasingly reluctant to accept new development. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on this threat, since the last thing we want from the legislation is increased delays. The criteria for measuring performance under the Bill are also counterproductive as they focus on time taken to assess applications and the number of approvals given. Such a focus on blunt targets could result in rushed decisions and, perversely, more rejected applications. There are a number of questions about how the new system can work; for instance, how would an authority regain its decision-making powers once they have been taken away? I would welcome my noble friend’s thoughts on how any council can demonstrate improvement of its performance if it is no longer dealing with planning applications.
I support the link in Clause 8 between fast broadband access and economic growth. Indeed, we are now in a world where the latter is simply not possible without the former. We will all be aware, I am sure, of the concerns raised by campaign groups that the proposals could open the floodgates to broadband infrastructure boxes popping up across the countryside—not just the masts but the large boxes—in a very unregulated fashion. Moreover, this clause applies to all telecoms infrastructure, not just broadband. Perhaps my noble friend can explain how it will be limited to the declared policy.
I would welcome my noble friend’s views on how an assurance can be provided on this matter, what evidence exists to support the clause, and how local planning authorities will maintain control over the placement of infrastructure in order to reflect the wishes of the local residents and the businesses they represent. The issue of broadband boxes obviously links to the wider debate on permitted development. I offer my support for the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
This Bill presents a welcome opportunity to empower local areas to drive economic growth but, as currently drafted, it will miss that opportunity. To really have any impact, it must look to address the real barriers to growth and much needed housebuilding, such as access to finance to both build and buy.
One way to do this would be through the removal of the housing borrowing cap currently imposed on councils. I read with interest a report published last month by a group of organisations including the National Federation of ALMOs and the Local Government Association. This research demonstrates that removing the borrowing cap could deliver 60,000 homes over the next five years and increase UK GDP by 0.6%. That is the sort of proposal that we need within the Bill, one that will have a tangible impact on a real economic barrier.
I hope my noble friend will be pleased to hear that my final point is a positive one. I welcome the inclusion of clauses within the Bill on the town and village green registration system, specifically ensuring that discussions about the future of sites take place primarily through the democratically accountable planning system. Traditional and genuine greens are vital elements of sustainable and vibrant communities. I am pleased that these clauses will not endanger such sites. I understand that the Home Builders Federation, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the British Property Federation, the National Farmers’ Union and many other organisations all support the clauses, which I hope will survive the scrutiny of this House.
I hope that the Minister is able to respond to some of my concerns. It is the role of this Chamber to offer an honest assessment of the measures put before us. I am sure that, across the House, we can improve the Bill in the way that we need to.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I have nothing to declare other than a spell as a planning Minister and the fact that I was never a local authority councillor. I think the Bill is very depressing. It is a bit like the situation over the past decade, when we have had an annual immigration Bill from the Home Office. “Immigration still rising? Get another Bill. It carries on rising? Get another Bill”. We are on the verge now of almost an annual planning Bill. “Less building and infrastructure? Get another planning Bill”. That seems to be the treadmill. This is probably the third planning Bill since I relinquished the responsibilities that I held briefly at one time. From that point of view, I am very depressed about it.
I do not think that any planning Bill in the past two decades advanced the cause of sustainable development or growth. That is my broad-brush answer. Have all the planning Bills had good intentions to modernise the system? You are too right that they have: every single one of them had that intention. Have the attempts to use the planning system for social engineering to create genuine mixed communities really worked? I have to say, honestly and in a broad-brush answer: no. Have all Ministers had good intentions to foster good design, respect local communities and work in partnership with local government? The answer is yes, all Ministers have been in that position. Did we obtain the Docklands development in London—with the tens of thousands of jobs that have been created in the past 30 years there—and create Brindleyplace slap bang in the middle of Birmingham, with the thousands of jobs there, or the new towns, by the aforementioned approach? No, we did not. The system did not work and failed the country. Will this Bill deliver these objectives? I do not think that it stands a chance.
I watched the Planning Minister the other night on “Newsnight”. I was reminded of one of my own speeches in this House as a Minister as he recited just how little of the land of England is developed. It is some 11% or 12% maximum. He used the same facts I did, probably briefed by the same officials as briefed me. It is a disgrace that, as far as I can see, he has not had support from senior government colleagues in his bald approach to putting the case for growth and extra building in a way that identifies the fact that we are not concreting over the countryside.
By the way, I do not equate this Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. I might have made a mistake about this but I did not see the connection between the two. The noble Lord rightly asserts that local—or, more accurately, city—regions ought to be the bedrock. He does not talk about local authorities in that sense but about the city regions. The boundaries there are impossible to make out. If you look from above, from a helicopter, you do not see the boundary. That is his approach. This Bill does not deliver his approach. I do not think that it purports to.
I do not think you can allow the decisions to be made locally, with communities operating as super-parish councils. That is the reality. We are in a serious mess both on housing and infrastructure in this country. We have it locked in. I am not saying that there is nothing happening but we are getting less and less, and no one can see a way out of that. I do not think the status quo will work, but if we leave it to the present system the status quo will win every time. We will get less growth and will come back with another planning Bill. If there is to be progress, decisions have to be made for the greater good of society and not of particular local communities. I do not wish to fall out with the LGA but its briefing talks about democratically accountable, locally elected councillors. First, those councillors follow the Whip and, secondly, the ward councillors cannot vote on the issues relating to their wards anyway.
Lord Rooker
It also said that communities are likely to be increasingly reluctant to accept new developments in their areas. So what? If it is for the greater good of society, why should a local community resident already there have the final say? I cannot accept that people own their local community in that sense. I remember many years ago there was a major park area in my big, urban constituency—a constituency of only 16 square miles but with a population of 100,000. The world famous Birchfield Harriers had to have a new stadium. They were in a terrible location with the way the roads were joined. It was suggested that the ideal place was in the park because we could also go for the Commonwealth Games. On the other hand, people who lived round the park said, “This is our back garden: you cannot build on that”. If it had been left at that level, the stadium that brought massive benefits to the city of Birmingham and UK athletics would never have been built. You have to look and elevate consideration above the level of localism. It caused me great pain at the time to get those representations from constituents.
I think the Minister said in the “Newsnight” interview that if we have only about 12% built on, an extra 2% to 3% of the land of England would solve our problems. Of course, the press can take that up and say that it would be like a city the size of A, B or C, and that can be made to frighten people. But that is a tiny percentage of the land-mass of England.
The one area where we have to be really radical is on brownfield sites. We debated the guidelines in this House some time ago—I think it was in October 2011. I raised then that there was a major problem about the lack of serious attention paid to brownfield. More radical measures are called for rather than the tinkering in this Bill. I do not wish to nitpick through particular clauses of the Bill. It wants something radical: a line from the Severn to the Wash, and north of that for five years brownfield sites need no planning permission or obligations—nothing. Let the developers go. All the facts quoted are correct about planning authorities doing this, that and the other. The thing that is missing is confidence. You will not fix that by nitpicking around the changes in the Bill. That is my view.
There has to be development in the south-east, so south of that line, with brownfield sites of less than five hectares, again, there should be no need for planning permission. Sites of more than five hectares probably need it. New towns, Docklands and Brindleyplace were built without planning permission, but we have building regulation controls and all those things that have to take place. That is fine. I would not object to a density directive but the barriers have to come off for a decent specified period—as I said, for about five years.
At all costs, we have to protect the national parks. I declare an interest; for 25 years I have had a timeshare home in one of the national parks. That does not mean that there cannot be new jobs installed there, or that we cannot reuse former agricultural buildings and existing properties. There are barriers to that now, where planners think they can decide whether someone doing some work in the countryside—perhaps they have diversified—should have a pitched or sloping roof. It is preposterous that a planning official should make decisions like that about someone wanting to make a modest investment for some work they are doing, maybe to encourage diversification. But that actually happens.
To a lesser extent, we have to protect the areas of outstanding natural beauty. They cover a large part of the country, but not that much. The green belt is a collar around the urban areas. A lot of it is rubbish land, but it is there as a collar to stop the urban sprawl. The previous Labour Government left more green belt than they inherited, but we allowed incursions into the green belt because we could replace it with thousands of hectares elsewhere. You can do that. There does not seem to be a plan in the department. The approach is laissez-faire; “We’re in charge” and “Leave it all to local government”. But it does not have the wherewithal to do it in my view. That is not the level at which decisions should be taken.
There are brownfield sites in existence today where the Chancellor or somebody should do a masterstroke. If the developers cannot conclude development in the next couple of years on a brownfeld site where planning permission is granted, lift the obligations now. That would generate confidence. More brownfield sites are being created. I do not accept the argument that we are running out of it. There are thousands of hectares. If we concentrate on that we will protect cities and the green belt. I was very proud—and so was my noble friend Lord Prescott—to operate the policy we inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I saw examples of it the other day in the middle of Cambridge. I remembered a particular development at the site that crossed our desks at the time. It regenerated the centre of the city. It protected building on green fields. Builders love green fields—no doubt about it. They love flat green fields. In fact, most of those are called flood plains. They should be required to carry the insurance of such developments. This would even up the cost of the remediation of brownfield sites. It has been made too easy for them to get away with it.
I do not propose to cover other points. I just want to make the point that the Bill is not radical enough and will not work. In two years’ time we will be back again, wondering why we have not generated growth both for housing and for infrastructure.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, before the new National Planning Policy Framework has even bedded in, and only six months after the Localism Act—as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, well said—the Government have been seduced by the siren voices blaming planning as the obstacle to growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, they have ignored the reality that it is financial restraint, borrowing difficulties and, critically, consumer confidence that are holding back development. But planning is the convenient whipping boy, and the one thing the Government can easily be seen to be doing something about.
While I support the Government’s vigour in doing all they can to support appropriate growth and infrastructure, that growth must contribute towards delivering sustainable development—a term I did not find in the Bill. As Liberal Democrats have long argued, local people should have a say in shaping their communities and environment. As it stands, this Bill falls short in several areas of securing that. Two areas that I—along with fellow Peers—will highlight are Clauses 8 and 24.
The purpose of Clause 8 is to facilitate superfast broadband. It is a laudable aim but one which needs to ensure that what is special and valuable about our most treasured landscapes is not lost—special and valuable not only to our personal sense of well-being when we enjoy the magnificence of the scenery, the tranquillity of the environment and the overwhelming sense of awe that such areas inspire, but valuable economically given the significant tourism revenue that national parks and AONBs generate precisely because of their unique beauty and wild nature.
This clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and one where the existing nutcracker does not even seem to be broken. While there have been planning problems in some areas—I cite the borough of Kensington and Chelsea as the most prominent of those—there is no evidence of any planning problems in national parks with facilitating broadband delivery. I echo the comments of fellow Peers that it would be good to hear from the Minister during the progress of the Bill what evidence there is that planning in national parks creates a problem with facilitating broadband delivery. It is a sledgehammer which creates a precedent by allowing the key purposes of protected landscapes to be overridden for the first time since their creation more than 60 years ago.
It is also a sledgehammer because primary legislation cannot be technology-specific. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I was pleased to hear the Minister rule out mobile phone masts through secondary legislation. What I have not heard from the Government—or in any of the briefings that we have had—are the number of new poles and overhead broadband lines that could stomp across our most cherished landscapes if this legislation goes through. The Government anticipate 72,000 new broadband cabinets to deliver superfast broadband services to 90% of the UK. That is their stated aim. Surely this House should be asking the Government to confirm during the process of this Bill how many poles and lines could be needed if the requirement for underground telecommunications apparatus in national parks and AONBs is removed and the final decision about siting is given to operators—and, indeed, what impacts such a move would have on the arrangements that Ofgem have put in place with electricity providers for underground power lines in sensitive landscape areas.
Clause 24 allows decisions of major local importance to be removed from local authorities. If the intent is to fast-track decisions, again, the Government will need to show the House the evidence that a significant number of large-scale, major applications are not being met within 12 months—something their own figures seem to refute. How realistic is it that the major infrastructure planning regime will speed things up in the absence of national planning policy statements that set the policy framework for decisions and thus guide the Planning Inspectorate?
More than this, this clause flies in the face of the commitment the Government gave during the debates on the then Localism Bill, which was enshrined in the resulting Act that the local plan was sovereign and that decision-making should be devolved to the lowest possible appropriate level. The Minister in this House said on Report that,
“our reforms achieve their objective of putting the local plan and the views of the local community at the heart of the system” —[Official Report, 17/10/11; col.140.]
It comes before measures we fought hard to win during the passage of the Localism Bill have been introduced that would help smooth the path of contentious local applications. I am talking about pre-application scrutiny for departure applications. It comes as no surprise that it is proposed that gas extraction projects should fall under these new procedures. Gas will play a part in meeting the energy requirements of the UK as we transition to a low-carbon economy; but we are not America. We are a densely populated country. Local communities in the north-west have the right to a say in the siting of energy infrastructure. If the Government want to argue that fracking has more than a very limited future in ensuring UK energy security consistent with our climate change obligations—and, as such, that the new infrastructure is nationally significant—they should first introduce a national planning policy statement which we can debate in this House.
I am sure that the Minister is as pleased as I am to look forward over the coming weeks to replaying some of the debates we had, which resulted in the hard-won policy approach to sustainable development set out in the final NPPF. Growth may be this Government’s byword, but we should not be afraid to say that what makes this country—and in particular our countryside —so special is equally worth protecting.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, as has been said already by several noble Lords, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the Bill seems to be based on some fairly substantial fallacies, the first of which is that the principal reason for the lack of investment in infrastructure and housing in this country is the planning system. The second and related fallacy is that the planning performance of local authorities would somehow be seriously improved if there was an ever-present threat of central government taking it over. I would dispute both fallacies. There is probably a third fallacy in the Bill, relating specifically to housing—namely, that we would get more affordable housing if the one mechanism that has delivered more affordable housing in recent years was diluted and reversed.
The failure of investment in this country is due to much wider things than are tackled in the Bill. A serious lack of confidence on the part of private sector investment in the medium-term prospects of our economy is the central reason why we are not getting enough investment. That goes back to the Government’s economic strategy. There is a parallel lack of confidence in the regulatory framework within which those investment decisions are taken, sector by sector, to do with retaining a degree of stability and not being beset by uncertainty and indecision in government. There are different examples in housing and in renewable energy—indeed, energy of any sort—where investment has been seriously held up by that uncertainty.
Moreover, the Government themselves are not investing. A disproportionate amount of the cuts in public expenditure—whatever the arguments about the total—have fallen on the capital programme, both in direct investment by state institutions and in partnership with the private sector. As a result, there have been serious cutbacks not only in social housing, which I shall come to, but in schools, road building, flood defences and other forms of local authority investment. There is more on the cards.
When the Government themselves are not investing and are not encouraging partnership with the private sector in those areas, that discourages investment in general. In the face of that, there has been no serious intellectual development, let alone implementation, of novel forms of mobilisation of private sector money in infrastructure development. That is true even in areas where an economic return is pretty well guaranteed, such as housing or various parts of energy and transport, let alone where there is no direct income stream against it and where the private sector, in conjunction with the Treasury, ought to be working hard to find motivation for private finance, for example, into flood defences or road building.
There was a slight hint of that in the coalition announcement this week, but I hope that the Government can go a bit further. There is a serious need for a new approach and new thinking on infrastructure investment by the Government. None of that is in the Bill. Nor, for example, is there any reflection of what I understood to be the Chancellor’s serious intention to get together with private institutional funders to put their money into infrastructure investment. We heard a lot a few months ago about his discussion with pension funds, for example. What has that come to? It does not appear that the Government have been able to motivate serious investment in our infrastructure from the private sector—and that in an era when corporate coffers are quite full and large sums of money are resting with institutional investors.
That is a failure not of the planning system, local government or the business rate system; it is a failure of central government. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, the Bill is also odd in that it is the antithesis of what we thought was the Government’s intention in relation to local government; it is the antithesis of the ethos of localism. I am not saying that there are not some measures in the Bill that may be a bit of help. It is a hotchpotch of a Bill and not everything about it is wrong, but the overall impact will be nugatory in raising the overall level of investment.
I shall say a quick word about housing, and I declare my interest as chair of Housing Voice, which campaigns for affordable housing. There is a crisis in all aspects of the housing market but, particularly, as the noble Baroness admitted during Question Time today, in affordable housing in all sectors—whether social housing, mortgages and owner-occupied housing or in the private rented sector.
One of the few measures that has delivered more affordable housing has been the intervention of Section 106 in planning agreements with developers. The Bill implies that many such agreements can be made null and void. There is no need for that. As has been said, local authorities can already renegotiate their Section 106 arrangements in relation to housing. The provisions that suggest that the Government will lean on local authorities to dilute them further moves in the wrong direction, and I will strongly oppose that part of the Bill. However, that is only one element of the apparent centralisation of the Bill. The first four clauses introduce a greater degree of centralisation than we have yet seen, which totally contradicts the Localism Act, which we have just passed. So does Clause 24.
I slightly part company with my noble friend Lord Rooker on this. I do not think that local authorities have performed their planning function absolutely ideally. I think that aspects could be reformed and that some degree of change in the structure of local authorities would facilitate that. However, I do not believe that the man in Whitehall or, indeed, the man in Bristol—I slightly object to the disparaging reference to Bristol by the noble Baroness—knows best. We need clearer national direction, but the logic of the Localism Act, as I understood it, was that local authorities would be given clearer responsibility for meeting the housing needs and delivering economic development in their area, in conjunction with neighbouring authorities, and that they would be given commensurate powers to get on with the job. If local authorities generally were put in that position, we would see serious investment in commercial and economic enterprise and in housing of all sorts.
Unfortunately, the Government do not trust local authorities to do that. They are not prepared to give them the powers; they are not even prepared to give them the responsibility without the powers in any clear way. The Bill, and certain other Bills that have been passed recently, clearly allow central government to override and take over those powers from local authorities. That is a step in the wrong direction. The Government are becoming increasingly Napoleonic in their ambitions in this area and, unfortunately, do not quite have in their strategic approach the generalship that Napoleon demonstrated.
I have three other quick points; I am running out of time. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly said that the Government need to be aware of the environmental issues. I do not entirely go along with some of the environmental and countryside bodies that objected to the national planning framework in its initial form, but the Government need to take seriously their concerns about sustainability in the Bill. I am prepared to support the delay in the review of the business rate, provided that the Government assure us that the time taken by that review will allow us to look at the full effect of business rates and how they are implemented on investment decisions across the board—in other words, that it is not simply a delay but a reassessment.
Finally, on employee shareholdings, as I would expect, my noble friend Lord Monks has made the case, as have others. Some time ago, in Question Time, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Marland, how this would work: are you prepared to sell a few rights for a few shares, more important rights for more shares, or whether you have a job lot and all shares are bought out at a given time? This ought not to be a trading issue. People ought not to be asked to give up their rights for shares. That is completely different from all previous forms of employee share-ownership and undermines all the good work in that area and in the mutual area.
The lesson today, in the context of the Bill, is that that procedure—that way of getting Beecroft in by the back door—has absolutely nothing to do with growth or investment. Clause 27 should be deleted from the Bill as rapidly as possible.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I declare an interest as president or vice-president of a number of conservation and environment NGOs. I ask the Minister’s forgiveness because I am mystified by the Bill. As many noble Lords have said, it seems to be at odds with a whole range of commitments that I thought the coalition much cherished, particularly localism. It also seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk Bill. It was not included in the Queen’s Speech. It has been cobbled together with indecent haste and little consultation. As many noble Lords have said, it does little to promote growth but puts at risk the protection of our environment. It is also a bit of a windmill-tilting Bill, because it perpetuates the myth that planning is responsible for holding back growth, rather than focusing on the significant issue of the lack of finance for investment and the difficulty that people have in borrowing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, pointed out that planning is not the real barrier to growth and that a considerable number of building schemes with planning applications already approved are not being built at the moment as a result of constraints other than the planning system. Indeed, the hit rate of planning applications being approved by local government is commendably high. What we are seeing in this Bill is a set of proposals that do not do the business in terms of growth but put at risk that important natural capital that we have and undermine future prosperity.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I am a great fan of the planning system. It is one of the jewels in the crown of democracy in this country. It allows informed decisions to be made between competing interests on a local basis in the interests of the public. Anything that knocks that is to be resisted. It is not as if the Government have not already made some pretty clear statements recently about their position on the planning system. For example, the planning system was recognised in the Government’s natural environment White Paper, which was published only in June 2011, as being a vital underpinning of the protection and restoration of a healthy functioning natural environment. That in itself was recognised as being the underpinning of a prosperous and sustainable economy.
I am mystified that the Bill follows so soon after the planning reforms introduced by the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012. The National Planning Policy Framework negotiation was accompanied by much sweat and tears. It seems a shame that we are not allowing it a bit of time to prove its worth.
Why was planning law not got right then, when all these statements of government policy and legislation were going through the full panoply of consultation and in-depth parliamentary scrutiny? Why is the coalition coming back for another go, which is so sadly at odds with its recently promoted policies? During the coalition mid-term review yesterday I was waiting for an admission that something was wrong in the planning system. There was a lot about what has been got right, but the mid-term review did not say yesterday, “By the way, we screwed up the planning system changes and now we need to sort them out”.
What are the changes proposed in the Bill that are out of tune with recently approved legislation or policy? Noble Lords have spoken at length about Clause 1 and the designation of poorly performing planning authorities. That is a retrograde step. It centralises power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It breaks trust with local communities and runs the risk of important decisions being made out of the local strategic setting and without access to local information. The criteria for designation seem to say “Never mind the quality, feel the speed” and could put pressure on local authorities to make swift and potentially poor decisions to avoid losing their planning powers.
The provision in Clause 5 to limit the power to require information for planning applications seems unnecessary. Local authorities need the right information to make an informed decision and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, was clear about the need for expertise and clarity at a local level if good planning decisions are going to result. A limitation on the power to require information could result in delays if information is not available or in challenges to information requests, which again could prolong negotiations. The National Planning Policy Framework has only recently established a clear policy on information requirements and, as I said before, should be given a chance to prove its worth.
In Clause 8 the electronic communications code issue underlines the importance of improving broadband in rural areas. I live in a village where it is possible to stream the BBC iPlayer only after midnight because of competition for band-width. It is only recently that paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework stressed the responsibility of planning authorities to give greater weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in national parks, the Broads and areas of outstanding national beauty. The Bill’s provisions appear to go against that recently settled paragraph.
I worry that this could be a precedent for removing the greater weight duty in other ways and for opening up an avenue for removing other protections in the future. The reality of knee-jerk legislation is that the knee can jerk in some other random direction in the future. Apart from that this is a pretty evidence-free zone. There is no evidence that the additional protection afforded to designated landscapes has acted as a barrier to rural growth or has delayed broadband rollout. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, rightly pointed out that the national park authorities have been pretty proactive in minimising visual impact over the past five years in broadband applications.
The registration of town or village greens provision in Clauses 13 and 14 seems to be another “tilting at windmills” element of the Bill. It appears to have been introduced to prevent the registration of a town or village green as a ploy for stopping development. There are fewer than 200 applications each year to register a green. In 2010 there were only 134. A tiny proportion of those could be regarded as vexatious. Potentially we are having a massive piece of legislation to prevent a small number of vexatious applications. It does not seem to be proportionate.
In Clause 24, the inclusion of major business or commercial projects in the major infrastructure planning regime is another erosion of the principle of localism and could risk that decisions are taken centrally out of the local context, uninformed by local expertise and knowledge, and certainly not as part of a local process informed by local democracy. The local strategic approach, which stresses the value of landscape-level land use decisions, was emphasised in the Government’s natural environment White Paper as fundamental. This would offend that principle.
The types of development expected to fall within the procedure have recently been set out in the government consultation. As other noble Lords have pointed out, these include minerals and gas-extraction projects. It is not clear how fast-tracking onshore gas and oil extraction could be decided validly in the absence of national planning policy on this issue. This must raise major questions about the Government’s real commitment to climate change policy.
I shall say nothing on Clause 27 about creating a new employee shareholder employment status other than that I agree with every single syllable that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said on that.
We have a Bill that was introduced at speed, without consultation and with very brief opportunities for engagement. I hesitate to characterise the Secretary of State as Don Quixote, but you could say that this is a Bill that tilts at windmills that do not exist, given that there is little or no evidence that these planning issues are the true obstacles to growth and infrastructure. It is a Bill that flies in the face of policies and legislation that are barely dried ink on the paper. The combination of these features makes this bad legislation. I hope that the Minister, for whom I have huge respect, having worked with her in Kensington and Chelsea, will use the passage of the Bill to tell us in the House what the real evidence is for these measures. If she is unable to give us real evidence, I hope that she will drop or amend these proposals.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I will restrict my remarks to Clause 27, which has nothing to do with planning, but is an attempt to foster growth. As we have heard, it creates a new class of employee shareholders. The concept of turning workers into shareholders is not new. At one extreme is the John Lewis Partnership version, in which a business is entirely owned by its staff. There is plenty of evidence that the model works. The latest Christmas trading figures show John Lewis to have been one of the stars of the season. There are several other companies, from booksellers to jam-makers, that now follow that model. However, there are many other versions of employee shareholders. There are SIPs, CSOPs, SAYE schemes and EMI schemes. Indeed, there are so many versions of employee shareholder schemes and tax benefits that evolve around them, and so complicated are the rules surrounding them, that last year the Office of Tax Simplification decided that it had to try to bring some logic to bear on them. This year there will be legislation to tidy up the tax regime relating to these schemes. But just as these complications are being ironed out, this legislation brings us a new category of employee shareholder—the one who opts to give up most of an employee’s rights in return for stock.
I think that I understand the thinking that may have given rise to this idea. It is a wish to do away with the antiquated us-and-them attitude that still colours the difference between management and labour in some businesses. It is an effort to remove the threat of industrial tribunals and potential redundancy payments, which certainly hangs over young businesses and makes them feel unduly as if their hands have been tied behind their back. It is an effort to engender the spirit of the John Lewis Partnership in its go-getting new-business way, the sort of thing that will bring us the growth that we need.
Yet we need to look more carefully at what the clause is trying to do and whether it will have the desired effect. As it is currently drafted, a gift of shares with a minimum value of just £2,000 would be sufficient to buy out a package of employment rights. Imagine, if you will, a worker with family responsibilities bounding home to tell his partner that he has signed away any rights to redundancy for a package of shares that, if he is lucky, may be worth something one day but could eventually be worthless. I am reminded of that Tom Lehrer song where he bumps into Walter Raleigh, who is trying to explain to him about tobacco. “What?”, he says; “You do what?”. If someone goes home and announces that they have sold their rights for a few shares, that is the sort of response that they might get—“What?”.
We need to look again at this proposal. First, if companies wish to take advantage of this new employee status, it should be an annual commitment between employer and employee. Agreeing an annual payment of shares in lieu of employment rights may enable workers to build meaningful stakes in businesses, but that cannot be a one-off transaction, a small payment to buy—potentially—many years of servitude. Secondly, it is wrong to make part of the deal sacrificing the right to demand training. If the aim of this measure is to get everyone working towards the same end, surely an acceptance of the desirability of training is key. We need our businesses to be skilled; we need the workforce all to be aiming to be the best at the job, constantly adding to their abilities and skills, not signing away their rights to more training but, on the contrary, begging for more and more, and prepared to give their time to learn.
The object of this clause should not be to create a new underclass of employee shareholder but to generate a wider concept of ownership. It should be truly voluntary. I have listened to the qualms raised by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I hope and trust that my noble friend will put their minds, and mine, at rest. This provision must not be allowed to be a bullies’ charter. It would fail in its ultimate aim if it were allowed to be used that way, inflicted on an unwilling workforce. There should be no compunction on those on jobseeker’s allowance to accept an employee/owner job. I hope that many of those would like the idea of ownership and be tempted to take that job, but we should not force them to do so. We need to find a way to make the employee/owner option an attractive one, so while some rights are sacrificed, others should be conferred—perhaps membership of a works council, for instance.
I do not like to see legislation wasted, but in its current form Clause 27 runs the risk of dying on the vine. Yet there is no need for that. With some effort, the clause could be turned into a worthwhile extra weapon for employers to use to help them build businesses with a loyal, dedicated workforce that saw itself as on the same side. We need to look again at Clause 27. As it is, it will not achieve anything. However, I hope that the Minister will see it as a beginning rather than an end.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I trust that the House will understand if I limit my contribution to the provisions of Clause 27. As noble Lords have already heard, many in this House had hoped and indeed anticipated that the Bill would have been informed by the recent report, No Stone Unturned, authored by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and recently debated in this House. That report was built upon his experience, coupled with intellectual rigour. Sadly, however, what we have instead are some of the remnants of the Beecroft utterances, which are part of the package being incrementally introduced through primary legislation and the regulatory framework and which demonstrate that the Government’s real agenda is to change the balance of the workplace relationship.
In fact, the introduction to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website, on the subject of employment tribunal changes, could not be any clearer: it says that they will make it easier for business to take on staff and improve the process when staff have to be let go. So now we know what the Government’s real industrial agenda is: there is nothing about increasing the skills level, training and retraining opportunities, investing in adult apprenticeships for those who missed first training opportunities, or meaningful partnership, as the Minister recently outlined. There is nothing about consultation, how decisions are made or the prospects for the future development of the enterprises.
At Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, I said:
“You do not boost recovery by making it easier to fire workers. You boost recovery by making it easier to hire workers”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1585.]
I stand by that statement. You do not build a stable workforce by taking away workers’ rights, something that the Government seem not to understand. The Government do not understand that in the workplace rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Workers cannot be expected to discharge responsibility if they feel devowed of their rights.
What is at risk in Clause 27 is very clear but the real difficulty is that we pay a heavy price for Clause 27. It undermines the fundamental rights on which good industrial working practices are built. Instead of stimulating growth, this Bill, along with other packages introduced under the veil of growth, is a hidden charter which provides for hiring and firing.
It is not unreasonable to pause here and ask, “How did we get here?”. I read in no manifesto, or indeed in the coalition agreement, that a Bill would be coming forward that contained the provisions of Clause 27. We got here because the Government will listen only to those who agree with their strategy and philosophy. They will listen only to the IoD and the CBI. Indeed, the recent publication from the IoD sets out a 10-point charter for so-called reform and control of the trade unions. In some instances I am not sure whether the IoD publication draws its source from Clause 27 or Clause 27 draws its source from the IoD publication. If you read one, save yourself some time—you do not have to read the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, dealt superbly with the issues around consultation. All I want to add is that the 21 days allowed for consultation on a matter of fundamental importance in terms of Britain’s future growth and infrastructure development is an affront to democracy. No wonder only 184 responses were received—out of those, only two individuals and one business stated that they would be minded to take up the options under Clause 27.
These proposals are without support, not from the usual suspects but from business and professional groups as well as legal practitioners and professional commentators including the Employee Ownership Association, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and, as we have heard, the Law Society. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Fawcett Society have both expressed concerns that the employee shareholder proposal will encourage discrimination because it is likely to affect women in the workplace disproportionately. Women are more likely to be employed part time, to be carers, to need parental leave and to be pressured into accepting lower status even before accepting a job offer. If the Government are really serious about wanting women to return to the labour market, they are not going about it in the right way. Clause 27 takes away the support that working women badly need such as training, flexible working and parental support.
Where is the evidence for the Government’s claim that this Bill is necessary? Many who work in industry and understand how it operates see this Bill not as an asset but as a potential liability. In his report the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, stresses the need for local enterprise partnerships to be the engine for delivering growth and infrastructure development for the future. The architects of this Bill see the primary solution to Britain’s industrial malaise as simply attacking workers’ rights. That has been tried before and it failed.
Will the Minister inform the House whether all employees would be eligible for these shares? Will there be a qualification period towards entitlement and, if so, at what point would the employees lose their rights? Will there be equality between full and part-time employees? What happens when the company gets taken over? What happens if the company goes into liquidation? You lose your shares and your employment rights.
The reality is that you have to consult, and be open and engaging. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that I was an employee shareholder in a company for which I worked for more than 18 years. I did not have to give up my statutory employment rights; I was never asked to give up any rights whatever. That company was successful and still is.
I am a firm supporter of credible employee shareholder ownership and of the principles advocated by the Nuttall review but I doubt whether the proposals for selling workers’ rights for a few shares are credible, moral or fair.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is a pleasure as usual to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth. It is becoming a habit that I get put down to follow him and, as usual, I agree with what he has just said, which fits in, as far as Clause 27 is concerned, very neatly with what has been said by a number of noble Lords around the House speaking from different perspectives—the noble Lord, Lord Monks, my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Wheatcroft. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for the thought that only in the House of Lords could someone quote Tom Lehrer and expect everyone present to understand the reference and remember the song.
This is a very unsatisfactory Bill. It is interesting that, apart from the Minister’s introduction, it has not had a huge amount of enthusiastic support around the House. I call it an “odds and sods” Bill. Perhaps that is too rude for the House of Lords. In the old days, before Governments labelled Bills with soundbites and slogans such as “growth”, and actually said what they were, it would have been called the Planning (Miscellaneous Provisions and One or Two Other Things) Bill, which is exactly what it is.
I get very frustrated by it. Following the noble Baroness introducing Tom Lehrer, I wondered what I should do to remove my frustrations and thought that perhaps going shooting pigeons in the park might at least take some of them away. However, there are lots of enthusiasts for nature conservation, and even pigeons, around here who might chase me if I tried to do that so I will forget that thought.
I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I am sorry he has just gone—for heckling him when he was speaking, which is a most un-Lordly thing to do but just shows the frustrations over this Bill. He was adamant that ward councillors cannot deal with planning applications in their own wards. I must live in a different universe from him because in December I was at a planning committee—a development control committee—at which not only was there a big planning application for housing in my ward but I moved the resolution that the committee then passed unanimously. So the world is not as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, thinks.
Thinking of local government, I declare my interests in full—a habit I have as a local councillor, where the rules seem to be stricter than in your Lordships’ House. I am a vice-president of the LGA. As I have already said, I am an active member of Pendle Borough Council; I am “portfolio holder for planning policy”, whatever that may mean. I am an active member of committees on and a patron of the British Mountaineering Council. I am a member and patron of the Friends of the Lake District, and a member and vice-president of the Open Spaces Society. At least I now have those on record for the rest of the Bill.
I am concerned about Bills such as this, which seem to be the result of a circular that goes around to different departments saying, “We are putting this general Bill about growth and infrastructure forward. Have you anything lying around that you might like to put into it?”. There are two or three Bills of this nature going around at the moment. They can lead to unintended consequences and unexpected outcomes. The departments put forward what I might call one-off wheezes which have not been properly thought through in the context of the legislation of which they are part. There is no underlying structure or philosophy about it; they are just put forward and can have unintended consequences. The outcomes of the Bill might be like that.
They can also, if we are not careful, undermine the basic principles and structures that lie behind legislation, areas of government and government policy. We see that in this Bill. We see it in the planning system. We spent a huge amount of time discussing the passage of the Localism Act 2011; many noble Lords in the Chamber today were involved in it. Whatever many of us thought about the outcomes—some very good, some perhaps not so good—they were nevertheless based on the philosophy of how the planning system should work. Now we are putting it into practice to see if it will work.
However, what we have here is ad hoc, hotchpotch messing about with bits of the planning system, some of which seems to completely contradict the philosophy behind the Localism Act. We have changes to planning rules and regulations proposed for national parks, removing requirements on the Secretary of State to have special regard to conservation and the environment in national parks, done on an ad hoc basis. If the Government want to change the way national parks work to make them more growth-based, perhaps they should change the philosophy and the ideas behind it and let us have a national parks Bill under which we can discuss that properly across the board. Some of us would be very unhappy about it but we could nevertheless discuss it. Bringing one-off measures such as this forward, which may then be cited as a precedent—“We did that for that and it was not too disastrous, so we can do it for that and a bit more”—is not the way to get coherent legislation.
The proposals for town and village greens suffer from the same problem. There are clearly problems in some places. It is ludicrous that somebody can apply to register a town or village green on a piece of land which already has housing built on it. The whole procedure for registering town and village greens is, in my view, too legalistic and overbureaucratic. However, just bringing forward a one-off proposal which seems to solve a small-scale problem is not how to make quite significant changes to the whole regime set out in the Commons Act 2006. It is not the way to do legislation.
Noble Lords have referred to Clause 1 and the way in which naughty or inefficient councils might be designated so that people then have the option to make direct planning applications. Quite apart from the principle behind this, with which many of us are obviously not happy, all sorts of practical problems will arise which we have to look into very carefully in Committee. The local authority will need to keep a planning department because some planning applications will go to it, so presumably that department will get less cost-effective and efficient. We have not been given any proper figures on the cost to government of boosting the Planning Inspectorate. There is the question, for example, of pre-application discussions with applicants. Who will do those? Will it be the local planning authority? Will it be the Planning Inspectorate? Who will be responsible for that? Will it be the local planning authority up to some stage, and then, when people say, “Oh, we are not getting very far with that lot”, will it move to the Planning Inspectorate? Perhaps everything will have to start again.
Where the local planning authority has to do work, on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate or otherwise because the application has gone there in the first place, will it be reimbursed for that? Where will the planning applications fee go? It all seems to be a very messy sledgehammer to crack a nut, with lots of unintended compromises. If nothing else, we in the House of Lords have to probe properly the workability of it all, in the way that the House is very often so good at.
On Clause 8, on electronic communications, I am concerned about why these large cabinets are required and why the electronics industry, which is miniaturising everything at such a huge rate, still needs these cabinets which are the size of a big wardrobe. That kind of practical thing, in addition to all the other important points that have been made, must be sorted out.
On towns and villages, under Clauses 13 and 14, there is a perfectly acceptable way of doing exactly what the Government want without driving a coach and horses though the very principle of the Commons Act and the registration of greens. There is a lot of misunderstanding about greens. They are not a planning designation. It is not a matter of deciding whether it is a good idea or not, it is a matter of fact. It originally came from prescriptive common-law rights acquired over time, which were first codified in the Commons Registration Act of 1965, and then most recently in the Commons Act 2006, of which some have a blessed memory. If we are to disrupt that whole system, we should do it very carefully. On the other hand, the Government said that they wanted to align the commons registration system with the planning system where there were planning proposals. That is absolutely sensible. It can be done, and a consequence may be that the town and village greens registration system can be made more efficient. However, the way in which it is being done in the Bill abolishes people’s rights, rather than aligning them with the planning system.
I will certainly be making proposals in Committee that I hope the Government will at least consider and discuss sensibly. I look forward to the Committee, along with everybody else.
Lord Smith of Leigh
My Lords, I should have liked to welcome a Bill that encourages growth and improves infrastructure. The country certainly needs it. However, this Bill is largely a missed opportunity. Before I start, I need to declare my interests as well. I am leader of Wigan Council and chairman of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. I remind London-based colleagues that theirs is not the only conurbation with a form of governance; we have one in Manchester. I am also a vice-president of the LGA.
Like other Members, I think that the evidence that the economy is being held up by the planning system is just not there. The Minister has not really added to our understanding of that. We are not holding back growth with an inadequate planning system. In fact, in housing, as the Minister herself said, there have been a large number of approvals in recent years. People have said that there are over 400,000 outstanding planning applications, so clearly there is an opportunity in the system to build homes if people want to take it. However, they are not being taken up, largely because of funding issues and the weaknesses in the housing market. In most parts of the country, economic uncertainties and the changes to mortgage funding have certainly fundamentally altered the demand for housing. Developers are uncertain and, assuming that they can find funding, they are unlikely to start building new homes which are likely to go unsold.
Contrasting with the Government’s view on the need to stimulate growth is the recent report, which many Members have already mentioned, of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned. He believes in a localist approach, not the centrist approach which the Bill seems to have. He wants to identify public funding and allocate it to infrastructure projects, making sure that local and central government have arrangements that can achieve growth.
I should like to make some more detailed comments on Clauses 1, 6 and 25. The most worrying aspect of Clause 1 is its undermining of local accountability. Any major development will have a significant impact on local communities. Local authorities are best able to understand the impact of this effect and to make sure that it can be considered—and where possible they can achieve some degree of mitigation. No inspector, wherever they come from, will have that level of understanding of a local area. They will come in and go out, but the local planning authority has to live with the consequences of its decisions in the future. We are, in fact, undermining localism.
Effectively, the clause intends to create a blacklist of planning authorities that cannot be trusted with major applications. We need to understand more about how this will work. It is a significant change to local authorities. While we might not want to see criteria put on the face of the Bill, we need to understand more about which criteria will be used and how they will be applied. The Government have mentioned the words “timeless” and “quality”, but how will that be judged—on a one-yearly, two-yearly or five-yearly basis? Clearly, if an authority has a very complex, major application in one particular year, it may distort the results, which could result in their being put on the blacklist. I am also intrigued to know how, if an authority has got on such a blacklist, it can get off it. How can it get off a blacklist if it is not dealing with major planning applications? How can it prove that it has now reformed itself and can deal with it? That is an important issue.
The Government also have a blind faith in the Planning Inspectorate’s ability to do the job better. It certainly does not seem to have the capacity to do it at the moment. In my experience of it dealing with planning decisions, it is not very timely, it is very expensive, and it does not always come to the right decision. I could quote many examples of that and I am sure that noble Lords could also do the same.
Under Clause 6, local authorities may seek Section 106 agreements so that they are able, when they approve major applications, to get the developer to attempt to mitigate some of the impacts on local communities. Affordable housing is the most important part of these obligations. It enables local authorities to start doing something about what I believe is a very urgent problem and one which was not tackled enough by the previous Government and is not being tackled enough by the present Government. Section 106 agreements were beginning to start to show an increase in that and I would be very concerned if that was not the case.
My authority renegotiates Section 106 agreements if we feel that it is necessary to do so. However, we do it on a case-by-case basis because we recognise that economic circumstances have changed. I feel that Clause 6 might give an opportunity for unscrupulous developers—I am sure that people do not know any of those but there may be one or two around—who will overpromise what they will deliver in order to get a planning permission and then not deliver it by seeking to have it undermined under this clause. The key to this is to determine the economic viability of a particular scheme. It is a very complicated deal. If developers have overpaid for a piece of land, is that not their responsibility? They made that judgment. We seem to be providing them with insurance. They can offer what they want for land and they will somehow get away with it because they will be able to renegotiate a Section 106 agreement. I am concerned that we are saying that if we are to give powers to the Secretary of State, then this will come under the Planning Inspectorate. Determining the economic viability of particular schemes is not the skill of the Planning Inspectorate.
I have tried my best to understand the Government’s objectives in Clause 25 with regard to deferring the revaluation of business rates. In her opening statement, the Minister referred to the need to give certainty to business. However, that is not a neutral act. We provide businesses with this certainty, but in fact we keep the unfairness, which is that businesses that have been badly affected by the economic changes from five years ago will not have revaluation at the moment. This will have a significant impact on certain parts of the economy.
As I began to look at what I would say in today’s debate I became more aware of the amazing feeling in the property sector against this clause. One property company has an online petition to try to stop this clause going through, and many others are complaining against it. Coming from the north, what concerns me, as Members might understand, is the regional differentiation that this will create. The economic performance of this country over the past five years has been different in different parts of the country. If we perpetuate the current level of business rate in the future, then we simply perpetuate that unfairness going forward. Of course, this is in favour of London and the south-east.
It will also impact differently on different sectors of the economy, not all of which have performed well. Much of the concern that I read about is for the retail sector. We have clearly seen today that the impact over Christmas has perhaps not been what the retail trade would have wanted. We have seen the closures of major retail companies over the past few months. Anywhere you go, in all parts of the country, you see in many town centres the blight of boarded-up shops and the consequences of that on shopping in towns.
What will this do if we then keep the high level of business rates for the retail sector for those town centres that need some stimulus? The Government are right that some sectors will benefit from the change, one of which will be caravan parks. With all respect to the Government, I do not feel that our economic future is dependent on a successful caravan park sector. We need to stimulate more important parts of the economy.
I am also concerned that once we stop what has been an agreed five-yearly review of business rates, when it comes to 2017 the government of the day may think, “Oh my goodness, this is going to be more difficult. It’s more turbulent than it would have been some years ago. We’ll put it off again. We don’t want to cause turbulence”. What is my belief about that? We have a system of council tax where the properties are valued as though we were back in 1991. No Government have had the courage to revalue council tax valuations since 1991. We are simply frightened of doing it. We are now fossilising the business rates as though we are back in 2012.
Following the inspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I also thought about a song. Looking around the House, I see that noble Lords are mainly of my generation. Do noble Lords remember from their youth the song “The Grand Coulee Dam”? When I was a lad I did not understand that. Who would write a song about a dam? However, when I grew up I understood the importance of the “Grand Coulee Dam” as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal programme and the impact that it had on the north-west of America both in the short term and in the long term, providing the power that stimulated Boeing and other companies to provide all those bombers that were needed during the Second World War.
I would like to think, but I do not believe, that this Bill will provide such a stimulation for a piece of infrastructure in the north-west of England that would create jobs both in the short term and in the long term. However, I am an optimist, and I hope that we can improve the Bill so that it lives up to its name.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I, too, declare my interests. I am a member of a unitary local authority, Cornwall Council. I am a substitute member of the planning committee. Because I am a substitute, I thank goodness that I do not often have to attend in terms of that particular function, but I went through all the training and did all of that. I also have a role which in some ways is on the other side: I chair a commercial development company with interests in the south-west, which applies for a number of planning permissions to do with commercial development.
Something that particularly struck me about the timing of this Bill is that, although it seems a long time ago—in politics I guess it is—it was only in March last year that the National Planning Policy Framework was decided, and the Minister delivered it and made a Statement. I will come back to that Statement. It was a mere 10 months ago that we completely revolutionised the planning system. I was very iffy about what would come out of it and was one of the many people who, when the Government started to move into consultation, thought that we would have rip-roaring development; that the sustainable part of development would be forgotten; and that the Government, for good reasons in many ways but with a bad effect, would not pay a lot of attention to the consultation.
However, my cynicism was absolutely wrong. The Government came out with an extremely good and balanced planning foundation that set a course that I think will be successful for the future. It was well balanced, and it took away the sclerotic planning system and all the different policies and recommendations that local government departments had at the time. It was also absolutely clear where government planning policy was going.
I took the opportunity of reading the right honourable Greg Clark’s Statement to the House of Commons. He was very good in outlining what the reforms were about. There were three fundamental objectives. The first was,
“to put unprecedented power in the hands of communities to shape the places in which they will live”.
The second was,
“to support growth better to give the next generation the chance that our generation has had to have a decent home, and to allow the jobs to be created on which our prosperity depends”.
That is very much what this Bill is supposed to be about, but we will have to see whether it achieves that.
The third objective was,
“to ensure that the places we cherish—our countryside, towns and cities—are bequeathed to the next generation in a better condition than they are in now”.
That time dimension incorporates an understanding that planning is not just about now, or about economic growth now, but about sustainability for the future in terms of the environment and about long-term environmental viability.
Greg Clark continued with what to me is the key sentence. He said:
“A decade of regional spatial strategies, top-down targets and national planning policy guidance that has swelled beyond reason—over 1,000 pages across 44 documents—has led to communities seeing planning as something done to them, rather than by them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/12; col. 1337.]
I think, “Hallelujah, that is absolutely right”. I have been involved in European-level politics, national politics and local government politics. That is exactly how it is: local government feels that it is done to it rather than by it.
That is why this Bill really disappoints me in terms of what I see as the Government somehow, after only 10 months, losing confidence in that very clear vision that they had at the time—and that I hope that they still have. It seems that they have somehow shifted into reverse gear. I will not go through the clauses in detail because noble Lords have done so already. Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to take over the planning functions of failed authorities and to delegate upwards to the Planning Inspectorate.
As regards the information requirements, again I come back to the National Planning Policy Framework document. Paragraph 193 states:
“Local planning authorities should publish a list of their information requirements for applications, which should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals and reviewed on a frequent basis. Local planning authorities should only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question”.
I do not think that anyone could disagree with that; yet somehow we are trying to redefine that in this Bill when we have already cleared out past policy and made it very clear.
My local authority is very aware that if Section 106 agreements do not work or are not working, they should be up for review. I take absolutely the instance that what that should not do—but what it risks doing—is, as has just been said, to make the bad deals done by developers in the past somehow too big to fail. The moral hazard issue comes back there. In terms of Clause 24, I find it very concerning in that here we are dealing with the major infrastructure planning regime that we went through in the 2008 Act under the previous Government. Perhaps unlike some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I strongly believe that some national projects—perhaps on energy or transport—did not fit well into local planning and that there needed to be an alternative approach. I get very concerned when that now could apply to commercial and industrial developments, which by their nature have a local basis. I believe that there are a number of dangers here.
In terms of planning at the local authority level, we should decide that if it is broken we should not put another infrastructure above it but should fix the problem where it is at the moment. In particular, we should give the National Planning Policy Framework time to work. Where are we at the moment? As far as I am aware, we have not had even one neighbourhood plan agreed. Yet we have that balance between local communities being able to produce their own plans and having to make sure that they do not opt out of all the obligations of a community but have to tie up with the broader local plan, which I think is the right balance. We have not given it time to be implemented. As to bad planning decisions and whether they are made by the national inspectorate or are outside the community’s control, we are stuck with them for decades once we have made them. That, too, is an issue we have to remember.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the proportion of land that is industrialised or developed at the moment, which is relatively low. On one point I particularly agreed with him: even in rural areas—the NPPF does this—we have to be aware that there is proper development. I believe that the NPPF already does that. I suggest to the Government that an area they really want to look at is something like vexatious judicial reviews on planning, which can happen through very rich, narrow interest groups that are trying to stop community developments. Perhaps the three-month limit should be reduced.
The main thing that I will say is that I am a complete convert to the Government’s planning policy. I just wish that this Bill would conform to their own views on planning for the future.
Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, I have a completely different take on the National Planning Policy Framework from the previous speaker. Our present—perhaps I should say pre-existing—planning system had its inception in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was enacted by the post-war Labour Government. But planning in the UK has had a far longer history.
The 1947 Act was inspired, in large measure, by such advocates of town and country planning as Octavia Hill, Henrietta and Samuel Barnett, and Ebenezer Howard, but the line of descent extends back at least to the Welsh social reformer Robert Owen. The history of planning is closely aligned with that of the socialist movement. However, that has not prevented some in the Conservative Party honouring the early protagonists of planning.
In a recent speech, delivered at the annual conference of the Town and Country Planning Association, Planning Minister Nick Boles extolled the virtues of this long tradition. He described the planning system as a means by which villages, parishes and other neighbourhoods can take control of their future and decide for themselves how and where development should take place. Here there was surely an allusion to the Conservatives’ localism agenda. Of course, this is not the principal virtue of our planning system. Our planning system is a means by which the conflicting interests of diverse parties on a national, regional and local level can be reconciled in an orderly manner within a rational framework and in a way that might help to preserve or enhance our urban and rural environments.
Notwithstanding the acknowledgements of the Planning Minister, it is undoubtedly true that in the perception of many Conservative politicians the planning system is tainted by socialism and is therefore the object of much thoughtless criticism. The planning system’s careful provisions and restraints are characterised as so much red tape to be cut through, to release debris that can be swept away vigorously. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, which is a precursor to the planning and innovation Bill, is a product of this Conservative mentality and gives a good indication of the equivocation and confusion to which that mentality can give rise.
A boast that was proclaimed by the previous Conservative Planning Minister, Greg Clark, in his introduction to the document issued in March 2012 by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is that the National Planning Policy Framework has replaced more than 1,000 pages of guidance and regulations with 50 pages, written simply and clearly, that are aimed at allowing people and communities to participate in the business of planning. In the main, the nostrums of the National Planning Policy Framework are unexceptional, and some are even laudable in a manner that befits a Government who, at the outset, declared their intention to be the greenest Administration ever.
On the strength of the text, it might seem that the Conservatives have absorbed the ethos of town and country planning and that they are intent on making it their own. However, the words of the document are an utter deception. Its real import is contained in a mere two pages of an annexe, which lists the 44 planning documents that are replaced by the new planning framework. The two pages are evidence of an extraordinary act of vandalism. A set of sophisticated and carefully crafted documents, which have provided policy guidance in many specific circumstances and have been developed and refined over the past 25 years, have been tossed into the rubbish bin, to be replaced by 50 pages of vacuous pieties.
The atavistic attitudes of the Conservatives have come to the fore in the Bill that we are considering, which is remarkable for the way in which it represents the Conservative mythologies regarding the planning system. The Bill proposes to promote investment in infrastructure projects and reduce delays in the planning system. Under the proposals, many infrastructure projects will be referred to the Secretary of State rather than to local planning authorities, supposedly in order to expedite the progress of those projects. This extraordinary and high-handed measure will give arbitrary and exorbitant powers to the Minister and represents a complete reversal of the Government’s localisation agenda.
In a manner that is reminiscent of the Government’s attack on supposed benefit scroungers, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, is proposing to target recalcitrant councils and planning authorities with special measures. However, when challenged to name any such authorities or to declare the criteria against which they might be judged, he has not been forthcoming. No evidence has been provided to show that the planning process is imposing costs or delays on private developers that are not justified by the protection of the public interest.
Merrick Cockell, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association, has recently demolished the idea that planning regulations are inhibiting the building of houses. As we have heard, Cockell pointed to the fact that 400,000 plots across England and Wales already have planning permission, which is enough to last for three years at the current rate of construction. He has indicated that the problem lies not in the planning process but in financing. Developers cannot borrow money to start building homes, and potential homeowners cannot get mortgages. Nor are the developers willing to proceed before they can see a prospect of increasing house prices.
The Bill will also allow planning obligations relating to affordable housing, established under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to be renegotiated and, in effect, suspended, with the aim of making development more profitable to construction companies. It is extraordinary to be contemplating such a measure at a time when we need affordable housing in a way that has never been more acute. One is reminded of the fact that, in a previous period of prolonged economic distress, the 1930s, local authorities were actively encouraged by central government to provide affordable housing on a large scale, in the form of so-called council houses. A policy of this sort is something that the present Government are unable to contemplate.
Of course, housing is not the only concern of the Bill. Many national projects such as airports, power stations and railways are to be taken into account. In this connection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, is on record as expressing his regret that we cannot proceed in the manner of China, which is to ride roughshod over all interests that might be adversely affected by such projects. However, it is not on account of unconquerable opposition that this country is failing to proceed with the major projects that are necessary for the revival and maintenance of its prosperity. In every one of these connections, it is the Government’s failure of political will that is at fault. The Government are fearful of the effect on their electoral prospects that the pursuit of such projects might have. Surely it is only by reconciling conflicting interests via a vigorous planning system, involving proper compensation of disadvantaged parties, that such major infrastructure projects can be pursued to the advantage of all of us.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Local Government Association, which represents local planning authorities, and as chair of the Hanover Housing Association, which seeks planning consent for numerous housing projects for older people.
In terms of the Bill’s main policy objective—to promote economic growth and remove barriers to development of infrastructure and new housing—I must express my full support. In particular, I greatly welcome the Government’s ambition to secure more housebuilding at this time when the output of new homes is at its lowest level since the early 1920s, despite a far higher population today that is living far longer. This pathetic level of housebuilding is creating enormous strains on the lives of almost all those in their 20s and 30s who wish to leave their parental home. I strongly commend the robust stance of the Minister for Planning, Nick Boles. With backing from all parts of the coalition Government, this Minister is prepared to speak out for the generation which the rest of us seem determined to condemn to paying huge proportions of their income in rents or, for those few who can raise large deposits in mortgage payments, to commuting long distances to match a home that they can afford with a job that they can secure, or to living in severely overcrowded conditions or even experiencing homelessness.
The Bill seeks to ensure that inhibitions on housing providers—housing associations and housebuilders—do not perpetuate the huge shortfalls between the number of new households formed each year, which is around 250,000, and the number of new homes built each year, which is less than 125,000. It is essential to address this vast gap between supply and demand that is accumulating year by year and creating a national housing deficit that will take even longer to eradicate than the nation’s financial deficit.
I feel particularly warmly towards a Minister who is prepared to take a stand on the need for more new homes because I know that this is not a road to electoral popularity. His robust stance is desperately needed, but it always meets entrenched vocal opposition. I appreciated the way that Charles Moore, previously editor of the Daily Telegraph, summarised this recently in the Spectator, with special reference to rural areas. He said:
“Only in Britain—only, actually, in England—do people believe they are doing country life a good turn by refusing to build houses for the next generation to inhabit. It is a more powerful attack on rural culture and the rural poor than were the Highland Clearances”.
Almost no one votes for new housebuilding in their area, let alone for new roads or other infrastructure. Over recent decades, I have had dealings with virtually all the relevant Housing and Planning Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of course. They have usually been keen to see housing shortages reduced but have been overwhelmed by opposition to development. During Ministers’ tenure, which is seldom more than a couple of years, there is time to become unpopular by taking a pro-development line but not time enough to see any meaningful results. The problem therefore passes to the next Minister and the accumulating housing deficit grows larger.
I congratulate the Government and the leadership of their Planning Minister on giving this problem a high priority and on trying to ensure that the current output of new homes is not exacerbated by bureaucratic barriers and defects in the planning system. Do I believe that easing planning delays or reducing demands by planners will lead inexorably to a return to housebuilding levels equivalent to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, or even the 1930s? No, it will take more than a few tweaks to planning to make real progress, but I greatly welcome the Government’s new can-do, must-do approach to reducing the housing deficit.
Turning to points of detail in the Bill, perhaps I could briefly put down some markers—positive and negative—on matters that I hope we will debate when the Bill moves into Committee. First, there are concerns throughout local government about the Government’s fall-back provisions to bypass those local planning authorities that are deemed to be failing in their duties. We will need to look at those measures with very great care, as several other noble Lords have said. Secondly, there is the welcome measure to prevent abuses of the town and village green legislation. That will get my full support, having experienced at first hand the frustrations, expense and delays of ridiculous applications for so-called village greens; for example, for one of about 50 acres on the edge of York. Thirdly, I was pleased to see the measures for easing inhibitions on selling land at below market value, which will be important.
Fourthly, there are the proposals for modifying or removing the requirements for affordable housing, agreed between local planning authorities and housebuilders. I am unable to help the Government on that. These Section 106 agreements have been hugely valuable in achieving much needed rented and shared-ownership homes, almost always with ownership and management being transferred to a housing association. They mean that so-called social housing is provided within mixed-tenure developments, not in segregated, separated ghettos just for those on the very lowest incomes. The cost of those obligations on housebuilders has been reflected in the price that those builders negotiate with landowners, and communities have benefited by obtaining more affordable homes without the public subsidy that would otherwise be needed.
Local planning authorities should not lightly give up the benefits that they have secured through those extremely important Section 106 agreements. Of course, housebuilders would like to increase their profitability by being let off commitments that they have made. Perhaps foolishly, they paid over the odds for sites, speculating on further price rises that never happened. Now they want to be bailed out for the mistakes that they made. How galling would it be for more prudent developers to see those who outbid them for sites being rewarded for their gamble by being let off the obligations to which they had signed up? However, in some cases prices have fallen significantly, as in Northern Ireland, although the Section 106 agreements do not apply there.
It would be better for the wider community to forego the benefits of some affordable housing in return for keeping some housebuilding going. Local authorities have shown themselves willing to act flexibly in these cases and the LGA has provided lots of examples of councils being sympathetic and sensible, not that authorities should make such concessions too readily. A number of major housebuilders have seen much improved profits of late; indeed, house prices have risen in London and elsewhere. Developers may not be holding back on building on the sites with planning consent—there are 440,000 homes on those sites—for reasons related to Section 106 agreements. Rather, they are waiting for confidence to return to the market with, once again, buyers clamouring to buy.
Meanwhile, undeveloped sites remain valuable. They fortify balance sheets and convince shareholders of the housebuilder’s worth. Holding land—hoarding land, as some would say—can be good business. The worst outcome from the Bill’s measure on easing planning obligations for affordable housing would be to encourage developers to sit on their hands and await an easing of requirements so that when market pressures are so extreme that they can sell everything they build easily, profits will be magnified. Any deals must clearly involve a requirement on the developer to get building immediately. Obviously that part of the Bill can be only about the past—about deals done in better times—and the signal should not go out that there will be any reduction in the obligations on housebuilders to include proper levels of affordable housing in all new developments in future.
Councils must not be sent into negotiations and renegotiations of Section 106 agreements with their hands tied and with what is, I hope, a false expectation hanging over them that the Government will support less affordable housing in the months and years ahead. However, I note that the Planning Minister has already announced an important change; namely, to exclude so-called exception sites in rural areas from this provision. This amendment was raised by the housing expert and former Housing and Planning Minister, Nick Raynsford, in the other place and it bodes well that, despite political differences, the Government have taken this on board.
I hope that there will also be the opportunity in Committee to consider other measures not yet in the Bill that could help to achieve the much needed increase in housebuilding which so many of us desire; for example, allowing a local authority to borrow prudentially and raising the cap for borrowing for the housing revenue account to support development—no doubt in partnership with housing associations and housebuilders— could stimulate a great deal of new construction, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others have advocated. In removing blockages I would also like to see the removal of the need for a local, potentially wrecking, referendum where a neighbourhood plan has been agreed by the county council, the district council, the parish council, an independent assessor and more.
In Second Reading terms, I welcome the intentions of the Bill and applaud Ministers’ willingness to confront the national housing deficit. Important improvements to the Bill must emerge from our deliberations. Our Minister, the noble Baroness, helped us to make so many worthwhile changes to the Localism Bill and I am sure that we will be able to do the same this time.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, listening to the many excellent contributions to this Second Reading debate, I thought I would read again the Long Title of the Bill. I see how it can cover a multitude of different subjects. If I were feeling a little wicked, I could think of an enormous number of amendments to table on any conceivable subject that would probably be allowed under this title. Of course, I shall not. Perhaps it can be construed as a curate’s egg—some good and some bad. We have heard about many things that concern me, led by many colleagues on these Benches and by my noble friend Lord Adonis. However, I shall concentrate on one part of the Bill, the planning of major projects, which comes under the “good but not enough” category.
In her opening remarks, the Minister said that the intention of the Bill was to reduce the delays to major projects, which I fully support. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. That is a laudable intention. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spoke enthusiastically about how the recent changes to the planning system had helped a lot. I submit that cost, time and delay for such projects are still very real problems. They reflect rather badly compared with the processes that appear to take place in some other member states, such as France, Germany and others, which were summarised in a report by Infrastructure UK a year or two ago as well as in the McNulty report on the railways.
I start with the planning Acts, which established a new regime for authorising nationally significant infrastructure projects. That regime was intended to provide a unified and more efficient decision-making process for the important projects that we are talking about. I welcome that. Early experience has shown that things are going reasonably well but that more improvements need to be made, particularly as regards an efficient and unified consents process and in moving towards a sort of one-stop shop for developers.
Some amendments have been proposed to the Bill but I suggest that one or two more are necessary and desirable to further reduce all the things, such as delays, costs, uncertainty, that affect developers. The one-stop shop idea is good but it has subsequently been changed so that the final decision on projects is taken by Ministers rather than the Infrastructure Planning Commission. This introduces yet another problem, which is that of timing. The IPC, or the PINS project which follows on from it, is supposed to take a maximum of one year, which is perfectly reasonable. However, there are two problems.
The first is what happens pre-application and the second is the time taken for a ministerial decision at the end. At the moment, the pre-application process seems to leave the applicant for a development consent order rather on his own. There have been one or two examples recently of applications being rejected due to the lack of involving the transport or planning authorities, so there is an argument for saying that it might be useful if the Planning Inspectorate and the examining inspectors had more involvement in and control over programme management, in a case oversight role, at the pre-application stage. I hope we could look at that further in Committee.
At the other end of the process is the time taken for a ministerial decision. The best example of this is an intermodal logistics terminal site in beautiful Radlett in Hertfordshire, which is at an old airfield that the developer applied to turn into a logistics centre. I think he has been at it for 10 years and how many tens of millions, or more, have been spent is not clear. It went through two public inquiries and a judicial review; finally, before Christmas, the Minister made the decision to allow the project to go ahead. This is the problem when things get political.
Some five or six years ago the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said to me, “You are involved in rail freight. I live in Radlett and I do not really want this thing on my doorstep”. I said, “Well, perhaps you would like to meet the developer, who might be able to persuade you that not every truck going into the terminal will knock the hanging baskets of Radlett as it goes past because there will be access from the motorway”. Radlett is a politically difficult constituency because both the Tories and the Lib Dems believe that they should represent it in Parliament and neither want a nasty development in their backyard. Things have moved on since then. I had thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of such developments, but apparently not in their backyard. Anyway, two public inquiries and one JR later, the project is going ahead but at what cost? It is a pretty bad example of how our planning system works, or does not work.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, we now have the idea that the Planning Inspectorate should be given extra projects to look at; perhaps 10 or 15 more are in the pipeline. But apart from whether the people in the inspectorate are the right ones to do this work, are they suddenly going to have the resources for it? If they do not, there will be problems. This is something we will need to reflect on during the later stages of the Bill.
I have two other issues to mention briefly. The first relates to Clauses 22 and 23, which would remove the special parliamentary procedure from certain types of project. My concern is that the availability of such processes will be removed from railway and ports infrastructure. These both consist of pretty critical infrastructure projects for the UK so there is a strong argument for saying that if there is a real problem requiring a special parliamentary process it should still be allowed—although probably by reducing its scope to only those issues that are relevant to the concerns raised, rather than revisiting the entire planning application.
My final issue concerns something that is not in the Bill, but which I hope will be if Ministers accept it later, and which has been brought to my attention by Transport for London. TfL is trying to develop a new road tunnel under the Thames at Silvertown which is to have a road-user charge attached to it. As part of the development consent order requirements, TfL has discovered that it has to build toll booths and big toll plazas. It is not allowed to bring in what might be called automatic road-user charging because of the detail that would be required in the DCO for the project. We could say, “Well, it’s one tunnel in east London, so what does it matter? Dartford tunnel used to have charges”, and so on. But apparently the Government will introduce new toll roads soon. The A14 has been talked about. The Birmingham northern relief road has a toll on it and I believe that the operator, the Macquarie group, can charge what it likes for any type of traffic for the next 50 years or so.
It would be useful if the Government could look at the wider policy here. They are talking about road-user charging for trucks nationwide, but I think they are going down the wrong road by introducing the charges on a time rather than a distance basis. We have the congestion charge in London and perhaps in some other places. If each new road being built might have a different system for tolling, we are going to look extremely stupid within the next 10 years. I am told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like the idea of distance-based road tolling because it might affect him driving up the M1 by his having to pay more. I hope that that is not the real reason and that in future stages of the Bill we can see whether a DCO really needs to specify what type of collection is used for a project, if it is to be tolled.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I should first declare my interests. I chair the National Housing Federation, the voice of housing associations in England. I also chair the strategic partnership of the private sector with Cornwall Council and the Homes and Communities Agency charged with delivering eco-communities in the St Austell area. Further, I make the case for good planning and sustainable development in various fora, not least to the previous Labour Government on their review of rural planning in relation to housing and business, and more recently the current review of planning guidance for the Government, which I also chair.
However, my real interest lies in meeting the needs of the people of this country, in particular families and the next generation of people who need homes that they can afford and that meet their needs in the places where they live and work. This means that I have a deep interest in great planning because I believe that it is through planning that we will deliver homes in ways that meet our environmental needs and acknowledge the sensitivities of villages, market towns and other communities which do not want to be wrecked by poor development. That means that I am a strong believer in planning, not as rationing, a tick-box process of approval, or an endless argument over the next 50 houses, but as a way of raising our eyes to meeting the needs that we see coming over the next one or two decades in far more imaginative ways than that.
As we heard earlier, the origins of planning, such as the garden city movement and the 1945 Act were not about rationing. I am not one of those who believe that our planning system is not at fault; we have had a system of rationing and not one of great design and place-making, by and large. That is why I strongly welcomed the NPPF and, along with many other individuals and organisations, participated in trying to get it right. I am delighted that right across the board, organisations that had in many cases expressed great concerns about earlier drafts of the NPPF, welcomed the product that was delivered. I am talking about those concerned about the environment, great planning, development and the delivery of housing. I see the NPPF as an essential compact between local communities and national policy. The national policy is clear: we need to meet the needs that I have described and to do so in a way that is sustainable. It must unlock both economic growth and the need for homes. The compact is that it then requires local communities both to assess that need locally and decide how to meet the need locally.
It was sometimes misunderstood in the early days that localism was somehow about local authorities doing whatever they wanted; if they did not want to have development, they did not have to have it. But they have to meet the needs of their community, which must be right. They assess it and are given the responsibility of delivering on it. We are at a crucial stage in this process because many local authorities have resisted the scale of development to meet their needs. It is always unpopular to deliver new homes to those who already have a home. A lot of people do not want development if they are okay, but increasingly even they are saying that their own children are being priced out of a home. They see that the person serving them in the shop or working in the school cannot afford a home in their community. We have seen a transformation of attitudes in many villages and we are starting to see that transformation in many market towns, too. However, they still want a development that works, is well designed and does not ruin what is there already. I believe that the NPPF describes that extremely well. We have to see that now delivered in the local plan-making process, but I am not yet convinced that all local authorities have either understood their responsibilities or seized the opportunities for great planning that is implicit in that policy.
My question is: does this Bill help to deliver those things that I have just described at this crucial stage in the NPPF process? There I have doubts in part. Let us be blunt; I have been here for most of the debate and I do not think that anyone has yet said that this Bill was produced and cobbled together with all sorts of things to fill a gap because Lords reform was not in front of us. There was a space in the agenda and things were cobbled together, some of which are hugely useful—stuff that might not have happened otherwise, and I shall come on to that. Other things would frankly have been better kept in the box. They would have been had there not been this big gap and a space, which I shall come to, as briefly and as quickly as I can.
If Clause 1, referring to poorly performing councils, were so crucial we would have seen it before. The reason why it is not so crucial is because the powers are already there. Undue delay gives the right of appeal; bad decision-making can be called in, as can issues of national importance. The powers are broadly there, so what is this about? It is clearly about a big stick to wave around and threaten councils, saying, “You have to get on with the tasks outlined in the NPPF”. Ministers, of course, are also saying, “It will hardly apply to anyone; in fact, we hope that it won’t apply to anyone at all”. So, it is just a bit of flag waving, if we believe that; or it is a complete reversal of the process of localism that the Government have set out, which I supported, in the NPPF.
If this is about timeliness, it is simply unnecessary. If it is about bad decisions, I am not convinced that nationalising it is the way to go. I believe that there may need to be special measures with some councils of all sorts, but one of the biggest special measures is the process of adopting a local plan. They have to persuade people that that local plan is right and if they do not, the principles of the NPPF—the presumption in favour of sustainable development—kick in anyway. One has to ask whether this is really necessary, much as I understand the bit of flag waving that may lie behind it.
However, I believe that Clause 5 is needed; it provides that the information requested should be relevant and necessary to the decision. I feel very strongly about this. The planning guidance review I conducted meant wading through 7,000 pages of an almost entirely out-of-date, wildly contradictory and in many cases unnecessary layering of guidance within which were absolutely essential pieces of guidance. One of the key things said by the group as a whole—which included people working within the environment to those working on housebuilding—was that we need to help both developers and councils with issues of proportionality. There is concern in local authorities to ask for as much information as possible to ensure that their appraisals and assessments cannot be challenged at judicial review, but equally, large developers can layer on all sorts of appraisals because they can afford to do so. They are applying for supermarkets all over the country and can defray their costs, knocking out the medium-sized guys and the local builders who cannot afford to do that. They ratchet up the requirement because if they have done it for their supermarket proposal, or housing development, somebody else will do it for theirs. Talking about what is proportionate and reasonable is essential. I am not certain that it needs to be in legislation; it could be in guidance, but I am prejudiced as I have just done all that work on guidance, so I would think that. Nevertheless, I think that that principle is right.
We then come to Clause 6 on the modification of Section 106. Time is running out, so I shall try to be quick. The first essential point is that we should not see affordable housing as somehow the bit at the end after we have done everything else. Why is affordable housing more arguable or negotiable than the transport, density or all sorts of other requirements that may have been put on the development, and now CIL too? Affordable housing is not somehow the residual. If there is a residual, it should be the profit to the landowner who has benefited from the planning permission and the huge escalation of the value of the land. Of course, we are talking about deals that have been done, and the first thing that should happen is that the deal should be looked at by the developer. If it is an option, the option should be renegotiated. I accept that in some cases we need to look at this again, but it should be drawn more widely than simply Section 106 affordable housing. Unlike the private sector, housing associations do not hold land banks. Some of the demands for affordable housing were excessive and unrealistic, but if we surrender it in a blanket way we do not have a way of making it up.
I have two suggestions. The Government announced, at the same time as this, some hundreds of millions of pounds to make up the shortfall in the housing that is lost. Why is that not the first stage rather than the option of appeal and trying to get out of the obligation? Why is the HCA not the first port of call for a discussion on whether it should use some of the hundreds of millions of pounds to help the developer unlock the site and deliver the affordable housing he agreed to in the first place, not least because that is what the community was told it was getting? The land may have been released specifically because there would be affordable housing. We should start with the HCA which can assess viability. It would be better at assessing viability in PINs as the HCA negotiates on sites all the time. Only then should there be the right of appeal if the developer is not happy, but they should lose any offer that the HCA may have made for money. You can have the money to deliver your affordable housing, if you have persuaded us of it, but if you appeal you will lose the offer. That way, we will not have the hold-up that is likely to occur with appeals happening all over the country.
The village green change is important, but I made a recommendation on this in the Taylor review in 2008 and have to ask whether it would be better to have a simple weeding out at the first stage when village green applications are made as to whether they have a reasonable case before going through the whole process, rather than the trigger of an application. My worry about the trigger is that many communities will only realise at the point of an application that their community land, which they have accessed for years, is under threat. However, worse than that, this policy may trigger a whole lot of village green applications to go in, on the possibility that there might later be an application for development on the site, in which case PINs and the Government will be entirely bogged down in the process that they have just invented in a counterproductive way. I have many other things I could say on this subject but I will stop there.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, of course I support steps in favour of growth and the employment that it should bring. But does this Bill cope with our current economic malaise? I do not think so. The first part of the Bill, as we know, gives the Minister the power to remove from local planning authorities the ability to decide planning operations. Why is that? Planning applications will thus bypass local communities. At present, local communities are involved. In my area, there is local consultation; I am involved in such a consultation at the moment. We believe that this should continue. The Government claim to be in favour of localism, so why interfere with local arrangements that already exist via elected local authorities? In the countryside, as we know, this could well involve threats to the local environment.
There is no indication that these arrangements will improve the availability of social housing. In London and the south-east, there is a crisis of affordable housing and the Bill does little about that. In fact, the section on affordable housing is so complicated that it is likely to make the provision much more difficult. The right to buy council housing was fine for some, but nothing was done to replace the affordable housing that became privatised as a result. House prices are so high that they have put mortgages out of the reach of many young people and private renting is also quite desperately expensive. There was of course a housing crisis in the years following the Second World War, because of the bombing, and it is interesting to recall how subsequent Governments, both Labour and Conservative, dealt with it at the time. There was a campaign to build cheap housing—the so-called prefabs —many of which still exist. There was also a restriction on the level of rents, with rent tribunals to which recourse could be made if there was overcharging. Rents were thus kept within the range of affordability for ordinary wage earners. Without those policies, many would have been rendered homeless—in fact, most were not.
The Bill before the House does not tackle the problems of the housing market; nor does it give a necessary boost to the construction industry. Indeed, other government legislation under consideration by the House—the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—actually has a clause undermining health and safety at work law, which would make inherently dangerous work even more dangerous for the workers involved in construction.
Unfortunately, the Bill now before us follows what has become a normal course with this Government: employment rights of any kind are viewed as something to be undermined or removed. Hence, businesses are to be allowed to buy the rights of workers, to slash them: “Beecroft by the back door”, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has already said from the Front Bench. I absolutely agree with him. However, it will not work. The Government seem to hope that unions will disappear, but they will not. A sensible approach would be to realise that economic recovery needs the support of workers and their unions. Removing hard-fought-for rights will not achieve this.
Moreover, any plans for growth must include a plan to rebalance our economy by a government campaign to boost manufacturing industry. Many areas have a great deal of unemployment because the factories and workshops that once provided employment, often for skilled workers, no longer exist. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, made reference to this. He, too, is in favour of a more balanced economy. My union, Unite, has been involved in the development of the Automotive Council, which has worked with employers to promote the motor industry, the supply chain, and the training and skills of the workforce. As a result, the industry is doing relatively well.
There are issues that must be dealt with if growth is to become a reality rather than simply rhetoric uttered by government Ministers. It involves co-operation with the workers and their unions, rather than attempts to remove hard-won employment rights as proposed in the Bill before us today.
Lord True
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a London borough council which is also a planning authority. I will not follow the noble Baroness opposite on Clause 27, but will say that I hope my Front Bench listened to the brilliant and humane speech made on this subject by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. I share the objectives set out in the title of the Bill, although perhaps the PR people might wish that the title had been preserved for something that goes a little further towards the great leap forward than the contents of this Bill.
From the start, we heard eloquent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tope, about their fears that centralism was creeping back. It is impossible to deny that that feeling has been very strong in this House throughout the debate and I share it. However, I will confine my comments to certain of the planning aspects of the Bill and will not go over the whole ground, because I recently troubled your Lordships with some detailed comments on the ideas put forward, rather suddenly, lately by Mr Boles. Some of those ideas are in the Bill but others, such as those relating to the protection of our suburban environment and permitted development in back gardens, are not currently included in the Bill and are intended to be the subject of secondary legislation. However, they are clearly in the scope of the Bill, given the long title relating to the carrying out of development and the Government’s own provisions on reforming PDOs in Clause 4.
I have not lost hope of persuading the Government to drop this—in my view—foolish plan, which is wholly irrelevant to growth, to extend rights to building in back gardens without the need for planning consent. I do not understand why my Government want to set neighbour against neighbour in this way or side with those who do not wish to play according to the rules. Removing such local controls, as is being proposed, and then saying you will let them be reintroduced in a far more costly and cumbersome way by use of Article 4, seems a very bizarre way to proceed. It smacks rather of the old ways of the 17th century, when the Government passed legislation but the Crown said that certain people did not need to adhere to it. If there is no sense in it, I hope my noble friend will agree it should be dropped or at least consider methods to allow local authorities to opt in to any changes the Government may propose and so leave the decision as a local one. If I cannot, in the course of the Bill, persuade the Government to change their mind on this, I must give notice that at a later stage I will consider laying my own amendment to enable your Lordships to express a view on whether unrestricted development in back gardens of this kind should be allowed. “Unrestricted” is not quite the correct word—“greatly derestricted”, perhaps.
Consultation on these proposals closed on 24 December —always a suspicious date, in my mind, for consultations to end. Can my noble friend, in responding, say when the Government’s response will be published? Ideally, this should be before Committee stage, but certainly in good time before Report, to enable proper consideration of this outside the very restricted and unamendable procedures of secondary legislation.
On permitted development, I am grateful to my noble friend for indications she has given in relation to points that I and other local authority leaders have made about the freer change of use from employment to residential, especially in parts of London and other cities, where there is limited employment and commercial space and the scope for creating it is restricted. So I also ask my noble friend to indicate whether, before we reach Clause 4, she will say how the Government intend to address this concern, for which they have expressed sympathy. I would welcome a chance to discuss that with her in her usual open manner.
Like many others who have spoken, I am not a great enthusiast for Clause 1. It certainly is a setback for localism. Like others, I can see the attractions to central government of a potential stick with which to hit the worst-performing authorities, whoever they are—we will hear that shortly, I understand. We are told that its use will be limited. In fact, the unelected Planning Inspectorate could be absolutely overwhelmed by this legislation if a future Government took Clause 1 powers to their potential end. As it legislates, the House should understand that while this Government may intend to restrict the use of this, a future Government could extend it by waving an unamendable wand in secondary legislation. I am also interested in the point raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about how a planning authority will be able to get out and be disgorged from this position.
I welcome the provisions on disposal of land, which are a great step forward. The small provision on stopping-up orders is very welcome. I disagree with some of those who have opposed the question of acting on village green applications. I very much welcome the Government’s action here. Some have expressed concern about precisely how this would operate, and we can look at that in Committee. Certainly, no one wishes to weaken village green protection but there have quite clearly been abuses of such powers by campaigners against development in some places and the Bill points towards finding the right balance.
I also understand the Government’s wish, expressed in Clause 5, to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy in relation to requests for information. That is a perfectly reasonable aspiration. However, good decisions require good evidence and accurate information. As has recently been said, many of us thought that this had been addressed in the NPPF; paragraph 193 was quoted and is very clear on this subject. My fear is that, perversely, this clause may lead to more confusion and, worse than that, recourse to the courts as the emerging definition is tested through review. If that happens, it will be precisely at the time when we want the Bill to work in order to encourage growth, and there is a risk that we may encourage more legislative action.
While I agree that bureaucracy should be avoided, what I miss in this Bill is a recognition that much of the delay in the development process comes not from local authorities but from others in the planning process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said. For example, I could cite the cumbersome process of judicial review, on which I greatly welcome the current consultation launched by my right honourable friend Mr Grayling, and indeed the often time-consuming requests and slow responses from statutory undertakings. Try getting information from the lower ranks of some of our statutory undertakings in relation to implementation of conditions, or indeed whether they wish to exercise rights as statutory consultees. There are many other sources of delay in the process, and if this clause is to stay, perhaps the Bill can be amended at a later stage to address some of those other issues, rather than just bashing planning officers.
On the subject of statutory undertakings, like others, I do not support the sweeping provisions in Clause 8 on broadband boxes. Of course we need good infrastructure. Local authorities are actually friends, not enemies, of this. But do the Government understand how unpopular many activities of statutory undertakings are, how unaccountable, and the great cost to the economy that arises from their frequent wilful refusal to negotiate and poorly co-ordinated action between them? Removing totally the need to negotiate reasonable sites with representatives of local communities will lead to wholly capricious, absurd and illogical outcomes —as I have shown my noble friend’s honourable friend the Minister in photographs—such as pavements obstructed to the disabled or boxes placed in front of listed facades and free-standing on greens when they could quite easily have been placed nearby.
If this clause is not to be omitted, it would benefit from amendment to impose on the undertakings a reasonable duty to consult local and other competent authorities in conservation areas, parks and other places of outstanding beauty. Quite frankly, most of these issues could be sorted out in a day or two by two competent project managers, one from the regulatory authority and one from the undertaking, rather than what I fear we have: well paid directors going off to the Treasury to mutter in the ears of officials and be rewarded with a free hand.
To conclude, it is important that this Bill receives close examination in Committee. I have no doubt that it will. I hope I will be proved wrong that it seems based on a false prejudice that local authorities are an obstacle to growth rather than, as I believe, that the planning system is a method to secure orderly public consent to the kind of growth that we all wish to see.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I will start on a positive note. I believe that local authorities should be empowered to assist economic growth and should be allowed to borrow more money to build houses. They should have powers to deal with the 700,000 existing homes in England that are empty. They should also be able to work with a Government who are fully committed to localism. Unfortunately, there is very little in this Bill that will achieve these objectives. In fact, most of the proposals will reverse the previous commitment to localism.
In Clause 1, the Government want to give themselves plenipotentiary powers to overturn local authority decisions. Clause 1 creates an imagined obstacle to growth, in the form of planning delays, as the noble Lord, Lord True, has just said, and proceeds to focus on tackling that. The truth is, as has already been said, that there is a building backlog of 400,000 new homes with planning permission but yet to be built by developers. Approval for residential and commercial applications, as the Minister herself has said, are at a record 10-year high: 87% of applications were approved in 2011-12.
In a reversal of the emphasis given in the Localism Act, the Secretary of State has indicated that it is the job of the Government,
“to identify where some—very few—local planning authorities are failing to discharge their responsibilities to local people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 605.]
The definition of failing could catch many local authorities, which could appear on the list through no fault of their own, and could even cover those that have been specifically praised by this Government for their initiative. My response to how one interprets “failing to discharge their responsibilities” is that the council may actually be giving priority to the views of these local people rather than developers. I am not reassured that officials at the DCLG would be,
“putting an arm round those authorities that are beginning to get into the danger zone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 606.]
As we all know, there are different ways of “putting an arm round”. At worst, it will be a stranglehold; at best, a patronising reminder that the Government know best.
How sure can we be that the Planning Inspectorate will be sufficiently funded to take on the significant increase in workload, even if it was the right thing to do? My view is that this power in Clause 1 would undermine all local authorities, not just the “very few”, and would create delays and uncertainties as applicants find new and ingenious ways of avoiding their local responsibilities.
Clause 6 is an attack on affordable housing requirements set out in Section 106 agreements. Where is the evidence that this requirement alone is holding up planning applications? In the short term, this proposal will delay applications that are already in the pipeline as developers hold out for higher profit margins. I have said before that we need a proper debate about housing provision in this country. The terminology can be confusing: affordable housing, market value housing, council housing—even the Prime Minister managed to confuse affordable housing and council housing.
We have a serious situation in that there is insufficient money to lend for both mortgages and housing development, but this is not the first time that this has happened and it will not be the last. In a sense, it masks the real problem of houses and jobs needing to be in the same place. The previous Labour Government had a regional strategy. It may not have been 100% successful in every area, but at least it grasped the connection between economic development, jobs and housing. This Bill is dressed up as a plan for growth, but it is actually allowing 100 developers to blossom. I am not accusing the Minister of being a Maoist, incidentally, but her colleague in the House of Commons gave the game away when he said that he wanted local authorities to do,
“whatever it takes, pragmatically and practically, to ensure that homes are built”
To be fair, he also said that he wanted,
“mixed communities to remain a key theme; we do not want gated communities”.]
That is fair enough, but undermining Section 106 agreements is more likely to see those gates going up. The Minister wants local authorities to take responsibility instead of,
“fetishing an agreement which sets out a vague target”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 625.]
I try not to be diverted by the trend to use nouns as verbs, but as a fully paid-up English language pedant, I had to check out the word. As a noun, the word “fetish” is described as,
“an object regarded with superstitious trust or reverence”.
There is another alternative, which is,
“an object believed among a primitive people to have a magical power”.
I will not mention the one about bodily parts, but my point is that the Minister has painted a picture of a “very few pig-headed local authorities”—presumably these are the primitive people—not acting in the interest of their own people. Why not name them? Why not embarrass those very few pig-headed local authorities? Where is the evidence that this clause is necessary?
The Government have promised to deliver homes for first-time buyers and young families. In reality, they have increased the threshold for what can be called affordable rents to up to 80% of market rates and are now attempting to weaken the obligations on developers to build such housing. House prices are rising at three times the rate of wages. Now is really not the time to weaken the obligations that ensure that developers build affordable homes, not just homes for the wealthy.
Clause 24 postpones the business rate revaluation from 1 April 2015 to 1 April 2017. It must always be tempting for any Government to avoid taking potentially sensitive decisions which coincide with a general election. However, the postponement date will fall during council and other elections in 2017. Will that be another excuse not to bite the bullet? If this is a genuine attempt, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, to give time to discuss how business rates are set arising from the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act, will the Minister give an assurance that local councils as well as businesses will be fully consulted? Will the Government publish their full reasons for the postponement and have they taken fully into consideration the impact on retailers, pubs and manufacturers? Have the Government considered the unintended consequences of this postponement and the continuing injustices in the system—for instance, the level of assessment of out-of-town superstores, which is considered to be very low; the instability created where property values have fallen substantially; the increase in cases of evasion and the increase in home-based business—all of which will have a perverse impact on local authority income? Some evidence that these issues have been fully explored would be welcome.
Finally, I do not intend to say much about Clause 25 on shares for rights. I think John Cridland, the Director General of the CBI, had it about right when he said, “I think this is a niche idea”—not a nice idea—“and not relevant to all businesses”. I suspect that this niche is so small that you could grow a particularly rare variety of lichen in it. I do not know how the Government reconcile their proposal to require longer notice periods for return from maternity or adoption leave with the fact that they will retain anti-discriminatory employment rights. The Employee Ownership Association believes that employee ownership can be promoted without requiring a dilution of rights. I will not repeat what my noble friend Lord Adonis said about the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The consultation has been shambolic and the costings are a joke. I do not know whether this is a totem proposal to distract attention from other clauses in the Bill, but just in case it is not, will the Minister give us an indication of what safeguards there will be to ensure that the scheme is voluntary? Will jobseekers who choose not to take up such an offer be penalised in any way? The Minister’s response at Third Reading was less than reassuring. Will the noble Baroness give an assurance that this is not just a tax avoidance scam? Will she assure the House that the Exchequer will make money, not lose money, on this venture?
In conclusion, I look forward to Committee stage, when we will have the opportunity to examine these centralising proposals in more detail.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I draw the attention of noble Lords and others to my entries in the Register of Lords’ Interests. We are all only too well aware of the crisis precipitated by years of failure to build sufficient houses to meet the huge and growing demand. Housing starts slumped again in 2007 at the start of the recession. Noble Lords are well aware that household growth in England increases by approximately 240,000 per year, whereas fewer than 100,000 houses are being built. These problems date back many decades and there is now a massive accumulation of demand that has led to terrible stress for individuals and families. There is an estimated shortage of 2 million homes.
The first major problem to be overcome is finance. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to ensure that there are competitive and reasonable sources of finance for house purchase, especially for first-time buyers. I hope that this year mortgages will be easier to obtain with competitive rates and not such stringent deposit requirements, especially—again—for first-time buyers and young families. The main headline on the front page of yesterday’s Financial Times was,
“‘Massive Softening’ of Basel bank rules”.
It was reported that,
“global liquidity standards would be less onerous than expected and not be fully enforced until 2019, four years later than expected”.
This is encouraging. I also welcome the Government’s proposed new funding for affordable homes.
If the financial problems are beginning to be resolved, this leaves the difficulties that successive Governments have faced in dealing with the planning system. There are signs from the front line that local planning authorities are responding more optimistically and more positively to the dreadful shortage of housing. Local councillors are elected on a local, not a national mandate. It is very difficult for local planning authorities and councillors to respond to what are not only local but also national pressures. This is true especially in areas where the demand is particularly great, including London, the south-east, East Anglia and what I call the near and far south-west. The National Planning Policy Framework is assisting, and there has been some further impetus with the relaxation of planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential.
In rural areas, planning policy should also, in appropriate circumstances, allow for conversion of redundant agricultural and other buildings—I am talking about more modern buildings and what could be called rural brownfield sites—to residential use. Rural areas need houses, especially affordable ones. At present, an individual has to be wealthy to buy a house in much of rural England. I remind the House that wages for many in the rural areas of England are very low. Nevertheless, although there are signs of a more speedy and realistic response from planners, as my noble friend said when she opened this debate, there is still much to be done. We have a plan-led system. That is understood by professionals in the field. It should work well. Local plans should be produced expeditiously and time limits for consultation should be adhered to.
One matter that must be given more attention is housing need. It appears that with the demise of the regional spatial strategy each local authority will face the task of assessing housing need for its individual area. There must be a clear, intelligible and compelling basis for assessing that need. The underlying basis and calculation should and must be made publicly available, and should accord with publicly available national guidelines. In sensitive areas, there is always pressure on local councils and planning authorities to reduce the need figures. The measure of need must be robust and ensure that local authorities do not buckle under pressure and reduce the housing need for their areas. The robust measure of need, combined with a five-year supply and other rules, should ensure that we start to meet the massive pent-up demand for housing that, as I said, has built up over decades.
If planning authorities are to assess the need for housing in their areas, they must carry out that assessment openly, robustly and—as I have said before—within national guidelines. If a planning inspector at the core strategy consideration stage is not satisfied with the level of housing, he or she should not find the local plans sound. I hope that my noble friend will let me have some assurances on this matter when she winds up at the end of the debate. A sound local plan produced swiftly, with objective, robust housing need numbers and a formula that can be tested by potential applicants, is essential.
In the past the Secretary of State in the other place referred to “muscular localism”. I take it that that means, among other things, that local planning authorities should not be able to deny need and, if they do not have a five-year supply and cannot point to other more suitable sites, applications should in the main be granted. I am aware of analysis made by the Centre for Economics and Business Research that suggests that housebuilding, which sank to 95,000 units in 2010, could be boosted to 300,000 units annually by 2015. This would add some 201,000 extra permanent jobs in construction, and contribute £75 billion to GDP, or 5 percentage points to growth. Furthermore, it is estimated that this would reduce rents by nearly 11%. Housing would then become more affordable and the financial pressures on the working-age population would be substantially reduced.
I welcome the measures in the Bill to deal with existing planning consents that are now uneconomic. Some local authorities are already more realistic. I would hope that local authorities are being made aware that landowners already pay either capital gains tax or income tax on the proceeds of the sale of land for development. Furthermore, for many proprietors of small and medium-sized owner-managed businesses in this country, the sale of their premises, with or without planning permission for development, will be the basis of their pension. The self-employed do not have the benefit of, for example, generous public sector pensions or the pensions that are available to those who work for large corporations. I hope that the Minister will make the foregoing clear to planning authorities when they consider Section 106 agreements and the burdens to be imposed on developments. Further, I hope she will exhort local planning authorities to have a simple, straightforward measure of viability for development that is easily understood and implemented. For example, a small site of fewer than 15 houses should not, in these difficult economic times, have to bear substantial planning burdens.
There is not sufficient time to deal in detail with the community infrastructure levy, which could be yet a third-tier tax on house construction. I believe some local authorities have already introduced a community infrastructure levy and I know that the Government have set up a committee to review that levy. I remind the House of a previous episode in the chequered history of the taxation of development in this country. In approximately 1976, the then Government introduced the development land tax. At the cost of millions, a new tax office was set up in Middlesbrough, forms were produced and, if my memory serves me right, the rate of that development land tax was about 80%. That led to the absurd situation that, with capital gains tax or income tax for traders, the rate of tax was sometimes in excess of 100%. This led to a complete drying up of the supply of land. Attempts like this serve only to make housing more and more scarce and enrich further those lucky enough to be able to afford to own a house.
I welcome the Government’s proposals in relation to town and village greens. I hope my noble friend will give consideration also to the inclusion in the legislation of a clear right of appeal or challenge to a registration of a town or village green under the 2006 Act. The right of appeal should be designed to catch future and some past registrations. The registration authority—invariably the local authority—often appoints an expert to advise the registration authority, which is both judge and jury in the matter. It is contrary to the rules of natural justice to deny an appeal. I hope that the Government will consider introducing a mechanism for reviewing town and village greens registered under the Commons Act 2006 and over land already allocated for development or subject to an existing planning application. There is rightly a democratic process for formulating a local development plan, and if land has been allocated for development for a particular purpose, that process should not be overturned and changed by means of a town and village green application lodged at a late stage.
Finally on this matter, the Bill provides that an application should be stayed when land is allocated for development or when a valid planning application has been made in relation to the land. The stay would cease if the land were removed from allocation or if an existing planning application were withdrawn or refused. I hope my noble friend will give consideration to the stay becoming effective once the consultation draft of the local development plan is first published. This would effectively make the process subject to the more democratic processes that apply to emerging local plans.
Planning is a complex subject, and good intentions can often thwart and deny the possibility for many to find a reasonable house to buy or rent at a reasonable price. We need to balance the protection of the countryside with the legitimate need for housing of millions of our fellow citizens.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, on one particular theme: the question of democratic accountability and the role of Parliament. I will speak briefly about Clauses 22 and 23, which deal with special parliamentary procedure. I believe that I am right in saying that only the Minister in her introductory speech referred to these clauses in the debate this afternoon. I do so as one of three of your Lordships’ representatives who have served from last October, meeting virtually every Wednesday, on the Rookery South Joint Committee, with three Members from another place. We have considered petitions against an application from a company called Covanta to build a resource recovery facility—a waste disposal incinerator and power station generating electricity from burning refuse—in a former brickyard pit in Bedfordshire. Although we have one further meeting scheduled, on 16 January, the conclusions of the committee have been made known to all the parties, and I am therefore not breaching any confidences in speaking today about our deliberations.
My starting point is that if this Bill is enacted as it stands, there will be no more Joint Committees operating in the way that we have done on Rookery South, and as a result there will be significantly less parliamentary scrutiny in future.
SPP—special parliamentary procedure—was introduced by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. It is an additional procedure that must be followed when compulsory purchase is authorised under various enactments. It is triggered when what is called special land—local authority, statutory undertaker, commons and open spaces, and National Trust inalienable land—is acquired and the landowner objects.
SPP is not triggered very often, and in the majority of cases when it is, the orders are unopposed in Parliament. Since 1990, only three SPP orders, of which Rookery South is one, have been opposed and have had to be dealt with by a Joint Committee. Since 2000, 10 other SPP orders have gone through without opposition.
The 2008 Act set out a new procedure for authorising nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is achieved by the making of development consent orders by the Secretary of State, following examination of the order by an inspector. These can include powers of compulsory acquisitions, and, like CPOs under the 1981 Act, are subject to SPP if they allow the acquisition of special land.
Clause 22 of this Bill repeals Sections 128 and 129 of the 2008 Act. Subsection (1) will ensure that SPP will no longer apply in the case of the acquisition of local authority and statutory undertakers’ land. That is why the Rookery South order would not have been subject to SPP had these proposed repeals been made earlier.
Clause 23 in this Bill applies to all orders—not just development consent orders—that remain subject to SPP. So it will apply not only to nationally significant infrastructure projects but also, for example, to road schemes where public open space land is acquired compulsorily using the 1981 Act procedures.
When a compulsory purchase order or a development consent order provides for the compulsory acquisition of special land, the current position is that if certain conditions are met, the order is referred to special parliamentary procedure. Clause 23 will change that to the extent that in the case of a CPO of local authority, statutory undertaker or National Trust land, SPP will be triggered only if the owner objects to the acquisition of the land. As the law stands, SPP could be triggered if the owner objected to the order even if they did not object to the acquisition of the land.
The powers of Parliament, however, once the SPP process is under way, will change as a result of this Bill. The owner—or anyone else with sufficient interest—would still be able to petition against a CPO or DCO that was made subject to SPP and which authorised the acquisition of special land, but the scope of such a petition would be limited to that part of the order which authorised the compulsory acquisition of the land. As the law stands, a petition could be made against the whole order or any part of it.
The powers of the Joint Committee which would consider the order if there were petitions will be similarly limited. The committee could decide that the order be amended so as to remove or amend the power to acquire the special land, but it could go no further. At present, the committee could decide that the whole order should not proceed, or could amend parts of the order unrelated to the acquisition of the inalienable land. Similarly, the powers of each House to annul the order by resolution will change. Instead of being able to resolve to annul the whole order, the Houses will be able only to resolve to annul that part of the order which authorises the acquisition of the special land.
I apologise to your Lordships. This is a complicated point. I can see some noble Lords nodding, so I think they are following this. Had those changes already been made, it could have made a considerable difference to how the Rookery South order deliberations were conducted. I say “could have”, because the Joint Committee by majority vote decided that the promoters had no case to answer on the main petition lodged by the local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I both took the view that they had a case to answer. We both felt that it was necessary for the need for the new resource recovery facility to be proven, given convincing evidence that there was already sufficient capacity to deal with waste at existing plants within the stated catchment area.
The committee was told that the new facility would generate more than 1,100 heavy lorry movements per day, despite the fact that it is to be located adjacent to the Bedford to Bletchley railway line, and a feasibility study had demonstrated that a private rail siding could be constructed to bring in the waste by rail. Members of the committee saw the location for the rail access when we spent a day visiting the site and the surrounding area on 28 November. Unfortunately, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I were not able to convince a majority of our fellow members of the Joint Committee that issues needed to be considered. It is important that these matters should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In future, if Clause 23 remains in the Bill, that opportunity will be lost.
I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could advise me whether petitioners will still be able to raise issues which are not directly related to the acquisition of the land but are to do with the public interest. It has always been a central tenet of compulsory acquisition law that the applicant for the powers must demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily. Those words are contained in Section 122(3) of the Planning Act. In order for petitioners to demonstrate that there is no compelling case in the public interest, they should be able to bring evidence to bear about the benefits of the proposals as a whole, compared with the injury that they will suffer when losing their land.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to answer the points made by the Open Spaces Society, which is particularly concerned about Clause 22. It points out that the clause provides that, where an open space is threatened with a DCO and compulsory purchase and there is no suitable exchange land, or the exchange land is deemed too expensive, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government may himself decide that the DCO need not be subject to SPP. As the Open Spaces Society states in its submission, Parliament will no longer have the final say; its power is relinquished to the Executive.
Open space is any land,
“used for the purposes of public recreation”.
Therefore, according to the Open Spaces Society, the provision potentially puts at risk all open spaces enjoyed by the public, formally and informally. They include the many acres of land registered as access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Special parliamentary procedure is rarely invoked, so why do away with it? It is there as the final safeguard when people’s rights over open space are threatened, and when wider consideration needs to be given to major planning projects. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide good reasons why this change is needed. I am sure that we will return to this issue in Committee.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Government have been pursuing a strongly devolutionist agenda in England. The Localism Act established a range of devolved powers and provided a structure for enhanced borrowing powers to drive growth. City deals are passing powers from Whitehall to localities, a trend which will continue, with submissions for the second wave due shortly. Whitehall may sometimes know best, but it does not automatically do so. Because it is organised in departments, it is very difficult for it to focus geographically on a locality. Mostly, it is too far away anyway, which is why local authorities and local enterprise partnerships have such a crucial leadership role, as my noble friend Lord Heseltine has so emphatically shown.
The main aim of city deals is to promote growth. Growth outside London and the south-east is too low and too slow compared to elsewhere in Europe. I welcome discussion of any sustainable initiatives that may help to drive growth; so, in theory, I welcome the Bill. The title at least represents a statement of intent. However, whatever a Bill is about, the legislation proposed needs always to reflect a clear understanding of the problems that need to be resolved. As we progress through Committee, I hope that we will examine the changes proposed in the Bill in that light: do the solutions proposed solve a defined and recognised problem?
I hope that we will examine a number of areas closely. For example, is the planning system a barrier to growth? I have listened to all sides of the argument over recent months, and I have concluded that, in the main, the planning system is well run by most local authorities. In some cases, there may be a tendency to delay or to adopt an overzealous bureaucratic outlook, where the development control process has become a means of prevention; but, in the main, councils understand that growth drives jobs and that more new homes are needed. Those councils want to rise to the challenge.
There are 400,000 new homes not yet built, which have planning approval. Seven out of eight applications were approved by councils for residential and commercial development in the last full year of 2011 to 2012. The case that new central powers are needed has not been made. The problem for developers is primarily one of finance, not planning. There has been a proposal that an 18-month period should elapse between a poorly performing council being identified and central intervention taking place. There seems to be merit in this and I hope that we can look at it more closely in due course. Peer support from another council is better than central control. It can be done very quickly, certainly within that 18-month period. However, we have to build more homes for all the reasons that have been identified in this debate. As we examine the Bill in Committee I hope that we shall keep this objective of building more houses in mind.
On Clause 5, I am unconvinced that any change to the National Planning Policy Framework is needed. It seems to have defined the information requirements of a local authority perfectly well. Its information requirements should be relevant, necessary and material. Adding to the Bill that they should be “reasonable” strikes me as unnecessary, since being relevant, necessary and material seem to be reasonable requirements already. Indeed, adding “reasonable” may create greater uncertainty and potential for delays.
A number of people argue that it is possible that Clause 6, which relates to Section 106 agreements, is not needed, because councils can renegotiate and are already doing so. Most that are doing so seem to be accepting a reduction of around a third in the amount of affordable housing. The problem may be solving itself. It should be seen as temporary, given the introduction of the NPPF, and it should therefore be time-limited. I hope that in Committee we can discuss with the Minister relevant amendments to make Clause 6 time-limited. This is partly because I have two concerns in relation to this clause. First, how do the public know that a change to a Section 106 agreement is the right thing to do? Making public the figures on which decisions are based seems to be important and there should be a common formula that is followed in different parts of the country to ascertain viability. Secondly, councils need to be able to share in any rise in prices once a new agreement has been signed—in other words, to have secure clawback to compensate for the affordable housing that was not built, if and when values rise. I understand that guidance is going to be issued on this point, but I wonder whether it will be sufficient.
Clause 8 relates to communications equipment. I have not understood why it is deemed appropriate for six-foot high junction boxes and overhead poles to be put in place without prior approval or conditions. Junction boxes are big. I hope that as a minimum there will be assurances that this will not happen in conservation areas, or in historic places, or in areas of natural beauty. Local people have a right to know about proposals, to object and to propose alternatives. Denying them that right is hardly localist.
On Clause 24 I have some concerns on extending the major infrastructure planning regime. Nationally significant infrastructure planning is one thing, but surely residents and their councils have rights to decide major local applications, such as shopping centres, office and leisure complexes. Given that local authorities are already meeting their response times in most cases, it is not clear why large-scale commercial and business applications need to be fast-tracked in the way that the Government seem to be proposing. I hope that the Minister will clarify what constitutes business and commercial development, and what will be centralised under the Bill.
A lot has been said about Clause 27. It creates a new employment status of employee shareholder with the aim of increasing the employment options companies may use. It is said that it will be voluntary for a job applicant, but what if it is the only job offer out of hundreds of applications that someone has made? So far the Government have not provided safeguards for people on jobseeker’s allowance. If someone refuses to take up an employee shareholder job, they could face losing their benefits because whether their decision is reasonable will be judged on a case-by-case basis. That is hardly voluntary for a jobseeker desperate for a job.
The Bill is about growth and infrastructure, but I cannot see how this policy will increase growth. It really is not right to force someone to give up employee rights in return for a company share. Protection against unfair dismissal, the right to flexible working, the right to time for training, parental leave rights and the right to statutory redundancy pay are all fundamental employment rights, and it is hard to see how these proposals fit with true employee ownership schemes, which can be hugely successful and should be encouraged. It is also hard to see how administrative costs for a company will be reduced by the proposed measures.
I can see that for a small business starting up in a fast-growing sector, equity as an incentive and reduced risk to its capital from employment tribunals could be attractive but, surely, in only a very limited number of cases. What is much more likely is that offers to potential new members of staff of employee shareholder status will reduce the willingness of good people to apply for such posts, with most existing companies proving unwilling to use it. I hope that in Committee we will have the opportunity to examine these proposals in much greater depth.
In her introductory speech, the Minister emphasised that the Bill was about deregulation and removing barriers, particularly in the planning system. The trouble is that most of the barriers to growth are actually financial, not regulatory. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through Committee, we will approve clauses and amendments to it on the basis of established facts and the primacy of localism over centralism.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, in speaking about this centralising Bill, I suppose that my qualification is that when I was leader of the Labour Party on Cambridge City Council and I was in Moscow in 1972, I was described as a leader of the Cambridge soviet. I have an alternative qualification: I declare that I helped to set up an environmental consulting company in Cambridge. It was interesting to hear about Cambridge earlier from another speaker.
When considering legislation on social, environmental and economic issues, it is reasonable to consider whether it is bringing us closer to or further from countries that are evidently very successful in those fields. The UK has no peer in the fields of humour and creativity, as I saw in the Christmas pantomime “Norwichababa”, and as we saw in yesterday at No. 10; indeed, the UK is now exporting pantomime, so that is one area of economic growth. However, I think that most people will acknowledge that we have something to learn from other European countries. They have rigorous planning, preservation of the countryside through strong local control and sufficient high-quality housing—anyone who has been a city councillor visiting council accommodation in Germany is somewhat humiliated. I would say, though, that over the past 20 years housing standards in Britain and Germany have become closer. The other feature of those countries is that there are small industries all over the country, including in natural areas, and that is also developing in this country. Furthermore, I should add that all those countries with admirable economic and social policies are working within EU rules and regulations.
As many noble Lords have commented, the UK is facing the problems of a lack of housing and a lack of finance for housing. We have also seen that many of the regional projects that began in the previous decade were stopped, to the protests of many industries, when the present Government began to abandon the regional development authorities. The support of this by the Lib Dems, who had many of their own councillors and regional officials involved in those development agencies, was most surprising—I never could understand that.
The other feature of those countries, particularly Germany, is worker representation on the boards. One of the most important features of the supervisory boards is that the workers have an interest in the preservation of the companies. Those companies have not been bought up and sold like chips on a gambling board, as we have experienced in the UK. We have a long way to go to get that kind of management.
The real problem for developing our economy—as has been made plain over and over again by the CBI and the Institute of Directors—is that there has been a complete lack of decisiveness about major infrastructure projects. We could now be having a third runway at Heathrow; we could be having toll roads. We need many more of these fundamental measures and every day that we do not have them we lose our competitiveness to other countries. When the Prime Minister talks about competitiveness, he just has to listen to what the CBI is saying.
However, the Government have pushed ahead on energy and the further energy developments in the Bill are to be welcomed. The fact that we now have permission to develop a big nuclear power station in Somerset is a very important development.
What else does this Bill propose? First, it proposes a reduction of local planning powers, which many noble Lords from all sides of the House have commented on. I hope the House of Lords will be able to vote on this, as in the other place, and that the decision will be different.
However, some of the most important developments in the UK, as pointed out by a Lib Dem colleague talking about Cambridge, were done through local planning. The development of Cambridge’s high-tech society was an extraordinary case of the local council changing its mind and working with local universities and industry.
Equally, there have been other developments that could not be done by local planning. We have had Acts of Parliament to develop, for example, Felixstowe docks or some of the processes in London. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was quite correct to say that there are certain things that local councils do not have a big enough power to do. It really requires a concept that combines localism with a national view. That is what we have been struggling with this afternoon.
One of the aspects that has not perhaps been covered is the localism developed in Denmark, which has pioneered the economic involvement of communities in controversial developments. It completely transformed the way they considered energy developments. There is an element of that in the UK with local participation in housing developments. We have been talking about that much this afternoon. In Denmark, for example, there is local participation in many other projects. In many other areas of the continent there is local investment, which means that there is tremendous commitment to develop local businesses. Again that is somewhat lacking here. We had that with our regional development authorities but, for reasons that I do not understand, they have gone—of course they are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, but his views and the Prime Minister’s are not completely consistent.
In the past, the UK has been a Mecca for planners and Governments from all over the world to see how we have combined industrial growth with the preservation of our natural environment. The way in which national parks manage to have the natural environment, local businesses and local housing is a global model. There are people who are worried about Clause 8 of the Bill. It is very important that we continue that tradition. Some of our major national parks are very close to the centres of great industry. One of the attractions for world-class engineers who go to work at Rolls-Royce is that Derby is very close to the Peak District, which is an untrammelled and marvellous national park. Other countries also have major manufacturing centres close to great parks. Manaus in Brazil, home to its main electronics centre, is close to the forest environment of Amazonia.
I have a nice example of the small industries in our national parks. I once sat next to a lady on a British Airways aeroplane. When we got to the stage of eating cupcakes, as we were flying over her village, she said, “We make them down there”. Those kinds of small-scale industries are very important. The Government and all parties believe that they should be expanded.
A strange feature of the Bill is that, although it has to do with economic growth, housing, infrastructure and the environment, there is no mention of or reference to the economic value of the environment. This is now a standard concept in government; the White Paper refers to it. The Prime Minister now refers to the fact that gross national product is not the primary definition of growth: it has to include the environment. The recent Secretary of State at Defra referred to this natural capital. Since, perhaps, not all noble Lords know about this, a document developed by the NGO Globe, of which I am a vice-president, has been put in the Library. I recommend that noble Lords do a little homework on that, particularly the people in DCLG devising the Bill, or perhaps read the speeches of Ministers in other departments.
The last part of the Bill, in Clause 27, is equally perverse in going against the spirit of many successfully run businesses. The Government seem to be amplifying occasional problems and producing a complex solution with implications that have not been foreseen. Can the Minister say what kinds of complications there are, and give examples of where the approach in Clause 27 has been tried as a pilot? I thought that the Government wanted to reduce red tape, and maybe reduce just slightly the income of lawyers dealing with complications in government. I was obviously wrong. This is a new jamboree for all of them. Furthermore, now it is even a jamboree for the tax lawyers. All I can say, as the director of a small company in Cambridge where the staff have regular maternal and paternal leave—it is an unusual software company, with 70% women—is that current human resources management is complicated enough. This is just another problem and will add costs to small companies where these issues are important. The Minister has been asked many things, but we have not heard what the costs of legal challenges are likely to be as a result of this new legislation.
In summary, the Government are quite right to emphasise the need to invest in infrastructure and housing, and to maintain their commitment to national parks and the natural environment. Both are needed to grow the economy and to develop communities. However, the Government’s determination to reduce local involvement through this clumsy legislation has to be resisted. There are so many successful business developments involving local business and local organisations—and, dare one say it, local political parties. However, there are exceptional situations that we all recognise, in which national projects have to be planned on a national basis. Special measures such as parliamentary Acts are possible, but the Bill needs great changes if it is to be supported in this House and in the country. Of course, lawyers and tax advisers will love the Bill as it is. It will give them a field day.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been an extensive and excellent debate, but one which has exposed the gap between the reality of the measures in the Bill and the needs of our country for growth and infrastructure. The Bill lacks coherence, vision and a plan for growth. In the terms of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who put it bluntly, “It won’t work”. My noble friend Lord Smith said that it was a missed opportunity. My noble friend Lord Whitty said that it ignored the need for serious thinking on infrastructure investment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, called it, “ad hoc, hotchpotch”, with no structure. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that it was cobbled together to fill the vacuum left by the lack of Lords reform. My noble friend Lady Turner said that there was no comfort in it for the construction industry. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, at least clung to the view that the title could be seen as a statement of intent.
Much of the Bill is focused on reform of the planning system before the ink is dry on the Localism Act and the NPPF. We had a mini-debate on the NPPF, with a difference of views between the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Hanworth. That bodes well for Committee. The Bill is predicated on the notion that the planning system, rather than the lack of finance, is holding back growth, a theme that was challenged by a number of noble Lords. That assertion is based at best on anecdote and it lacks a systematic and rigorous basis of assessment that takes account of both cost and benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked where the evidence is. Yet again we see the imprint of a Secretary of State who espouses the cause of localism but everywhere removes power from local authorities and takes them to himself.
We welcome some measures, especially those which flow from the Penfold review, and which we expect to be able to support. However, they do not amount to a comprehensive plan for growth, and they will not catapult us into the premier league of competitiveness. We have grave misgivings about Clause 1, which are shared by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, my noble friend Lord Whitty, and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Best, Lord Taylor and Lord True. The clause gives unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to strip any local authority of its planning powers if deemed to be failing so that a developer can seek approval for major applications from the Secretary of State. On the basis of the initial criteria, and taking account of planning performance agreements, vanishingly few local authorities may be deemed to be failing, bearing in mind that planning approval rates are at a 10-year high. However, the risk is a tightening of the threshold in subsequent years, although the Government refuse to set out their response to their consultation on this matter until the Bill becomes law. Why is this?
In all of this there is no recognition of the intense financial pressures which government cuts are imposing on local authority planning departments, as on other services; or that designation will weaken local authorities’ ability to improve as they lose fees and struggle to retain more able staff to deal with major applications; that the policy will tilt the balance struck in the NPPF and encourage local authorities to eschew quality and develop their engagement for speed; or that engagement with local communities will be impaired. Frankly, this clause should be deleted.
In Clauses 2 and 3 we see yet further examples of the Secretary of State taking powers to himself. In Committee we will seek to ensure that these are exercised in a transparent manner and in line with proper consultation.
Clause 4 touches on permitted development rights. Our major concern in this regard is not what is in the Bill concerning the extension of rights. Decisions to extend these centrally will lead to unintended consequences in different localities. If the Government really believed in localism they would agree that these matters should be determined locally.
We desperately need more affordable housing and we should acknowledge the important role that Section 106 agreements have played in delivering this ambition. As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke with passion on this matter. We consider that Clause 6, which enables developers to seek renegotiation of the affordable housing obligations with a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, is particularly egregious. In the words of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, it is a step back to another world. It is another example of overriding the judgment of local authorities, which already have the power, which they use, to renegotiate such agreements.
We will challenge the linking of project viability just to affordable housing and will argue that any test to be applied should not just be one of economic viability. The development plan policies and different housing needs of an area, including rural areas, must feature in the assessment. However, if this clause is to remain, then it should be considered as a short-term measure with a sunset clause to bring it to an end. My noble friend Lord Adonis has asked the Minister to tell us precisely which stalled sites she considers unviable due to Section 106 affordable housing obligations. I hope that she will do that.
While we support steps to increase access to broadband, including for national parks, this must be done in the right way and not with the sledgehammer approach referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. As the Bill stands, there are concerns that Clause 8 would permit a free-for-all in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is why we will continue to pursue mechanisms which will narrow the focus of this provision. We understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her introduction about EU requirements and will look to see how that bears on secondary legislation. We were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the importance of broadband, particularly in respect of rural areas, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, more generally.
Clauses 13, 14 and 15 seek to make it more difficult for a green space to be designated as a town or village green. The intent is to stop vexatious applications to register land which are submitted to thwart proposed development. We would have common cause in not wanting to see the opportunities to designate green space used in this manner but remain unconvinced that it is a major problem. The CPRE cites there being only 185 applications for this status in 2009, which can be compared to many tens of thousands of planning applications.
However, we do not oppose all change to the existing arrangements but will look for assurances on publicity around landlord statements and will seek changes to the heavy-handed approach to removing the right for local inhabitants to apply for registration of land as a green space once it has been marked down for development. This approach goes beyond what Penfold proposed.
A number of provisions in the Bill are focused on clarifying and streamlining the process for infrastructure planning but also on restricting the special parliamentary procedure in part to overcome anomalies. The intervention of my noble friend Lord Faulkner in relation to Clauses 22 and 23 is highly relevant. These clearly are matters that we will have to review in depth in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke about the need to extend some of the provisions relating to easing the infrastructure process. That also will be something which we will need to examine in Committee, as well as his point about the resources for the Planning Inspectorate, given the multiplicity of different roles provided for it in the Bill.
Clause 24 seeks to bring business and commercial applications into the major infrastructure regime, which was established in the Planning Act 2008. We are not opposed to a broadening of the regime, although the way in which the clause does this would represent a considerable departure from the current system. “Business” and “commercial” need to be adequately defined as they are not so obviously in the public interest or nationally significant. Widening the regime opens up yet further possibilities for bypassing local decision-making and the lack of any national policy statements bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. We will pursue amendments on these matters.
The inclusion of a clause to defer the 2015 rating list revaluation by two years comes as a surprise, particularly as we have only just completed our scrutiny of the Local Government Finance Act where we had extensive discussions about the role and resourcing of the VOA. The deferral breaks a tradition of more than 20 years of regularly uprating business rates that has not been subject to political interference. As my noble friend Lord Smith pointed out, the Government have justified this decision on the grounds of providing certainty for business at a difficult time and that there would be many more losers than gainers from the 2015 revaluation. It is accepted that a revaluation would not overall increase or decrease aggregate revenue from business rates but a revaluation is supposed to maintain fairness by ensuring that rateable values reflect up-to-date rental values.
As we have heard, the VOA undertook its high-level, indicative estimates based on limited rental data. Others have called into question the projections made from this analysis and the CBI has declared that it considers the benefits of deferral to be overstated. Before proceeding with a deferral, there should be a full consultation process and the Government should publish comprehensive estimates of how businesses are to be affected. We also would want to take the opportunity to assess the current fitness for purpose of the VOA, its resourcing and how it is handling appeals from previous valuations. The Minister will recall our deliberations on the business rate retention scheme and calls then for rating revaluations to coincide with a general resetting of the system. Will putting back the revaluation affect the current 2020 timetable?
Finally, the nonsense that is Clause 27 has been comprehensively taken apart by my noble friend Lord Adonis, and he was supported by many other noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Monks, Lord Morris, Lady Turner and Lady Donaghy, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Seldom have we seen a government proposal that has such little support. The raft of amendments that the Government have already been forced to bring forward underlines the technical complexity of the scheme. If it is anything, it is a job creation programme for lawyers and accountants. In concept, perhaps the Government will explain why it is okay for senior executives to sit on their stock options yet still benefit from handsome payoffs when they leave, but it will be a spur to growth if employees are offered the arrangements to forgo their redundancy entitlement that are proposed in the clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made reference to the range of existing employee shareholding schemes. If such arrangements are out there, why cannot they be used? What is so great about the proposals in the Bill? Concerns have been expressed about the scheme being used for tax avoidance. From debate in Committee in the Commons, it would seem that we will have to await the Budget to understand the extent to which the issue of shares, fully paid, will be free of income tax and capital gains on subsequent disposal. Can the Minister shed further light on this? What is the estimated cost in term of tax forgone as a result of these proposals?
There remains a raft of technical issues to pursue around valuation, TUPE, JSA claimants, compulsion, realisation, share rights and dilution—to name but a few. Our opposition to this clause is not principally about technicalities. Cutting the rights at work of employees is wrong in principle and, in the terms of my noble friend Lord Monks, unethical. It will not help jobs and growth, and that is why it has so little support among employers as well as employee groups. The proposition is divisive and the clause should be scrapped.
The Bill displays the worst features of a struggling Government. It is contradictory on localism, lacking in evidence base on planning, misguided in undermining employee rights, divisive in reducing affordable housing, and devoid of a strategic context. It will keep us busy in Committee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, perhaps I may start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to his position on the Front Bench for the Bill. I am delighted to see him there and, having listened to the debate, he will realise that we are in for a lively time—as I do. I also congratulate all noble Lords for having survived. This is the first time in this House that I have sat in this Chamber and been so hot that I did not know what to do with myself. Noble Lords have all done extremely well to survive.
The noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Whitty, and many other noble Lords have portrayed not only the Bill but the Government as being anti-localist. Perhaps I should say immediately in our defence that we have spent a lot of time in this House making sure that this Government are localist. Beyond the Localism Bill, we have been through the NPPF, and we have had great discussions on localism and giving priority to local authorities. I do not therefore think that this Bill undermines that in any way. The Government are committed to localism. They recognise that in some areas there are small problems that need to be dealt with, and that is what we are trying to do in the Bill.
Perhaps we can start with Clause 1, which has attracted a great deal of attention. The clause is to deal only with those very few situations where an effective planning service is not being delivered locally. We published an impact assessment, which, together with the consultation document on planning performance that supports this clause, is clear about the evidence base. I am sure that by the time we reach Committee, all noble Lords will have read those documents.
As I said in my opening remarks, although the great majority of applications—about 88%—are approved in good time, that is not the situation everywhere. The criteria that we have proposed in relation to local authorities that are failing in their duty would mean designating—I emphasise what my noble friend the planning Minister in the other place said—a very small number of authorities that fail to determine more than 30% of their major decisions on time. That is not a standard of performance that we should regard as acceptable. I will not name specific authorities for the simple reason that circumstances can change before any initial designations are made.
On that point I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and other noble Lords that we have been talking to the Local Government Association about the role that the sector can play in helping other authorities to improve and to stop them being designated. We do not particularly want them to be designated; we want to use this as a way of ensuring that standards are maintained. We want the Local Government Association to help authorities regain their powers if they have been designated.
I was asked by various noble Lords how failing councils will initially be designated. They will be designated initially for 12 months, and that will be reviewed before the year is up. It will be done on criteria that I am sure we shall discuss in Committee. Although applicants can appeal against non-determination, once the statutory period is up, we believe that they should have the choice of accessing a better service from day one, where there is clear evidence that the planning service is not being delivered effectively.
I must underscore that these provisions are not mandatory on every local authority. They give the Secretary of State powers to designate, as I said, this small number of local authorities. This is not a case of swiping at localism; this is saying that there are small areas that we need to deal with. The provisions do not entirely take the powers away from local authorities because they enable the applicant to decide whether they want to leave their application with the designated local authority or whether they wish to go to the Planning Inspectorate. I do not think that the Planning Inspectorate, under these circumstances, will be overwhelmed with extra work.
I am conscious of not having a lot of time. Perhaps I can turn to Clause 5, which deals with information requirements. The noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord Teverson and Lord Shipley, all raised points on why that clause is needed as the policy is already set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The clause is needed because there have been court cases and we need to ensure that applicants can get to appeal, if they need to, when there are disputes about information that cannot be resolved. It is also quite unnecessary for local government to have to seek, particularly with smaller applications, a whole raft of information that does not necessarily appear to be germane to the application. People can always ask for that information as the application proceeds, if they wish, but it is clearly not helpful if there is so much information that it never sees the light of day.
Section 106 renegotiations on affordable housing have received quite a lot of attention. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there are already 1,400 stalled sites with more than 75,000 houses that should be under construction. A number of those homes will be affordable, so it is not that there will be 75,000 affordable homes, but within that figure will be such homes. We know that there are many reasons as to why development is not coming forward, and those reasons will vary from site to site. We accept that there will be financial implications as well, so this is not the entirety of the problem.
At the moment there is no central assessment of the viability of every site. Noble Lords asked whether that would be a general requirement, and perhaps I may come back to the point in Committee. However, we know that Section 106 agreements are a significant cost to developers, and historically 50% of the cost is on affordable housing. Our measure provides for a quick and focused review of the Section 106 agreement without reopening the policy context or merits of the planning consent. It will deliver the development of affordable housing. That is because this particular clause relates to the affordable housing aspect of Section 106, and we know that a number of authorities are already carrying out those negotiations. I agree that the assessment of viability will be key to the consideration of appropriate affordable housing requirements. We are going to issue guidance to establish the key considerations for assessing that viability for the purposes of this clause. I do not agree that the Planning Inspectorate is not able to consider matters of viability. Inspectors regularly examine that aspect in planning appeals and local plan considerations.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor asked why we should single out affordable housing rather than use the Homes and Communities Agency to help deliver affordable housing obligations. I have said that we know historically that 50% of the value of obligations is on affordable housing, and councils are already free to renegotiate any aspect of that Section 106 obligation at any time on a voluntary basis. This measure only provides a backstop where local authorities may not be prepared voluntarily to undertake those negotiations. It gives the developer the right to make sure that they take place. Funding historic aspirations on individual sites for affordable housing is not going to be the best way of securing value for money from the Homes and Communities Agency investment, and our aim is to use guarantees to deliver 15,000 new affordable homes.
One of the other areas that was the cause of considerable discussion is that of Clause 8 and broadband. The provisions of this clause will be instrumental in removing the planning red tape that is currently slowing down, and in some places blocking, the rollout of broadband. The question of state aid was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I accept immediately that state aid has been a delaying factor, but it is not the only one. Planning issues have been the cause of delays as well. As I said originally, the Government’s ambition is for this country to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015 and it is vital that the rollout of this infrastructure is fast-tracked in order to kick-start economic growth, create jobs and support the country’s long-term economic future. However, it is also absolutely vital to ensure that rural areas have broadband and are thus able to take part in that growth and economic improvement. So we believe that the introduction of short-term planning relaxations is justified and we will ensure that the Government’s ambition for superfast broadband and universal broadband coverage is not prevented by planning objections where we believe that they are causing a blockage.
I understand the concerns regarding protected areas, but it is the communities in some of these areas that are in the most need of the upgraded infrastructure. Certain rural areas are in danger of being left behind and are the most expensive and difficult to reach, where underground cabling is often difficult to put in place. If these remote areas are excluded, a number of households and businesses will be left completely behind. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, broadband is an essential infrastructure. My noble friend Lady Brinton described eloquently the ways in which broadband is essential to the rural economy.
Lord Adonis
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. These are crucial issues. She says she will update the House as guidance is developed. Will that be before Committee stage?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not know the answer to that. I will let the noble Lord and the House know as soon as I can get an indication of when that guidance is going to be available, but I would expect that we would be able to discuss it. We want to give employers and people more choice. Clause 27 does that and when we reach Committee stage, we will be able to deal with some of the more detailed points.
In concluding, I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I believe the measures in this Bill will build on the steps that this Government have already taken to make the planning system simpler and make sure that we encourage economic growth. I hope that we can all agree that freeing up businesses from the swathe of red tape that has engulfed them is a suitable objective for this House in passing legislation. I hope the House will support the Bill. I am sure that it will in the end and I look forward to the discussions in the middle.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Armed Forces: Future Size
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of recent international developments particularly in the Middle East, whether they will review their plans for the future size, configuration and equipping of the Armed Forces.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for the House to discuss defence issues, given the ongoing sacrifice that our soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel are being asked to make on behalf of this country. Sadly, another example of that sacrifice has been drawn to our attention today.
Leaving aside the question of how or whether we should be fighting in recent theatres of operation, the reality is that we have had large numbers of troops deployed overseas for many years, enduring great hardship and significant losses. Before the Recess, I asked the Minister for details of those who had suffered life-changing injuries as a result of their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the record, I will repeat the Minister’s Answer:
“My Lords, for reporting purposes serious UK operational casualties are usually categorised as having either serious or very serious wounds and injuries. Between 2003 and 2009, 222 UK casualties in Iraq were included in these categories, while the number for Afghanistan between 2001 and November this year was 591”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1543.]
These are sobering figures and do not even include those who may suffer mental health issues in later years as a result of their experiences.
I labour this point because, due to the vast improvements in battlefield medicine, wounded soldiers are surviving injuries that they would not have done in earlier conflicts. It follows that upon returning to the UK with severe injuries, they will require perhaps 60 years of care, and I wonder if the NHS, which will have to bear this burden, is fully prepared and resourced for the challenge.
One keeps hearing examples of the problems returning soldiers and their families have in adapting to civilian life, especially if injuries have occurred while in service. The number of former soldiers who end up in the justice system should alert us to the difficulties they face. The long-term welfare of our Armed Forces must remain a top priority and I hope the Minister can give the House an assurance that there will be no skimping when it comes to assisting with both welfare issues and professional services aimed at helping and equipping former soldiers for the world of work.
Upon taking office in May 2010, the coalition Government undertook a review of the Armed Forces, with the emphasis on ensuring, among other matters, that the sums for procurement add up and that, in future, programmes and equipment would be affordable and delivered on time. For a new Government, with an apparent multibillion pound overage in its spending commitments, this was an obvious thing to do. Furthermore, the threats faced by the United Kingdom are always changing and any responsible Government are required to test our military configuration and equipment against the threat levels we face.
Considerable controversy followed the 2010 strategic defence and security review. This is not surprising, but perhaps the most hurtful and humiliating development was the realisation that we currently—and for some years to come—have no seaborne fixed-wing air capability. For an island nation to have such a limited option to project its power from aircraft carriers leaves us effectively out of business in many possible conflict scenarios. It is hard to see how we could defend ourselves without significant help from others.
Only months after the review was published we were plunged into the Libyan conflict. I believe that the Government did the right thing by intervening with our allies to protect the people of that country from almost certain mass murder by the Gaddafi regime, but our inability to fly missions from aircraft carriers added to the cost and the risk to our Armed Forces. Air crews, who did a magnificent job, had to fly long distances to land bases in Italy, which even a few years ago may not have been available to us.
We know that the previous Government commissioned two large aircraft carriers, which are under construction, but more embarrassment was to follow when we learned that there were no aircraft to fly from them. Our choice of a replacement for the Harrier went from one design to another and then back again. It reminds me of sending a football team on to the pitch without the benefit of a goalkeeper.
Given that the UK still has a large military spend compared to many of our competitors it is hard to fathom why we find ourselves in this powerless position. We did not get here simply from 2010 but were clearly going to founder because of decisions taken, or not taken, long before then. As protection of the nation is a top priority for any Government, ending up in this mess represents a fundamental failure of the state to provide adequate protection for its citizens.
Our present political model leaves us open, as a nation, to short-term and bad decision-making. We all recall that the decision to save a paltry sum in the South Atlantic in 1982 cost this country dearly, in both personnel and treasure, by signalling to the Argentine military junta that we were not serious about protecting the Falklands. What message are we sending out now when we are incapable of providing adequate seaborne airpower?
Earlier I referred to the situation we found ourselves in during the Arab spring in Libya. This “spring” will soon be two years old, and a major civil war is raging in Syria, with all the usual suspects in the region involved by proxy. Iran will defend Assad to the last, even if the Russians and Chinese see that he is finished. Iran will stop at nothing if it sees its main ally in the region about to fail. The Strait of Hormuz is still under threat. None of us here can tell how things in the Middle East will play out.
Last week, Danish, German and American troops were deployed to Turkey to set up Patriot batteries to protect the Turks against Scuds and other missiles that we know Assad possesses. Lebanon and Jordan are once again being destabilised by the mass movement of refugees, and internal disputes have reignited in both these countries. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government continue to keep the Middle East situation under constant review and will adjust and reconfigure our forces as required to meet the emerging threat posed by the instability in this region?
One of the principal reasons given for the second war in Iraq was the alleged presence of large volumes of weapons of mass destruction, hidden by Saddam Hussein for future use. Despite many searches, little evidence was produced that such weapons existed in Iraq. Since then, however, weapons of mass destruction have been used by terrorists in Iraq. Nerve gas booby-trap bombs have been deployed on a number of occasions and other chemicals have been combined with explosives to maximise casualties, including in al-Qaeda attacks in east Africa. Can the Minister confirm that coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have encountered nerve agents and other chemical weapons which were in the possession of terrorists? Can he assure the House that our own Armed Forces are adequately equipped and trained to deal with attacks involving such agents and chemicals in this country, as well as in other theatres of operation?
One of the biggest defence-related debates, even within the coalition Government, is the future of our independent nuclear deterrent. The current delivery system is moving towards the end of its operational life; in view of our current financial position, people will be asking if there is a less expensive alternative, given that the threats the UK faces are more likely to come from unconventional enemies. Can the Minister set out government policy in this matter and the extent to which decisions have been taken for a replacement for the Trident system?
As a result of the 2010 review, the three services were all subject to personnel reductions. I accept that numbers are not the whole story; nevertheless, there appears to be a pattern developing of more tasks having to be performed against a background of falling numbers. We had two long-term overseas deployments taking place at the same time as Operation Banner was happening here in the UK. Is the Minister satisfied that the Armed Forces are not being overstretched and, as a result, seeing their flexibility severely depleted? Furthermore, given recent and unjustified violence from both loyalist and IRA sources in Northern Ireland, will the Minister assure the House that, should it be required by the chief constable of Northern Ireland, military support will be available to him? Sadly, over the weekend, a threat was made by IRA elements to any Irish citizen serving in the British Army. I ask the Minister, therefore, to bear that in mind in his response.
When we debated the Armed Forces Bill in 2011, a number of amendments arose from our deliberations. A commitment was given then that the Secretary of State for Defence would report annually to Parliament on the progress being made throughout the UK in implementing the covenant under certain headings. Can the Minister say when such a Statement is likely to be made so that we will have the opportunity to question him on developments? Following on from that, can the Minister confirm whether Armed Forces advocates have been appointed from all parts of the United Kingdom?
I said at the outset that we owe a massive debt of gratitude to our Armed Forces for the work that we ask them to do. They do not unilaterally go to wage war or defend our interests around the world: we send them. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that when things go wrong and service personnel are killed or injured, those left behind or needing long-term care are adequately provided for. We continue to hear cases of hardship. During the debate on the Bill in 2011 it was suggested that we should have something like the US Veterans Administration in this country. In response, the Government said that they preferred the current model.
I care little about which model we follow; what matters is that the help is provided. It annoys a lot of people to hear tales of ex-service personnel being refused this or that help from a country that can find endless supplies of money to cater for the needs of Abu Qatada and his ilk. I trust therefore that even in these times of economic difficulty we will continue to pay close attention to the defence needs of this country. If we fail to do so, history teaches us that we always end up paying a high price as a nation.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, first, from these Benches I offer condolences to the family of the British soldier shot dead by a rogue member of the Afghan national army. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for putting this debate down—it was a pleasant surprise when I read about it in Bangkok.
The title of the debate mentions the potential problems in the Middle East. Of course, that is only one potential area of conflict and there are others. Did we expect a war in the Falklands or in the Balkans? Did we expect conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan? Can we keep out of conflict in Syria, where horrendous killings are taking place, or Israel/Palestine, whose almost intractable problems seem to be getting worse, or Egypt, Lebanon or Tunisia? The list of potential trouble spots is endless, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated. Where will the next conflict or conflicts be?
With an Army of a mere 82,000 personnel, what will be feasible when any conflict takes place? Could my noble friend the Minister, who does such a great job in the Ministry of Defence, indicate how many generals will be left in this Army of 82,000? How does the number of generals in the Army now and when it is so reduced compare to the number of generals in other armies in France or the United States, relative to the number of personnel in those armed forces?
The title of the debate includes the word “configuration”. An important point from my perspective has always been the configuration of procurement in the Ministry of Defence. The questions really are: what equipment do we have, what equipment do we need and do we know what we need? The question that perhaps no one wants to ask is: what do we not know that we need? What Navy and RAF do we have and do we need? I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord West, in his place. I will leave all naval and aviation problems to him. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned two aircraft carriers being built. What planes will be able to fly from those carriers? The noble Lord made the analogy to a football team and said it was like sending a team on without a goalkeeper. I disagree: it is like sending a team on without a team. All you would have is the football stadium or the aircraft carriers and nothing to fly from them at the moment.
Then the questions are: what vehicles do we have and how do we use them in the conflicts that take place? We have armoured vehicles and we send them to an area that is sandy so we paint them a sandy colour. Then, if we have a conflict in an Arctic region we take the same vehicles and paint them white. But they are not necessarily—in fact they certainly are not—the proper equipment for our forces. The armed personnel will lose lives because of the inadequacy of that equipment. Would my noble friend accept that defence reviews and procurement move far more slowly than the fast-changing events around the world, particularly in the Middle East and north Africa? How can the Government ensure that the United Kingdom is able to react in a timely way to these defence and security challenges? Then of course there is the financial aspect and the unexpected need for finance. When conflicts take place, will finance be available from some pot somewhere to pay for it? Will the equipment needed be available at short notice?
Could the Minister say what assessment has been made of new types of warfare such as the Iron Dome defence infrastructure protecting civilians in Israel, which has meant that the rockets sent against Israel do not land in any areas of population? They are in fact developing a system that is Iron Dome-plus and Iron Dome-plus-plus to deal with medium and long-range missiles. That is something that I hope would be in our national security strategy.
The Government’s second annual report on the national security strategy and defence review last November highlighted increased instability in the Middle East as one of the major developments since the national security strategy in 2010. How will the Government update the national security strategy to reflect this change? Is the idea of just having a review and then, after a given period, another review and another review the way to go about it? Surely we should be thinking of the review as ongoing and seamless; one should be reviewing it all the time and not just at given times. Does the Minister accept that the developments in the Middle East and north Africa since the publication of the national security strategy have seen major changes in our defence and security picture that were not anticipated when the strategy was first presented. What action will the Government take as a result?
The Times today talks about extensive Army redundancies and the effect of the ability to control the future shape of the Army. The great worry is that the redundancies will include people with needed trades and that they will leave gaps in the performance of certain functions. I wonder how that will be coped with.
Perhaps the Minister will relate that to the use of the Reserve Forces. A lot is mentioned in the reviews as to the building up of the Reserve Forces, but I have my doubts as to whether people with the relevant skills will always be available, and whether they will be able to take the time off from their main employment to go and serve their country. There is a quote in the Times that perhaps doing defence on the cheap is leaving key roles empty. It really is a problem of whether the Army with 82,000 people is going to be fit for purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, we owe a considerable and continued debt to our Armed Forces. We are lucky to have the Minister here who I know does an incredible job in the Ministry of Defence. Nothing that I am saying is meant to be critical of that. A lot of these problems are inherent in what has been happening not just during the present Administration but during previous Administrations. There is great scope for looking in a fresh light at what conflicts are likely to happen, what stocks of equipment we have, what we will need, what we could need and whether there are new items of defence and attack available in the world that we should be looking at to bring our forces completely up to date.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for raising this debate. It is very pertinent. I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers. I was more focused on my Christmas festivities than on knowing what the business of the House was, but I felt it was very important to speak.
I will speak very briefly on the aircraft carriers—otherwise people might think that I am a one-trick pony on that. The Government have begun to get their mind around that and understand the importance of them. They are something that we should be really proud of, rather in the sense that we were proud of the Olympic work, employing some 20,000 people across the UK, building these amazing ships. The Government have made it quite clear—certainly the Secretary of State did in a conference I was at—that they intend running both of them. Yes, there have been a lot of problems. Yes, there have been issues about what aircraft they will have; we now know what aircraft they will have. I am glad that the Government are getting to grips with that.
However, I believe that our nation is standing into danger. Since I joined the Royal Navy 48 years ago, our military has suffered a steady attrition in size and resources. That has happened year on year in all my 48 years in the Navy. The 2010 strategic defence and security review is, I believe, the straw that has almost broken the camel’s back, but a further £1.3 billion has been taken from the defence budget.
Our military is not now capable of what the people of our nation expect of it. If Ministers think that it is, I fear that they are deluded. The international developments in the Middle East—the Arab spring was referred to as the basis of this debate—are just one example of what a chaotic, unpredictable and dangerous world we are in. At the time of the 2010 SDSR, a number of us—some of whom are in the Chamber tonight—pointed out that the cost-driven exercise took no account of strategic shock. The events in Libya and Syria have proved the point. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked: where will the next one be? We have no idea what the next crisis might be. That is why we need capable Armed Forces. As an aside, Libya was a minor operation, but we could not have done it without the United States. I would strongly advise that we do not get involved militarily in Syria.
I come back to defence spending, because that is what I want to focus on. It is complacent and, I believe, shows a lack of understanding, to parrot the fact that our defence spending is the fourth highest in the world, as if that answers criticism that it is too small. First, figures can be very misleading, as many nations, as I know from my time as chief of defence intelligence, hide what we see as defence spending in lots of other areas, so it is sometimes difficult to know what they are actually spending.
Even if we are in the top six, so we should be. We are the fifth or sixth richest country in the world; we are a permanent member of the Security Council. Unlike many nations, we have a responsibility for 14 dependencies world wide. The Government recently reiterated our responsibility for defence of those dependencies. We run global shipping from London, the sinews that hold the global trading village together and are a huge earner for this nation. We are the largest European investor in South Asia, South-East Asia, Australasia and key parts of the Pacific Rim. Global stability is crucial to our investments and our nation’s wealth and security.
I share in the congratulations to the Minister, because he has been very good about briefing us in this House on defence issues, but he will, because he must as a Minister, no doubt talk about balancing the defence budget. Yes, the MoD equipment programme was overheated—there is no doubt about that—but talking about a balanced budget is sophistry. Future Force 2020, the headmark for the SDSR—
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Lord will be aware that speakers in the gap have a limit of four minutes.
Lord West of Spithead
I am aware of that.
Future Force 2020, the headmark for the SDSR, required a 1% increase in defence spending year on year from 2015-16. The Treasury has allowed only a 1% increase in the procurement budget. Therefore, the programme is underfunded; and therefore it is not balanced. The cuts so far have led to an underspend of £1.3 million, and they are being taken from money that has been voted by Parliament for defence. If, as David Cameron has argued, defence is the highest priority, we must increase defence spending, even if it means cutting other departments’ budgets. Certainly, involvement in any more foreign adventures without that commitment could be catastrophic. I repeat: our nation is standing into danger unless we increase defence spending as a matter of urgency.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, it is late. Perhaps because of that, the interest shown in this debate in terms of the number of speakers is limited. Nevertheless, the issue raised is one of real interest and importance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.
Relationships between countries and continents, strengths of countries and continents and their levels of influence change over time. For example, it will not be long before the size of the Chinese economy will exceed that of the United States. China’s military capability is also expanding fast and, with it, the confidence in wielding influence and greater political dominance that that brings. The United States, for its part, has made clear that it will be devoting more of its attention and resources, not least military ones, to the Far East and China, which will become its new strategic priority, and fewer to Europe. The United States ambassador to NATO has recently been quoted as saying that the NATO allies need to find the money to spend on military equipment to maintain the organisation’s strength. The US itself accounts for 75% of NATO’s budget and spends 4% of its GDP on defence. The ambassador asserted that the campaign in Libya had exposed what he described as “worrisome trends” in Europe’s ability to act without US help, that some European stockpiles had run out and had to be replenished by the United States, and that there were a,
“number of other critical capabilities that the US provided in spades”.
The future direction for the Middle East, in which we have considerable interests, is far from clear. Significant change, which was not predicted, has taken place in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. We have seen the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as an international phenomenon and the Gulf States, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, becoming more active players in events. The Sunni/Shia sectarian animosity in the Middle East continues to be a telling factor. Syria is in a state of turmoil and that is having repercussions in the Lebanon and Jordan. It remains to be seen in which direction Syria goes once President Assad has left the scene, and in particular the impact that this has on the Iranian Government and stability in the region, since the Iranians back the current Syrian regime.
Presidential elections are due in Iran in June and the current president will have to step down after two consecutive terms in office. Iran continues to face pressure over its nuclear intentions and its economy is in trouble. Israel also has elections later this month, though a significant change in government direction does not appear to be likely. The peace process between Israel and Palestine appears at present to be going nowhere, and there continues to be speculation on whether the Israeli military will strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
On top of this the growing strength of al-Qaeda in parts of Africa, the rise of new powers in Asia Pacific, weak states outnumbering stable states by two to one, and new threats in cyberspace, which have been the reality in the Middle East in recent months, are all matters to be taken into account in assessing future developments and priorities. Even though we may not have predicted at least some significant events that have taken place, forecasting what is going to happen in the future is likely to become more, not less, difficult. Today, energy security, climate change, demographic shifts, and the spread of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials are threats, alongside state-on-state warfare, or contorted religiously inspired terrorism.
The global economic downturn that we face means that we and the majority of our allies are making spending cuts, with unavoidable consequences for capability and global reach. In the UK the situation has not been helped by the fact that decisions taken by the Government have not yet stimulated domestic growth and austerity is set to be extended. Budgetary restraint is unavoidable, however undesirable. If we are to realise our intentions and ambitions for our forces they will have to be affordable, and the profile of the defence budget will be an expression of our priorities.
Carrier strike and improved ISTAR are vital. Strategic warning capabilities and intelligence will be crucial in providing early indicators of threats and potential crises. Two state-of-the-art fighter fleets, advanced unmanned vehicles supporting all three services and strategic air lift are also key components. That our Armed Forces personnel will continue to be our most important asset and skills must also be a strategic capability. We need highly trained service personnel able to use higher technology platforms and exploiting to the full the opportunities new technology presents, reservists using niche civilian skills in military contexts, not least in the field of cyberspace and cyber security, and a high-skilled, broad-based defence industry. Remote surveillance, manoeuvrability in cyberspace, better communications and acting at distance with accuracy are all necessary features for our future forces.
Alongside this must also be a greater focus on international alliance-building. Shared threats and financial challenges demand that we pool resources and expertise. The UK/France accord may lay the ground for multiple discrete bilateral or regional arrangements between nations. NATO, though, is the primary military grouping through which action will be taken, and Europe’s focus should be on greater deployability and burden-sharing within the alliance.
It is vital that European nations work together towards meeting military objectives. European NATO nations are making deep cuts to defence budgets in isolation of each other and the consequence could be cross-alliance shortfalls or duplication, which would certainly not be the best use of available resources overall.
We also need to consider the opinion of the British people when considering our defence posture in protecting and furthering British interests and ideas. The public are wary of interventionism, following recent conflicts and the financial crisis. We have to make the case for strong, proactive defence postures, with our goal being prevention before intervention, and early intervention before conflict.
Diplomacy can be more effective than the painful cure of military action, albeit that a key function of our Armed Forces is to deter and be a credible threat to those who wish us and our allies harm. Whether in tackling climate change, investing in civil society and governance or diplomatic engagement, the spectrum of soft-power capabilities at the UK’s disposal to defend our interests and promote our ideas in the world should be capitalised on.
Defence is becoming more intricate and complex while the world is becoming more interdependent, and we need a policy response as broad as the threats that we face. We must aim to have flexible forces with whole-spectrum capabilities, able to respond rapidly whether through preventive measures, reactive disaster relief or multilateral interventions, and we must ensure that our intentions and ambitions for our forces are affordable and can be financed, with the needs of the front line being matched to those of the bottom line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for introducing this timely debate. It is clear that on all sides of the House we share respect for the determination, professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces.
The noble Lord is correct that the welfare needs of our service personnel are, and will remain, a key priority—a duty that we extend to our veterans as well. The Armed Forces have long-standing structures in place to support service families, including welfare officers, trained social workers and other specialists. Under the Armed Forces covenant, the Government have made good progress on improving the care that we provide—for example, by doubling council tax relief to £600 per six-month deployment and ensuring that Armed Forces compensation scheme payments are excluded from means-tested social benefits.
There is much that we are doing with regard to veterans. The Armed Forces mental health strategy enables the co-ordination of policy, and focuses efforts and resources where they are most needed. We have also ensured that veterans will be given priority treatment on the NHS for all service-related conditions.
We work hard to ensure that our service personnel transition smoothly back to civilian employment. All personnel are entitled to assistance through this process. The single services, in partnership with Right Management, work with service leaders to deliver a range of practical assistance, including training and assistance with recruitment. My noble friend Lord Ashcroft, the Prime Minister’s special representative for veterans’ transition, will be reviewing current processes, and we look forward to his recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made reference to the annual report on the Armed Forces covenant, which was notified to Parliament last month by means of a Written Ministerial Statement. I warmly welcome the interest in this House in the Armed Forces covenant, and would welcome the chance to debate it should the opportunity arise.
The noble Lord also asked whether Armed Forces advocates had been appointed from all parts of the United Kingdom. I can confirm that there are now Armed Forces advocates in the devolved authorities of Wales and Scotland. Both Wales and Scotland have produced their own commitment papers on how they will implement the covenant, as well as contributing to the Secretary of State’s statutory report. An Armed Forces advocate has not been appointed by the Northern Ireland Executive, as their strict equalities legislation means that implementation of the covenant is more complicated.
Additionally, many local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland have appointed local Armed Forces advocates or champions as part of their commitment to the community covenant, working with local communities to improve access to services and support for serving and ex-service men and women and their families. Relevant UK government departments also have Armed Forces advocates, all of whom are represented on the Covenant Reference Group and are responsible for making sure that their departmental policies uphold the principles of the covenant.
As the noble Lord explained, we live in an uncertain world. As such, we need to ensure we have the capabilities to adapt and address a very broad range of challenges. The NSS and the SDSR made a number of strategic choices: to support the deficit reduction programme; to seek to maintain the UK’s international profile; and to honour our operational commitments in Afghanistan. They remain at the heart of this Government’s approach to foreign, defence and national resilience policies. The NSS also acknowledged the uncertainty of the future strategic environment, and the SDSR responded by prioritising those capabilities across government that will allow us to adapt to changes as they happen.
The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord West, and my noble friend Lord Palmer all mentioned carrier strike. We will have planes. We will have the B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter—the STOVL variant—which, as the noble Lord, Lord West, knows flew very successfully off the USS “Wasp” in November 2011.
In the SDSR the Government confirmed our belief that it is correct for the United Kingdom to retain, in the long-term, a carrier-strike capability. In the short term, however, there are few circumstances we can envisage where the ability to deploy air power from the sea will be essential. That is why we reluctantly took the decision to retire the Harriers and Invincible-class carriers before the new carriers become operational. We did not take this decision lightly, but did so mindful of the current strategic context in which we live. The decision on the second carrier will be one for the next SDSR after the general election.
The Middle East remains a significant source of instability. One immediate risk, as noble Lords said—
Lord West of Spithead
Just on a point of clarity, the Secretary of State said that it was an aspiration of this Government that they would run two carriers although the final decision had not been made. Is that the correct decision?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am not sure what the Secretary of State said but I can confirm that this is definitely a decision for the SDSR. It is my personal aspiration that we have a second carrier operating.
As the noble Lord said, an immediate risk is the collapse of the Syrian regime. We will continue to support our allies in the region and would like to see a diplomatic solution but we cannot afford to remove options from the table at this stage. Our current posture in the region supports UK interest in international efforts by securing globally important economical arteries, including the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring the well-being of regional partners and contributing to regional security.
The UK currently has one frigate, one destroyer, four mine hunters and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels deployed to the Gulf conducting maritime security operations. I can assure the House that the Government continue to keep the Middle East under constant review. We will adapt as required to meet any emerging threats wherever they may arise.
While responding—and being prepared to respond—in the Middle East, we have continued to make significant progress in Afghanistan. We have built the capability of the Afghan national security forces so that they can prevent Afghan territory from ever again being used as a safe haven by international terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. We have helped to underpin a more stable Government and have overseen elections. We have demonstrated the Armed Forces’ ability to act elsewhere, such as in the seas off Somalia, where we are working alongside navies from around the world to control the spread of piracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about nerve agents and chemical weapons. Happily, I can confirm that insurgents in Afghanistan have not used nerve agents or other chemical weapons against coalition forces. There have been a few cases in Iraq where improvised devices containing industrial chemicals and small quantities of chemical agent were detonated, but these did not result in any coalition fatalities. I can also assure the House that our Armed Forces are adequately equipped and trained to operate in an environment where these threats exist, both overseas and in the UK.
The noble Lord asked me to outline the Government’s policy on the replacement of the Trident system. It remains as set out in the SDSR. We will maintain a continuous submarine-based deterrent and will begin the work of replacing the existing submarines. Work on the assessment phase of the replacement submarine programme has been under way since May 2011. The final decision as to whether to proceed with the Main Gate investment decision for the replacement programme will take place in 2016, after the next election.
I can reassure my noble friend that the Armed Forces are not subject to overstretch. As we recover and recuperate from Afghanistan, our flexibility will be greatly enhanced. The SDSR set out plans to transform defence so that we emerge with a more coherent capability in the future, under what is known as Future Force 2020. This required tough decisions to scale back the overall size of the Armed Forces and reduce some capabilities less critical to today’s requirements. The SDSR gave us the full structure of Future Force 2020 which, by the next decade, will enable us to deliver our adaptable strategic posture. It is based on our assessment of the forces required to meet our standing commitments, while conducting three overlapping operations: a simple, non-enduring intervention; a complex non-enduring intervention; and an enduring stabilisation operation.
The top defence priority remains success in Afghanistan. As we move towards Future Force 2020, the ability of our Armed Forces to respond to additional contingent tasking is kept under constant review by the Ministry of Defence. It is from this realistic capacity that additional commitments are delivered.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, relating to the violence in Northern Ireland, first, I am sure that the House will join me in condemning the violent demonstrations that we have witnessed recently. We should recognise the outstanding efforts of the PSNI and the bravery demonstrated by police officers in maintaining law and order. I call on all political parties in Northern Ireland to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes peacefully. The violence witnessed does not represent the true face of Northern Ireland’s business and community sectors and wider society. Although military operations in Northern Ireland ceased in 2007, our Armed Forces continue to play an important role supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord that this will continue.
My noble friend Lord Palmer asked how many generals we will have in an Army of 82,000 and in France. I cannot today give my noble friend a specific answer on the number of generals, but I assure him that, proportionally, there will be a greater decrease in major generals and above compared to brigadier and below.
My noble friend also asked about Iron Dome. The UK currently has no plans to develop or acquire national ballistic missile defence capability. However, each SDSR provides an opportunity to review this position against projected threats. Iron Dome is not a ballistic missile defence system, but is designed to provide relatively short-range protection against rockets and artillery shells. Its role is comparable to the maritime close-in weapons systems deployed by the UK in Operation Telic to protect UK forces in Basra.
I will respond to my noble friend on the issue of generals and the other questions that he asked.