House of Commons
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
1. Whether the UK will be officially represented at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December 2014.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Government have received an invitation to the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December. We are considering whether to attend.
Jeremy Corbyn
I urge the Government to attend the conference and to join the family of nations around the world that supported the previous conferences. One hundred and twenty-eight nations attended the 2013 conference in Norway, 145 went to Mexico earlier this year and the New Zealand Government, on behalf of 155 nations, have urged universal attendance at this conference. They have drawn attention to the first ever resolution that was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1946, which drew attention to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare on humanity as a whole. Britain should be there and should not boycott it, as it will apparently do along with the other five permanent members of the Security Council.
Mr Ellwood
The House will be aware of the hon. Gentleman’s consistent views on this subject. The goals of the conference are unclear and, consequently, none of the P5 nuclear weapon states has attended the conferences in the past, as he said. We do not believe that a ban on nuclear weapons is negotiable, nor that it would even be observed by many nuclear powers. Even if it could be achieved in theory, in practice the confidence and verification measures that would be necessary to make it effective are not in place.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest humanitarian effect of Britain’s possession of a nuclear deterrent is to reduce the chances of nuclear war or nuclear blackmail against this country?
Mr Ellwood
The House is, as ever, grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest and expertise in this matter. The Government’s policy is that the Vanguard class submarine will be replaced at the end of its life in the late-2020s by the successor strategic submarine, which will carry the Trident missiles, subject to main-gate investment approval for the programme in 2016. I know that he will approve of that.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The last conference was attended by more than 140 states and by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and representatives of civil society. What message does it send to the rest of the world and to rogue regimes that seek to have nuclear weapons that the UK is prepared to boycott such a conference? The Minister went to school in Vienna. Why does he not take the opportunity to go back and take part in the conference?
Mr Ellwood
As I said, the objectives of the conference are unclear. That is why the P5 nations have not attended in the past. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are doing nothing. We have reduced the number of nuclear warheads that we possess by well over 50% since the peak of the cold war. In 2010, this Government announced further reductions to have no more than 120 operationally available warheads and a total stockpile of no more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. That is action, which is what the Government need to pursue.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
2. What recent representations he has made to the Algerian Government on ensuring that Christians and other religious minorities are protected from persecution and discrimination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
We regularly discuss human rights with the Algerian Government, although we have not raised religious freedoms specifically. Human rights will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the EU-Algeria political dialogue.
Naomi Long
I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am disappointed that religious persecution has not been raised with the Algerian Government. What advice is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office giving to colleagues in the immigration service to ensure that they are fully equipped to offer good advice and support to people from Algeria and north Africa more generally who apply for asylum on the basis of religious persecution?
Mr Ellwood
I certainly will raise the matter with my Algerian counterparts. The hon. Lady has raised an important issue. She will be aware that regulations governing religion in Algeria came into force in May 2007. They are designed to be multi-faith and not to focus on one particular religion. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter in more detail.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The atmosphere in which religious discrimination takes place is affected by other issues in a country, including economic pressures and the like. Does my hon. Friend think that the recent successful elections in Tunisia will ease the atmosphere in respect of persecution across the area more generally? Does he also think that economic development in the area, which is necessary for justice to prevail, is getting a boost from our work in Algeria?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, and Tunisia is to be congratulated on the considerable progress it has made. It has just completed parliamentary elections, and presidential elections will follow in November, replacing the technocratic Government who have guided the country on its transition towards its new status as a fully fledged democracy. I very much welcome those changes: strong civil society, national dialogue, an apolitical army, and new progress towards a constitution.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Religious intolerance and persecution is a problem throughout the world. What will the Government do to raise that issue with the Human Rights Council next year, and what does the Minister think the United Nations can do now to tackle the problem?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the issue is raised at the United Nations General Assembly and in our bilaterals. Britain will continue to raise the issue on a regular basis at all our meetings, not just those in the middle east but also with other countries where there are questions to be asked in that area.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the Minister doing for my constituents who have complained not only about the treatment of Christians in Algeria but also about the increasing pressure on Christians in Pakistan? What are we doing to monitor that, and what will we do about it?
Mr Ellwood
As I said, we are having bilaterals on that issue. The specific issue in Algeria is to do with new regulations that have been introduced. The rules are there but they now need to be implemented, and we will continue to have a dialogue on that. I intend to visit Algeria soon, and given the concern that the House has expressed today, I will certainly raise that issue during my visit.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
3. What progress his Department has made with the British Indian Ocean Territory Chagossian resettlement feasibility study; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The independent feasibility study on resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory is on track to report by January 2015. Ongoing consultations with interested parties, including Chagossians, are taking place so that all relevant facts are considered in the analysis of the practical costs and risks of resettlement.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Given upcoming negotiations on extending the military base on Diego Garcia with the United States, may I have assurances from the Department that the interests of the Chagos islands people will be very much part of those discussions with Washington?
Mr Swire
That is precisely why we have commissioned the KPMG report. The way that the Chagossians were treated following their removal in the ’60s and ’70s was clearly wrong, and substantial compensation was rightly paid. We welcome the US presence in Diego Garcia. It is an increasingly important asset for both our Governments, but there have been no formal discussions with the US about the possibility of extending the exchange of notes to date.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I met 60 members of the Chagos community in my constituency on Friday—a faithful people but as they do not have the right to return they once again feel that will not adequately mourn their dead as they approach All Hallows next week. Their elders are passing away without having recorded their stories of displacement, and their young are finding it increasingly difficult to find salaried employment or to visit their friends in Crawley and other places across the country. They also worry about us ceding sovereignty. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing more for those people, rather than less?
Mr Swire
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out on 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.[Official Report, 3 November 2014, Vol. 587, c. 5-6MC.]
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
A previous Father of the House and great friend of mine, Sir Bernard Braine, was a passionate advocate of the rights of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia when the whole idea of turning it into a base was launched. In his memory, may I say that I very much hope that the guarantees that he received from the British Government of the time about looking after those people will be fulfilled?
Mr Swire
My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House of our responsibilities towards the Chagossians, and as I said earlier, the actions of the ’60s and ’70s were clearly wrong and substantial compensation was rightly paid. It is worth pointing out that the British High Court in 2008, and the European Court in 2012, ruled that the compensation was a full and final settlement of the Chagossians’ claims.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Turkey.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Turkey is an important security partner for the UK in NATO and in actions against terrorism. She faces major challenges because of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and we value the Turkish humanitarian contribution and her support for coalition activities against ISIL.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Minister for that reply. The security situation in Turkey remains extraordinarily delicate. What support have the Government given to assist Turkey with those serious security concerns while also respecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens?
Mr Lidington
Only last week we held one of our regular discussions with the Turkish authorities about counter-terrorism co-operation. The subjects discussed included better work to detect explosive traces in material going through airports and how we can better share information about airline passengers to guard against future terrorist attack.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister referred to Turkey’s role with regard to Syria. Does he agree that it is absolutely deplorable that the Turkish Government are not providing assistance to the besieged people of Kobane and the other Syrian Kurds facing an existential threat from ISIL? Turkey needs to get off the fence and to decide which side it is on. Is it with ISIL, or is it with the civilian population and the Kurds in Syria?
Mr Lidington
The Turkish Government have made it very clear that they are on the side of the coalition and against ISIL. They are now allowing Kurdish fighters to cross through Turkish territory to take part in the fighting around Kobane. It is also worth the hon. Gentleman bearing it in mind that Turkey is providing refuge to 1.5 million people who have fled the fighting in Iraq and Syria, and we ought to acknowledge that contribution too.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Turkey’s security interests with regard to Islamic State are absolutely engaged, as are those of the other two major regional powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran. If those three countries can be got to agree a political strategy towards Islamic State, we will begin to have a sensible military strategy to underpin it. What work is going on to get those three countries to discuss that seriously?
Mr Lidington
There was a coalition meeting of Ministers in the margins of the recent NATO ministerial meeting at which that political discussion was taken forward. Clearly, we would welcome it unreservedly if it were possible to rally all the regional powers towards a united effort to defeat ISIL and to see the Iraqi Government, the legitimate authorities, re-establish control over all their territory.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
For four years, I have noticed that the Tory Con-Dem Government have very much been apologists for Turkey. The Prime Minister indicated that he wanted Turkey in the European Union. Here we are again, apologising, or at least this Front Bench is apologising, for Turkey’s failure to act in concert with the British and Americans. What is it that gets Tory Ministers so engaged in wanting to befriend Turkey and to get it into the EU?
Mr Lidington
The Government do not apologise for upholding the national interest of the United Kingdom by working closely with Turkey, which has been our NATO ally under Governments of different political colours over many decades. There are issues on which we disagree, in which case we make our views clear, but I hope that even the hon. Gentleman would welcome the work that the Turkish Government are doing to try to bring about a reconciliation with the Kurds—something we all want to see.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
5. What recent steps the Government have taken to assist with the reconstruction of Gaza.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
On 12 October, at the reconstruction conference in Cairo, the UK pledged £20 million to help kick-start Gaza’s recovery. It is essential that both sides take the necessary practical steps to allow reconstruction. Reconstruction of Gaza is necessary and urgent to get the economy back to business, but progress to a political settlement must follow quickly on its heels.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Many in the House were concerned about the impact on ordinary Palestinians during the 50-day conflict. Of particular concern was the bombing of the hospital in Gaza. Will he advise us what the Government are doing to help rebuild vital medical facilities in Gaza?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is deeply engaged in that question. As I have said, we have pledged £20 million and we will continue to work with the UN and other agencies, but we urgently require an unsticking of the process that allows construction materials into Gaza so that physical reconstruction can commence. When that process is under way, I am sure there will be significant further pledges of assistance on top of the billions of dollars already available to reconstruct Gaza as a result of the Cairo conference.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Have any arrangements been agreed to ensure that much-needed building materials for hospitals, schools and homes will not be diverted to rebuilding the terror tunnels, which Hamas claims it has started to do?
Mr Hammond
This is the essential challenge: ensuring that construction materials in the quantities needed can enter Gaza under a monitoring regime that is satisfactory to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians and that they are applied to the rebuilding of homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and not diverted for military purposes. Such a mechanism is in place. There was a temporary glitch—hopefully—earlier this week in its operation, but officials are working flat out to try to resolve it. I hope we see major progress over the next few days.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Hamas continues to rule Gaza with such brutality and to amass missiles—as we have heard, many of them are from Iran—the prospect of a viable and democratic Palestinian state looks ever more unlikely?
Mr Hammond
The challenge to the authority of the Palestinian Authority from what is happening in Gaza is an impediment to progress on a broader middle east peace settlement, but I am of the view that we must first bring humanitarian relief to Gaza, which means getting started urgently on reconstruction. We then need a sustained ceasefire and settlement around Gaza as a step to proceeding to a resumption of the wider middle east peace process. I hope for significant American leadership to revitalise that process over the coming weeks and months.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that the urgent and pressing matter is the humanitarian and reconstruction needs currently faced by the people of Gaza. Is it a forlorn hope—can he give us some hope—for a political solution in the medium to long term that allows the security needs of the Israelis and the Israeli nation to be met at the same time as the lifting of the economic constrictions and the strangulation of Gaza? That has to be the way forward.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. All hon. Members would agree that the Gazan economy needs to be reactivated so that people can get back to something like life as normal. The stranglehold imposed by the access regime needs to be relaxed, but it can be relaxed only in the context of Israel feeling safe and secure.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to offer support to the Government of Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
The UK is providing £19 million of assistance to the Ukrainian Government. We are one of the largest contributors of election and border monitors, but most importantly, we are maintaining pressure on Russia through sanctions to withdraw troops, to cease support for separatists and to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sure the House wishes President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk every possible success in resolving their dispute with Russia peacefully. I met the Prime Minister in the summer and he told me that his country was desperately short of resources and equipment. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do whatever they can to help.
Mr Hammond
The Government have already made non-lethal equipment available to support the Ukrainian armed forces, and we are working with European Union partners to look at the needs of the Ukrainian economy over the coming winter. Ukraine faces a massive energy crunch over the next few months, and the Ukrainian economy is likely to have shrunk by more than 6.5% since before the conflict began. We are acutely aware—we discussed this at the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday in Luxembourg—of the fact that Ukraine is likely to be looking for further support from the EU this winter.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that the dismemberment of Ukraine stays at the forefront of everyone’s mind? Can he absolutely assure the House that there is no intention on our part of allowing this to slip down the agenda, thereby allowing the aggression to stand and the de facto creation of new Russia to become embedded?
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The big risk is of a frozen conflict and people’s attention turning elsewhere, and it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that some of our European partners are more robust on the agenda that he has set out than others. We are determined—and we have some powerful allies in the European Union—to maintain the pressure on Russia, including keeping sanctions in place, until Russia complies with its obligations under the Minsk agreement, in particular: the removal of Russian forces; the proper monitoring of the border between Ukraine and Russia, not the line of control between separatists and Ukraine forces; and an end to active Russian support for the separatists.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Last night I returned from Kharkiv, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is just to the north of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. In Kharkiv on Sunday, the situation was calm, peaceful and orderly, and I suspect we will find that the results of the election will prove to be fair and a proper reflection of what the people of Ukraine want. That being so, will my right hon. Friend call the Russian ambassador in and tell him that it is wholly inappropriate for the Russian Foreign Minister to seek to promote unofficial elections in Donetsk and Luhansk?
Mr Hammond
Sunday’s elections were a clear demonstration of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. We have made it clear, and the European Union again last week endorsed a collective position, that we will not recognise illegal elections organised by separatists. The only elections we will recognise are those organised by and operating under Ukrainian law.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is good to be back on the Front Bench after a short absence. I thank hon. Members for their messages of good will, especially those from some Government Members who are somewhat fearful of their own party’s direction at the present time.
In our current debates about the European Union, we should not forget that its expansion to include former Warsaw pact countries was a victory for peace and democracy. It was a foreign policy victory for the west, championed by the Conservative Government at the time, and it means that war between member states is almost inconceivable. However, for countries outside the EU, such as Ukraine, it can be a very different story. Following the elections, what more can we do with our European partners to stop the further undermining of Ukrainian sovereignty and ensure that a newly elected Government there is free to choose its own path for the country’s future?
Mr Hammond
First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s return to his place on the Front Bench. We look forward to debating all these issues with him.
Of course the election on Sunday was important in underscoring the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Government. I have already set out our demands that the Russians comply with their obligations under the Minsk agreement—withdrawing their troops from Ukrainian territory, allowing proper monitoring of the border and ending their support to the separatists—but it goes further than that. It is about the more subtle forms of Russian control and influence over the Ukrainian economy and political system. We are working closely with President Poroshenko and his Government to ensure that Ukraine has a robust position in response to those forms of pressure. Although the European Union does not agree on all issues in relation to the Russia-Ukraine dispute, it is pretty much clear and unified in its view that Ukraine must be allowed to choose its own future free of external pressure.
Mr Speaker
We need to speed up. Progress is very slow and there are a lot of questions to get through.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
7. If he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in projects which bring them together and build a new generation of leaders committed to peace and dialogue.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
10. What steps his Department is taking to support projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
11. Whether he has discussed with his Israeli counterpart the content of the debate in the House on 13 October 2014 on Palestine and Israel; what recent discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on the future of the peace process; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Despite the tragic events during the summer, we remain committed to supporting efforts for peace. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate general in Jerusalem work closely with all sectors of society, including the ultra-Orthodox communities, Israeli Arabs and Palestinian communities affected by the occupation, to build constituencies for peace.
Mr McCann
I thank the Minister for his answer, but on an International Development Committee visit to the middle east earlier this year, it was noted that the conflict fund had insufficient funding to support groups that were promoting peace from both sides. I urge the Minister to expand the conflict fund pool and look again at organisations such as Cherish, Parents Circle and Middle East Education Through Technology, which are trying to get peace in the region.
Mr Ellwood
Certainly, the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are keen to receive strong applications for the conflict, stability and security fund—as the conflict fund is now called—for joint projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together to achieve peace. This is the first time I have heard that there are issues to do with the funding. I will certainly look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Ian Austin
It is important to step up the work that the Minister outlined, because the only way to resolve this conflict is through a stable, two-state solution with security and peace for both Israel and Palestine. There is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to that objective; it will be achieved only by getting Israelis and Palestinians working together to build trust, to compromise and to negotiate and by means of economic development and trade in the west bank and by the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza.
Mr Ellwood
The whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, had the opportunity to visit Gaza, Jerusalem, Israel and the occupied territories over the last few weeks. I was astonished by the amount of energy there and by the people who absolutely want to work together. One example of that is the UK-Israel tech hub, which is driving economic and technological collaboration between the UK and Israel. The hub is working with Israeli and Arab experts, including Palestinian, to support work and build partnerships in the quick-growing Arab internet sector.
Grahame M. Morris
May I draw the Minister’s attention to comments made last week by the Israeli deputy Defence Minister, Moshe Yalom, a Likud party MP and close ally of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He said about President Abbas:
“He is a partner for discussion; a partner for managing the conflict. I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests.”
Has the Foreign Secretary discussed those comments with Israeli officials?
Mr Ellwood
We take on board the comments made, and it is interesting to note that on Yalom’s visit to the United States, no senior representation was there to meet him. That is perhaps a reflection of how out of sync those comments were. As the Foreign Secretary has reiterated, it is important that we focus on humanitarian efforts, which were discussed at the Gaza donor conference in Cairo, which I attended. Then we should see an immediate return to negotiations.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
16. Even strong supporters of the state of Israel are concerned that building on the west bank is likely to postpone the peaceful dialogue that we all want to see. What is the Government’s position on that?
Mr Ellwood
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have condemned the building in the occupied territories. Such building certainly makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not taking the process for peace seriously. We very much encourage all sides to come to the table. I visited the E1 area on my recent visit, and it was clear what difficulties this building would cause in the conurbation between Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem. We discourage the building of any further settlements there.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Illegal settlements are not just about how to defend the Israeli Government. Surely, the result of such settlements is to put the possibility of a two-state solution further and further into the future, to the extent that it could be argued that such a solution has now been completely undermined. Does my hon. Friend accept that no leader of the Palestinians could accept a solution that, for example, made it impossible for a Palestinian state to have East Jerusalem as its capital?
Mr Ellwood
The issues raised by such settlements are very serious indeed, but we must not allow them to deflect from the bigger issue of reaching an actual settlement. It is possible for land swaps to take place and, as my right hon. and learned Friend implies, what is happening is illegal under article 46 of The Hague regulations. However, we do not want people to be distracted by the settlements; we want them to come to the table and restart the negotiations.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the key point is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to get round the negotiating table to discuss a two-state solution without preconditions, reflecting Israel’s security interests and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Arab peace initiative could prove vital in assisting a move towards the essential two-state solution for Israel and the long-suffering Palestinian people. Does the Minister agree that in the light of yesterday’s welcome Tunisian election results, which were good news not only for the Tunisian people but for the wider Arab world, it is right for such regional initiatives to be considered as a matter of urgency?
Mr Ellwood
I think that those are wise words. I have congratulated Tunisia on the journey it has made, bearing in mind that it was responsible for the very start of the Arab spring. It is a small ray of hope in a very complex area, and I hope that other nations will take a lead from it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry not to have accommodated more colleagues on question 7, but both questions and answers have been extremely long.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia in encouraging a change of approach by that country towards eastern Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
EU sanctions are having a clear impact on Russia’s economy. Capital flight has increased, and Russian access to western financial markets is severely constrained. Sanctions are estimated to have slowed GDP growth by 1%, and to have contributed to the rouble’s falling by 20% against the dollar since 1 January. The fall in the oil price is piling further pressure on the Russian economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
What is the Foreign Secretary’s considered assessment of the relationship between the dependence of some of our European partners on Russian energy supplies, and the effectiveness and robustness of the sanctions that we have pursued against Russia?
Mr Hammond
The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or May, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.[Official Report, 3 November 2014, Vol. 587, c. 6MC.]
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
We hear that today, having apparently endorsed the main Ukrainian elections, Moscow has yet again reiterated its support for separate elections in Luhansk and Donetsk, thus undermining the peace process. Does the Foreign Secretary think that that should lead the European Union to review the level of sanctions that is appropriate, and, if necessary, enhance it?
Mr Hammond
I think that the correct response is simply to ignore, and refuse to recognise, the results of any elections that were organised illegally by the separatists.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
24. Sanctions should be a means to a diplomatic end. These sanctions are clearly having an impact on the Russian economy, but will the Secretary of State update the House on what diplomatic reaction there has been from President Putin in the light of the pressure on his economy?
Mr Hammond
I do not think that the phrases “diplomatic reaction” and “President Putin” usually go hand in hand. There has certainly been a reaction from President Putin, but I am not sure whether it could be described as diplomatic.
Channels are open. The Germans, in particular, maintain a close dialogue with the Kremlin. I think that the Kremlin understands, and needs to understand, the determination of the European Union to stand firm, and the fact that Russia must honour its obligations under the Minsk agreement. There is nothing else to discuss at the moment.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK military strikes in Iraq in helping to tackle the advance of ISIL.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of the effect of coalition airstrikes on ISIL.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
The United Kingdom is part of a coalition of more than 60 countries supporting the Government of Iraq against ISIL, and RAF strikes are assisting Iraqi ground forces. A number of strategically important towns in the north have been liberated by the peshmerga, but the scale of the problem remains significant. The coalition’s air intervention has halted the rapid ISIL advance, but it alone is not capable of rolling back ISIL’s gains. Ultimately, the fight against ISIL in Iraq must be led by the Iraqis themselves, with the new Government ensuring that there is an inclusive and unified response.
Sandra Osborne
The Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged that the air strikes are only one element of a wider political and military strategy, including support for the creation of a more representative Iraqi Government. Having just returned from Iraq with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am aware of ongoing disputes between Irbil and Baghdad, which may well have a negative effect on the achievement of that aim. What progress does the Foreign Secretary think can be made, and what are the implications if the situation cannot be resolved?
Mr Hammond
There are still outstanding disputes between Irbil and Baghdad, but, if I may say so having been there two and a half weeks ago myself, the mood music between Irbil and Baghdad is much better now than it has been for months, probably years. Kurdish Ministers are now in Baghdad. There is a serious discussion going on about the division of oil revenues, which is one of the crucial outstanding issues. I told the House a week or so ago, and I repeat again today, that I am optimistic about relationships between Irbil and Baghdad at least in the medium term.
Stephen Hammond
Important though air strikes are, of course alone they are not going to defeat ISIL. In his answer to the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) my right hon. Friend explained the political progress being made in Iraq. Will he update the House on how he sees the importance of political progress in Syria in also defeating ISIL?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the fullness of time, pushing ISIL back in Iraq, which is our first priority, will not be sufficient to defeat that organisation; there will have to be political progress in Syria as well. At the moment we are focused on ensuring the consolidation of the Syrian moderate opposition and the organisation of the additional training and equipping that the US Congress has now agreed to finance for Syrian moderate opposition fighters.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Speaking of the campaign against ISIL, the US director of national intelligence recently testified that the Syrian opposition is composed of at least 1,500 separate militias, and a recent US congressional report went further in claiming that the Free Syrian Army does not actually refer to any
“organised command and control structure with national reach”,
so can the Foreign Secretary set out whether the Government’s own scoping exercise that is under way is focused on the Free Syrian Army, or whether support for other opposition groups is being considered as part of this exercise?
Mr Hammond
We will be working closely with our American allies, and General John Allen in his newly appointed role will be the overall co-ordinator of this programme, but the Americans have made it very clear that while the Free Syrian Army will be part of this programme of training and equipping, the whole thing will not operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army; other organisations who are judged to be moderate and share our objectives will be able to participate.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
But does the Secretary of State accept that in Syria it is going to be months, if not years, before the Syrian moderate opposition will be strong enough to push back the Islamic State terrorists in the north? Is there not a fundamental gap in international strategy, including that of the British Government, if that is what they are relying on to remove Islamic State in Syria?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right; it will take time—it will take time to train and organise the force that will be able to do this. In the meantime, we will use coalition air strikes to contain and degrade ISIL, but defeating it on the ground will take Syrian boots, and training those Syrian boots is going to take time.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
During a visit by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to Iraq and Kurdistan last week we were told of the gratitude of the Iraqis and the Kurds towards the British Government for the help they are giving. We also saw the peshmerga being trained with the new weaponry that has been sent to Kurdistan, but they are taking enormous hits. They are very brave as we all know, but they are taking enormous hits and they need more weapons; that is the message they wanted us to get across.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and she will not be surprised to learn that I heard a very similar message when I was in Irbil a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has appointed Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall as his security envoy to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Part of his task is to assess the needs of the peshmerga, and their abilities as well—there is no point giving them weapons they cannot maintain or use effectively. We have supplied them with some heavy calibre machine guns, which they are now deploying to good effect, but we are constantly open to suggestions from the peshmerga about any additional requirements they may have.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The point has just been made that the peshmerga are defending hundreds of miles of frontier with just rifles, and what they desperately need is equipment, equipment and equipment. To what extent is the Foreign Office liaising with our allies to make sure there is not a duplication of equipment and to enable us to supply the very important equipment the Peshmerga need?
Mr Hammond
There is co-ordination with allies. Part of the point of the US appointing General John Allen to act as a co-ordinator for the coalition is to ensure that we do these things efficiently and effectively. My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that the peshmerga are defending 1,000 km of frontier in what is effectively ISIL-controlled territory. They are doing that extraordinarily bravely, but there are still significant deficiencies in their weaponry, and we must look collectively at those and address them as rapidly as we can.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
12. What steps the Government are taking to support the Kurdish peshmerga.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
As I have just said, the Prime Minister has appointed Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall as his security envoy to the Kurdistan region of Iraq. At the request of the Government of Iraq, we have delivered over 300 tonnes of supplies to Irbil. This includes over 100 tonnes of weapons and equipment from the UK. We are instructing peshmerga soldiers on the operation of the heavy machine guns that we have delivered, as well as on counter-IED techniques.
Nick de Bois
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he believe that more could be done by regional states to support the fight against ISIS by the peshmerga? Does he also believe that more could be done to ensure that we retain the support of our constituents who rightly think that more should be done by the regions?
Mr Hammond
Yes, but let me answer that question slightly more widely. The situation in Iraq, including in the Kurdistan region, is complex. There is a lot of history and a lot of baggage in the region. While the neighbouring states are all—remarkably—aligned in their desire to see ISIL defeated, the historical pattern of relationships and enmities between the different groups means that we have to take care when deciding who does what and how they do it. We need to be sensitive to the context of the region.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
This is not just about Iraq and Syria. As the Foreign Secretary knows, ISIL-backed groups have also been successful in bringing Yemen to the brink of civil war. What further action can be taken to help the Governments of the whole region?
Mr Hammond
Specifically on Yemen, we are very concerned about the security situation there and we continue to support the legitimate Government in Sana’a and to work with regional partners. I had a meeting with Gulf Co-operation Council partners the week before last, at which we considered carefully the options for supporting the legitimate regime in Sana’a against the Houthi coup.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
13. When he last raised with the Burmese Government the subject of political prisoners in Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I last raised the subject of political prisoners with Burma’s Deputy Foreign Minister Thant Kyaw in June. We welcome the release of more than 1,000 political prisoners since 2011, but we are concerned by the recent rise in politically motivated arrests and we continue to lobby for the unconditional release of all political prisoners.
Sir Bob Russell
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He has confirmed that the number of political prisoners in Burma is going up. Will he tell us how many additional political prisoners have been arrested there this year?
Mr Swire
Since 8 October, 3,000 petty criminals have been released, as well as 91 in August and 109 in September, including child soldiers. The answer, however, is that one political prisoner in Burma is one too many, and we will continue to make that point to visiting Ministers, who come here fairly regularly these days.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
As well as raising the subject of political prisoners, will the Minister also raise the subject of the killing of the journalist Aung Naing by the Burmese army?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister has rightly raised concerns that the headline figures for the release of political prisoners are perhaps not what they seem. Concerns have been raised about conditions being attached to the release of prisoners, for example, and about the continuing arrests of human rights defenders and journalists. Does he share the concern of the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights about signs of possible backtracking by the Burmese regime? What can we do to ensure that Burma remains on the road to democracy as we approach next year’s elections?
Mr Swire
As the hon. Lady knows, we have continuing concerns, not least in Rakhine and Kachin. Only yesterday I was discussing these concerns with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has just been there. The big goal in all this is the parliamentary elections next year. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that they are inclusive and credible elections, from which can flow a better and more democratic Burma for all the component parts of that wonderful country.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in southern Lebanon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
We regularly assess the security situation in southern Lebanon, as well as the rest of the country. We are concerned about the continued low-level violence, but commend the crucial role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon—UNIFIL—in maintaining the peace and de-escalating conflict when it occurs.
Michael Fabricant
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will know from his previous job that Iran provides funds and arms to insurgents who previously killed and maimed British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is now doing the same with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. What steps can we take to stop Iran being such a dangerous body in that part of the world?
Mr Ellwood
We are watching the situation carefully, but we currently judge that neither Israel nor Hezbollah wants to escalate the situation in southern Lebanon. Both sides have chosen to make public statements following recent incidents, and UNIFIL-led tripartite meetings involving the Lebanese armed forces, the Israeli defence force and the UN are arranged, and have successfully reduced tension and prevented escalation.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since the summer, the Foreign Office has responded to multiple crises. The UK has joined the coalition against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, pledged £20 million to help rebuild Gaza, led a tough European response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and been front and centre of the international fight against Ebola. Beyond those immediate crises, my priority is to put the national interest at the heart of everything the Foreign Office does: to redouble the FCO’s efforts to help British companies abroad; to lay the ground for a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union; and to ensure that the Foreign Office builds stability overseas to maintain our security at home.
Mr Hammond
The UK is leading on the Ebola response in Sierra Leone, and the British people should be extremely proud of what we have delivered: we have so far pledged nearly £250 million; we are building 700 beds in the country; we have about 750 service personnel deployed in support of that operation; and we are lobbying furiously for support from both European Union partners and other countries around the world. I am pleased to say that that lobbying effort is beginning to bear fruit, with significant pledges of both money and, more importantly, clinical workers to support the effort we are carrying out in Sierra Leone.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, the UK’s £205 million contribution to helping tackle the spread of Ebola, and of course the additional EU resources secured at last week’s Council meeting? Will the Foreign Secretary set out how quickly those resources from other EU member states will be utilised? The commitments are important but, as he recognises, it is vital that action is taken on the ground in west Africa.
Mr Hammond
Many of the financial commitments that have been made are commitments to support the UN fund. The UN recognises that the three framework countries—the United States in Liberia, France in Guinea and the UK in Sierra Leone—are best positioned to deliver an effect on the ground. One thing we are trying to do is get partner countries to plug in to the framework that we have already put on the ground. So we are building these 700 beds, we have a logistics operation in place and where we are told, for example, by Australia, “I can give you 50 clinical staff”, we can plug those in straight away; they do not have to set up an operation on the ground.
Mr Alexander
Let me ask a little more about the operation on the ground. It is, of course, right that we acknowledge the extraordinary work being undertaken by British aid workers, officials and troops based in the region, who are putting themselves at considerable personal risk. I also pay tribute to the International Development Secretary, who sent an important signal by travelling there with British troops. Of course it is the responsibility of the Government to support their efforts and to take every possible precaution with the safety of British personnel, so will the Foreign Secretary set out what measures are in place to support the diplomatic and consular staff, as well as the military, who are currently based in west Africa?
Mr Hammond
That is a very good question. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have slimmed down our diplomatic staff, removing from Freetown people who are medically vulnerable and dependants who do not need to be there. We are constructing, and will have in operation within the next 10 days, a dedicated 12-bed unit, run by British military medics, for the treatment of international health care workers and British nationals to a western standard of care. We also have a medevac capability, which has been pretty thin over the past few months but which by the end of this month will have surged in capability so that we would be able to deal with any foreseeable level of medevac requirement from Sierra Leone.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
T3. Ministers will be aware that Boko Haram continues to detain 200 young women in Nigeria and that the country becomes progressively more unstable and divided as the weeks go by. What can the UK do diplomatically to try to support more effective government in Nigeria?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend knows, an election is taking place in Nigeria next year and, in the pre-election season, it is quite difficult to change government behaviour. We are working closely with the Nigerian security services, military and intelligence services to try to track down the Chibok schoolgirls and other people who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
T2. It is vital that the countries affected by Ebola get the right medical, logistical and engineering personnel they need not only to deal with the immediate situation but to rebuild their health systems. What advice and training are the Government giving to British nationals who are travelling to the region to help fight this virus?
Mr Hammond
The British Army medical corps has established a facility just outside York to train people who have volunteered to work in UK facilities in Sierra Leone. These people have nursing qualifications and experience, but they need training around the specific precautions that are required to be taken in relation to protective equipment to prevent infection by the Ebola virus. Ensuring that people understand how to protect themselves is the key to slowing down the transmission rate of this disease.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
T7. Iran’s recent execution of a 26-year-old woman has attracted international condemnation. It is a tragic reminder that Iran continues to lead the world in executions per capita and retains one of the world’s worst human rights record. In the light of that, what discussions has the Minister had with the Iranian Government and the UN about upholding the rights of women in Iran?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Prime Minister raised that matter at bilateral talks with Iran during the UN General Assembly meeting. They were the first such talks to take place in many, many years. If Iran is interested in moving forward and participating in a more responsible attitude in the region, it is that sort of behaviour that needs to be curbed. We will continue placing pressure on the country to change its ways.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
T4. There are massive asks on both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership in taking us to a place where we can have meaningful peace discussions. Will the Minister reconsider his earlier comment that the issue of settlement building was something of a distraction, and that we should not be fixated on it. It is no more a distraction than achieving peace in the region and security for the Israelis.
Mr Philip Hammond
I would like to answer this question, because I know exactly what the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was trying to say earlier on. The settlements are illegal and building them is intended to undermine the prospects of the peace process. We must not allow that to happen. These are buildings; buildings can be transferred and demolished. Where these buildings are built must not be allowed to define where the final settlement line can go. We must be very clear about that.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I very much welcome the comments condemning the illegal settlements, but if the Government’s response to calls for sanctions against Israel is “not yet”, how many additional illegal settlements are required for the answer to be “now”?
Mr Ellwood
The Foreign Secretary has just made it clear that we do not want the settlement issue to hog the wicket here. We need to focus on the humanitarian efforts. Gaza will face an emergency in a number of weeks when the winter weather approaches. That is a priority. Then we need both sides to come back to the table. That is our focus at the moment, and we do not want to be distracted by the settlement issue.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
T5. The election results in Tunisia at the weekend are welcome and prove that secular and non-secular parties can co- exist in the middle east. As the Minister has welcomed those results, will he let the House know what aid the UK Government can give to Tunisia to ensure that that country becomes a beacon for democracy in the middle east?
Mr Ellwood
It is right that we again pay tribute to Tunisia for the journey that it has taken. It is operating in a tough neighbourhood, but it is not yet out of the woods, as there are still concerns about jihadist threats and about what is happening on its borders. But the journey it has made is thanks to its strong civil society and its direct approach in wanting to have elections—first parliamentary and then presidential. We are working with it through our Arab Partnership programme. Funding from the Deauville Partnership and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is helping to support governance in Tunisia.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
A transatlantic free trade deal would be a massive win for the UK and the world, but there have been concerns about procurement and health care, among others, that need addressing, and, I believe, debunking. Will the Minister give us an update on progress and consider making a statement on this important issue?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this, because it is time to slay a lot of urban myths that have crept up around the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. If TTIP goes through, it will mean an economic prize worth up to £400 for each household in the UK, and £10 billion to our economy. If we delve into the details and look at the investor state disputes settlements and so forth, there is absolutely no reason to think that TTIP can undermine the NHS or anything else.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
T6. There are accusations that some UK companies are being short-changed on contracts associated with the construction of World cup venues in Qatar, and even claims that some moneys unpaid have been siphoned off to Syria and into the hands of ISIL. Will the Minister urgently look into these allegations and offer support to UK firms regarding their reimbursement by the Qatari royalty, Government or businesses?
Mr Ellwood
I was in Doha last week and I raised this very issue. Qatar has what is called the kafala system, which is now being upgraded, and the hon. Gentleman may be aware of it. It is being replaced to give greater rights to migrant workers, of whom there are 1.3 million in Qatar, but it is also giving responsibilities to the employers to make sure that they look after them. It is something that will be raised this week when the Emir of Qatar visits this country.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the contributions by UK doctors and others to reconstruction in Gaza, but is not the cycle almost bizarre? We fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to do valuable work in building schools and homes, the Israeli defence force destroys some of them, and then regularly we pay to have them rebuilt after a long period of argument about whether the cement will be used for the schools or for tunnels. What can we do to resolve this cycle?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want to repeat this cycle. In six years, we have been round this buoy three times. A different mood is developing. We are picking up the agenda that was arrived at in April with John Kerry. As I mentioned, we had a successful donor conference in Cairo, and there is growing pressure on Israel to come to the table, but also on the Palestinian Authority to show proper leadership in Gaza, and that was reflected in its cabinet meeting there two weeks ago.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T8. I have just returned from Mali, which continues to face real security threats for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The military commander of MINUSMA says that just 30 bilingual English-French speaking staff officers would make a huge difference to the Malian army’s response to these threats, and the EU training mission says that it needs to continue beyond May of next year. What consideration are the Government giving to increasing our support for the Government in Mali?
Mr Philip Hammond
I have discussed this with my French opposite number and we have made it clear that we will support the French proposal to extend the mandate of the EU training mission in Mali. I am not aware of any request to us to provide further staff officers to the mission, but I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Would the Government welcome a visit from the Swedish prosecutor if she were to seek to question Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend will know that the Swedish prosecutor is, quite rightly, a fiercely independent lady, and independent of the Executive, as she would imagine. These are matters for the prosecutor to decide on, but if she wished to travel here to question Mr Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that. Indeed, we would actively welcome it.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
T9. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on recent actions he has taken to tackle anti-LGBTI legislation, particularly among our Commonwealth friends?
Mr Philip Hammond
None of my right hon. and hon. Friends is leaping to their feet to give the hon. Lady the detailed answer that she requires, and it would probably be best if I offer to write to her.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
My constituent Bill Irving and six other British citizens are still in India, a year after being taken off their ship. Although they are now out on bail, Billy is effectively trapped in a hotel room and is in financial difficulties because he cannot work. What help can my right hon. Friend give Billy and the other British citizens to speed up the legal process and assist with the hotel bills?
Mr Swire
They are certainly well represented by their Members of Parliament, whom I have met regularly. I have also raised the case regularly, and at the highest levels, with the Indian authorities, as have other Government Ministers—the Deputy Prime Minister did so in August when he met Prime Minister Modi. We cannot interfere in the Indian legal process, but we continue to press for the case to be resolved quickly, and our consular staff continue to provide them and their families with full consular assistance.
Mr Speaker
The House, and indeed the nation, can now hear from Sir Gerald Kaufman.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Will the Government condemn in the strongest terms the current efforts by the Israeli Government and settler movements to divide the area of al-Aqsa mosque, one of the holiest places in the whole of the Muslim religion? Does the Foreign Secretary concur with the US State Department’s statement last week that Israel is poisoning the atmosphere and making support difficult, even from its closest allies?
Mr Philip Hammond
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. Anything that makes it more difficult to reach a peace settlement is extremely unhelpful and we condemn it. We want both sides to work for a sustainable peace. I think that the degree of frustration now being experienced, even among Israel’s closest friends, is expressed by the response he referred to from the United States, hitherto often seen as an uncritical supporter of Israeli actions.
Points of Order
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We must now make some progress, but not before the jack-in-the-box is satisfied—the hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down with purpose—and we hear a point of order from Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Lewis
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that build-up. May I ask whether you have had any notification, either from the Foreign Secretary or from the Defence Secretary, that we will be having a dedicated statement on the ending of the campaign in Afghanistan, because such a statement would give opportunities to pay tribute to the fallen and to the wounded, particularly among hon. Members’ constituents, and to debate issues about the way in which the campaign was fought?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a canny enough fellow to know that he has now, for his own part, substantially achieved his objective, but I know him well enough to know that he will want lots of other colleagues to have comparable opportunities.
Mr Speaker
The Foreign Secretary’s excitement knows no bounds as he seeks to respond.
Mr Hammond
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. I am sure that Members of the House will want an opportunity to pay tribute to the service and commitment that our servicemen and women have shown in Afghanistan. I will undertake to discuss with the Leader of the House whether such an opportunity could be found.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that extremely helpful reply.
School Governors (Appointment)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that school governors be appointed on the basis of experience relevant to the role; and for connected purposes.
I would first like to thank all the school governors across the land, because the role they play in ensuring that our schools are well managed, well led and well planned is enormous. The tribute I pay to them is heartfelt. They also contribute massively to local communities, and that, too, needs to be recognised.
Our schools are going through a changing landscape. There are more schools with increasing autonomy than ever before, and that direction of travel is continuing. That is quite right, because there is support across this House for academy status, and other schools are beginning to benefit from more autonomy. The structures behind those schools are changing as well, with the introduction of the regional commissioners, the changing role of local authorities and, indeed, the emerging debate on academy chains, and that means that governors and governance are becoming increasingly important. Another driver has been the role of Ofsted in focusing on the importance of leadership and governance as part of the inspection process by making the latter category one of the four that will determine whether a school is graded in the way it wants to be.
Already in Westminster we have seen a large number of actions under the auspices of those who want improved governance across the piece. The Education Committee—I see that its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), is in his place—has conducted an inquiry into school governance and made a number of recommendations to which the Government have, quite properly, responded. I established the all-party parliamentary group on education governance and leadership almost as soon as I arrived here, with the purpose of talking about school governors and ensuring that their role is properly understood and develops in line with education policy, and that we recruit good governors.
Another thing that has happened is the Inspiring Governors initiative whereby various organisations have formed an alliance, including the Department for Education, the CBI, employment and education bodies, and a whole range of others. They have come together to make sure that we can promote governance to people who may not necessarily have thought of being a governor before. I am running through this activity to demonstrate that there is a lot of thought behind what I am proposing in this Bill—thought that is underpinned by substantial work. Other bodies that are key for our governors include the National Governors Association, the Wellcome Trust, the School Governors’ One-Stop Shop, and Wild Search. They have all contributed to the wider debate about the role of governors.
So where do we need to be? First, we want school governing bodies to be flexible. We want them to be able to decide how they are constructed, how they develop their plans, and how they interface effectively with their schools. The need for more autonomy for school governing bodies is recognised and required. Strong accountability of head teachers matters. A governing body needs to be able and willing to take on a head teacher who is not delivering—that is absolutely critical. We do not want weak governing bodies; we want strong and supportive governing bodies that are nevertheless capable of making a harsh decision if it ever becomes necessary. Nobody wants to do that without forethought, but the governing body needs to be capable of backing up the decision if necessary.
We need to make sure that strategic thinking takes place in schools. Governing bodies have to set the scene, the ethos and the direction of travel in making sure that the head teacher and everybody else is aware of the process. It is also important to engage with the wider community. No school can survive successfully without proper engagement in the community, and the governing body is part of that process. An effective governing body is the type of structure with good communication skills that can make the difference in this whole field.
We also want better links with employers. We must cultivate circumstances in which schools are talking to businesses much more readily and frequently about the requirements that businesses have. If we are going to start measuring the performance of schools by the destinations of their pupils, we need to be clear that schools bear some responsibility in making sure that their pupils know where they can go and where they should go, and are equipped to get there.
Getting the right people is an important mission. We need to enable employees of businesses to perform on governing bodies if they agree to do so. As the Department for Education has acknowledged, that may require an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996, and I would certainly want this Bill to incorporate that. We need to raise the profile of governors so that they can be recognised properly. I include national honours in that, but also civic responsibilities, civic duties and civic recognition.
Strong chairs of governors are absolutely essential and it is worth considering selecting as chair somebody who was not previously on the governing body. We need to choose the best people, not wait for them to come through the pipeline. We need an accelerated process to enable them to get where they need to be. That needs to be debated.
We also need to have a rapid response to failing schools. The Government are taking action, but some local authorities are not necessarily doing so as fast as they should be. The introduction of an interim executive board has often yielded good results and turned schools around, but there is no use in waiting for things to get so bad that turning them around is such a big job. We should be acting swiftly. Governing bodies have a role to play by recognising when they have themselves lost control and need some outside help.
I want to suggest some further steps to pave the way. We need pools of tested and proven governors who are able to address certain situations. The regional commissioners may well want to consider that suggestion as their role develops during the course of the current reforms. It is important that we have governors to choose from, rather than have to search for somebody who will do the job reluctantly. That is essential for good governance in all areas, certainly in schools.
We need to think about the transparency of decision making. The more people understand what governors do and the more they see the responsibility they have and how it can make a difference, the better. Transparency of school governing bodies is important.
A further next step for school governing bodies to take is on the need to be more corporate in how they conduct their affairs. We have already seen that pattern emerge and develop in the further education sector, so I think we should see more of it in the school sector, because it will encourage the sorts of skills, characteristics and processes I have already discussed.
In short, this Bill would make it easier, more attractive and rewarding to be a school governor, because we want the right people with the right skills, enthusiasm and motives to make sure not only that learning is a school’s top priority, but that its other characteristics can be encouraged and developed.
Finally, we are enormously thankful to those governors who currently serve, but we need to move to the next stage, which is a new shape for education, with more autonomy and responsibility. That will, of course, be a greater challenge for governing bodies, and that is why we need governors of the calibre I have described.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neil Carmichael, Alistair Burt, Mr Graham Stuart, Richard Graham, Mr Robert Syms, Sir Alan Beith, Fiona Bruce, Matthew Hancock, Chris Skidmore, Jeremy Lefroy and Robert Jenrick present the Bill.
Neil Carmichael accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015 (Bill 109).
Mr Speaker
We will have to delete the name of Mr Hancock, because he now occupies the illustrious post of Minister of State.
Neil Carmichael
You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker, and I don’t know why he is on this list, because he shouldn’t be.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
He’s a great man!
Mr Speaker
He may be a great man—that is a divisible proposition, but what is not a divisible proposition is that he cannot sponsor a 10-minute rule motion. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) has enough supporters and he need not trouble his head about the matter any further.
Opposition Day
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the comments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, on 30 September 2014 that the work of disabled people is not worth the minimum wage; believes that these comments have further undermined trust among disabled people in this Government’s policies, a trust which had already been damaged by delays in assessments for a personal independence payment, problems with work capability assessments, and the poor performance of policies aimed at helping disabled people into work; further notes that the conduct of Lord Freud had already damaged that trust through his oversight of the housing benefit social sector size criteria which has had a particularly severe impact on disabled people, many of whom have nowhere else to move to and need extra room for medical equipment or carers; and therefore concludes that this House has no confidence in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform; and calls on the Prime Minister to dismiss him.
I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) who is unable to be in the Chamber today.
This afternoon, the eyes of millions of disabled people, their families, friends and carers are on this House. They include people such as Ciara, who has a learning disability. I had the pleasure of meeting her in Parliament a few weeks ago. She works full time for Mencap. When she heard of the noble Lord Freud’s remarks about disabled people, she said:
“People with a disability are often made to feel like second class citizens and face many barriers when trying to receive the same rights as everyone else, especially in employment. Having a politician place further barriers to us being included is incredibly upsetting and frankly quite frightening.”
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kate Green
Not yet. No, I will not.
Ciara continued:
“I hope politicians realise that people with a disability should be encouraged to become active citizens, and not to be discriminated against for their disability, and I want to call for a full explanation of how these comments are deemed acceptable in this day and age.”
I hope that this debate will give Ciara some answers.
Mr Stuart
There are 116,000 more disabled people in work now than there were a year ago. Is it not time that the Labour party stopped using the disabled to smear its opponents, and supported this Government’s and Lord Freud’s efforts to get people mainstream jobs, rather than leave them stuck in joblessness or Potemkin factories?
Kate Green
I am astounded by that intervention immediately after I had quoted the concerns of a disabled woman.
For many months under this Government, disabled people have endured hardship, hostility and fear. They have lived with the consequences of Ministers’ decisions, which are causing them and their families real pain. As things have got worse, they have lost all faith that Ministers understand their lives. They do not believe that the Government are on their side. They have become anxious and despairing, desperate and insecure.
The remarks of the noble Lord Freud last month that disabled people were not worth the minimum wage sparked an outpouring of anger and outrage. That has prompted this debate today, for those remarks go to the heart of the collapse in trust in this Government among disabled people, not just because they might be thought a plausible statement of Government policy or of what the Government really think deep down—that is what a Freudian slip is, after all—but because disabled people already know from the effect that the Government’s policies are having on their lives that they are not valued by this Government.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend use this debate to try to flush out details not just about Freud, but about other aspects of disability, such as the disabled students allowance? Can we find out whether the Government have taken away that allowance or partially put it back? They should have been proud of the fact that every disabled student in this country had the ability to go into higher education, but that has been wiped away.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. This afternoon, we in this House have a chance to send exactly such messages on behalf of disabled people, as well as to send messages to them. I hope that the whole House will embrace this opportunity to state that we value them as equal citizens, believe we should treat them with respect, recognise the worth and potential of every person, and will not tolerate an attack on their dignity or their rights.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that overall spending on disability benefits will be higher in the period to 2018 than it was under her Government?
Kate Green
Of course it is right that the benefits bill for disabled people has risen under this Government, but it remains Ministers’ ambition to cut that spend. The former Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), told me in a written answer on 14 July that the Government were on track to achieve billions of pounds of savings in cuts to the personal independence payment by 2017-18. Ministers need to be clear about whether they are spending more on disabled people or are in practice aiming to cut their benefits.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so shocking about Lord Freud’s comments is the simple lack of common humanity and decency in them, which reflects the Government’s attitude to disabled people as a whole? When I have asked questions about work capability assessments or Atos cancelling appointments, the Government simply do not know: they do not choose to find out such information because they do not actually care about it.
Kate Green
That is absolutely right. As I will show later, on several occasions when I have asked Ministers for information about what is happening, the answer has either been that they do not know or that they do not record the information at all.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
I have known the hon. Lady for a long time, and I am concerned by a charge she is making. Will she explain to the House why, if this matter of the clumsy and offensive words for which Lord Freud has apologised were of concern to the Labour party to the extent it says, Labour waited weeks after it had the recording to bring it forward at Prime Minister’s questions? Surely if Labour Members were so concerned about this—instead of the faux concern they are now showing—they would have raised it immediately and demanded an apology and an explanation. Why did they not do so immediately rather than wait for weeks?
Kate Green
We were so taken aback and stunned by these remarks, and we considered them so offensive and serious, that we considered it right to bring them before the Prime Minister in the highest forum in this land, this Chamber, in the very first Prime Minister’s Question Time that we had the opportunity to do so.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I want to go back to the question about increased spending. It is unacceptable to boast of increased spending when that is due to inefficiency and the failure to deliver. In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility expected spending on incapacity benefit to fall. That projection has now been changed to an increase of £3 billion, which, put against the sort of savings being made on disabled people through the bedroom tax, is absolutely outrageous. Surely nobody can boast about spending more if it is down to their own inefficiency.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is right.
As we start the debate this afternoon, let me say that we can send a message of dignity and respect to disabled people in two ways. We can do so by voting for the motion to make it clear that anyone who makes comments that suggest discriminating against disabled people or that demean them should not be in government, least of all in a role in which they make decisions day in, day out that affect disabled people’s lives. We can also show our feelings by the way in which we conduct this debate. The real reason this debate matters so much is that it is an opportunity for us to show disabled people that we understand why Lord Freud’s remarks caused such anger and pain and that we understand what is happening in their lives. Lord Freud’s comments have touched a chord because disabled people are already suffering so much from the policies for which he and his ministerial colleagues are responsible.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I think that the hon. Lady is struggling to make her case. Will she explain why, in 2003, the Labour party had a policy to get rid of the minimum wage for people who had mental health problems?
Kate Green
That was never our policy. Of course programmes exist to support disabled people who are on benefits to get into therapeutic work, but that is not what the noble Lord Freud was speaking about.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to condemn unreservedly the reprehensible comments that were made by Lord Freud at the Conservative party conference, but should we not also condemn his actions? It must never be forgotten that Lord Freud is the chief champion of the bedroom tax, which has condemned two thirds of disabled people to live in poverty.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this debate is about the Minister’s bedroom tax, which disproportionately affects disabled people and their families, with two thirds of those who are hit being disabled people, their families and their carers. It is about the chaos of the personal independence payment, which is leaving thousands of people without essential support. It is about Ministers’ handling of the work capability assessment and the abject failure of their policies to support many disabled people into work, and it is about the collapse in social care and the services that support people to live the lives that they want. My hon. Friend is right that what this afternoon’s debate is truly about is putting the policies that Lord Freud and his colleagues have been pursuing under the microscope, and understanding what has gone wrong.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
In this place I have campaigned on mental health with people from all parts of the Chamber, including some fabulous people from the Opposition. The one thing that I have learned is that people make mistakes. Sometimes people get it wrong, like Lord Freud did, but they apologise and are allowed to move on. Please will the hon. Lady find some compassion for people who make mistakes and apologise? He is not a bad man.
Kate Green
I have known Lord Freud for a number of years and I agree that, personally, he is courteous and caring. However, his remark touched a deep nerve for disabled people and we have to understand why. It is because it came in the context of the Government’s policies and the effects that disabled people are experiencing.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Lord Freud is an intelligent and articulate individual. He knew what he was saying and he meant what he was saying. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers, of whatever political persuasion, who make such offensive remarks about disabled people should be kicked out of office immediately, never to return?
Kate Green
I do think that it is difficult for someone who expresses such views to remain in government and in that role.
Let us examine the policy record of the Government. Let us start with the bedroom tax—Lord Freud’s brainchild. Everyone knows that it is a disaster for disabled people. Many disabled people have lived in their homes for years. They have invested in adaptations, as have their families and local councils. Some people need an extra room for equipment or so that an overnight carer can stay. Some people have a condition that means that they cannot share a room with their partner. Many people are settled in their community, with care and concerned family and neighbours close to hand so that they can call for help when they need it. Now they are being forced to move, to cut back on other expenditure to pay the rent or to go into debt.
We all know of cases in our constituencies, such as that of a disabled grandfather, Paul Rutherford, who cares for his severely disabled grandchild, Warren. Extra space is needed in the family home to cope with all of Warren’s equipment. Paul has to rely on discretionary housing payment to pay the rent. Why should he have to go through the anxiety and indignity of pleading for the support that he and his family need? Have we lost all compassion? Have we lost all sense of people’s dignity?
Not only is the bedroom tax exceptionally cruel; it is failing to meet its objectives. Only about 7% of those who have been hit by the tax have been able to move to a smaller home. It is not saving the money that the Government said it would, either. Is it not time that Ministers admitted that this Freud tax is not working and got rid of it, as Labour has pledged to do?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Having served with the hon. Lady on the Work and Pensions Committee, I applaud her commitment to these issues. She made an important point about the tone in which this debate must happen. Does she agree that what matters most is what all of us are doing as individuals and as part of the Government or the Opposition to support people with disabilities to get back into work? In that context, Gloucestershire county council is one of the best rated authorities in the country. Through its Forwards programme, it is working closely with the Government on a Disability Confident event that I am hosting on 14 November, which the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will attend. Will the hon. Lady join me in saying that that is precisely the sort of thing that we need to do around the country to help people with disabilities to get into jobs and find ways of taking their lives forward helpfully and productively?
Kate Green
Of course, I welcome any initiatives such as those that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am looking forward to hosting a Disability Confident event shortly with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in our local authority. However, I think that we need to look a little more broadly than just at what we all do as individuals. It is the collective responsibility of Ministers and the collective policies of the Government that are under examination this afternoon.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform questions whether disabled people are worth a full wage, does he forget that under his Government, hundreds of thousands of disabled people are right now sitting in queues, waiting to be assessed for the financial support that they should be receiving from the Government? More than 300,000 people are awaiting an assessment for personal independence payment, which is the Government’s replacement for disability living allowance.
Can Members imagine what it must be like to become disabled as a result of a catastrophic event such as a stroke or a terrible accident; to have to spend a fortune on adapting your home, on transport to get to appointments, on new equipment and on adjusting to your new life; to have to give up work and to have less money coming in; for your partner to have to give up work as well to care for you; and then for your PIP award, which should be helping with the additional costs associated with your impairment, to become stuck in an enormous backlog?
Kate Green
No, I will make some progress.
We heard again this morning in Westminster Hall that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is determined to bring down the waiting times for PIP assessments to 16 weeks. That is welcome, but he should acknowledge that it is a less ambitious timetable than the 12 weeks from application to decision that the Government initially suggested in the PIP toolkit. Meanwhile, disabled people are left high and dry for months. I have constituents who have waited almost a year for an assessment. My constituent, Mr W, has even received compensation for the delay that he has experienced. I was shocked when I asked the Minister how much compensation payments had cost the taxpayer. In a written answer on 20 September, he told me that the Department for Work and Pensions is not bothering to keep a record.
Most pertinently, when the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform says that the way to get more disabled people into employment is to cut their pay, I point to the failure of a raft of Government policies. The work capability assessment, which was introduced by Labour in a staged manner, was then pushed through by this Government in a botched rush. There is now a backlog: 600,000 cases are awaiting a first assessment. Reassessments have been put on ice altogether. People are waiting for weeks, in some cases with no money at all coming in, for mandatory reconsideration. There is a terrible record of poor-quality decision making and a huge number of cases have been appealed successfully. Just last week, The Independent reported that thousands of people with degenerative conditions are being put in the work-related activity group and denied the support element of employment and support allowance. Can Members imagine the anxiety that that must cause, not to mention the waste of resources?
At the same time, the number of people being put into the support group overall is rising rapidly. Far from getting people into work, more people are being cast aside by the coalition Government. People are being abandoned, exactly as happened under Mrs Thatcher, when incapacity benefit was used as a means of massaging down the unemployment figures. Of course disabled people who are not able to work must get the support to which they are entitled, but many disabled people could work and would love to work, and they are being truly failed by the Government.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) highlighted the number of people who have moved into work, but he should also acknowledge that the gap between the employment rates of working-age disabled and non-disabled adults remains at a stubborn 30%.
Kate Green
No, I will not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I want to finish my point.
For a while under Labour that gap was closing, but now progress has stalled. The Work programme—the Government’s flagship programme for getting people into work—is totally failing disabled people, getting only around one in 20 into sustained employment. It is worse than if there were no programme at all.
One year after the last factory closed, 50% of Remploy workers are still without work. The number of people on the Access to Work programme, which helps with adaptations in the workplace to enable disabled people to work, has fallen by 1,800 since 2009-10, and more and more people are reporting difficulty in accessing it. Although last year the DWP claimed that it was expanding Access to Work to cover internships and placements, and that that would benefit hundreds of disabled people, on 9 September the Minister told me in a written answer that he could not provide me with statistics to show how many people had benefited. Meanwhile, the number of specialist disability employment advisers in Jobcentre Plus is down 20% under this Government, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, Ministers are cutting the disabled students allowance by upwards of £70 million.
Mr Stuart
This is a difficult area in which to get policy right, and criticisms can be made of this Government and indeed the previous Government. What is the point of personalising this issue when Lord Freud was wrestling with exactly the issue the hon. Lady has just identified? How do we get the disabled into work, and how do we support them? If, because of their severe disability their commercial value is not right, how do we supplement that? That is what Lord Freud meant and I think the hon. Lady knows that. Perhaps she will put that on the record.
Kate Green
I will put on the record that it was not anybody making those remarks but the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform. He is responsible for making decisions that affect millions of disabled people’s lives, and they took deep offence and were hurt by what they heard him say. Those remarks exemplify Government policies that are failing the objective that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is why we think it important to connect Lord Freud’s remarks with wider Government policy.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kate Green
I will make some progress as I know that many other colleagues want to join the debate.
It seems that the Government are happy to accept a waste of potential, and the additional cost of leaving disabled people on benefits year after year is resulting in their spending £8 billion more than Ministers planned. I think we are all agreed: if we—including Lord Freud—want more disabled people in work, as Labour does, there are plenty of policy areas to consider and policies that could be improved before we start to talk of cutting pay.
We have already come forward with our ideas: to refocus the work capability assessment on its original purpose of helping to identify the package of support that a disabled person who could work would need in order to do so; to introduce penalties for wrong or poor-quality assessments by work capability providers; and to ask disabled people to be part of a process of reviewing and improving the WCA, as they have direct experience of it. We know that the Work programme is not working for disabled people. We have said we will replace it with a specialist programme of locally contracted support that will mean that local providers, who have best knowledge of local opportunities, services and other providers, will be able to design holistic support for disabled people, to enable them to prepare for work. Perhaps Ministers will heed our practical suggestions, and most importantly, perhaps they will heed our promise that under a Labour Government the tone of the debate will be different.
We should all be ashamed that disability hate crime continues to increase, and that disabled people report experiencing a stream of negativity and hostility towards them. Research by Scope last year, one year after this country proudly hosted the 2012 Paralympic games and celebrated our medal winners, found that 81% of disabled people said that attitudes towards them had not improved in the previous 12 months, with 22% saying that things had got worse. Some 84% of those who said that that had happened thought that media coverage of benefit claims and the welfare system had had a negative effect on public attitudes.
I am deeply ashamed that disabled people feel hounded and bullied in our country, and I am angry that DWP Ministers, if not actually using hostile and negative language towards disabled people, are certainly not doing anything to halt it. Indeed, the DWP is promoting it. In one egregious example recently, the DWP press office retweeted a derogatory story about disabled people on benefits that had appeared in the national media. Last month’s remarks by Lord Freud have done yet more damage.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Angela Maher, a brave mother battling angina with two disabled sons in my constituency, fell prey to a whispering campaign—“Why is she getting a car on benefits?” It culminated in her severely disabled son having stones thrown at him when he was in his wheelchair. She came to see me the day after the Chancellor’s speech on shirkers and strivers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely shameful that the disabled should ever in those circumstances be branded as “shirkers”? It is a disgrace that we have a tone that has led to hate crime on the rise once again in 21st-century Britain.
Kate Green
None of us can feel proud when we hear that story. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for the concerns of disabled people. Michaela, a member of Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s network of young disabled campaigners, says of Lord Freud’s remarks:
“I’ve worked since I was 17 to improve, enhance and find full inclusion for those of us living life with disabilities. I’ve worked with a range of charities as a volunteer, pushing for better policies for a range of services, tried to give my voice to the cause and I can honestly say that I do feel more included in society today than ever before…What happened yesterday”—
she means the day Lord Freud’s remarks became public—
“has damaged our position. Lord Freud has enforced the idea that we are less productive, less valuable and by definition less human than the rest of society.”
That is how disabled people feel, and Ministers know how damaging Lord Freud’s remarks have been.
On 16 October the Secretary of State for Health said on “Question Time”:
“Well first of all, I don’t defend what he said, those words were utterly appalling.”
and the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), said:
“you’re right those words will haunt him. I cannot justify those words, they were wrong.”
I know Lord Freud has apologised, but the damage has been done—done in deed and in word by the Minister and his Government. Disabled people deserve a clear signal that we know the offence and hurt that Lord Freud’s remarks have caused. This afternoon we can send them a clear message that we will not tolerate such language, and that we value and respect them as equal members of our society. This afternoon, we can vote for the motion before the House, and I ask hon. Members to do so.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
I am very disappointed by the tone of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). This is a cynical debate, and I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put his finger on the issue because if the hon. Lady meant what she said about the remarks of my noble Friend Lord Freud, she should have exposed them when she first knew about them. The fact is that the Opposition, right up to and including the Leader of the Opposition, used those remarks as a cynical device to detract attention from the excellent performance of the economy and the 2 million jobs that were created—news that was announced on 15 October but that the Leader of the Opposition did not want the House to focus on. That is what this is about.
Mr Harper
Not until I have at least made some opening remarks.
The Leader of the Opposition did not want the House to focus on the fact that employment is at record levels or that there has been the largest annual fall in unemployment on record. He did not want the House to focus on the fact that the claimant count had fallen below 1 million or that there had been the largest annual fall on record of youth unemployment. He did not want the House to focus on the fact that long-term unemployment was down, and that there are 400,000 fewer workless households since 2010. That is what this was about—a cynical piece of politics, and the hon. Lady had no answer to the charge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] She did not, and that will have been exposed to all those watching this debate.
Mr Harper
Let me make one point, and I will give way to my hon. Friend.
The motion contains not a single positive idea about improving the lives of disabled people. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned some ideas in her speech, but she has not troubled the House with any of them in the motion, which is an attack, pure and simple, on my noble Friend. In a moment, I will set out exactly why that charge is not warranted in any way whatever.
Conor Burns
Our noble Friend Lord Freud used clumsy and offensive language and rightly apologised for it. Does the Minister agree that for the shadow Minister deliberately to misinterpret and mislead the House as to Lord Freud’s comments for blatantly partisan advantage and to castigate Government Members who care as much about disabled people as Opposition Members shows the very worst of the House? The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a disgraceful speech.
Mr Harper
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The Conservative party has a proud record. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons held the office that I hold today, he took through the House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the first Act of its kind. That is a record of which our party can be proud and we do not need to take any lessons from the Labour party. Frankly, the words of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston were offensive. I will deal with the points in the motion, with my noble Friend and with the positive policy proposals and record of the Government, and then I will invite the House to reject the motion.
The hon. Lady’s words would be a little more credible if there was some evidence that she believed them. Let me set out for Opposition Members, in particular for those who were not in the previous Parliament, some of the history of my noble Friend’s record on welfare reform.
Mr Harper
I will set out some of the history before I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
It is worth remembering that Lord Freud was hired by John Hutton, now Lord Hutton, the Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in late 2006 to write a report on radical welfare reform. At that point, Labour thought Lord Freud was an excellent person to involve in the welfare reform agenda. He delivered that reform in March 2007. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) then became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—there was not a lot of appetite for welfare reform under him—followed by James Purnell, who was appointed in January 2008. On the second day of his term of office, he appointed Lord Freud to implement the proposals in his report. In the Command Paper, “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility”, the then Secretary of State, James Purnell, set out the proposals of the Labour Government and made it clear that they were
“inspired by the reforms proposed by David Freud in his report on the welfare state.”
The Command Paper made it clear—boasted, in fact—that the Labour Government would implement all of Lord Freud’s reforms and even boasted that they would take the reforms further.
That is the man whom the Labour party is castigating. Labour brought him into Government to work with them on welfare reform. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is chuntering from a sedentary position. It is worth the House remembering that he was appointed Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in January 2008. Between then and October 2008 he served with Lord Freud implementing welfare reform under the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman knows Lord Freud and that although Lord Freud expressed himself clumsily—he did so, and apologised—the characterisation of those words is simply inaccurate. The Labour party should be ashamed of itself.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I fear that he has answered my question before I ask it. It is the same Lord Freud that the Labour party took into the heart of Government. Before his appointment Lord Freud had said that he understood nothing about welfare, so will the Minister explain why the noble Lord played such an important role in implementing and coming up with welfare policy for both the previous Labour Government and the current Conservative Government?
Mr Harper
I will set out some of the things that Lord Freud has done in government, but let me finish on the record of the Labour party, which is worth listening to. Some Labour Members may have to do some rapid rewriting of their speeches.
James Purnell, when Secretary of State, appointed Lord Freud to work on his proposals. Lord Freud served with the Labour party until January 2009. He then concluded that there was no appetite for radical welfare reform under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Lord Freud then joined the Conservative party and our Front-Bench team, of which I was a member at the time, to develop our proposals for welfare reform. James Purnell of course had similar thoughts about the appetite of the Labour party for welfare reform and he resigned from the Government five months later. He called on the Labour party to dump its leader, and thankfully for us the public did so a year later.
Lord Freud joined us, I have worked closely with him and he is passionate about getting disabled people into work. I know that the travesty of his character that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston set out is unfair and unwarranted.
Kate Green
I acknowledge all that the Minister says about Lord Freud’s personal motives, but as a Minister the language that he uses is important. It exemplified what disabled people feel, experience and live in their daily lives. Does the Minister not accept that that is why the remarks of Lord Freud, not as an adviser but as a Minister who takes decisions about disabled people’s lives, have caused so much hurt and offence?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady knows that Lord Freud’s mistake was to accept the premise of the question. The man who asked the question is the father of a disabled daughter. He was concerned about her ability in the past to get work. It was an honest question asked in an honest way. Lord Freud himself accepts that he expressed himself clumsily and that he had offended people. He apologised for that when the remarks were drawn to his attention. Any reasonable person would accept his apology.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am not an expert in the field, but it has been drawn to my attention that Lord Freud was not the first person to make such remarks, however poorly expressed. The Guardian, back in February 2000, called for an “urgent revision” of the rules on the minimum wage to enable what The Guardian called “low output” disabled workers to be exempt from minimum wage legislation. At the time, Mencap stated that while it otherwise supported the minimum wage, an exemption should be allowed, because:
“Most people with a learning disability want to work”.
That was not some terrible statement, but an attempt to get people who cannot be as productive as a fully able person into work where otherwise no job would be offered to them. Cannot hon. Members see that?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. That was indeed the policy of Mencap at the time. It has stated that the policy has now changed, but it was Mencap policy at the time. I therefore think that some of the outrage being expressed is not genuine.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned “Question Time” on which the Secretary of State for Health made some comments. It is worth repeating other comments made on that programme, not by members of the panel but by members of the audience. The Labour MP, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), raised the issue on that programme and I think it is fair to say that she did not get an entirely positive response from the studio audience. One audience member said:
“I think Angela Eagle is being extremely disingenuous. I think we all knew what he meant, even though he said it clumsily.”
Another person told her:
“What you are doing is hypocritical point scoring and it’s disgusting.”
A final comment, from another young woman, was:
“I just wanted to see whether you”—
the hon. Member for Wallasey—
“would use this as a political football and you have done—thanks Angela.”
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Minister makes a confused argument. He accepts that Lord Freud has apologised for his comments, but defends them none the less. Surely the problem is the message sent to disabled people such as my constituents who came to see me. They have the most difficult life, and find that, under this Government—they say, “Under this Government,”—they receive abuse walking down the street because of their disability and because one of them receives benefits. The Government should take the stigmatisation of disabled people in this society seriously but the Government are adding to it.
Mr Harper
I am not defending Lord Freud’s words. I am saying that it is not a reasonable conclusion to pretend that his comments reflect someone who is not fit to be a Minister of the Crown. I think Opposition Members do not really believe that. The motion is a cynical attempt to divert attention from some of the Government’s economic successes.
Let me set out the details of some of the proposals on which my noble Friend has been working. The House will see that he has improved lives not just for disabled people, but for other disadvantaged people in our country, not just in what he has said, but in what he has done.
John Howell
Does my hon. Friend agree that Lord Freud raised an important question, namely how we help those who want to work but who are faced with the most colossal barriers to doing so?
Mr Harper
I will make a bit more progress because other hon. Members wish to speak.
On Lord Freud’s focus in office, he has been working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and is one of the driving forces behind the introduction of universal credit. That reform will be important in our welfare system for many years. Most of the gains from universal credit will go to those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution. It means that we will be able to look people in the eye and tell them that work will always pay, and that more work will pay for them. It also increases spending on disabled households and enables disabled people to earn nearly £8,000 a year without affecting their universal credit entitlement.
Opposition Members know that Lord Freud has been at the heart of the Government’s work on understanding how we can provide better employment support to people with mental health problems. Working closely with the Minister with responsibility for care and support, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), he has pioneered the introduction of pilots to test the best ways to support people with mild and moderate mental health problems into work.
In 2012, Lord Freud drove and penned the foreword to “Untapped Talent”, a guide to employing people with autism produced jointly by the Department for Work and Pensions and the National Autistic Society. Lord Freud said:
“We need to be clear to employers that making business environments more ‘autism friendly’ is not about meeting corporate social responsibility objectives, but about tapping into and seeking out the most talented individuals for a role…People with autism can have exceptional talents and by making some straightforward adjustments can prove to be a tremendous asset to business. We need to do more to make use of those talents.”
That sets out his view about disabled people clearly. Any fair and reasonable person would conclude that my noble Friend wants more disabled people in work and has dedicated his time in the Government to ensuring that that can be so.
Mr Stuart
My hon. Friend is doing a tremendous job staying calm in responding to the scandalous opening speech by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Compounding the cynicism, she tried to make out that discrimination against disabled people is a function of this Government. Is he aware of the 2007 Leonard Cheshire Disability review, which found that 89% of disabled people at that time felt discriminated against in Britain? Conservatives did not try to pin that on the Labour party. For Labour Members to pin that discrimination on us is below them.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right. I see in the Chamber a Member who served as a Minister for disabled people. She will know that, when I shadowed her, my approach was always to work in a consensual and bipartisan manner so that we could do the best for disabled people. I am disappointed that Labour has not reciprocated.
Mr Harper
Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious of time and that others wish to speak.
On the other points in the motion, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston spoke of the personal independence payment. I have been frank with the House, both at the Dispatch Box and in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee—the Chair of the Committee is in the Chamber—that there are delays and that they are unacceptable. It has been my top priority since being appointed on 15 July to drive those delays down. We are seeing progress in that direction throughout Great Britain, and we will achieve the Secretary of State’s commitment by the end of this year that no one will wait longer than 16 weeks for an assessment.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of a case that I referred to the Secretary of State, in which it took a year to deal with an application for PIP? Three days later, my constituent died. His sister said: “Is this the way to treat a person who has worked all his life, paid his taxes and national insurance, and when he needed help, it was not there?” I wrote to the Secretary of State, who has accepted that such delays were unacceptable, but that illustrates what has happened to so many people, not just my late constituent.
Mr Harper
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said in my opening remarks, and I have said it several times in the House and when giving evidence to the Select Committee, that those delays are unacceptable. That is why I am working tirelessly to ensure we drive them down. Officials in my Department are on the case of the assessment providers on a daily basis. We have people embedded with those providers. I look at the matter continuously to ensure that we drive down those delays further.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the delays are unacceptable, which is why we are doing something about them. We have more than doubled the number of assessments since the start of the year to more than 35,000 in June and July. There have been further improvements since and we are driving down the backlog. Both assessment providers have increased the number of health care professionals and the number of assessment centres has increased. We have improved guidance and extended opening hours, and our decision makers in DWP have improved their productivity threefold. Importantly, we have fast-tracked claims for people who are terminally ill.
Sheila Gilmore
We have heard such assurances for the best part of the past year. Fast-tracking terminal illnesses was promised months ago. Surely the problem is with the policy. At the outset, many people said that it was not necessary to throw the whole thing up in the air and start again, and that the system had not been well thought through. When the Select Committee asked the Minister’s predecessor but two how it would be possible to process so many assessments and reassessments in the time scale given, we were told that there would be no problem, and there has clearly been a major problem. The Government cannot easily sort out the problem, so will the Minister consider whether some of the policy drivers are the wrong ones?
Mr Harper
I have accepted openly that there is a problem with delays in the system, but the hon. Lady will know that the independent review is under way. We have appointed Paul Gray, who has taken evidence and is in the process of compiling his report, which he will give to the Secretary of State in the coming weeks. The report will be published for hon. Members and the Select Committee to review. That is the right way to proceed.
Mr Harper
I am going to make progress. Otherwise, nobody else will be able to speak and it would be very boring if everyone was listening to me all afternoon.
Let me mention the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment. I was criticised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for the work capability assessment. The Government inherited the contract with Atos, which, I should remind hon. Members, was appointed by Labour. It was not a great piece of procurement. We inherited a backlog when we came to office. We have made considerable improvements to the process. Hon. Members will know that Atos is exiting the contract early, having paid a financial settlement to the taxpayer. I will announce the results of the process to appoint a new provider in due course.
The hon. Lady will also know that there have been four independent reviews—Dr Paul Litchfield is undertaking a fifth—and we have implemented more than 75 recommendations. We have made the assessment less mechanistic, with better interactions between the Department and claimants. We have also improved communications and carried out an evidence-based review of the descriptors, which looked at the current assessment criteria along with alternative assessment criteria from disability charities. The findings indicate that, overall, the WCA provides a valid assessment relative to experts’ opinions about people’s fitness for work.
We have also built on previous changes to how claimants with cancer are assessed to ensure that patients awaiting, undergoing or recovering from cancer treatment are placed in the support group. We have also retained a strong focus on how mental health is assessed, including, for example, through the introduction of mental function champions. We have introduced mandatory reconsideration. The number of people waiting for an assessment has fallen by more than 20% in the last six months, and I want it to continue to fall.
Debbie Abrahams
(Oldham East and Saddleworth)(Lab): Will the Minister explain why seven out of 10 people with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis are being assessed two or three times? Does he think their conditions will change?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady will know that the WCA and the personal independence payment are not based on diagnoses of conditions; they are about the impact on somebody’s life. It is also—[Interruption.] Perhaps Members will listen to the reply. It is also worth making sure that people are getting the appropriate help. When someone is assessed the first time, it might be that they are found able to work. If their condition deteriorates and has a larger impact on their life, it is important for us to ensure that they get the help they need for that level of condition, so I think it is perfectly appropriate to reassess people at intervals of up to three years.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the spare room subsidy, which this House has debated at great length. The basic issue is one of fairness and treating people in social housing the same as those in private rented accommodation. That was the position that applied under the whole of the last Government, and I am still waiting to hear how Labour plan to fund the reversal of that policy. It is also worth noting that the example she gave, if I heard her correctly, was of somebody who had received support from discretionary housing payments, which are exactly designed for people who need that extra support. I could not quite see what her criticism was.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to answer that point. The issue about discretionary housing payments, as I know from my own disabled constituents, is the stress and uncertainty of receiving short-term award after short-term award and having to apply, then reapply and reapply. I frequently have to intervene with the local authority to ask it to make longer awards. Would it not be fairer, simpler and less costly for those claimants, as well as giving them much greater peace of mind, simply to make an award that recognised their housing needs?
Mr Harper
In preparation for the private Member’s Bill debate, I read through the guidance we give to local authorities on discretionary housing payments, which is clear that it is perfectly open to local authorities to make a long-term award where someone has a long-term condition. That was one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the amount of discretionary housing payments not just for the current year, but for the year ahead, saying that local authorities could make those awards with the confidence that the money would be available.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments about discretionary housing payments, because I have had precisely that problem with one constituent who has a long-term condition. He was given an award, which the local Labour-controlled borough council keeps on coming back to him to reaffirm, even though it is within its power to give him a long-standing award. However, it does not do so purely for political reasons.
Mr Harper
I have listened to what my hon. Friend has said. The guidance is quite clear that if authorities think it appropriate, they are able to make a long-term award. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out that the funding is available, not just this year but next year, so that they can have the financial confidence to do so. I leave it to others to make a judgment about why authorities might be doing what my hon. Friend says.
Despite the fact that Labour’s motion, in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, contains not a single positive point about how we could improve the lives of disabled people, let me set out some positive suggestions, which Members can think about as they reject the motion before us. In 2012-13, this Government spent nearly £50 billion on disability benefits and services. Overall spending on benefits will be higher in every year through to 2017-18 than in the 2009-10 financial year, so we are absolutely committed to providing the proper support to disabled people. However, we also want disabled people, where they can, to move into work, to stay in work and to progress in the labour market.
Of course, the value of work is not just financial, which is one of the points to come out in the debate provoked by my noble Friend’s remarks. One of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier that disability employment had increased by 116,000 in the last year alone, which is very welcome, but there is more to do. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the disability employment gap. It is worth saying that the percentage of disabled people in employment in Britain is about the EU average. Our gap is higher, but of course that reflects our better performance at getting people into work overall. The gap has remained stable during the recession, but it is still too high. We want to narrow the gap through the range of programmes we have to support disabled people into work.
Let me say a little about some of those programmes, which include Access to Work. Members of the Work and Pensions Committee will know that on Wednesday I am giving evidence about Access to Work, not only on some of the areas where there have been administrative issues, which we are fixing, but on some of the changes that I hope we can make in the months to come. We said in 2012 that we would invest a further £15 million in the scheme, which we have. In 2013-14, more than 35,000 people were helped by Access to Work, which was 5,000 more than in the year before. It is a valuable scheme; I want to try to make it less bureaucratic and more successful.
The Work programme, which has already been mentioned, is designed to help people at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. Of course, employment and support allowance claimants are required only to prepare for work, rather than having any more conditionality, but providers have developed innovative approaches to support those with significant barriers to work, and one in 10 of the more recent ESA new claimants has had at least three months of work in the first year of the programme. Work Choice supports disabled people with more severe disabilities, with support tailored to individual needs. In 2013-14, more than 20,000 people started on Work Choice, with more than half achieving a sustainable job outcome.
Let me say a little more about mental health conditions and the conditions people have that prove a barrier to getting into work. I do not pretend that we have by any means solved the problems for those with physical health conditions—there is more to do—but the biggest gap is for those with mental health conditions, just under half of whom are in work. The figure for those with learning disabilities is around a quarter, while for those with some other hidden impairments, such as autism, it is only 15%.
This Government are doing a great deal on improving the performance on mental health. I have set out some of the things that my noble Friend Lord Freud has brought forward, but we have also made significant announcements about our mental health policies. The Deputy Prime Minister has set out a number of changes, which will come into force from next April, on the national health service’s performance on making talking therapies available more quickly. He has also set out the pilots that will be run to improve waiting time standards. This Government are stepping up the action we are taking on mental health that will enable people with mental health conditions to get into work.
Finally, on our employment programmes, I want to mention the Disability Confident campaign, which, as Members will know, the Prime Minister launched last year. It is about giving employers the confidence to employ disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place, referred to the event he is holding on 15 November—which I will be very pleased to attend—to promote employers in the Gloucestershire area hiring more disabled people. Such events are going on all over the country—the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said she would be holding one. I have written to every Member of the House and would urge everyone to hold an event to demonstrate practically to employers that if they wish to hire disabled people, the help and support is there to ensure that they can do so.
In conclusion, this debate is cynically motivated. It is not about what Lord Freud said. The Labour party knows that he is a man who cares passionately about getting disabled people into work. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who was Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in the last Government, worked with him and knows that to be the case. He inspired—in the words of the then Secretary of State—their welfare reforms. Everyone has seen through this debate, which is about trying to draw attention away from the success of our long-term economic plan and the creation of 2 million jobs. I have set out some of the Government’s positive policies to ensure that disabled people can live independent lives and that as many as possible of them can stay in or move into work. I am proud of our record.
I draw a different conclusion from that of the Labour party about these events and how Members have conducted themselves. Labour’s handling of this issue and its lack of a credible economic policy prove that it is not fit to govern this country. I urge the House to concur in that view by rejecting this cynical motion.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, as a consequence of which, I have had to impose a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. However, we are about to hear a maiden speech, so the House will understand why I have decided that the limit should apply after the first two speeches from the Back Benches.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech during this debate.
I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Jim Dobbin, whose sad death brought about the recent by-election in my Heywood and Middleton constituency. Jim was a much-loved and respected Member of Parliament. He was held in high regard by his constituents and, I would hope, by every Member in this House. It is significant to this debate that Jim’s very last vote in Parliament was a vote against the bedroom tax.
Jim and I had a career in common; we both worked as health care scientists in the NHS prior to being elected to Parliament. We both plied our trade at the Royal Oldham hospital, which provides health care to my constituents. Many of my NHS colleagues have fond memories of Jim. Indeed, the laboratory that, until recent events, provided me with gainful employment, bears a distinctive foundation stone, dated 5 September 2005, and it was laid by Mr Jim Dobbin, MP and Fellow of the Institute of Biomedical Science. I am immensely proud to have been given this opportunity to continue the great work of my predecessor and to carry on the tradition of health care scientists at the Royal Oldham hospital making a contribution to Parliament.
I wish also to pay tribute to the previous MP for this seat, which was created following boundary changes in 1983. I am talking about Jim Callaghan, not the Labour Prime Minister from 1976 to 1979, but his namesake, fondly known as “Gentleman Jim”, who is still resident in Middleton.
My constituency of Heywood and Middleton comprises those two former mill towns, along with the large village of Norden, the former mill town of Castleton and the more affluent Bamford. The constituency is one of those that make up the metropolitan borough of Rochdale. The M62 motorway separates the constituency, with Middleton to the south sitting along the Rochdale canal. Middleton has given us an eclectic bunch of artists: comedian Steve Coogan grew up there, and indie band, the Chameleons all came from Middleton.
A lesser known fact about Middleton is that the local newspaper, the Middleton Guardian, gave the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) his first job as a journalist—a fact he recalled with great pride when he recently visited the excellent Peterloo medical centre in the constituency. The medical centre is so named in tribute to another of Middleton’s famous sons, Samuel Bamford, the radical social reformer who led the Middleton contingent to the ill-fated Peterloo massacre.
Middleton is also home to the John Willie Lees brewery, a traditional family firm that has been established for 186 years and provides employment to over 1,000 people, plus an excellent apprenticeship scheme, which offers real jobs at the end of it. John Willie Lees also has a family connection for me, as my mother ran two Lees pubs in the ’80s and I spent many weekends and evenings on what many would see as the wrong side of the bar, serving pints and hopefully good cheer in equal measure. In those days it was all electric pumps, and I am glad to see that John Willie Lees has now returned to hand-pumped beer. It even still makes mild, a traditional Northern brew that I thought had all but died out, but now seems to be enjoying something of a resurgence. I believe that it might be available here in the south now, and could even be considered to be ever so slightly fashionable.
Heywood sits in the centre of the constituency on the River Roch. It used to have cotton as well as mines, although now it has neither. Amongst its famous daughters are the singer Lisa Stansfield and Julie Goodyear, also known as Bet Lynch from “Coronation Street”. Heywood is home, too, to the Queen’s park, which, in 2010 was voted the nation’s favourite green space, bringing immense pride to the people of Heywood. The park was presented by Queen Victoria in 1879 and still features some fine original structures such as the magnificent Victoria fountain.
The park was revitalised using funds awarded by the council and by the Heritage Lottery Fund; over £l million was spent on its restoration. In 2007, it was given green flag status and an excellence award from the national Civic Trust. Lovingly cared for by the friends of Queen’s park, it provides an excellent recreational and community facility.
Returning to the subject of this debate, Heywood and Middleton is the home of “Middleton, Heywood and Rochdale against the Cuts”, an active and vocal campaigning group, which highlights and speaks out against austerity measures that affect the most vulnerable in our communities. Certainly during the campaign period prior to the by-election, I encountered many disabled residents who struggled with the bedroom tax. I welcome this debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the adverse effects of some of the Government’s policies.
I was particularly concerned by the plight of one disabled gentleman I met who was deemed to be in possession of a spare room. In this room, he kept equipment to enable him to manage his condition. Additionally, the room provided a place for his wife to sleep in on the frequent occasions when he had disturbed nights. Under the so-called “spare room subsidy” he was paying £14 a week for this room, which the family could ill afford. Sadly, he is not the only one of my constituents affected; unfortunately, he is one of many. Although I was not here to vote on the bedroom tax, I look forward to voting on the Affordable Homes Bill when it comes before Parliament.
I am informed that a maiden speech should not be too political—I may well have picked the wrong debate to make my speech—so I will wind up here and thank Members for their polite attention and you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make my contribution.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. We enjoyed her speech, and we will now hear from Sir George Young.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. We all welcome her first contribution to debates in this Chamber. She spoke with warmth about Jim Dobbin, whom we remember with affection, and she obviously knew him well. She took us on a guided tour of her constituency. She spoke with confidence, humour and insight, and she clearly has a contribution to make, specifically on health matters. I would have visited her constituency during the by-election, but I was otherwise detained in Clacton. We look forward to hearing many future contributions from the hon. Lady.
I believe that this motion is opportunistic and misguided. I do not think that it furthers the interests of those with a disability or the organisations that care for them. The reaction of the audience at “Question Time” the week before last showed a distaste for the political opportunism that we have seen this afternoon. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition did not learn the lesson from that reaction before they chose the subject of this debate and launched their highly personalised attack on a man who, as we have just heard, has done so much to advance the cause of those who have a disability. If I were charitable, I would say on listening to the mover of the motion, that I do not believe her heart was in it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
As the father of two disabled children, I found the remarks grossly offensive, as did every member of my family and my community.
Sir George Young
I do not doubt for one moment what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I have not received one e-mail, one letter or one comment from one of my constituents about those remarks.
Of course there are times when there are policy disagreements on how best to enfranchise those with disabilities, be they physical or learning disabilities, and of course we should always be careful about the language that we use—as the former Prime Minister discovered when he referred to someone as a bigot. However, during the 40 years I have been in the House, I have been struck by the degree of consensus on how best to proceed with policy on disability, and I honestly do not believe that the exchange at the party conference justified the outbreak of partisanship that we have witnessed this afternoon.
Let me pick out two pieces of legislation relating to disabled people. The ground-breaking Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 started as a Private Member’s Bill, promoted by Alf Morris, and reached the statute book with Conservative support just before the 1970 election. Later in the 1970s, one of the first Bills whose Committee stages I attended introduced a non-contributory invalidity pension, which was the first of a new generation of benefits that replaced earnings for those unable to work.The other piece of legislation, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which introduced a new right to non-discrimination in employment and which had all-party support. By and large, the House has made progress, driving forward the agenda, when we have been able to reach a consensus.
The objective that I hope we all share this afternoon was put well by Nicholas Scott in 1992, when he was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said then:
“There is no difference of opinion in the House about the ends that we seek: the integration of disabled people, their independence and their participation in a range of activities, including employment, the securing of proper housing, recreation and sport. Above all, we want them to have control over their own lives.”—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]
I think that that is as valid today as it was then.
The thrust of policy under all parties has been to remove the obstacles that prevent someone with a disability from enjoying the same quality of life as someone without that disability. That has involved Government action, including action by my party.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend is saying, and the tenor of it. As one who was involved in lobbying for the Disability Discrimination Act outside the House all those years ago, may I ask whether he agrees that a key part of disability empowerment is the Government’s Access to Work scheme? I should add, to be fair, that it was introduced by the then Government. It is very important for every penny that can possibly be invested in access to work to be invested, because it is a route that enables many people with disabilities to be helped into work.
Sir George Young
I agree with my hon. Friend, and in a moment I shall say a little about how more disabled people can be helped into work.
Over the past 40 years, there has been Government intervention to achieve the objectives that I have identified. We have the mobility allowance, which can sometimes be converted into the Motability scheme, and we have the disabled facilities grant. Both parties have used building regulations to make public buildings, in particular, more accessible to people with disabilities.
Let me now deal with the specifics. I shall try to adhere to the six-minute time limit, although it does not apply to me. We all want disabled people to have the sense of fulfilment, independence and comradeship that goes with having a job. My noble Friend Lord Freud was asking a genuine question, namely “How can we intervene in the market to enable everyone to work if some people work at a slower rate than others or need more supervision?” It was a genuine question, and we have not heard an answer to it from the Opposition today.
The debate then moved on to the minimum wage, in respect of which there are a number of exemptions, including one for company directors. During the meeting that took place at the conference, one delegate said that he had got round the minimum wage provision for his daughter by making her a company director, but that is a rather protracted and complex solution, which not everyone can adopt. What my noble Friend was trying to do was establish whether there were other solutions that would enable the same objective to be reached.
There is no dispute about the direction of social policy on those with disabilities, and I am not aware that the Opposition plan to repeal the measures that we have had to introduce in order to contain public expenditure. The speed with which we move in the direction in which we all want to move depends on getting the economy right. As with the national health service, so with support for disability: we need a strong economy if we are to take the agenda forward. No one has a greater interest in the success of the Government’s economic policy than those with a disability.
I think that the motion should be withdrawn, but if it is not withdrawn, it should be defeated, because it is an unwarranted personal attack. No alternative approach to disability has been advocated, and it risks breaking a bipartisan approach to disability that has served those with a disability well for the last 40 years.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I shall take this opportunity to give three examples from my constituency of brave women who are directly affected by the Government’s changes and welfare reforms, and also to identify the things that I think we need to do if we are to take a bipartisan and House-wide view of the issue of getting people with disabilities back to work. First, we need to provide access to basic facilities in public buildings, especially jobcentres. Secondly, we need flexibility, because that is what enables us to get disabled people back to work, and we need to make those people less risk-averse. Thirdly, we need to understand the law of unintended consequences. That applies particularly to regional differences relating to the bedroom tax.
My first example involves Becky Weston, who has cerebral palsy. She also has a hole in her bladder, and she needs access to a toilet. She was invited to visit Mitcham jobcentre for a benefits review. She phoned the jobcentre to explain that when she arrived there, having taken the bus, she would need to get to the toilet. When she arrived, she was angry, upset and distressed: she needed the toilet. Many of us will know that feeling. She asked to use the toilet, and she was refused. She was asked, “Are you threatening me that you will pee on the floor if I do not let you use the toilet?” Of course, that is exactly what happened.
I do not tell this story to embarrass anyone—myself, other Members, or the people at Mitcham jobcentre who do a hard job in difficult circumstances—but how do we expect people with disabilities to turn up to a jobcentre where they cannot use a toilet? We would not allow that of an employer, so why do we allow it in our own services? Becky was greatly distressed that she was allowed to go home on the bus in such a condition. Even a modicum of compassion was not exercised in that instance. I suggest that Ministers consider what facilities are available if we want people to turn up at our jobcentres.
Let me now deal with the issue of flexibility. People who are disabled and on benefits often become risk-averse, but once they are on benefits and in the system, they can keep going. Life is not easy, but to risk losing benefits threatens huge distress. Only last night, Merton Centre for Independent Living gave me the example of a woman with mental health problems and physical disabilities who had arrived at the centre. She was in the employment and support allowance support group. She had been an art teacher in better days, and she wanted to volunteer: she wanted to give something back to the community. She felt that if she could manage that, perhaps she could then get into work. The centre’s staff helped her, gratefully and thankfully. They realised that she had no computer skills, and was unlikely ever to get a job without them in this day and age, so they sent her on a course.
When the woman phoned the jobcentre, she was immediately taken off ESA, and told that she was doing voluntary work without permission. Her benefit has been suspended, and she will have to appeal. Her housing benefit has been stopped, so her rent arrears have increased. She has now decided that she will never try to help herself again, because by doing so she has only brought distress and misery on herself.
The final case that I shall cite involves unintended consequences. I have known Jeanette Townley for more than 30 years. She is an extraordinary woman, whom most female Members would love to have as their friend. She has two sons. The first was in the Army, and the second, Philip, has Down’s syndrome. She has cared for him brilliantly. As happens in many cases, when she had a disabled son, her marriage broke down. She moved into a three-bedroom house on St Helier avenue over 22 years ago. Her eldest son has now left and joined the Army. She is in a three-bedroom house with her son Philip, who is 29 years of age. She receives carers allowance and maintenance from her ex-husband, and this is topped up with income support. Her income is £106 a week. Philip gets DLA middle rate care and ESA. Their household has to contribute £72 a month to keep and stay in their house—not that they have any alternative, because, as every London Member knows, there are no two-bedroom homes to be had, as that is the number of bedrooms that is most in demand.
Jeanette would move. She does not want to move because she has great neighbours who care for Philip if she is not there; she has a brilliant GP who knows how to handle Philip; and, God help us, when Philip is in distress the movement of the traffic up and down the main road she lives on gives him comfort. However, she would move to save that £72 per month.
How can it be right that we undermine Jeanette in her caring role, a bright clever woman who would have had a better life and more opportunities if she did not have Philip as her son? She does not wish him not to be her son. She spends every day caring for him. Do we want to undermine the limited financial means of such women? I do not believe anybody in this House wants that, and we need to do something about it.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Whenever I deal with disability issues, I always feel I have to make a particular effort to look beyond the label of a person’s disability, so as to see the person for who they are and not just their condition. In many ways, it is the same when I am sitting in this Chamber: I have to look to see the people for who they really are, and not judge them by their partisan labels. It is a challenge in politics to realise that we are actually all here because we want to make this country a better place. We may disagree about how to go about that, but we all share that common idea. It is why we enter public life. It is why we welcome a new Member today, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), whose maiden speech was excellent. As I try to do that, however, I occasionally feel personally let down. I have thrown away my speech because I want to explain why I feel so personally let down by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and her comments on disability hate crime in particular.
After I was elected to this House, early on in my constituency surgeries I had a number of very upsetting cases of disability hate crime. It is clearly a very big issue across the country as a whole. Nationally, there have been some very tragic cases. There has clearly been significant under-reporting of disability hate crime over a decade or more under Governments of all persuasions. I quickly realised that we needed to create spaces in which people felt able to report disability hate crime, because I wanted more people to have the confidence to report it. When I see the number of reported disability hate crimes going up, I take no satisfaction in that—certainly not—but I see that we are creating an arena in which people feel confident to talk about it, and I find it deeply personally upsetting when that is used as a stick to beat the Government with, because I have done so much work to try to create that space where people can have that confidence.
That is why this whole debate is so frustrating to me. I have not heard the answer to the question the father of the young lady with the learning difficulty was asking Lord Freud. I do not know what the Labour party’s answer is. I wish we could all leave this Chamber and go to the Upper Waiting Hall, where we all might learn something from the display by United Response. Many disabled people have sent postcards expressing what they aspire to and what they want to be able to do in this country, because it is their country, too.
This is not a matter of our somehow deciding whether disabled people are able to work or not. If they want to work, we as a nation should be enabling them to do so. How we best achieve that is a deeply complex public policy issue. I do not believe they should be paid less than the minimum wage. My own personal preference is the model operated in Denmark, which uses a series of wage incentives to top up what employers are willing to pay, but that is just one of a whole host of options. The tragedy of the attitude that the shadow Minister has shown today in the Chamber is that she has sought to close down that public policy debate—she has sought to close down that consensus.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), all the great advances in the interests of disabled people have come about when there has been consensus in this Chamber—when the parties have worked together to advance the interests of the most vulnerable in our community. It is entirely right that if people want to work we should be willing to make that happen, because where there is poverty of expectation—and that is what I almost sense from the Opposition Benches—that automatically translates into poverty of opportunity.
All of us have a responsibility for what we say. I am glad that Lord Freud has made it clear that his comments were not appropriate, but the key thing to remember is the goal we have. Only 10% of people with a learning disability are in employment. That is far, far too low. I would rather we spent a few hours in this Chamber discussing how we might increases that, and I am happy to give the Labour party ideas for its manifesto since it seems to need them so much.
We only need look at, for example, some of the ideas that Scope has been coming up with. It is great to get people into work, but we have to enable them to stay in work. I am sure that, like me, Opposition Members have had people coming to their surgeries saying that they are in work, that they are struggling to stay in work and that they need some more flexible form of what is now being called adjustment leave. I think that would be an excellent step forward because it would give individuals greater flexibility in coping with their fluctuating conditions—they may have a good day or a bad day, and they may be working in an environment where that does not always work out quite so well with the employer. Adjustment leave is one idea to address that.
The Labour party continually campaigns about living standards. Well, here is a great idea for it: look at the costs of equipment for the disabled—look at the Office of Fair Trading reports on the cost of powered wheelchairs and the fact that even a set of cutlery for a young man with cerebral palsy can cost £31. There is so much more we could be talking about in this Chamber on a consensual basis to make lives better for disabled people, and what a tragedy—what a waste—that we are going back to politics again today.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), and I add my congratulations to her on her maiden speech.
Let me make clear how many disabled people across the whole of the United Kingdom are feeling just now: they are feeling beleaguered; they are feeling that they are being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bankers and bear the brunt of the austerity measures. Regardless of whether Members on the Government Benches believe that themselves, they must understand that many disabled people are feeling that. They feel that a lot of the Government’s welfare reforms are less about reform and more about saving money, and because of that particular atmosphere many of them are feeling that somehow everything that is being done with regard to welfare reform is landing on their doorstep. I therefore make the plea I have made umpteen times before: because we do not know the full impact these reforms have had on disabled people, will the Government carry out a cumulative impact assessment?
We have asked for that time and again. It would at least begin to quantify for individual families the money they are losing as a result of these reforms. At the moment, there is mention of them losing £2 here or £8 there or that they are experiencing a few extra difficulties in accessing funds or support. Unless we actually look at how each of these changes is impacting on each individual family, we are never truly going to understand why they feel the way they do and the consequences of that.
It is not just the changes to the obvious benefits that affect disabled people. There are changes to benefits that are aimed particularly at them: the changes from incapacity benefit to ESA, and the move from DLA to personal independence payments and Access to Work, which the Minister mentioned. As he said, he will be appearing in front of my Committee tomorrow morning. Those benefits are obviously targeted at disabled people, but there are others, including jobseeker’s allowance, that are aimed at those who have gone through the work capability assessment and been found fit for work even though they have major health problems. Those people find themselves on jobseeker’s allowance. There is also housing benefit, and we have all heard about the bedroom tax. All these arrangements disproportionately affect disabled people. In jobcentres, there are not enough disability employment advisers. My Select Committee found out that there was one for every 600 claimants, but I understand that the figure is nearer to 900. The Work programme is not delivering as it should for disabled people.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) mentioned one of my predecessors, Alf Morris, who introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That Act was described as the Magna Carta of legislation for disabled people. It was the first piece of legislation in any nation anywhere in the world to recognise the rights of disabled people. We on this side of the Chamber are angry because we feel that that disability agenda is being set back by this Government’s policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is happening?
Dame Anne Begg
I do, and that is certainly how many disabled people feel. One of Alf Morris’s great achievements was the Motability scheme. He used to joke that the only organisation that had more vehicles than that scheme was the Chinese red army. I benefited from having a Motability car when I was a student—I was among the first to get one—so I understand from a personal point of view how important those changes were and how long and hard the fight has been to persuade the people that disabled people deserve opportunities, support and help.
One of the main ways in which disabled people are helped into work is through the Work Choice programme. It is the only specialist disability employment programme in existence, and it sits outside the Work programme. One would expect the people on the Work Choice programme to be in receipt of disability benefits, but that is not necessarily the case. I have visited the two Work Choice providers in Aberdeen, and almost all the people there are on jobseeker’s allowance. Yes, they have disabilities or ill health problems, but they are not the most severely disabled people. That is one of the problems: the very programme that was meant to help those with the most profound disabilities is helping those who are less disabled—albeit successfully; the Minister quoted the results.
The opportunities for supported employment or sheltered employment, both of which Government Members have put forward as answers to the problem, have decreased. We have not yet seen the redeployment of the Remploy money into helping people into supported or sheltered employment. The crux of this debate is the fact that there is still a need for such support to allow those with the most profound disabilities to get into work.
Another big problem, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), relates to people with progressive illnesses being stuck in the work-related activity group. My Select Committee looked into the workings of the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment, and we found that the work-related activity group had become the default destination for everyone, and that the system was therefore not working as efficiently as it should. People who are neither too ill nor too well, who are disabled but not too disabled, or who are on a trajectory towards either getting better or getting worse will not qualify for jobseeker’s allowance at one end of the spectrum or for the ESA support group at the other. Those people will end up in the work-related activity group. That includes people with progressive illnesses, who face conditionality and even sanctioning. That illustrates an element of the design of the ESA that is fundamentally wrong.
The crux of the matter is that the Government have tried to implement too much welfare reform too quickly. They have forgotten the lesson that these matters are incredibly complicated. There are always unintended consequences, and it always takes far longer than anyone anticipates to implement the changes. That is why disabled people are feeling so aggrieved: they feel that no one is listening.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
There are times when we debate issues in this House with maturity and sensitivity, and I am pleased that, since the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) sat down, that has been the case today. No one could fail to have been moved by the examples given by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), or by the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is no longer in his place. The reality is that, if we want to make a difference, to fix the ills of our society and to make Britain the best it can be, we need to show more maturity in debating these issues.
Unemployment for people with disabilities exceeds 50%. Among those with severe learning disabilities, the figure is more than 90%. Many of those people want to work, and I would expect every Member to want to see those unemployment rates fall. When we tackle youth unemployment through apprenticeships, we concede that it is legitimate for employers to pay less than the minimum wage and for the Government to give support to employers, so why can we not consider doing that for people with disabilities? We owe it to them to think constructively about what more we can do to give employers a greater incentive to give people with disabilities a chance. The truth is that the minimum wage acts as a barrier to employment when an employer judges that the amount they have to pay exceeds the value being added by the employee. It is surely self-evident that we should try to identify what we can do to eliminate that barrier. I am not talking about people being worth less; I am talking about making practical interventions to fix a problem.
The fact is that we, as politicians, need to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. If we want to achieve the outcomes that we have been talking about today, we need to reflect the real world. We need to work with employers to see what more we can do to encourage them to be more ready to employ those with disabilities. Simply to sit on the sidelines and whip up hysteria about the minimum wage will quite simply fail those people. What is needed is a mature debate about what more we can do in this space.
Lord Freud is an honourable man who has done more to support people with disabilities than many of the members of rent-a-mob who have leapt on his words with synthetic anger. His only offence was one of sloppy language. Who in this House is always completely accurate in their use of language? Who in this House has never made a mistake? The way in which Labour Members have inflamed this row has shown them at their holier-than-thou worst. They like to pretend that my party is the “nasty party”. Well, I will tell them what is nasty. It is distorting the comments of a decent honourable man and using people with disabilities as a political football with which to beat the Government. Shame on them!
If there is a good thing to come out of this unhappy episode, it is that the public saw it for what it was: a shameless piece of political opportunism. We wonder why people are turning away from politics. This is a perfect example of why they are doing so. Politics should be about ideas and principles. Politicians should be about leadership, not about simply being weathervanes. Today’s politicians are too scared of saying anything that might be construed as politically incorrect, or of saying anything that could be taken out of context to write a headline. The result is that politics is becoming bland, managerial and utterly uninspiring. It is failing to deliver.
This is a perfect example of an issue that we should be debating in a more grown-up manner. If we do not talk about the world as it is in a mature way, there are others who will fill the gap. The fact is that the quiet majority of people out there are very reasonable. They are not stupid—far from it. Any politician who takes them for fools will pay the price. The public have judged that Lord Freud was well-intentioned. Labour Members can use their friends in the metropolitan media and the charities to try to score a political advantage, but they will be the ones who suffer next year at the ballot box.
Success in politics is not measured by how much of a hoo-hah we can generate on Twitter. It is measured by delivering on our policy objectives. Our objective is to give those with disabilities the opportunity to work if they want to, and no amount of political haranguing by the party opposite will stop us on this side of the House focusing on the real challenge. If Labour Members have not got anything constructive to say about this issue, frankly they should shut up.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I am delighted to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not going to shut up. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, so she knows that neither of us are prone to shutting up when the issues are important.
I agree with the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who has just left, that a bipartisan approach has been the best way to move the agenda forward for disabled people. We have to be careful, however, not to rewrite history. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was actually a hard-fought campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) was one of the champions of that debate. I give credit, as I have on more than one occasion, to the Leader of the House, who, in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party and with the support of the then Prime Minister, John Major, helped to manage this House to a position where it accepted the claims and the campaigns of disabled people, including the campaign conducted by my right hon. Friend. So we should not rewrite history, but there has previously been a bipartisan approach.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), was part of that when he was my shadow and accepted the basic tenets of the 2005 report published by the Prime Minister’s strategy unit on improving the lives of disabled people. That report challenged us all to examine how we accepted our responsibilities to break down the barriers preventing disabled people from fulfilling their potential in education and employment, and to encourage them to make an active contribution to their local community. Work was the cornerstone of that new agenda. But a statement of a right to work does not in itself deliver the right to work, and we need to be clear that the right to work for disabled people has been further undermined by the failure of this Government’s employment programmes to deliver the necessary support for disabled people. They can brush it off, but the Work programme is seen by many disabled people as inflexible, baffling and little more than going through the motions.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind remarks. Is she aware that only a few weeks ago Citizens Advice Scotland published a compelling document detailing case study after case study on the issues she is raising? Does she agree that that is important to this debate?
Mrs McGuire
Let me hark back to the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock and say that it is not some weird conspiracy of charities, Labour politicians and disabled people that is creating the environment where people are suffering because of the ways in which the Government have carried forward their employment programme.
I congratulate our two Labour Front Benchers today, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), because they have recently put on the record how the Labour party would devolve responsibility for some of the support for disabled people, taking a new approach and ensuring that it is more locally based within the employment market. We need to ensure that the new approach of our party is not top-down; if we do not involve disabled people in the planning and development of programmes that have an impact on their lives, we will have lost our way. I am sure that we will take forward that particular model of involvement of disabled people.
The Minister made great play of the talk about cynicism. May I say that disabled people have for the past four years been the subject of the most cynical campaign in modern social political history? They have been subject to a campaign that vilified them from the beginning. It started with a premise that disability benefits were the subject of widespread fraud and that, by definition, disabled people were cheating the system. It progressed by plucking an arbitrary figure—some 600,000—out of the air and saying those people would lose their benefits. It ended with a mess, where disabled people no longer know what benefits they will get, how long it will take to get a decision and whether they can apply in the first place. The Minister is a nice person but it takes some brass neck to come to this House, acknowledge there is a problem, forget that the Government created the backlog and then try to take the credit for reducing the very backlog that their policies have made happen. I hope that he will reflect on what he said.
Let me deal briefly with Lord Freud’s comments, because they show just how much we have lost in the past four years. The fact that the Government’s Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform thought that some disabled people could work for £2 an hour was not just a “mis-speak” but was more attributable to a mindset. No amount of apology from the noble Lord could disguise the fact that not only did he “mis-speak”, but his comments challenged a vision that disabled people thought they had agreed with us: that they can work where possible and they should be treated equally in that regard. If we start to finesse the payment for work, where will this stop? A minimum wage is a minimum wage is a minimum wage; the Government cannot start to segment it.
I felt desperately sad when I read Lord Freud’s comments. I want to say to him that rights cannot be traded. They are not given but are intrinsic to us all as members of a democratic society. Lord Freud showed by his crass “mis-speaking” that he has failed to understand that, and, as such, he should have had the integrity to resign. As he failed to do that, the Prime Minister definitely should dismiss him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak and limited time is available. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I have worked closely with Lord Freud, particularly on the jam jar bank accounts that will probably have to be introduced because of universal credit and the fact that some people are less adequate than others at coping with money, bills and so on. He has such an insightful mind and his only focus is on finding ways to assist people who do not have all their faculties to cope as best they can in society. It is the most disgraceful situation when a gentleman such as that is traduced and he cannot speak for himself because the Opposition have brought this debate to this Chamber and not the other place. I find that astonishing and cheap. The Opposition should look themselves in the mirror—
Ian Lavery
Does the hon. Lady also find astonishing the remarks that Lord Freud made initially?
Heather Wheeler
The difficulty we all have is this is a garbled piece of tape; we are listening to an answer to a question from a father who was asking Lord Freud whether he would allow something to happen for his child. That is where this synthetic anger and the appalling political football that this has turned into—
Ian Lavery
Did the hon. Lady say “garbled message”? Is she saying that Lord Freud did not say what the press are claiming he said?
Heather Wheeler
The tape is very difficult to hear. The father who asked the question has clarified the situation. Lord Freud felt that he needed to apologise, and people should accept that apology. He was answering a question from the father who was asking for that to happen. Which bit of that do the Opposition not get?
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady believe that disabled people should have the right to be paid at least the minimum wage for employment?
Heather Wheeler
What I would really like is for us to see more than 10% of severely disabled people getting into work. This matter goes back to the work that we as MPs do in our constituencies. I am talking about the help that we give to those who come to our constituency surgeries—help with volunteering and help with references. The people I have seen over the past few years have gone on and secured really good jobs. Fitting people into the right position is so difficult. The truth is that people have bad days, and that is tough for the employer. The employer may be involved in the white heat of technology, and Gladys cannot turn up because she is having a bad day. We have to find suitable positions, because employers want disabled people to be fully functioning parts of society. They want to provide really good jobs and to help people. I see all sorts of jobs available, and have made many friends over the past four years—as MPs we collect friends in this Chamber and outside in the constituency. We now have 400 extra people working in jobcentres specifically helping disabled people to get into work. That is the sort of positive stuff we should be talking about.
The aim of all of us has been totally clouded by this ludicrous debate today. We should be going back to the days when we had a bipartisan arrangement and when what we all wanted was for everybody to get on, to get a proper job and to feel that they were contributing to society. I can see plenty of people in this Chamber hanging their heads in shame. It is absolutely amazing. I really hope that the cameras are picking that up —[Interruption.] No, I will certainly not name them.
This has been a poor debate, and we have not seen the Chamber at its best. It has been a wasted opportunity for the Opposition. It would have been so much better if they had come to this debate with real ideas, so that they could work with us. I heard just one idea from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). That is just not good enough. The Opposition have played the wrong ball. The public and the audience in “Question Time” had it right: playing the man and not the ball is not a good idea.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on an excellent maiden speech, and very much welcome the tribute that she paid to our dear friend, Jim Dobbin.
The House will know that, for many years, I have been involved in disability activities. I have worked with Members from both sides of the House—John Hammond, Nick Scott, Jack Ashley, Alf Morris and Sir John Major. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, I shadowed the present Leader of the House when the 1995 Act was going through the House. There was, at that time, a genuine spirit of consensus from which we are now departing.
I have listened with great respect to the speeches of Government Members, including that of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), and I have to say that the issue is much, much deeper than simply a conflict between two political parties. I do not want to spend too much time on Lord Freud, except to say that given what he said, I do not believe that Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan would have kept him in government for more than 10 minutes. The issues here are profound. They include a perception of this House, which is reflected in the support for the main political parties in every part of the United Kingdom, and in the understanding of people with disabilities and disabled organisations of the change we mean to deliver at a time of enormous poverty.
I am not alone in that view. When I was preparing for a very important debate that I initiated in Westminster Hall this morning—I was delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was able to be there—I came across two articles, which helped me to make my point. This issue is at the core of people’s perception of this Parliament. In the Evening Standard, Armando Iannucci wrote an article entitled, “Why politicians of all parties are kicking the poor.” Its sub-heading said:
“Demonising genuine welfare claimants as skivers and benefit cheats is simply creating a more divided society.”
Some people might think that that is over the top, but there was also an article on the same subject in The Guardian this morning. It asked this question: why, in addressing poverty, were we hounding a woman because she did not turn up for a disability examination and she stole from a food bank? She was faced with all the abuse that a court could provide.
Mike Kane
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Poverty is high on the agenda when we face our constituents day in, day out. My constituent Matt Hopkins has faced real hardship. He applied for his PIP assessment in June 2013—he approached Paul Goggins, my predecessor, about the matter—and he did not receive a payment until June 2014.
Mr Clarke
I accept my hon. Friend’s serious point.
In this morning’s debate on whether we really understand the hardship that is being inflicted on people with disabilities and on whether it was the right way for a Minister to express his views, I gave some examples of what was happening in my constituency. I also repeated the views of Citizens Advice Scotland. Let me give a couple of examples of the points that I made. I mentioned that four out of five advisers at Citizens Advice Scotland said that the delays are causing worsening health and, in nine out of 10 cases, additional stress and anxiety, not to mention the financial strain that people live under while their claims are assessed.
I also gave figures from my constituency. Over a long period, applications for what is now PIP, formerly disability living allowance, have been lying for months and months without being dealt with. Citizens Advice seems powerless in this situation. I gave examples of case after case of real hardship. The people whom I represent and the people with disabilities are looking to this Parliament, and what is our response? The Minister of State, for whom I have great respect, helped me make my case when he sought to persuade the House by saying that Lord Freud had also advised Lord Hutton. But that is the point—a huge number of people simply do not trust this establishment. A huge number of people are experiencing poverty, and a huge number of people with disabilities are seeing themselves as victims, not as recipients of the compassion that this House should provide. People are waiting for many, many months for money that they desperately need and for other passported benefits. They are worried, as am I. I do not think that Lord Freud was the best person to speak for this House or for this Parliament at such a dangerous time.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the new Member, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for a really interesting speech, and a charming and moving description of her constituency. I congratulate her on her success in what I know was a hard-fought campaign. She is one of a number of Members who have come here recently, and will no doubt come here in the next few months, after fighting in by-elections that might prefigure the next election and the difficulties that all hon. Members have with populist politicians who wish to paint this place and many of those who work here as people who do not listen, do not care and are interested only in themselves. I am very glad that she managed to make her case to her electorate, and that they, by a margin narrower than I imagine she would have wished, accepted her argument that, irrespective of the history of the Labour party or of the current travails of its leadership, she was best able to represent the community that she clearly cares very much about.
That goes to the nub of the motion—the word “trust”, on the fourth line, which is what the Opposition are trying to get at. What frustrates me about this debate is that it really is a debate of two parts.
I will leave the opening speech for a moment, because we have heard a number of significant contributions from Members who have far more experience than I have of the difficulties facing people with disability, as well as from Members who have experienced the difficulties of reform of the benefit system, under the previous and current Governments, in which I also have experience, as do others who will no doubt speak in the next few minutes. No one could not be affected by the significant speeches of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), or of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is one of the finest speakers in the House. I am also happy once again to follow a man I admire enormously, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who makes powerful points. Something rather like a centrifugal force has imposed itself, because all those Members have returned to the core issue of disability and left aside the motion on the Order Paper. That is because most people in the House really do care passionately about why they are here.
There was a very good speech given at the beginning of the summer, at the Royal Institute of British Architects, which included the following opening statements:
“Our biggest obstacle…is cynicism. The belief that nobody can make a difference. That all politics is the same. Voters believe we value posturing more than principle. Good photos or soundbites more than a decent policy. Image more than ideas. And it is no surprise that people think that. Because so often the terms of trade of politics—the way it is discussed and rated—has become about the manufactured, the polished, the presentational. Politics is played out as showbiz, a game, who is up and who is down. Rather than the best chance a lot of people have to change their lives. And things are judged far more on style than substance. But this political culture, this photo-op politics, denies people a debate about the things that really matter. And that does deep harm to our country. It leaves politics a game that fewer and fewer people are watching, or believing. People’s sense of the artificiality, the triviality, the superficiality of politics is more highly tuned than ever. And the more it seems this is what matters to us, the more the public are put off. Unless we stand up now and say that we want to offer people something different, more and more will simply turn away.”
That was a speech by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition called “The Choice”.
We have a choice in this debate, and that is why I am sad, because I really respect the shadow Minister. We have been in Public Bill Committees together, and I too sensed that her heart was not in it. We have a choice to debate issues sensibly and seriously and not to take the easy political route. We have had a great debate in parts today, but it was nothing to do with what is in the motion. I respectfully suggest that the Opposition withdraw the motion rather than put it to a vote.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I listened with care and some sympathy to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I remind him of the Quaker saying that he or she who would do good must begin with minute particulars. That is why today I want to touch on some of those particulars, which are not minute at all for my constituents in Blackpool South, which has a larger than average number of people with disabilities, often people who do not have family or close friends in the area. That is why two years ago when we were having all sorts of difficulties with Atos and the work capability assessment, I initiated an Adjournment debate when I pointed out some of the real issues with Motability, the revolving door of appeals, and the inability of Atos to deal with work capability assessment. Sadly, some of those issues are still relevant today. Even though Atos has been removed from the work capability assessment, it has not yet been replaced, and in the north-west it remains in charge of the personal independence payment process. On top of all the problems that we have heard today, my area has a particular problem because people cannot even get to an assessment centre nearby.
Our citizens advice bureau wrote to me last year about a matter that I have raised with Ministers and on the Floor of the House and with all sorts of people. We only have a medical assessment centre for PIP medicals in Preston, which is some way from the centre of Blackpool, not near public transport and certainly off the beaten track. It is fraught with issues such as costing residents more money to get there, longer journeys with people not familiar with where they are going and probably needing a taxi, and so on. When I asked why clients were expected to travel that distance, the reply from the PIP implementation team directed me to the Atos website, which stated that DWP guidance permits a client to travel 90 minutes one way for work or a job interview. Indeed it does, but that totally misses the salient point that these are people with illnesses, disability and stress.
I have spent some time trying to winkle out of Atos and the Minister and his officials where we are up to in the process. I had a meeting with them at our party conference and I was then told by the Atos manager that they were working on it and would have an assessment centre by mid-2015. When I asked whether he had been from Blackpool to the Preston centre, he said he had, and when I asked how, he said, “By car.” That really sums it up. On 17 August the Minister wrote to say that he was sorry that there was nothing that he could usefully add to what I had been told, which was basically that we would have to wait until mid-June. It is not surprising that he had nothing useful to add because neither he nor his officials had had anything useful to say to prod Atos into action on this and a series of other areas.
The best way of looking at these issues is to look at what comes to us from our caseworkers. In particular, I pay tribute to my caseworker, Gillian Tomlinson, who works tirelessly in this area. I want to quote a couple of examples. She talks about Mrs B, who contacted us in June 2014, who receives the highest rate care and mobility and is practically housebound. She applied for employment and support allowance in January and Atos told her that a home visit would not be authorised. Finally she has been placed in the ESA support group. Mrs W contacted us in extreme distress. She failed a work capability assessment and ESA stopped immediately. She is a vulnerable lady who found the whole process difficult to understand.
My caseworker says: “The whole mandatory reconsideration process continues to be concerning, in as much as ESA benefits are stopped immediately after a claimant is advised that they are fit for work. It seems to me that the whole process is now being made so complex that the Government are hoping that people will not go through it and will accept the decision made.” That is indeed the case. The excellent Alan Reid, who manages my Disability First centre, says: “To us people come desperate and, in some cases, suicidal.” That remains the case. That is why Lord Freud’s comments were so damaging and so difficult for disabled people to accept.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on a fine maiden speech? I was a great admirer of her predecessor, who was a wonderful man and an ornament to the House of Commons. He was, among other things, a papal knight. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is following in his footsteps with her excellent speech.
I want to move on from excellent speeches and things that made politics look as though they are for good and honourable people to the less pleasant subject of political opportunism. Political opportunism, of course, is something that plagues the political world and which we all have to deal with. Some people are very good at it. Alex Salmond comes to mind as an expert in that art. Some people might say that Nigel Farage is good at political opportunism, although others might think that he is more inspired than that. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is not good at political opportunism; she is far too serious-minded and able a figure to lower herself to such depths.
It is interesting that the Labour party’s heart is not really in political opportunism. I notice that the shadow Secretary of State is not here. No doubt that is for very good reasons, but very good reasons for detaining senior political figures sometimes align to a remarkable degree with the disagreeability of the subject they have to discuss. I recall that a former Prime Minister, John Major, was detained by a serious toothache at a crucial point when the leadership of the Conservative party was at stake.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State is not having problems with her dentist and that her absence is merely because she dislikes the subject under discussion.
This motion is an example of political opportunism, and we have known that from the first. How did the subject come into the public domain? Was it done in an upright and what we might call manly way? No, not a bit of it. Somebody was sent undercover to the Tory party conference. Some socialist, no doubt wearing a dirty mackintosh, crept in to hear the noble Lord Freud make a few comments at the party conference. Was that the upright fashion we expect even from the Labour party, or was it actually a rather underhand approach to political debate?
What was then done with the tape recording, this gold dust of political embarrassment? Was it brought forth and released to the newspapers? No. As the hon. Lady said, it was kept to the most important part of the parliamentary week. Parliament was in recess, so we had to wait for the revelation to come forth. One wonders why Prime Minister’s questions was suddenly in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition. He must be a glutton for punishment if that was his view, for surely most Leaders of the Opposition think that other occasions are more enjoyable, for example when it is they, rather than the Prime Minister, who have the final word. The recording was held back as an example of pure political opportunism, to be used at a point when it could inconvenience the Prime Minister the most.
Even our great Prime Minister cannot know everything that is said by every junior Minister at every meeting at a party conference. His mind may be full of many things, but even his mind, great as it is, cannot hold that many things all at once. Inevitably, the Minister came under a bit of flack, and he apologised. I do not know the noble Lord Freud—I have been in the same room as him, but I have never met him—but the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said that he is courteous and compassionate. So we have a courteous and compassionate man who is contributing to the development and discussion of public policy, and in so doing he said some words that he should not have said.
How is public policy to be developed if every time somebody says something that is a little bit interesting or beyond the consensus, their name is hauled before this Chamber and their resignation demanded? Are we to allow no development of public policy? Are we always to have witless comments being made in a politically correct way that allows nobody to consider what is in the real interests of people who are sometimes the most deprived in society? Are we to do nothing to help them improve their condition or enable the state to assist them in getting out of the levels of deprivation they are in? Are we to be so fearful, so frightened and so terrified of people sent around to spy on public meetings that we never develop policy at all? If that is what the socialists want, they are wrong.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The other week, when the House debated the minimum wage, considerable reference was made to the comments of Lord Freud that are under scrutiny today. I alluded to those comments in passing and called them disgraceful, and I stand by that today. However, in holding Government Ministers to account for their statements, it is important not to lose sight of the underlying issues: the disadvantages that disabled people face in the labour market; the disproportionate numbers of disabled people experiencing economic hardship; and the diminishing support for disabled people as a direct and indirect consequence of Government policy.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the minimum wage is not a living wage. If someone is working full time on the minimum wage, the chances are that they are already receiving additional benefits to bring their standard of living up to an acceptable minimum, especially if they are living in private rented accommodation or have dependants. The minimum wage really is a minimum wage—the clue is in the name—so any suggestion that working adults should be paid any less than that is, in my view, simply unacceptable. It defeats the purpose of a minimum floor for wages if that floor can be undercut for disabled employees.
I wonder whether there is a tacit acknowledgement in the Minister’s comments that the Government are failing those who struggle to secure even low-paid work in a competitive market economy. We know how tough the labour market is in some parts of the country, even for people with fairly good skills and qualifications. I have said before in the House that we need to acknowledge more openly the barriers and challenges that some disabled people face in accessing the labour market. Unlike the Minister, however, that leads me to conclude not that those people should be paid some minimum wages for their time and labour, but that we need to be much more realistic about the kind of support some individuals need to secure and sustain employment and, above all, that we need to stop stigmatising those whose health and disabilities make it hard for them to access the labour market and hold down a job.
Almost half of disabled people of working age are in employment. Disabled people are, however, more likely to be in low-paid work and to report unfair treatment in the workplace than non-disabled people. There is no doubt that many disabled people are overcoming huge hurdles on a daily basis, perhaps because they are grappling with chronic pain, mobility problems and a range of invisible barriers that take a lot more out of them than they take out of able-bodied people. However, there are many more who, in spite of their efforts, cannot get a job or whose fluctuating health condition makes it harder for them to stay in work. Today the See Me campaign has launched a programme in Scotland called “People Like You” to tackle mental health stigma and discrimination in the workplace, so our debate today is timely. Raising awareness with employers and work forces is very important, but the Government also need to ensure that disabled people’s rights are protected in the workplace and that those who cannot work get the support they need.
The enormous changes to the benefits system over the past few years have impacted directly on disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. I will not dwell on the work capability assessment or the Work programme, but I will say something about personal independence payments. People in my constituency have been waiting for more than nine months for a PIP assessment, which has caused serious stress and financial hardship, but it has also put pressure on the NHS, the local authority and those people’s families.
The links between poverty and disability in our society have not been mentioned today as much as I had expected. It is important to remember that one in three disabled working-age adults, and 40% of disabled children, live in low-income households. In other words, disabled people are twice as likely to live on low incomes than those without a disability. I fear that the changes in the benefits system will only exacerbate those problems.
Before I finish my remarks, I want to talk about the bedroom tax. It is one of those policies that was not aimed at disabled people, yet even the Government’s own impact assessment found that two thirds of the households affected were home to someone with a disability, and in Scotland that figure was 80%. I do not know why the Government did not just go back to the drawing board. Instead, we heard all this rhetoric about spare bedrooms, when the reality is that the people who had the least choice about where they live were being picked on in hugely disproportionate numbers.
What has been really pernicious in the debate about benefit changes over the past few years is the way in which claimants have been stigmatised and berated. The sense that anyone who is on benefits for a long time is a malingerer, a scrounger or even a benefits cheat has become deeply ingrained in the public discourse, and not nearly enough has been done here to counter that.
That brings me back to the motion, which calls for the removal of a Minister. I do not take that lightly because—let us face it—lots of people make offensive comments all the time. However, far more important than the fact that the Under-Secretary has lost the confidence of this House is the fact that he has lost the confidence of the disabled people affected by a wide range of Government policies. Those are the people on whom we need to focus.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I very much wanted to take part in this debate so I greatly appreciate being called to speak given that I must apologise to the House for not having been here for all the opening speeches. I was at a meeting with the Home Secretary that could not be changed. First, I add my congratulations to the newly elected Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her very good maiden speech. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) about the importance of her victory, which virtually the whole House will celebrate.
I am surprised that the Opposition are continuing their witch hunt against Lord Freud. I did not agree with the form of words that he used, for which he has apologised. I would have thought that after the drubbing the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), received on “Question Time”, they might have learnt their lesson about the pursuit of this individual for some remarks that he made in answer to a question by a family member of someone who was affected by this distressing issue without rephrasing their words. I think that is about the sum of it. I have spoken to him about this. He in no way marks down the worth of people with disabilities that have nothing to do with the economic value that they might add to an enterprise in the workplace.
We have to face the fact that while many people desperately want to work—to find an occupation where they can be of some value and make a contribution—there is sometimes an issue about whether their value can be recognised economically, and that might call for more Government intervention. The Opposition have not addressed that. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) put this very well, and he reminded the House that only 10% of people with learning disabilities are in work. We should all be ashamed of that and seek an answer to it rather than conducting a witch hunt against a man who is giving his time, without any remuneration at all, to try to help people with disabilities.
The Opposition have a track record in this area. For 10 years, before 2008 or thereabouts, almost 1 million people with disabilities were more or less parked on various incapacity benefits—out of sight, out of mind, with no review.
Kate Green
I want to put the record straight. People were parked on incapacity benefit going right back to the 1980s, and in the early 2000s the Labour Government began to explore policies that ultimately led to the employment and support allowance and work capability assessment, which were endorsed by both parties. It is not right to say that Labour policies parked people there only over the past 10 years.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which was slightly premature, because I was going to carry on to give the Opposition some credit for what they belatedly started to do in government —with, I must tell the House, the help of Lord Freud, which is an irony not lost on me.
We must not forget some of the things that the previous Government did. They appointed Atos. They left this Government with the legacy of a fairly draconian system that made no allowances for people with mental health issues who took part in work capability assessments in the early days. Some of those people had fluctuating conditions that meant that if they went for their assessment on a bad day, they might get somewhere, but if it happened to be a good day, they would not. No account was taken of that. This Government brought in Professor Harrington, who conducted a number of reviews that have humanised the system considerably. Now we are looking to find a new provider that will take the place of the Atos, which, as I have said, we inherited from the previous Government.
The previous Government did try to start getting people with disabilities into work, but they needed to will the means as well as the ends. It was not enough just to go round closing day centres and pushing people into the community. Their mantra was that everybody had to be in work before they could set about tackling discrimination, tackling the fact that a lot of businesses were ignorant about how to employ people with disabilities, and trying to change public attitudes. As a result of this Government’s more painstaking approach, some of those issues have been tackled at source, working with industry and employers. The number of disabled people in employment is up by 116,000 this year. Over 35,000 people with disabilities have been helped by the Access to Work scheme. I accept what was said earlier about the possibility that not everybody on the Work Choice programme is a proper candidate for it, but that is down to implementation, which all Governments wrestle with. The majority of the 27,000 people who have been helped have been eligible.
The companies that have been brought on board by the Government’s Disability Confident campaign have made a real difference. I pay tribute to Sainsbury’s and Waitrose in my constituency. Nationally, Sainsbury’s has employed 2,000 people with disabilities through its You Can initiative. I pay tribute to the Government for changing the whole ethos—seeing what people with disabilities can do. It really is a credit to the Secretary of State and his team that they have improved those people’s chances of finding work. The results are there for all to see.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I have to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and to the Minister for Employment for the fact that, because of a long-standing engagement, I will not be here for the closing speeches. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech, which I was so pleased to be in the Chamber to hear.
I thank East Lothian council’s welfare rights team for their support. I also thank the two citizens advice bureaux in my constituency, in Haddington and Musselburgh, which always wait until the last minute before they finally come to me to pick up the pieces from the mess that this Government have made of welfare reform.
We have heard calls for maturity in this debate, but I am afraid that I get a little emotional talking about this issue having had a Thursday and a Friday like I did in my constituency, when several people came to see me about their ability to access work. I saw Allison and Graeme, deaf constituents who were possibly not going to be able to continue in their employment because of what this Government are doing with the interpreters they need to be able to access work. I saw a woman who had been on ESA for a year who, having made an application to go into the support group, has now had a letter saying that her ESA is going to stop next month. She does not know what she is going to live on. I saw a woman who had had a heart attack, who was turned down for a PIP, and now has to go back to work full-time long before her doctor feels that she should be doing so.
I have written to the Minister about the case of Mr and Mrs O’Connor, and we have finally had a response. I do not know if that is because I intervened. I never like to think that my intervention gets someone more than the treatment they are entitled to, but Mr and Mrs O’Connor really deserve help. Mr O’Connor has T-cell lymphoma cancer. He has had his spleen removed. He has diabetes, neuropathy in his hands and his feet, kidney problems, heart failure, and severe back pain that requires pain relief injections. He needs help with all his self-care, and his mobility is extremely limited because he uses two walking crutches and a wheelchair when outside. He applied for a PIP in February this year. I would like the Minister to explain—I promise I will check the transcript of the debate—why people are not getting acknowledgements when they lodge a claim for a PIP, because they are then left wondering whether the claim is being looked at.
Indeed, in Mr O’Connor’s case, despite the PIP2 form having been sent in March, it was not until this month—October—that Atos called to say it had looked at the paperwork. When I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor in February, I was told that the Department was on a learning curve, but it must be going around in circles because the situation has not changed since then. These are people whose lives are already incredibly difficult, but this Government are pushing them to the point where their lives are unbearable. That is simply not good enough.
The Minister spoke about the extra money going into the Access to Work programme. There has been a pause because the Department did not understand the impact the situation would have on deaf people who need interpreters. I hope the Minister will update the House on how that work is going.
There has been praise for the new assessment system, but one thing we did better than this Government was to make awards for life. The father of two daughters who have cerebellar ataxia and whose conditions are never going to improve—his family live with that loss and that pain every day—has to fill out a form every two years repeating everything his daughters cannot and never will be able to do. How does the Minister think that that improves the quality of his life or that of his daughters? I would like an answer to that question.
I know that some Conservative Members thought it was political opportunism to refer to Lord Freud’s remarks, but the position that we all claim to hold—namely, that every life is of equal worth and value—underpins what the minimum wage was about. As the mother of a daughter with cerebral palsy and epilepsy, the thing I found so offensive about Lord Freud’s remarks was his use of the word “worth.”
I have compassion. Perhaps I will make some dreadful mistakes during my time in this House, but I pledge that if I ever do anything on that scale I will have the humility and self-awareness to resign.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) for speaking so passionately on behalf of her constituents. What annoys me is that some Labour Members—not the hon. Lady; I am absolutely certain of that—feel that they are the only ones who feel compassion or concern and that Conservative Members could not possibly be concerned about their constituents. The Minister made a measured opening speech, in which he pointed out that it is what is not being discussed in this debate that is so telling.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised many excellent points that could have been discussed at length, but no—the whole debate had to be focused on Lord Freud’s comments and a call for his scalp. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) spoke passionately —he ditched his speech—and said that this House is so much better when we focus on what we can do, what we can bring to this House and what we can achieve together with a consensual approach.
This whole debate is focused on some ill-judged remarks by a man who has apologised and who has a track record of working with parties on both sides of the House to improve the lives of the disabled. I think that Labour Members who care as passionately as the hon. Member for East Lothian does will realise that this has been a grossly missed opportunity. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said that he did not want to talk about Lord Freud. I agree with him, but the whole debate is about Lord Freud when it should be about how we ensure that we get more people with disabilities into work.
Many Members on both sides of the House support charities, and I am proud to say that I am a patron for Mind in St Albans. I was pleased to present the first “way to work” campaign commemorative statuette, which encourages employers to take a flexible and thoughtful approach to working with people with mental disabilities and mental illness. I found it slightly depressing, however, that not many employers in my constituency took up that opportunity. The scheme ran for only one year, which is why I am pleased to renew my efforts to work with Mind. We need to find a way to get more people back into work.
My constituent John supports the Conservative party—that is, when he is not leaving us and voting for UKIP, Labour or another party. He takes a keen interest in politics and has spoken to me on numerous occasions. Sadly, when he was three—44 years ago—he had an accident in which he nearly drowned. It has left John having to deal with profound challenges in his life, but he wants to get into work. That is what this House should be addressing today: how can we improve the lives of people like John who are in the 10% and are finding it difficult? He does not want charity, but he does want the opportunity to engage in society and to have all the benefits that come with work—on top of the monetary ones—and the dignity it brings.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys spoke passionately and suggested a way forward to try to help people like John who have to deal with significant challenges to integrate in the work force, which is where they want to be. Let us not pretend, however, that this is an easy subject and that brickbats can be thrown at the nasty party and people who supposedly do not care. People do care. I think we actually all want the same result—the discussion is about how we get there—but to have a whole debate on the ill-judged remarks of someone who has apologised profoundly for them is a wasted opportunity.
I look forward to hearing the summing-up speeches of the two Front Benchers. Lots of issues have been raised, and I am not saying that there are no problems. My postbag is like any other; I am sure we all know of difficulties with the Access to Work programme and some of the systems that have been put in place. Yes, we can blame the previous lot for leaving us with the legacy of Atos, and yes, we know it is not perfect while we are trying to deal with it, but let us be realistic: people who are having trouble accessing work as a result of disability and mental illness deserve better from this House than what we have heard today. This motion does this House a disservice, because all it does is call for the scalp of somebody who has apologised for his remarks and whose life history shows that he has actually tried to work for the betterment of those people who have difficulties accessing work as a result of disability.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. A great many people still wish to speak, so I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I rise to speak in this debate because I feel very strongly that every disabled individual, no matter what their disability, deserves to have the utmost respect and to be valued for their skills. We should be doing all we can to break down the very real barriers that prevent disabled people from taking a full part both in the workplace and in social activities.
Before I turn to the concerns of disabled people in my constituency about the effect of Government policies on them, I want to pay tribute to the Llanelli Disabled Access Group. Sadly, it has had to wind up its activities this month, but over the past few years it has done a really good job advising people on how to adapt both public and private buildings, inspecting those buildings and giving out awards for good practice. The group’s work has been excellent and it will be sorely missed.
I will briefly mention PIP assessments, which I am extremely worried about. I have several constituency cases of great concern, because people are in real financial difficulties. One constituent applied for PIP in September 2013 and had the medical assessment in December, but did not finally receive the benefit until September this year. Another applied in July 2013, but had not even had the medical assessment by June 2014. People are therefore having to wait a whole year. After having been to an assessment, they are very often told to go for another one. They ask whether they should go to it and are told that they should not, because they have already been to one, but they then get a letter saying that their benefit has been cut off anyway. These sorts of things must really be put right. I hope that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people will make a real effort to get such things right for these people.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with constituents of mine who have asked me to convey that the repeated changes are hitting disabled people in multiple ways—the year-long wait for a PIP decision, or being hit by the bedroom tax—and really terrifying them? Does she agree that we should never underestimate the real fear they experience during a year of waiting for such support?
Nia Griffith
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are certainly some very real concerns, and I know that many of my constituents are very worried about what will happen during the transition from DLA to PIP. We obviously very much hope that the Government will sort these things out long before our constituents are put through the process.
I want to express very real concerns about people with degenerative conditions being put in the work-related activity group. It is terrible to have a degenerative condition—it is horrible to have a sort of life sentence—but it is worse to be constantly called in. The Minister says that that is to see whether they need extra help, but they may already receive the highest level of support, so that is rather difficult to believe. They should be exempted from repeated assessments.
I want to refer to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report in which we detailed several concerns about the Work programme in Wales. It has a very poor rate of success in Wales, with only one in 20 people in the disabled category being found a position. That success rate of 5% is disgraceful. It does not compare favourably with the rate of 7% in Britain as a whole, and it certainly does not compare favourably with that for able-bodied people. Oxfam Cymru described some appalling practices:
“People who were seen as furthest away from the labour market were de-prioritised and only got any support at all after having very strong local advocacy.”
It also referred to the “absence of personalised support”. The then Work and Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told us:
“Work providers…need to improve their employer engagement effort. They need to increase the supply of jobs that are available to people who have been out of work for some time.”
The Work and Pensions Committee called for a national action plan, before the end of 2013, to engage employers in the Work programme. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in getting better engagement from employers, and give us categorical assurances that no such approaches to employers involve employing anybody on less than the minimum wage? We are so concerned about the comments of the Minister for Welfare Reform because we feel that they may betray a hidden Government agenda. That is why we need such assurances.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) explained so well, there has been a concerted attack on disabled people, and talk of swingeing cuts to the incomes of those who are already among the poorest in society but who are portrayed as scroungers. Sadly, there has been a rise in the number of incidents of hate crime. There is a real responsibility on everybody in government to do their utmost to combat negative images and ensure that we give disabled people the respect they deserve. We should do all we can to enable them to fulfil their potential, whether in the workplace or in other spheres of their lives.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her passionate maiden speech. She gave us a tour of her constituency, which will encourage us to revisit it. She spoke with great knowledge and sincerity about the problems of the bedroom tax for her constituents. Those problems are shared by constituents in my area and right across the UK, and it is exactly for those reasons that the policy should be repealed.
Government Members have suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) somehow did not have her heart in the debate, but I cannot think of anyone who has more heart for tackling inequality and poverty. She has a tremendous track record on that, and she made several very important points. Sadly, whether or not the noble Lord’s remarks were meant to cause offence, the reality is that they have caused both offence and hurt.
In the short time that I have, I shall concentrate on three issues that disabled people in my constituency have come to me about. The first is a lack of understanding of long-term conditions. I have dealt with people with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s, people who have children on the extreme end of the autistic spectrum and, recently, somebody with a very rare condition, all of whom have been called to repeated assessments or have been asked to travel in circumstances that make it very difficult for them. That shows a lack of understanding of their conditions.
People have come to speak to me about the lack of help and support to get into work. They tell me that there is simply no expertise. It is not possible to get quick access to people who understand their conditions and provide the tailored, personalised support that they need to get back into work. There are severe limitations to the Work programme.
Perhaps the most critical point that I want to raise in the minute or so that I have left is about the personal independence payment. A couple of weeks ago, I received a letter from a constituent:
“After injuring my back due to an accident at work in August 2012, I have become almost house bound. I have had one operation and now after another MRI scan I am awaiting further surgery. I am in pain all the time and on many different medications including morphine…I barely go out unless my partner is here and able to drive me”.
He wanted to give me that brief description of what his life is like so that I, as a politician, could understand his point of view.
My constituent told me that he made a claim for PIP in January by telephone. By May or June, when he had not heard anything back, he telephoned again. As other hon. Members have said, it would help if people received an acknowledgement that their case was being dealt with and a time scale that was reasonable. When he called, he was told, to his horror, that they could not find his application and that he would have to do another one. Since then, he has received a letter from Atos saying that it was dealing with his case, but that it could take 12 to 16 weeks. He called again and was told that it could take six months.
My constituent ended with the plea:
“I am a very genuine case”.
He should not have to say to me that he is a genuine case; everyone should be treated as a genuine case. It is simply not good enough that people are not being dealt with quicker and are not getting the support that they need, financial or otherwise.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who made a fantastic maiden speech. I know that she will go from strength to strength.
The Government’s onslaught of welfare reforms is so punitive and regressive that it is taking us back to the Victorian era. People who are disabled or who have long-term illnesses are being hit particularly hard. Any one of us could fall ill, become disabled or fall on hard times. We have a welfare system so that people have a safety net, but I am afraid that it is failing.
The main point that I want to make in the short time that I have is about social security sanctions. The Government’s sanctions regime was introduced at the end of 2012. More than 4.5 million people on jobseeker’s allowance had been sanctioned by March this year. More than 2 million of those people had a sanction where payments were stopped for at least four weeks. Last year, the number of people with disabilities or long-term conditions on employment and support allowance who were sanctioned increased by 250%.
David Clapson, a former soldier who had diabetes, was sanctioned and his money was stopped. When his electricity was cut off, he could not keep his insulin cold and so could not use it. Unfortunately, he died. I pay tribute to his sister, Gill Thompson, for all that she has done to raise awareness of what happened to David. Sadly, his is not the only case.
More than 200,000 people signed a petition calling for an independent inquiry into sanctions. Last week, after the Government refused to hold an independent inquiry into the sanctions scandal, the Work and Pensions Committee agreed to hold an inquiry into it. We will examine the appropriateness of sanctions and their efficacy and effects. We will also consider how they are used for people who are on ESA and the alternatives to financial sanctions.
There is anecdotal evidence that it has been Government policy to have targets for sanctions. The initial findings of a research group at Oxford university show that, of the 2 million-plus people on JSA who were sanctioned, one in four left JSA and more than half of those did so for reasons other than employment. That blows out of the water the Government’s claims that their welfare reforms are getting people back to work.
In the limited time available, I also want to refer to the personal independence payment that has affected many of my constituents. One has waited 10 months for his assessment and been passed from pillar to post, with mixed-up assessment dates and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. We have heard of an assessment backlog affecting 300,000 people. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a fuller response than he gave to the Work and Pensions Committee when explaining why advisers were made redundant when there was an escalation and backlog of cases, because, quite frankly, that was inadequate.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, have several constituents who have expressed to me their anger at the statement by Lord Freud. They wanted me to raise those concerns in Parliament, so I am glad to have the opportunity to associate myself with the motion today. As time is limited, however, I will not dwell on those comments, but concentrate instead on the delays to assessments and to decisions on applications for the personal independence payment.
Members on both sides of the House will know that PIP affects many of our constituents. Countrywide the numbers are immense and underline that yet another welfare reform policy from this Government is being introduced in a botched and chaotic manner. According to Government figures, 329,000 disabled people are currently stuck in a backlog to see whether they qualify for PIP. A recent powerful report from Citizens Advice Scotland, “Voices from the frontline” highlighted the personal impact on so many people of delays in PIP assessment decisions. It estimated that claimants typically wait at least six months for the assessment. A Macmillan Cancer Support report last June came to the same finding—cancer patients are waiting at least six months—and many Members will have examples from their constituencies of much longer delays. I have had cases of people who applied for PIP in July or September 2013. More than a year later they are still waiting for a decision.
We must ask why there are such delays on PIP assessments and applications. One strong argument is that there are not enough assessment centres. That is important for people who live a long way from a centre—obviously, the more centres there are, the easier it will be for people to get to them. There are also indications that the number of people having face-to-face assessments is higher than the Government originally estimated and that claimants’ interviews are taking longer. That may be a good thing, but those factors will presumably impact on the demand for assessments and the delays that result from that. The introduction of PIP was called a “fiasco” by the Public Accounts Committee. The accumulating evidence of what is happening is all the more shocking because it is so similar to what occurred with employment and support allowance and work capability assessments—the same company, Atos, was involved there.
In the time available I want to highlight a different aspect of this issue. For many people, delays to PIP, ESA and other benefits will not only affect their income but have consequences for their health because of the stress involved in the delay and the associated impact on them and their families. Some people will face difficulties as a result of a delay. For others, the assessment will come too late as they will no longer be alive.
Let me take this opportunity briefly to raise one issue from the campaign by Gordon Aikman, who is well known in Scotland, to improve the care and support of people with motor neurone disease. Half of those diagnosed with MND die within 14 months. Claims from people with a terminal illness who are not expected to live more than six months can be fast-tracked, but where does that leave people living with a rapidly progressing condition such as MND who may be expected to live longer—although perhaps not much longer—but who could still have to wait at least six months for their PIP claim to be assessed? I call on the Government to introduce measures to fast-track PIP applications for people with MND or other rapidly progressing conditions, so that at least a decision can be made and they can get the benefits to which they are entitled.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. Her predecessor, Jim Dobbin, was a good friend of all of us in the House and was deeply appreciated and loved by many. We look forward to her valuable contributions.
Democratic Unionist party Members and other Members from Northern Ireland opposed the welfare reforms. The necessary changes had to be made in this House, but Sinn Fein obstructed the process in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those who are disabled, those who are on benefits, those who are on jobseeker’s allowance and those who are taxpayers are under the cosh of Sinn Fein’s objections to the process in Northern Ireland. The changes could have been made here, but the measures were absent from this Chamber.
I employ eight staff, one of whom does nothing but deal with benefits, and the task has increased greatly. I and charities such as Disability Rights UK and Disability Action are particularly concerned about the work capability assessment for ESA. Those with acute physical and emotional pressures and disabilities and those who need therapeutic work because of anxiety and depression are under severe pressure, which concerns me greatly. Thirty-seven per cent. of work capability assessment decisions were appealed, and an astonishing 23% were overturned in favour of the appellant. There are clearly problems with the system and it is not working correctly.
Many Members have said that all Members are concerned about the welfare changes, but let us be clear: the changes are being made not by Members on the Opposition Benches but by those on the Government Benches, so let us put the blame where it lies.
Citizens Advice offered advice in September 2013 to 72,000 disabled people with debt problems. It found that rent arrears had continued to rise and that one third of landlords’ clients advised on eviction or repossession were disabled or had long-term health conditions. Some 12% of disabled people used food banks in 2013.
Members have commented on housing benefit and discretionary payments. Come the new year the discretionary housing benefit budget in my constituency will be running out and those who need it will be under pressure. We are all aware of what that means.
I have great concern about the bedroom tax or the spare room subsidy, depending on one’s definition. We hoped that changes would be made in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but unfortunately they have been held up. The time scale for the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment is completely unsatisfactory.
The independent living fund has been removed and the role of devolved government and local authorities has changed. Local charities have expressed concern and I hope that the Government will change their position on the ILF.
I support the motion.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I say what a terrific speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)? It presaged the contribution she will make in the House.
Of course Lord Freud’s statement was a disgrace, but I am more worried about what he is doing than about what he is saying. I opposed his appointment under the previous Government, and I did so under this one. The appointment of a venture capitalist to advise on welfare benefits is bizarre.
Let me raise an issue about disabled war pensioners. In July 2012 the Prime Minister visited Camp Bastion. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) quoted The Guardian. Let me balance things up by quoting The Sun:
“Wounded war heroes are to keep their disability benefits for life after the PM stepped in to halt a bid to cut them. Worried veterans—including soldiers who lost limbs in battle—had been facing humiliating re-tests that could have seen them stripped of crucial cash. But David Cameron has now slapped down the MoD bureaucrats and ruled that anyone left disabled by military service must be exempt from benefit cuts.”
In the article, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
“I made a promise to our forces that they will get special treatment, and I intend to stick to it.”
The Royal British Legion was quoted:
“We applaud the Prime Minister and”
the Work and Pensions Secretary
“for standing up for our wounded heroes.”
Mo Stewart, a disabled veteran and disability researcher, contacted the Cabinet Office to confirm that that was the case. The Cabinet Office said that
“the Cabinet has just agreed that War Pensioners can retain access to DLA as an acknowledgment of their service to the nation”.
At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister stood up and, in a warm speech, congratulated our veterans from various wars since the second world war. The problem was that, at the very same time, 80,000 veterans received a letter warning them that their access to DLA was about to be withdrawn, completely contrary to the statement made in July 2012 at Camp Bastion.
The defence personnel secretariat was in utter confusion. Its briefing said that disabled war pensioners would have access to the more generous constant care allowance, which is a supplement added to the basic pension. That was misleading and completely incorrect. It disregarded the fact that war pensioners need to demonstrate an 80% disability to access the constant care allowance. The recipients of the new armed forces compensation scheme need to demonstrate a 50% permanent disability.
There are 166,000 disabled war pensioners. Half of them—80,000—are beyond the age of 70 and will therefore retain access to disability living allowance, but the remainder will have to go through the same process as everyone else, despite the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister and reinforced by the Secretary of State. As has been pointed out time and again by Opposition Members, that means they will endure six to 12-month waits for the assessment on PIP, the non-delivery of benefits and the cutting of benefits. Is that what the Prime Minister wanted when he congratulated disabled war veterans and honoured them for the sacrifices they have made in the interests of this country and to defend this country’s interests? I do not think it was. Either, like Lord Freud, the Prime Minister mis-spoke, or—others have accused him of this—this is a betrayal, which would be unacceptable.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
We have had a wide-ranging debate with thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House about how best to support disabled people. Lord Freud’s words touched a nerve with disabled people around the country because of their experience in the past few years. They felt that, in those words, there was an explanation of what has happened, such as the bedroom tax and the delays with PIP assessments, which we have heard a lot about in the debate.
In an excellent speech opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that half of former Remploy employees are still out of work. A constituent came to see me yesterday morning. He has cerebral palsy. He worked for 25 years at the local Remploy factory, which closed in 2012. He came to see me before the closure because he was worried that he would end up on the scrapheap. Today, he believes that that is exactly where he is. Promises were made about support, but he has had one trial for a call centre job in the two years since the factory closed down, and it came to nothing. The promises that were made have simply not been kept and help has not materialised, and disabled people have been let down.
Earlier this afternoon, I met representatives from the residential training colleges for disabled people and those furthest from the workplace. Between them—there are nine of them—they get hundreds of people into work every year. They have a contract until next August. They have no idea what happens beyond that. They told me that the Minister has repeatedly refused to meet them despite their requests. Once again, disabled people are being left in limbo.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman raised a sad individual case and drew a general conclusion. Does he accept that since 2010 166,000 more disabled people are in work than when we took office?
Stephen Timms
As the Minister was right to acknowledge, the employment rate penalty for disabled people is not going down. It was going down in the past; it is no longer going down. Part of the reason for that is what has happened with the Work programme. In respect of people out of work on health grounds—people on employment and support allowance—the invitation to tender for the Work programme said that if there was no programme at all, 15% of them would be expected to get job outcomes within two years. Actual performance, with the Work programme in place, has been worse than half that—an extraordinary failure rate of 93%.
The Minister told us earlier that the Work programme is now doing a bit better and that one in 10 people are getting some help. That still means that 90% are not being helped—an extraordinary failure. [Interruption.] What the Secretary of State is chuntering from the Front Bench is wrong. All the current funding for the Work programme comes from job outcome payments. According to a recent written answer, the Work programme paid out in total £332 million in job outcome payments between June 2011 and March 2014. Only £19 million of that was payments in respect of ESA claimants. Very little has been spent on helping disabled people back to work, so it is not surprising that so few have been helped.
I join other speakers in the debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her excellent maiden speech. I echo her tribute to her predecessor, Jim Dobbin. I did a little canvassing during her election campaign and spoke to one man who said he would vote for her. He has since written to me to tell me that after that he met my hon. Friend and was delighted that he had made the right decision by voting for her. It was quite a long letter, which I have passed on to her. I know that she will have a very successful tenure as the local Member.
The situation does not need to be as it is at present. The plan that we have set out shows how we can do much better for disabled people than we have been doing. We agree with the independent taskforce on poverty and disability chaired by Sir Bert Massie, and with the think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, that we need to take people on ESA, other than those with the very shortest diagnoses, out of the Work programme and set up a new programme for them. We understand why Ministers wanted everybody in the same programme; it clearly has not worked. The Minister cannot pretend that the Work programme has been anything other than a failure for disabled people. We need a different approach. That is the clear lesson from Australia about the advantages of separate disability employment services. The new programme would move away from the outcome-based funding which has clearly not worked.
We also need a much more localised approach. Partly because of those huge regional contracts in the Work programme, it has squeezed out the good local voluntary sector expertise that can do so much to help. We want instead a programme contracted at the city region/local enterprise partnership level, and we want provision to reflect the local labour market. We want local authorities, colleges, employers and, critically, the health service to be around the table. Such integration can be achieved at a city region level. It cannot be achieved, as the Government have shown, from Whitehall.
The Working Well project in Manchester is a good example. It is for people claiming ESA who, after two years on the Work programme, do not have a job—of course, that is the great majority of people on ESA who start on the Work programme. It has been commissioned by the Greater Manchester combined local authorities. The project board is chaired by one of the chief executives and includes Jobcentre Plus, NHS England, the local drug and alcohol team, mental health trusts, colleges and adult education services. Protocols have been drawn up setting up how participants in that programme will be served with health and housing interventions. The funding model is different, with some up-front payments, not just job outcome payments. The contract requires that every client must be seen at least once per fortnight. We need those minimum standards. We have heard a lot from those participating in the Work programme, some of whom have received just an occasional phone call from their provider. We need the NHS to be part of the programme as well. That is the way forward to do a much better job.
We cannot afford to continue wasting the potential of so many disabled people—to continue to tell disabled people by our actions that they are not “worth” it, as the Minister did so shockingly with his words. We need to value disabled people—to enable them to make a contribution, as so many could and, as we have heard in this debate, wish to. The employment gap between disabled people and others is no longer falling. We need to change policies to start bringing it down again. That is worth doing. We need to learn lessons from all the other OECD countries that have a higher employment rate than we do among disabled people. It needs a change of approach; it needs Ministers who respect disabled people; and I am afraid it also needs a change of Government.
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
I want first to congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. It was delivered with humour, confidence and skill. I look forward to her future contributions in the House. I would also like to pay tribute to her predecessor, Jim Dobbin, a Member of the House who was much respected and well liked in all parts of the House. He will be sorely missed.
Returning to today’s motion and debate, there is one point on which there is consensus and on which we all agree, which is that the words used by my noble Friend Lord Freud were wrong. And do you know what? He came forward immediately and said the same thing: he agreed. He apologised without reservation for his words and then went on to explain fully how he listened to the pleas of a father of a disabled child saying what he would do, who had used his same words. For clarity, nothing that my noble Friend said on that occasion was Government policy—not now and not in the future. National minimum wage entitlement applies to workers whether they are disabled or non-disabled. That is the Government’s policy.
Let me confirm that this Government’s overarching ambition is to enable disabled people to fulfil their potential and fulfil their ambitions. The UK has a proud history of furthering the rights of disabled people. I am pleased to say that even in these very tough economic times, this Government have continued that progress and continued to maintain this country as a world leader in the support it gives to disabled people, spending £60 billion a year on benefits and support for those who face the greatest barriers to enable them to participate fully in society. We spend nearly double the OECD average, a fifth more than the European average, double what America spends and six times what Japan spends. In every year up to 2017-18, we will be spending more on disability benefits than in 2009-10.
Let me explain what has happened over the last few years. No one would know this from listening to today’s debate, but there are now nearly 3 million disabled people in work, which is up 116,000 this year. Access to Work is helping more people—5,000 more than in 2011-12. An extra £15 million has been put into that programme. Attainment levels for pupils with special educational needs have increased since 2010-11 at both GCSE and A-level. The number of disabled students gaining their first degree has increased from nearly 32,000 to nearly 40,000 now. We have also reduced the proportion of disabled people in relative income poverty. These are the things that are happening. Social participation has increased. Sports participation has increased. Those are the facts that we need to set out.
We have heard Members of the House deliver some powerful speeches today. Let me turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who said, “I want to look past labels; I want to make the world a better place. Isn’t that why most of us came into this House?” I believe that is true. He talked about the work he has done on disability hate crime. When I was the Minister for disabled people, I visited the work he was doing providing safe places for people to come forward and explain what was happening to them. He has played a key and crucial part in the journey towards people feeling able to come forward and talk about the issue.
Many Members asked why we, in the epicentre of democracy and the home of free speech, should not be able to talk about the matters that really concern the public. Should we not be able to tackle them head-on, without shying away from some of the difficult issues? Was that not what Lord Freud was trying to do? My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that most clearly, as did my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer).
I want to move on to something that I hoped today’s debate would touch on, but it did not. I am going to read out what a mum, Candice Baxter from Grimsby, said. It would have been better if more time had been devoted today to listening to what some people who heard Lord Freud’s words had to say about them. She said:
“My daughter’s ambition is to get a job in an office. She has Down’s syndrome. She thinks that, if she works hard, someone, somewhere will give her a job. At £6.50 an hour, it’s never going to happen.”
Maybe at something else, it could. She continued:
“The minimum wage protects from unscrupulous employers. But for my child, it is a barrier to meaningful employment. Indeed, because of the minimum wage, she is destined for a life of short-lived, voluntary non-jobs”.
This is the mother of a disabled child, and she wanted this issue debated here today, but we never debated it. What we did was just talk about what Lord Freud said. This demonstrates what parents of disabled people wanted the debate to be about. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who should have talked about that, did not do so.
Esther McVey
I will not give way. I have listened to points raised for several hours, and many of them were wrong, particularly those about the Work programme and how we are helping disabled people through it. Over 60,000 people have got a job from the Work programme, which is now on track to deliver a 17% higher performance than Pathways to Work. That means it is supporting an additional 7,000 people back into work. Furthermore, the Work programme is helping more people than any previous employment programme did, which I think needs to be put on the record.
When we talked about Remploy and the staff who used to work there, a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) were wrong. In fact, 80% of former employees have now found jobs or are receiving specialist tailored employment and support to help them find one. These are the sort of things we are doing to help disabled people, as well as helping an extra 116,000 people into work in the last year.
When we talk about positive initiatives moving forward, I was delighted to be part of the Government who introduced Disability Confident, which was about moving forward and working with employers. How do we best engage with employers? It is about having a conversation with and listening to them, but it is equally for them to understand—this is where we started the conversation with employers—that the disability pound is worth £80 billion a year. It makes sense for employers to get involved with the disability movement and employ more disabled people. When they looked at the issue in a logical way and thought about who were the people shopping in their stores and listening to the things they were saying, they realised that they should get on board with Disability Confident. I am pleased to say that 1,100 companies are involved. That conversation has partly led to 116,000 more disabled people getting into work this year.
As for media coverage, we all agree that it is totally wrong to stereotype people or depict them in a negative way. That is why I was pleased to arrange a round table and to secure a motion for moving forward with some of the main players in the media to make sure that they employed more disabled people—not just in front of screen, but behind screen. They are now creating the programmes and the words said and moving forward so that everybody is portrayed in the best possible light.
We have to reject the motion, because it is absolutely wrong, although many Government Members suggested that it would be best for us not to vote on it, and for the Opposition to remove it. We have every confidence in Lord Freud, who has done so much—working for both this Government and the Labour Government—to advance the status and the job outcomes of disabled people.
Question put.
Coalfield Communities
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call Michael Dugher to move the motion, may I say to both the Front-Bench teams in this debate, and to other Members in the Chamber, that more than 21 Members have already notified the Speaker that they wish to participate in it? May I ask the Front Benchers to bear that in mind in terms of the length of their speeches and the interventions they take? May I also remind the House that precedence will be given to those Members who have already indicated that they wish to speak in the debate and that it will finish at 7 pm?
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges the economic legacy of the pit closure programme in coalfield communities across the United Kingdom; notes that the recent release of the relevant 1984 Cabinet papers showed that the Government at the time misled the public about the extent of its pit closure plans and sought to influence police tactics; recognises the regeneration of former coalfield areas over the last fifteen years, the good work of organisations such as the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, and the largest industrial injury settlement in legal history secured by the previous Government for former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema; further recognises the ongoing problems highlighted recently by the report produced by Sheffield Hallam University on The State of the Coalfields, which revealed that there are still significant problems for the majority of Britain’s coalfield communities, such as fewer jobs, lower business formation rates, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, higher numbers in receipt of welfare benefits and a struggling voluntary and community sector; and therefore calls for the continued regeneration and much needed support for coalfield communities as part of a wider programme to boost growth in Britain’s regions.
After 30 years under lock and key, the Cabinet papers and the Prime Minister’s private office correspondence, recently released under the 30-year rule, about the 1984 miners strike have exposed one of the darkest chapters in our history. Contrary to denial after denial from Conservative Ministers at the time and from the National Coal Board, the Cabinet papers show that the Government of the day did have a secret plan from as early as September 1983 to close 75 pits, run down capacity by 25 million tonnes and make 65,000 men redundant. Many people warned at the time that there was a secret plan, but it is no less shocking to see, in black and white, in official Cabinet papers, just how much the public were misled.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman apologise now to the British people for making out the Thatcher Government were the major closer of mines and the cause of lost jobs, given that the Labour Government in the ‘60s and ‘70s closed 129 more mines than the Thatcher Government and caused the loss of more than 30,000 excess jobs? Apologise now.
Michael Dugher
That is pretty desperate stuff, at an early stage of the debate.
Michael Dugher
If the hon. Gentleman wants to come to Barnsley and across south Yorkshire—across the coalfields—and say that Labour closed all the pits, I say good luck with that. He is even more out of touch than we thought.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what happened in the ‘60s. The then Government closed all the small inland pits and made the super-pits on the coast, and all the men working at the little pits went to work in the super-pits.
Michael Dugher
Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The truth is that 43% of mining jobs did go in the 1960s as part of that consolidation, which was agreed by the National Coal Board and the unions ahead of Harold Wilson’s new plan for coal, which of course the Tories immediately cancelled. There is absolutely no comparison between the consolidation we saw in the immediate aftermath of the second world war and the complete destruction and decimation of the coal industry that we saw in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
One of the Cabinet documents was a record of a meeting the then Prime Minister held in Downing street on 15 September 1983. It states absolutely clearly that Mr MacGregor, the chairman of the NCB,
“had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed”.
The final paragraph of the document reads:
“It was agreed that no record of this meeting should be circulated.”
What a surprise.
We know that significant pressure was placed on the Home Secretary to step up police measures against striking miners to escalate the dispute, which again is something that is denied. Released documents from 14 March 1984 show that Ministers at the time pressured the Home Secretary to ensure that chief constables adopted
“a more vigorous interpretation of their duties.”
At the time, it was claimed that the police were acting entirely on their own constitutional independence—what a joke.
Earlier this year, the National Union of Mineworkers, led by the excellent General Secretary Chris Kitchen, produced an impressive report, drafted by Mr Nicky Stubbs, following months of forensic analysis of the recently released Cabinet papers. The report has brought even more disturbing details to light. It shows that Ministers were even prepared to override normal judicial processes, and ensure that local magistrate courts dealt with cases arising from the dispute in a much quicker fashion. It also outlines how Ministers conspired to cover up the extent of their plans for the mining industry. There are numerous quotations contained in the Cabinet papers. For example, one said:
“No other papers should be circulated for that meeting…and that discussion of coal strategy at the meeting should be avoided”.
It also asked
“how to arrange these meetings so that as little as possible of the more sensitive aspects”—
that will be the pit closure programme—
“is committed to paper.”
In addition, it was decided that instead of plans being written down, Ministers would give “a short oral briefing”. I am sure they did. Possibly the most shocking revelation from the Cabinet papers was that the Conservative Government of the day were willing to go so far as to declare a state of emergency and to deploy the Army against the miners to gain victory during the strike.
It is extraordinary to think that, all these years later, a British Government would seriously consider deploying British armed forces against their own people—ordinary, hard-working, decent, law-abiding, tax-paying, patriotic men who were guilty of nothing more than legally withdrawing their labour to defend their livelihood and to defend an industry that brought such great wealth to the country.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
Is not this one of the most desperate motions to come forward from the official Opposition? I am talking about attacking a Prime Minister who is 18 months dead and cannot defend herself. Is it not the case that this motion is not about the events of 30 years ago, but about trying to unite the Labour party around the desperate leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)?
Michael Dugher
What is desperate is the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Look at the wording of the motion. Around 5.5 million people live in the former coalfields. The anger about what happened in the 1980s still exists today. It just shows how completely out of touch the Government are.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will also know that, in the 1960s, the Labour Government had a plan which included not only moving people to bigger pits but bringing industry into the coalfields of North Durham. That did not happen. That was vindictive; it closed down communities, and communities such as mine are still suffering today.
Michael Dugher
As always, my hon. Friend brings to this place insight from his own constituency. Fundamentally, the Cabinet papers also show the true scale of the dishonesty in maintaining that the strike was about an industrial dispute based on economics, and it puts paid to the nonsense assertion at the time that Ministers were somehow neutral bystanders. The fact is that the Government of the day saw the strike in political terms. Far from Ministers being non-interventionist, they were in fact the micro-managers of this dispute.
One paper from a Downing street meeting shows that Mrs Thatcher told Ferdinand Mount, a senior policy adviser, that her Government should
“neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership.”
In a paper prepared for Mrs Thatcher by the Downing street head of policy, the now right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), it was said that miners had a “revolutionary” strategy, and it urged the Prime Minister to return to her original plan of
“encouraging a war of attrition”
against the miners. That completely reinforces the view at the time that the Government of the day regarded the striking miners as—to use that most infamous of phrases—“the enemy within.”
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I hope that the shadow Minister will recognise that one of the fundamentals of trade unionism is that the union is there to represent its members, that it has a ballot and that it acts upon the result of that ballot. One of the fundamental flaws in the NUM strategy was that it did not have a ballot, which divided the work force.
Michael Dugher
I completely agree. Should the NUM have had a ballot? Yes, it should. Would it have won a ballot? Yes, it certainly would have done. Let there be no mistake about that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Dugher
I am not giving way because it will be totally pointless. Many Opposition Members wish to speak. Government Members might be rattling around a little, but there are many on the Opposition Benches who wish to speak, so I will make some progress.
The Cabinet papers demonstrate clearly that Mrs Thatcher’s aim was to defeat the miners and destroy the industry that employed them. Tory Ministers from that time have not learned a thing. The noble Lord Tebbit recently likened the miners strike to the Falklands war. Lord Tebbit actually compared the miners strike to the military invasion of sovereign British territory by a foreign enemy. What a modern-day insight into the mentality of Conservative Ministers in the 1980s.
Michael Dugher
I am not giving way.
Earlier this year, Labour launched our Justice for the Coalfields campaign. This is about ensuring that we have proper transparency, properly acknowledging what happened in the past and getting to the truth. Without the truth there can be no justice and without justice there can be no reconciliation. The first step is for the House to acknowledge what the 1984 Cabinet papers spell out. Just like Saville and Hillsborough, we must face up to the failures of the past. We must acknowledge the truth and we must learn from what happened. The motion today provides that opportunity and I hope that all hon. Members will take it.
The Opposition have been clear that given that the Cabinet papers show that the public were misled about the plans for pit closures, there should be a formal apology for the Government’s actions during the strike. As for the revelations in the Cabinet papers, which show that the Government did try to influence police tactics, all the details of the interactions and communications between the Government and the police at the time of the strike should now be published.
Thirty years on, we still need a proper investigation into what happened at Orgreave. It was welcome that South Yorkshire police referred themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but we are still no closer to an investigation. There are serious allegations that police officers assaulted miners at Orgreave, and then committed perjury and misconduct in public office and perverted the course of justice in the subsequent prosecution of 95 miners on riot charges, all of which collapsed in court. What happened at Orgreave was not just a black day for south Yorkshire, it was a black day for this country. It is indefensible and completely shameful that there is still no investigation and the whole truth has yet to come out.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to mention Orgreave, but it was not the only place. In Mansfield, exactly the same thing happened when at the end of a peaceful demonstration police stormed into the crowds that were left, 45 people were locked up and were banned from picketing and that case fell apart. Up and down this country, the police rampaged through villages where people had a history of being peaceful, and men were locked up who should never have been locked up because they were deliberately attacked by police who were not even from that part of the world.
Michael Dugher
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, born, I know, of his close personal experience. That is why we have said that we can see from the Cabinet papers that there clearly was pressure to influence police tactics. We have said, “Why do not the Government just come clean and publish all the communications between Ministers and the police at the time and clear all this up once and for all?”
What happened at Orgreave was a black day. It is indefensible that there is still no investigation, and frankly, the IPCC needs to get its act together. Opposition Members have said that if the Government cannot or will not undertake a proper investigation, they should consider initiating a swift, independent review, along the lines of the Ellison review.
As I have mentioned, the Thatcher Government’s policy chief at the time was the right hon. Member for Wokingham. In his tribute to Lady Thatcher in the House last April, he argued that all the Government had tried to do in the 1980s was modernise the industry. But the industry was not modernised or consolidated; it was completely decimated. What we saw was a systematic attempt to destroy an entire industry and an entire way of life.
What is the legacy of that? Today only three deep-pit coal mines remain open in the UK, out of the 170 in operation in 1984. Coal production is falling. It fell by 25% between 2012 and 2013, to an all-time low of 13 million tonnes. The future of Thoresby and Kellingley coal mines has now been in limbo for many months, which raises further concerns about energy security. We urgently need clarity from the Government on whether they plan to provide state aid.
Michael Dugher
The hon. Gentleman can jump up and down to his heart’s content, but I have already made it quite clear that I will not give way.
Following the strike, many coalfield communities were knocked to their knees, and they have been struggling to get back up ever since. When the pits closed, a whole way of life disappeared virtually overnight. It is impossible to over-estimate the trauma that caused. The entire economic system that supported those pit villages, and most of the social infrastructure, was gone. After their so-called victory over the miners was secured, the Government simply walked way, with no transition plan in place and nothing for the people in the communities they had destroyed. [Interruption.] Just take the example of Grimethorpe in my constituency—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) is still at it. He can come to Grimethorpe any day of the week if he likes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am fed up with hearing the Whip, the Chair of the Education Committee and a Minister heckling constantly in this debate. We are pressed for time so—this goes for both sides—can we please listen to the debate and to the arguments being made, rather than shouting across the Chamber, which is what has been going on so far?
Michael Dugher
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will repeat my invitation to the hon. Gentleman: he is welcome to come with me to Grimethorpe any time he chooses—I can guarantee him an interesting welcome—and share some of his views on the strike and the pit closures programme. It would certainly be an interesting meeting.
Michael Dugher
I am absolutely not giving way, and that is the last time I will say that to the hon. Gentleman. I can think of nothing that he could bring to these proceedings.
Within a year of its pit closing, Grimethorpe—the setting for the village of Grimley in the classic film “Brassed Off”—was officially listed by the EU as the poorest village in England, and among the most hard up in the whole of Europe. Crime increased from 30% below the national average to 20% above it. The 1981 census recorded 44% of Grimethorpe’s population working as miners. After the pit closed, unemployment was above 50% for almost the entire 1990s.
Of course, all that precipitated rocketing spending on social security benefits in the years after. Despite all the myths, the truth is that welfare dependency was central to Mrs Thatcher’s legacy in Britain. Even today, we are still dealing with first, second and third-generation unemployment. Some miners became self-employed. Others eventually got jobs, although usually far less rewarding, far less secure and far less well paid. Others simply moved away. Many never worked again.
Of course, there have been many improvements in recent years, thanks to regeneration funding from Europe, the efforts of many good local authorities and 13 years of regeneration and investment under the previous Labour Government. Over a 10-year period, from 2000 to 2010, the Government invested £1.5 billion in initiatives to support coalfield communities. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a great example of the good work that has been done. It has invested over £260 million over the past 15 years in projects that have made a positive difference to the lives of people in coalfield communities. The current Government have rightly continued to support the CRT, which delivers great services that help people gain new skills, achieve qualifications, find work, set up and grow new businesses and become more active in their communities. I pay tribute to people at the CRT, particularly Mr Peter McNestry, its chair, and Mick Clapham, one of my predecessors in this place and a brilliant lifelong champion of people in the coalfields.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
The CRT has done a tremendous amount of work. Was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when the issue was devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the first thing they did was to cut the money?
Michael Dugher
My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. I hope that people in Scotland are listening to this debate and understand the enormous contribution that the CRT has made across the whole country.
A lot more needs to be done. A recent report by Sheffield Hallam university on the state of the coalfields showed that there are still significant economic and social problems for the majority of coalfield communities. It states that since 2010 many voluntary community organisations in coalfield areas have been driven into crisis. Problems in coalfield communities include fewer jobs, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, and greater numbers of people in receipt of welfare benefits.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have no idea whatsoever of the devastation they inflicted on these communities? They are doing it again, because they are cutting funds to local government, which means that the services that are very much needed in these communities cannot be provided, and people are not getting work either.
Michael Dugher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Let me take the example of my own borough. A report published in April 2014 by Barnsley council on jobs and business growth concluded that for all the progress made in recent years, Barnsley will need 45,000 new jobs to reach the average employment density for the country. It is clear that continued support is vital for all the 5.5 million people in Britain who live in former mining areas. By supporting this motion, we can send a clear message to them that we understand this and will give them the support they need.
Michael Dugher
I am definitely not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to speak in the debate, he may be a fairly lonely voice on his Benches, but perhaps he could listen to the numerous Labour Members who will speak, which would certainly do him a power of good.
Those of us who lived through and grew up during the miners strike still feel a strong sense of injustice. That is certainly true for very many of my constituents in Barnsley in south Yorkshire. At the time of the strike, I was a boy living by the Yorkshire Main colliery in Edlington, then a pit village outside Doncaster. Members of my own family helped to sink that pit more than 100 years ago. In 1984, I had family and friends on strike. I remember, as a boy, proudly marching with miners from the Yorkshire Main on the day they went back to work in 1985. Like so many hon. Members far more closely involved than I was, I saw at first hand the impact the strike had, and, in particular, the impact of the pit closure programme. That sense of injustice endures today because of the failure to hold those in power to account, and because of the scars that still remain on the memories and on the landscapes of so many coalfield communities. Of course, we cannot undo the damage that was done, but we can shine a light on what happened, and we can promise to provide the necessary support still needed in coalfield communities up and down the country.
We should not forget what a massive contribution the coalfields made to our country. The communities that sprang up in the large pit villages and towns helped to sustain an industry that powered an industrial revolution which brought tremendous wealth to this country. Even by the mid-1980s, nearly 200,000 people were still employed in mining jobs, making a massive contribution to the country. Nor should we forget that many miners lost their lives, were badly injured while doing their job, or suffered debilitating illnesses later in life. That is why the previous Government secured a compensation settlement for former miners suffering from crippling bronchitis and emphysema—the largest industrial injury payout in legal history.
The sacrifices made by those who worked in the industry came home to me very recently when I visited the national mining memorial at Senghenydd with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). That was the site of the worst mining disaster in Britain, where, 101 years ago almost to the day, 439 miners—men and boys—together with one rescuer, were killed. This followed the previous worst ever disaster nearly 50 years before in Barnsley, when 361 miners and 27 rescuers died in 1866 in two separate explosions at the Oaks pit near Stairfoot in my constituency. It is right that we properly honour all those who died.
I think today about the immeasurable contribution that so many people made in the coal industry. There once was a time when the Labour Benches would have been full of ex-colliery workers; today there are but a distinguished few, yet they continue to bring great wisdom and an invaluable insight to the House of Commons.
I think today of my own constituents, many of whom worked in the pits, and I think about members of my own family, too. Frank Oleisky was a miner at the Yorkshire Main colliery who died in 1954 aged 47, not much older than I am today. He left a wife and six children. One of his sons went to work at the pit and was on strike in 1984. One of his daughters is my grandmother and she is watching this debate today.
As a country, we cannot do enough to mark the huge contribution and sacrifice made by those who worked in the coal industry for so many decades, but we have a chance today to ensure a brighter future and justice for the coalfields. It will come too late—far too late—for many of the former miners and their families who lived through the strike and the pit closure programme that followed. However, after the truth was so brutally exposed in the recently released official Cabinet Papers from 1984, we owe it to them and to the people who live in the coalfields today to see that justice for the coalfields is finally granted.
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
It is undoubtedly true that the history of Britain’s coal mining communities is a long and proud one and tied inescapably to the long history of this island. From the early mines to the mass expansion of the industrial revolution to the post-war decline of deep coal mining, the fortunes of the communities and of coal were heavily intertwined. At its height, almost 3,000 collieries produced about 300 million tonnes of coal, and each colliery was surrounded by a close-knit community.
Mr Spencer
Did the Minister notice that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), spent 24 minutes looking backwards and one minute looking forwards? Does the Minister intend to use his speech to look forward at how we can help improve coalfields and work together in this Chamber to improve the plight of the communities that live there?
Matthew Hancock
I welcome my hon. Friend’s tone. It was a pity and a surprise to hear the shadow Minister say he could think of nothing that Conservative Members could bring to this debate. That was deeply regrettable.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) makes a good point about looking forward, but do not a Tory Minister’s recent comments on the value of disabled people and the Tories’ desire to make this country a tax haven for the rich show that they are still the same vindictive party that closed the pits in the ’80s?
Matthew Hancock
No, they do not. I think the hon. Gentleman is about three hours late for the previous debate. During my time in this role, I have secured the future of the existing pits, two of them in particular. I have personally worked with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the National Union of Mineworkers and the owners of those pits to make sure they have the financing necessary to stay open.
I will take no lectures from the Labour party, because I am from Nottinghamshire coal mining stock. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) spoke of his grandmother. My grandmother is also watching. She is 100 years old and was born in Bestwood in Nottinghamshire. They were a family of miners and all her brothers went down the pit.
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), I want to concentrate on the future, but the Labour party seems interested only in talking about the past.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Looking to the future, particularly that of the coal-fired Lynemouth power station in my constituency, will the Minister assist my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in his efforts to ensure that we get European state aid approval for the conversion to biomass of the Lynemouth power station?
Matthew Hancock
Ensuring that we have a broad mix of energy supplies is of course a topical issue. We are working on the future of conversion to biomass. That relates to a slightly broader point: Labour Members voted for an acceleration of the closure of our coal-fired power stations, yet another group of them have turned up today to argue that we should do more to support the coal mining industry. Those positions are completely inconsistent.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister is right. On 4 December, Labour Members were whipped to vote for the accelerated closure of the UK coal industry. I have checked the list of those who so voted, and one of them was the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher). We are talking about looking forward, but on Lords amendment 105 the hon. Gentleman voted for the accelerated closure of the coal industry. You couldn’t make it up.
Matthew Hancock
The inconsistency between how the shadow Minister voted and what he has said today is evident for everybody to see. Labour Members voted for the faster-than-planned closure of coal-fired power stations, and having had 13 years in power to do all the things they are asking for, all they can do today is to complain about what happened in the 1980s.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Now that we are down to the last three working pits—Kellingley, Thoresby and Hatfield—will the Minister take this opportunity to make the clear statement of intent that he will do everything possible to prevent the closure of those collieries by December 2015?
Matthew Hancock
I have already worked hard to make sure that we get the funding necessary. I am grateful to the NUM for the work that it has done to support one of the three collieries financially. I have been determined that this is done on a commercial basis to keep the option of further support open. I and officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are now working with the company to prepare a case that might go before the European Union on exactly that point.
Mr Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the shadow Minister said that coal mining communities would struggle to accept the fact that Labour Governments between 1964 and 1979 shut 283 mines, with the loss of 223,000 jobs—more than were closed under the Conservatives. The fact that those communities would struggle to accept that is because of misinformation and the use of this subject for political benefit, rather than to share the truth. The shadow Minister should go out and tell people in coal mining communities the facts about Labour’s record then and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has just said, now.
Matthew Hancock
Quite so. My hon. Friend anticipates the next facts in my speech. In 1947, 958 collieries were in production, and 20 years later that number had fallen to 483. The shadow Minister said that on Labour’s watch there was a consolidation, whereas in the 1980s there were closures. However, between 1964 and 1970, under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government, 252 pits closed and more than 200,000 jobs in coal production were lost.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I want to take the Minister back to looking forward. Such was the impact of the pit closures that the communities I represent in south Wales are now the poorest parts of northern Europe and qualify for the highest levels of regional aid. Will he inform the House and those communities why his Government’s policy is to repatriate regional policy, depriving south Wales of billions of pounds of investment?
Matthew Hancock
Having strong local policy is of course very important to ensuring not only that we support mining activity where we can within the EU state aid rules, but crucially that we support the communities around pits. That is our policy. I will get on to the future, but I keep being asked about the past.
Mr Skinner
The right hon. Gentleman now has to face the prospect of deciding what he does about the three deep mines in Britain—Hatfield, Kellingley and Thoresby. I have asked him several times during his short tenure in his current position to realise that it will cost money, but that if we had £70 million of state aid, we could save those three pits right until they exhaust their reserves. Set against the fact that in February the Tory Government took £700 million out of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, we only want £70 million of it to save these three pits. Instead of rabbiting on about who closed what, save these three.
Matthew Hancock
The irony is that I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to do what we can to do just that. He will know that the first thing that I did on taking this post was to ensure that Government funding was available on a commercial basis to tackle short-term cash shortages. We are now working on a proposition to go through the EU processes, which must, under the rules, come from the company. Whatever heat and light there is around this issue, I am working on those schemes. However, it must be done within the constraints of the EU state aid rules. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to do what we can to secure the future of the pits.
Andrew Bridgen
As a Member of this House who represents a coal mining community, the major conurbation of which is called Coalville, and whose grandfather was a coal miner, I am not surprised that the shadow Minister did not want to take my intervention. I witnessed the intimidation of miners who wanted to work in south Derbyshire, north-west Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire during the miners’ strike. I do not share the despondency of the shadow Minister. The latest figures show that my constituency of North West Leicestershire has the highest economic growth in the country at nearly 5% and that our unemployment rate is less than 2%.
Matthew Hancock
I shall come on to how best to support communities that used to have a large coal mining presence. In Yorkshire, unemployment has fallen by 30% over the past four years, going by the claimant count. That demonstrates that having a long-term economic plan is the best way to help communities get through these difficult times.
The transition of an economy that was dominated by outdated heavy industry into a modern service-based economy was necessary, and it has formed the basis of the nation’s current prosperity. That is not much disputed these days.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Minister is making an excellent speech. The shadow Minister said that the Government considered using the Army in the dispute. May I reassure my right hon. Friend that when I advised the then Prime Minister that the Army should on no account be involved in the dispute, she said, “Of course it won’t be” ? And it was not.
Matthew Hancock
The fact is that the Army was not used in the dispute. None the less, the dispute was a serious consideration in respect of energy security in this country, so it is no wonder that the questions about how to deal with it were broad, especially given the political nature of those attacking the Government. That is entirely understandable. Nevertheless, the dispute was dealt with in a way that did not involve putting the Army on the streets.
Conor Burns
We heard a very partial version of events in the 1980s from the shadow Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest betrayal of mine workers in this country was by Arthur Scargill, who led his people into an illegal strike without a ballot, against the NUM’s own rules?
Matthew Hancock
Of course I agree with that. It would benefit the House if Members understood that the process of becoming a modern economy, which was a difficult process, could have been achieved far better through partnership than through adversarial means. Indeed, that spirit of partnership is what we have now and it is starting to work.
It is a great pity that the motion focuses so heavily on reliving the battles of the past. It is a demonstration of the Labour party at its worst—totally uninterested in the future. I want to talk about the future.
Matthew Hancock
I will give way in a second and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether he supports what I am about to say.
Orgreave, which was the site of one of the biggest confrontations between miners and the police, is now home to Sheffield university’s advanced manufacturing research centre. I have been there. That partnership between businesses, universities and, no doubt, trade unions shows the sort of approach that this country could easily have taken to the difficult transition 30-odd years ago, but that was turned down through the political antics of Arthur Scargill and his friends.
Wayne David
To deal with the present, is the Minister pleased that wage levels are plummeting in former coal mining areas?
Matthew Hancock
We are doing everything we can to turn the economy around. The shadow Chancellor himself admitted that, after an economic calamity of the scale we saw, it is inevitable that people will be affected. Of course they will be. Of course, when national income falls—as happened in the great recession—that impacts on people; national income is only the sum of the incomes of people in that nation. Until the Labour party understands that our economic fortunes as a nation are tied to our economic policy, and that the calamity of Labour’s economic policy led to a calamity for family incomes, it will never be trusted with the economy again.
Mr Ronnie Campbell
The Minister says it was a partnership, but it was not much of a partnership when Lord Heseltine was at the Dispatch Box and closed 31 pits, with jobs losses for 60,000 miners. That wasn’t a very good partnership, was it?
Matthew Hancock
Harold Wilson closed 252 pits, with more than 200,000 jobs lost, so we can trade figures easily on that point.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, and I apologise for taking him back a little. He referred to mining in Britain, but in Northern Ireland, in Coalisland in County Tyrone—the county in which I grew up—there was a mine, and a number of miners were killed and their bodies were never recovered. Although there are national memorials elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at some sort of memorial to record the fact that we did have mining in Northern Ireland at that time.
Matthew Hancock
I will absolutely look at that, and it is an opportunity to pay tribute to those miners who were lost and to their families. Throughout the history of mining it was always a dangerous occupation, and miners were lost in almost every community. We should pay tribute to those who died in that way.
Mr Anderson
The Minister is generous in giving way. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said he was convinced that the Army was not involved, but some of us who were directly involved would dispute that on a personal level. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue, and other points that have been raised, is for the Minister to do the right thing and release all the papers. Do not hide any more papers, as the Shrewsbury 24 papers have been hidden; their campaign is now 42 years old. Release all the papers, and a lot of the arguments we have might disappear.
Matthew Hancock
The papers are being released as part of the 30-year rule, so that is happening under the normal process. Indeed, we would not be having this debate about the past had the Labour party not wanted to spend more time looking through papers from the mid-1980s than concentrating on how to fix the mess it created in this country.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Minister lauded the advanced manufacturing centre in Sheffield, which was set up by a Labour Government, and asked why it was not created in the 1980s. I established the advanced manufacturing centres at Barnsley college and Gwent college using union money in 1986. Why did the Tory Government refuse us money for that initiative 20 years earlier?
Matthew Hancock
The question is about how we tackle these problems for the future. Although coal mining areas were hard hit by the great recession, it is true, and ought to be acknowledged, that unemployment is now falling in every one of the communities affected.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but let me bring him bang up to date. Durham coalfield was one of the biggest coalfields, but when this Government switched money from public services to capital, the north-east got 0.3% of the money. Will the Minister admit that that is utterly disgraceful?
Matthew Hancock
Unemployment in the hon. Lady’s constituency has fallen by 30% since the election. Next time she gets up she should mention that, rather than shouting across the Dispatch Box. In south Staffordshire, unemployment has fallen by 58% since 2010. It has fallen by 51% in south Derbyshire, and as I said earlier, by 30% in Yorkshire. That goes to show the central truth that the best way to help coalfield communities now is to have a strong and healthy economy, and we cannot do that unless we have an economic plan.
Andrew Bridgen
Will the Minister also congratulate businesses in North West Leicestershire around Coalville, where unemployment has fallen by 60% since 2010?
Matthew Hancock
I absolutely will. The long-term economic plan is clearly working for Coalville, as it is for south Staffordshire, Durham, Yorkshire and all over the country. [Interruption.] The more muttering I get from Opposition Members, the more I think we should repeat the fact that unemployment is falling in every region of the country.
Mr Graham Stuart
The fate of young people is particularly important. Will the Minister share his dismay that so many young people were unemployed throughout even the good years of the previous Labour Government? The welcome news recently has been record falls in youth unemployment. The dignity of work, the pleasure and the future it brings are what we should be celebrating today. We should not be listening to the party political point scoring of the Labour party.
Matthew Hancock
I could not have put it better myself. As a Minister in this Government I am incredibly proud of the fact that youth unemployment is falling sharply. It is happening throughout the country, whether in the coalfields or in areas where there was no coal mining, and that is because we have a long-term economic plan. The biggest risk to those young people who have jobs now, but did not have them four years ago, would be a Labour Government.
Mr Kevan Jones
My figures are on page 23 of the Minister’s file, if he would like to look. He quotes figures, but does he realise that the jobs being created in coalfield communities—in County Durham, for example—are low paid, part time and insecure? The scandalous thing that I came across in my constituency last week is that some young people are not in any figures at all. They have opted out of the system. They are working in the black economy, which is clearly having an effect on the EU rebate. That is what is happening on the ground. The Minister can quote as many figures as he likes, but—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. In fairness, we have a lot of speakers, including, in fact, the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to get everyone in. We will not have long interventions.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman may like to deny the figures, but I do not think of them only as figures; they are the livelihoods of individual young people, which are being given to them by this Conservative-led Government.
I want to talk about some of the specific actions that we have taken under the Government. I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Established in 1999 to support and improve communities at the grass roots, the trust has created and safeguarded more than 4,000 jobs and helped 125,000 to gain new skills. The trust’s funding has helped to put it on a long-term footing.
Against that background, the plan to give back power to local communities, using local plans and local enterprise partnerships, will allow us to focus support through growth deals and city deals to ensure that support from Government is tailored to individual, local need. Domestic coal production still contributes to our national coal consumption—about a quarter of our total needs—and continues to be an important employer, especially in areas of low employment, with 4,000 people being employed in the industry. We must support them, as I mentioned in my exchange with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).
Mr Hepburn
What does the Minister value more? He talks about new opportunities in this day and age. Does he value an apprenticeship with the old National Coal Board, with apprentices being well trained for four years and coming out as top engineers, or does he prefer and value more the apprenticeships that have been encouraged under this Government, such as the sandwich architect apprenticeship in Subway?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he is talking down apprenticeships. As the former apprenticeships Minister, I will have no truck with people talking down apprentices or attacking them. The previous Government said, “You’re not of value unless you went to university”, but our Government say, “We support people who go to university and we support people who go through apprenticeships.” We will not have some arbitrary target. We say, “We want to support you in the choices that you make.” We will not accept any lectures from the Labour party on the massive expansion of apprenticeships under this Government in the coalfields and beyond.
I want to place it on the record that we will support the collieries, especially those of Kellingley and Thoresby, and work with them to ensure that we help them as much as we can within the EU state aid rules. It is important to ensure that we support the coal mining that continues, but also that we put in place the broader partnership for a stronger economy that will help people across the coalfields and the whole country. Let us not return to the failed politics of the past, represented by the Opposition today, but continue to strengthen that economy for the nation’s future.
Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)
I welcome the debate, which is 30 years after the miners’ strike. Much has been written and said of that period, but so much of what really happened to miners, their families and communities—there was evidence earlier today—has not been told. Today, I want to put on record the miners’ strike through the eyes of a Nottinghamshire miner, which I was proud to be.
In 1984, I was a miners’ leader at one of the most profitable pits in the country. I was the National Union of Mineworkers secretary at Ollerton colliery. We hear so much about the Government, but there is now a Tesco where that top 10 pit once was. We were five years into Margaret Thatcher’s reign as Tory Prime Minister. She was well into her Government’s de-industrialisation of the British economy and it was the miners’ turn. From her point of view, it was unfinished business from the 1972 and 1974 miners’ strikes.
Margaret Thatcher commissioned Nicholas Ridley, her head guru, to devise a plan to run down the mining industry and destroy the National Union of Mineworkers. The 1979 Ridley plan was born. Its basis was to build massive coal stocks, double the number of nuclear power stations, change trade union laws to weaken trade unions’ right to strike and defend their members, and to use the powers of the state to attack working people.
Mr Hood
No, I am not giving way.
The Prime Minister had tried that in 1981 but had to back off when her coal stocks were too low. The hapless Energy Secretary, now Lord Howell, was the fall guy for her failure, and she later sacked him, but her 1981 unpreparedness was not to be repeated in 1984, when she decided she was better ready to crush the miners and their union.
At the beginning of the miners’ strike, there were 250 pits and 250,000 miners. Thatcher had previously appointed Sir Ian MacGregor, the former American banker, as chairman of British Steel to run down the steel industry. His reward for his success in that was to be given the reins to do the same in the coal industry. He was made chairman of the National Coal Board.
The miners had been on an overtime ban for six months to oppose the declared NCB pit closures. The NUM did not want to go on strike and would have continued with the overtime ban indefinitely—the overtime ban was running the coal stocks down by the hour. Mrs Thatcher was facing another 1981 defeat and decided to provoke the NUM into taking strike action. On 5 March, the Tory Government announced an accelerated closure of five pits: Cortonwood colliery in Yorkshire, Bullcliffe Wood colliery in Derby, Herrington colliery in Durham, Snowdown colliery in Kent, and Polmaise in Scotland. The NUM in those areas immediately went on strike, and Ollerton, where I was the lead official, was picketed by Yorkshire miners the very next day, fighting to defend their jobs.
For the next week, thousands of police were imported into Nottinghamshire to stop picketing. Hundreds of miners were arrested and imprisoned in Mansfield police station and other places before draconian bail conditions were imposed on picketing miners.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We heard earlier about how miners were pushed into dependency on benefits, but the other tragic legacy of the miners’ strike was the number of miners who were criminalised by what happened. Will my hon. Friend say something about the impact on proud people when they were told that they were criminals because of what happened in that miners’ strike?
Mr Hood
I was born a miner. Mining communities were the most law-abiding communities one could wish for. During the miners strike, people were put in prison who had never seen a prison even from afar.
Much has been written about violence on picket lines. The 30-year rule on publishing Cabinet papers needs to be examined, and the conduct of the Home Secretary in directing the police and courts must be disclosed. By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children, will not come as a surprise to the striking miners of 1984, as many of them—
Conor Burns
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) has just made profoundly serious accusations against a noble Lord. Is that in order?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
In fairness, I did not hear as I was talking to a Whip. It is up to each Member to decide what they say, and they must make that decision.
Mr Hood
I will repeat part of the point that I am making. The rumours that Sir Leon Brittan was involved in misconduct with children do not come as news to miners who were on strike in 1984, because when miners were going into the dock in magistrates courts we were aware and miners were declaring—
Mr Hood
No, I will not give way. I will give way when I have finished my point.
Miners were saying in the dock in all the magistrates courts throughout the strike that they objected to the instructions coming from the Home Secretary when there were reports of child abuse linked with that same Home Secretary.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is up to each Member, but we have to be very careful about what we say. We must consider what we are saying and what the implications are.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Time is up. Five minutes have gone. I call Mr Mark Spencer.
Matthew Hancock
Does my hon. Friend agree that at the end of this debate, those on the Opposition Front Bench should dissociate themselves from the disgusting remarks of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) and from the mistaken comparison of these issues to the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, which was astonishingly made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher)? If they do not, people will understand that the Labour party has got its priorities completely wrong.
Mr Spencer
I am grateful for that intervention.
I am the only Member of Parliament in the Chamber today with a working colliery. Although I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, the truth is that I am quite sad to be doing so, as it is a massive missed opportunity to look at the future of our coalfields and former coalfields and how we could work together across the House to try to raise standards within those communities and support them.
We can spend lots of time looking backwards at what happened, and it gives me no pleasure to look back at some of the communities that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) mentioned, which happen to be in my constituency. We can talk about how the NUM flooded Nottinghamshire with flying pickets to try to prevent my miners from working in those coalfields, and we can talk about how, if Scargill had had a ballot, the Nottinghamshire miners would have had a vote in that ballot and it would have given a lot more power to some of the arguments that we are hearing.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, John Alderson, complained officially that the Thatcher Government had used the police against the miners in a completely wrong way?
Mr Spencer
I am very much aware. I was there and I lived in those communities at that moment. I saw what was happening on the picket lines. There were friends of mine whose fathers were on the picket lines and whose brothers were on different sides of the argument, one in the National Union of Mineworkers and one in the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Those scars are still there in my community and they are not helped by holding party political debates such as this one, instead of working together to try to improve those communities. I am saddened that this is more about trying to draw a groundswell of support for the Labour party at the ballot box than it is about genuinely solving the challenges we face, certainly in some of my communities in Nottinghamshire.
I say “some”, because in towns such as Hucknall and Calverton, in the former coalfields in the bottom half of Sherwood, where there is access to employment and good transport links, the communities are bouncing forward. There is very low unemployment in some of those villages, but further north, in places such as Ollerton and Clipstone, where the communication and transport networks are not as good and where there is not the same access to work, the communities face challenges in trying to aspire their way out of it. I now have families in my constituency who are third- generation welfare-dependent. The aspiration has gone from some of those kids.
We have to ask ourselves: what did the Blair Government do when they created the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? They spent far too much money on grassing down pit tips, planting trees and building women’s institute huts and scout huts, when they should have been putting in place infrastructure and transport networks and creating jobs. If someone does not have a job and their lad comes to them and says, “Dad, I want to go to scouts,” they cannot give him a tenner to go to scouts, because they cannot afford the money, even though there is a brand-new scout hut in their community. However, if they have a job and their lad comes to them and says, “Dad, my scout hut’s knackered. We’re trying to raise money for a new scout hut,” they will have a tenner to give towards that fund-raising event. That is where we went wrong in the period following the closure of those pits. We should have been putting money into infrastructure projects, apprenticeships and transport networks, to give people in those communities the opportunity to get out and get a job.
I was fortunate to have the Minister in his previous role come to Sherwood to talk about apprenticeships and to look at some of the great work being done in and around my community and at how we are moving forward. The good news is that I held a jobs fair in Sherwood about six weeks ago. There were more jobs advertised in that room than there are unemployed people in my constituency. The bad news is that there is a skills gap. Some of those communities still lack the skills to take on those roles. The Government are working flat out to try to fill the skills gap by creating apprenticeships and jobs that the kids coming out of those schools can go into. That is the way to solve the coalfield communities’ deprivation: to give them the ability to aspire out of it, the ability to work their way, and the confidence that the Government of the day are looking after their ability to move from wherever they are to any point in the social scale.
That is our mission; that is what we are trying to achieve. So what a tragedy it is that this debate is such a missed opportunity. We are going to spend three hours looking backwards, talking about flying pickets, Scargill and the good old pit days, when we should be talking about how we move forward—how we give jobs and aspiration to the next generation and how we work, whatever colour of Government, to try to solve the undoubted challenges faced in those former coalfields.
I congratulate the Minister on working with me to assist at Thoresby colliery in any way we can, working with UK Coal and the unions to try to extend the life of the colliery, which will run out of coal in 2018 anyway. I would like to get to the point where all the coal is extracted, but I am grateful for the support and the work done together. We need at some point to start thinking about the post-Thoresby period, because it will run out of coal in 2018. We should be planning for that event now, working together to make sure that the next generation—because we have missed one—has that ability to aspire.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As a miner during the miners’ strike, I should perhaps declare an interest. Like my family, friends and colleagues in the coalfield communities and towns, I have a vested interest because we want to see justice and fairness after what happened all those years ago.
As a young man at the time, I was fairly naive and I honestly believed that the Government of the day, regardless of political persuasions, would tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. What was revealed when the Cabinet papers were released earlier this year was quite the opposite. It is not that miners did not believe or understand at the time that they were being conned by MacGregor and by Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the day. We knew that was the case. We knew, but it was good to have it confirmed in 2014. The Cabinet papers revealed something quite sinister—a Government controlling the police, insisting that the police move in against miners, insisting that the Army should be involved against miners, the likes of myself and other honourable colleagues here who worked in the coal industry. My father, my brothers, my friends, were all miners attacked by the police, yet the Government know that we were right. At the same time, Thatcher was prepared to bring the Army in against ordinary, hard-working people. What an absolute disgrace.
It was not really about economics. It was about an ideology and about destroying the coal mining industry and driving trade unionism off the face of Britain. That is what the dispute was all about. It was not an industrial dispute; it was a political dispute. As such, the miners who were arrested, incarcerated, fined or whatever should be given a complete amnesty. The whole fabric of the mining community was attacked; the heart of these communities was ripped out.
In the little time left, I want to focus on one point. Thatcher lied from that Dispatch Box. Cabinet Ministers lied from that Dispatch Box. Senior Ministers lied from that Dispatch Box. Never mind harking back and saying that somebody has died; we have a right to seek justice after a Government acted covertly, behind our backs, and deliberately misled parliamentarians and the communities they represented. We are entitled to ask for an apology.
We saw what happened in Orgreave, with the police deliberately attacking miners, but there were little Orgreaves all over the country. It was not happening only in south Yorkshire. We saw it in Ashington, where I lived; we saw it in Blythe; we saw it in Easington; we saw it all over the place where the police attacked ordinary hard-working people. Has anybody ever had someone spit in their face? I cannot say how bad it is. A policeman spat in my face, and I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am never getting over that. I never will. I could take the punches and I could take the truncheons—things that were widespread during the miners’ strike. Let us have a quick look at what happened. I am not after any apologies.
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with that, but, speaking for myself, I will not accept any apologies. I prefer to see those on the Tory Benches, the Government of the day, as the enemy within: it was not the miners but the Tories who were the real enemy within. We have three pits left. Let us get off our backsides and ensure, as soon as we possibly can, that they continue to operate, funded by state aid. Let us keep those pits working.
We need a full inquiry into the way in which the Government meddled. Their fingerprints were all over the operations of the police and the strategy of the National Coal Board during the miners’ strike. Let me say this as well. If the police had been taken to task during that dispute, we might, just might, not have seen what happened at Hillsborough, because the same police force had been at Orgeave, under the same control.
We do not want any apologies. What we want is a full inquiry, so that those miners, who are now fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, can sleep easy at night without being convicted. They should have been given medals for what they did in standing up for mining communities, instead of being criminalised.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I apologise to the House for the fact that at no point in my speech will I return to the events of the 1980s, which took place nearly 40 years ago in the historical past. Instead, I will talk about the future of the mining industry in this country and in the world. I will say this, however. Forty years ago, I went down a mine in Nottinghamshire. At the time, I was considering a career in mining engineering. It was a half day that I always remember. I would not have liked to make my life working down a mine, and I very much respect those who did. I entirely recognise—as, I am sure, do all Government Members—the contribution that the mining industry has made to the wealth of this country over the past 100 years and more, and I am very pleased about the money that has gone to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
It has been implied today that the mining industry is dying globally—that it is on its last legs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalmining industry across the world grew by 3% last year in terms of tonnage. Only in the United Kingdom, which now accounts for 0.9% of the global coal industry, have we seen a contraction, and we have seen that contraction partly because of the policies of the coalition. In an intervention on the Minister’s opening speech, I mentioned the vote that took place on 4 December when many, although not all, Labour Members—I have checked the names—voted in favour of extending the emissions performance directive to existing coal-fired power stations, which would have accelerated the closure of those stations. Such a unilateral move would have nothing to do with carbon reduction, and would have a massive impact on our existing coal-fired stations.
I shall say more about that later. First, let me return to the subject of the world industry, which, as I said earlier, has grown by 3%. China produces 50% of the world’s coal. Last year it increased its coal production by eight times more, in absolute terms, than it increased the production of renewables, and its level of carbon emissions per head was the same as that of the United Kingdom. Moreover, every country in the European Union increased its coal production last year except for the UK: not just Poland—although we rely on it heavily—but Austria and Germany, which has built 12 GW of unabated coal over the past few years. Austria is a good example of a carbon junkie country. It is suing us because we are going ahead with Hinkley Point C.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I was not going to intervene, but, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the steel and metal related industry, I shall do so. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government unilaterally introduced the carbon price floor, which constitutes a higher tax than has been imposed by any of our competitors in the European Union. That is one of the main reasons for the contraction of the industry, and also a big reason for the fact that energy-intensive industries in general have contracted in the UK.
David Mowat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he knows that I more than partially agree with him about the carbon price floor and the impact on energy-intensive industries, but is it right to pretend that the vote that took place on 4 December did not matter? The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) did vote with Baroness Worthington and all of those people for the accelerated closure. That is what happened and I think it was a key moment in the history of the Labour movement that that vote took place with apparently so little concern.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) mentioned the carbon price floor and that is part of it, as is the subsidy regime that we have put in place. The closure of coal stations is being driven by the large combustible directive and we are pursuing that, but it is worth saying that we are increasingly acting unilaterally in this regard. We should remember that we are the only country in the EU that is cutting the amount of coal we use. That is an extraordinary statistic and people should reflect on that, particularly those on the Labour Front Bench.
On 4 December there was a Labour three-line Whip for a vote on Lords amendment 105. That amendment said that the emissions performance standard—which means that new coal must, effectively, have carbon capture and storage—was to be applied to existing coal stations. That is what Opposition Members were whipped through the Lobby to support, and I think it is incredible. Apart from the effect on fuel poverty, we have seen the effect on Tata Steel and we are seeing the effect on the coal industry. The coal industry around the world is prospering. I shall say it again: no form of energy increased in absolute terms as much as the coal industry did.
Mr Spencer
I just wonder if my hon. Friend recognises the challenge. At Thoresby colliery it is 8 km from the pithead to the pit face, and it is 1 km down. How does it compete in a global market to get that coal from the face to the surface, when in China and the States they can just bulldoze it out of the ground in open-cast sites?
David Mowat
I am not an expert on the economics of the coal industry, but I would just say it is pretty heavy stuff and having to transport it an awfully long way has got an economic impact. I am not suggesting that the entire coal station fleet in the UK has to be sourced by UK Coal; it will come from abroad as well. I do say, however, that by turning our back on coal more quickly than any other country in Europe or the world, we are saying something about our intentions. We are taking important decisions for the future.
I know that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent constituencies in the coalfields, agree at least in part with a lot of what I am saying. I really believe that there is more than one Labour party in this regard. There is the Primrose Hill branch which has forced this stuff through—the three-line Whip, the vote on Lords amendment 105. I believe, however, that many Opposition Members—particularly those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, whom I respect greatly—do not really agree with some of that stuff, and some of them at least did not vote for it, whether by accident or design. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed: clearly by design. Nevertheless, that is what happened and what we are talking about here is an issue in the Labour party. It needs to decide whether or not it wishes to support our coalfields in the same way that other parties across Europe support their own coalfields, or does it wish to just give in to the Primrose Hill section of the party?
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to speak in this historic debate on justice for the coalfields campaign. It is clear from the Minister’s remarks that he simply does not understand that the scars from 1984-85 are still there and will not heal until all this is properly exposed. It is hard to fully measure the impact of Government actions on communities like mine in the 1980s and the years following. Those of us who lived through them were under no illusion at the time about the way in which the Government misled the public, vilified our people and attempted to politicise the police. It is good that a light is now being shone on this.
I am not attacking the police. I have been married to the constabulary for 30 years, but that does not mean that I am under any illusions about what the Thatcher Government did to try to politicise the police in this country in 1984.
My mother ran a miners support group in 1984. It was the forerunner of today’s Tory food banks. We supported 24 families throughout the strike. The miners we supported were good, honest, decent people who did not deserve what happened to them and their communities. They certainly did not deserve to be labelled the “enemy within” by the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the day. They were standing up for their communities, for their industry and for the dignity of the work that the Tory Government were taking away from them.
I support the call for an apology from Conservative Ministers for the secret pit closure plan and for even considering the deployment of the Army against the people of this country. I cannot actually believe that I am saying that the Government were considering deploying the Army against people who were doing nothing more than standing up for their communities.
I was elected to the House in 2010, and I have sat through a number of debates in the House in which I could not believe what I was hearing. I could not believe the way in which the Government behaved in relation to the Hillsborough tragedy, for example. I also could not believe what I was hearing as I sat through the Prime Minister’s statement on the death of Pat Finucane, a shameful episode that amounted to nothing less than state-sponsored murder. Now we are considering the Government’s behaviour in the period leading up to, and during, the miners’ strike.
We need to know exactly what went on between the Prime Minister’s office, MacGregor and the police in relation not only to Orgreave but to the hundreds of other state-sponsored illegal actions by the Government. I remember when my parents and my aunt and uncle set off from the north-east to travel to a brother’s funeral in Scunthorpe. They were turned back on the A1 by the police for no reason other than that my father was a trade unionist. They were dressed for a funeral, not for the picket line. As far as I am aware, my parents have never committed a crime. They have never been arrested and they do not have a criminal record, yet their movements were restricted because my father was a trade unionist. He was not even in the NUM.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case and I am very pleased that she has paid tribute to the role of women in the miners’ strike and talked about the solidarity and the shining example that they set. Does she agree that it is still the women in coalfields such as ours who feel most angry that this Government are refusing not only to apologise but to put in the public domain all the information pertaining to that time that would allow us to get justice for the coalfield communities?
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was the women—the wives and daughters of the miners, as well as women in trade unionist families—who were quite simply doing the right thing in their communities. And yes, those women are extremely angry that these issues have not been opened up to proper public scrutiny.
I support the call for Ministers to set out all the details of the interactions between the Government and the police at the time of the strike, and to release all the information about Government-police communications relating to Orgreave and all the other incidents that we have heard about today. I also support the call for Ministers swiftly to initiate an independent review of what happened at Orgreave and elsewhere if the Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot or will not undertake a proper investigation of these matters.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred to miners as an honest, decent, hard-working group of people, and on that point she was absolutely right. Like most other Members who have spoken in the debate, I have a direct connection with this subject. I was the first person for generations on my mother’s side of the family who was not raised in a pit village. Except for one or two men who joined the Army, I was probably the first male in the family who was not a miner. Virtually all of them were.
I am happy to speak here for those miners who wanted to work during the strike, as many of my relatives did. Disgracefully, a lot of myths have been perpetuated today. It is interesting that not one Labour Member has mentioned Arthur Scargill. The tragedy for the miners was that they were disgracefully badly led by one man who felt that he had the right to run the country. He tried to bring down the Government in 1974 and tried again for a strike in the 1980s. He balloted his members three times and lost, then brought them out on strike anyway. He was absolutely hated by many miners, as well as by many in the Labour movement. It is an open secret that the leader of the Labour party at the time, Neil Kinnock, hated Arthur Scargill. Many people in the Labour movement hated him, and the reality is that he hated them. Labour Members are all trying to line themselves up as friends of the miners now, but the reality is that Arthur Scargill would have despised the new Labour party that sits in the Chamber today as much as he hated the Tories.
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend rightly gives the other perspective to this sad story of our country’s history: that of the areas where the miners wanted to work and the intimidation they faced, which split our communities in half. The Labour party has always supported the right to work, but what about the right to work at that time of miners who wanted to go down the pit and did not want to join the strike? How about respecting that?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because one third of the miners continued to work throughout that strike and many more would have done so had they been able to. Of course it was not just the mining union and the miners themselves who were split on this; the whole trade union movement was split on it. The steelworkers did not particularly want the strike to go ahead and the shipworkers’ unions were not in favour of it; they were all happy to turn a blind eye to coal that was still being pulled out of the ground, and they knew that they had to, because if the steel furnaces had been allowed to run down, it would not just have been miners who lost their jobs but thousands of steelworkers. But none of that was important to Arthur Scargill; he was more than happy to risk the jobs of thousands of other working people, as well as those of the miners, to try to impose his will on a democratically elected Government who had just won a very large majority.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), along with many others, criticised the police and asked whether we had ever had someone spit in our face. I have had someone spit in my face, and I have also been in violent situations as a serving police officer. I know that emotions can run high and that there can be inappropriate behaviour when people are suffering extreme provocation. All those thousands of people who turned up at the Orgreave cokeworks—and had been badly led—had been taken there to stop people working, in order to prevent coke from being delivered to the steelworks. Had they succeeded, they would have destroyed thousands of jobs.
Ian Lavery
I advise the hon. Gentleman not to cite something that I did not say. In certain circumstances, a police officer spat in my face when I was on the ground being restrained. The hon. Gentleman suggests that someone has spat in his face, but has a police officer ever spat in his face?
David T. C. Davies
Obviously, a police officer has never spat in my face. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that there are occasions when police officers may behave badly, having suffered extreme provocation. There is one thing that it is very important to say: police officers do not go looking for trouble, looking for fights and looking to inflict violence; they want to go home every night. Frankly, they want a quiet life and they do not go around looking for trouble.
David T. C. Davies
I am willing to give way one more time because I respect the fact that at least this Labour Member knows something about the working classes, which is more than I can say for a lot of them.
Ian Lavery
Thanks again. I have to say, however, that a brother of mine is a police inspector, and there is a huge difference between the police force today and the one we experienced during the miners’ strike and then during the Hillsborough fiasco. By goodness, it is a good job, too.
David T. C. Davies
There are differences in respect of the police, the NUM, the Labour party and the Conservative party, but one thing is for certain: that was a political strike and it was not brought about by the then Government. They did not want a strike like that. The NUM, led by Arthur Scargill, had decided that it wanted to bring down the Government—that is an absolute fact—and he failed three times to persuade the miners to go with him so he took them out anyway, against their wishes.
I have two and a half minutes left, so let us talk about today, because we now have a different situation and a very different NUM. Its representatives came to give evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and they were not singing the praises of Arthur Scargill. I believe the union has some sort of legal dispute with him at the moment. He hastened the end of an industry by making it clear to the Government that they would not be able to rely on coal to generate electricity, so it is not in the least bit surprising that they went ahead with the dash for gas and for nuclear—that was the only way they could be certain of keeping the lights on. It is a great shame that he hastened the end of the industry. Of course, some pits would have shut down, because some of them simply did not have any coal left, but a good leader of the miners at that time would have got public support by demanding better redundancy measures and better measures to help the coalfield communities get through what was going to be a very difficult time. Instead, he led them all out on a strike they did not want and did not support, and lost all public opinion. The resulting catastrophe for many miners is something we can lay entirely at his door and, interestingly, not one person here is wiling to defend him.
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
I should like to point out that Arthur Scargill never closed a single pit. This debate is about whether there should be an inquiry. The fact of the matter is that 11,800 people were arrested, 5,000 of whom were taken to court. Hundreds of them went to jail, some quite wrongly, including some of my constituents in Mansfield. The call is simple: we need a full inquiry.
David T. C. Davies
I was generous in giving way, and it is a pity that it was abused. The reality is that I am more on the hon. Gentleman’s side than he realises. I do not buy into this nonsense about global warming. I do not believe that carbon is creating a runaway problem we cannot cope with, and I wish that I had more time to go into why not. There is a place for coal in generating electricity. There is an NUM now that is much more moderate than it used to be. I fully support anyone who comes forward with a package that will allow us to use coal—British coal—to generate electricity. I urge Members from all parts of the House to think very carefully about any measures now—
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I do not think that I am from the Primrose Hill set. I still have a Parkray that burns coal, but, if it is any consolation, I have a hybrid car to cover my tracks. That sets the scene. This is about closure—that is what we want. We want closure. Indeed, the Tories all say they want closure; everybody does. That is what we are after; all we want is closure of this period of our lives. We all know the facts: 1972 and 1974 were victories for the NUM, and no one has yet mentioned that. They were significant because they happened under Ted Heath, and Thatcher was his successor.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) talks about being lured on to the punch at Cortonwood and the other four receiving pits, it was deliberate. By the way, the miners’ union is a federation. Nearly every member of the federation had had a ballot. There had been a ballot in Scotland with a 78% majority. The figure was similar in Durham, Yorkshire and south Wales. When we add it all up and include Nottinghamshire, it was a big majority, but nobody talks about that. So we need closure on this problem. Let us remember that it was a very honourable dispute; it was not about money, mammon and greed. It is true that in 1972 and 1974, I would have joined any demonstration or any strike whether or not it was about money. I did join strikes in those years, and they were relatively short. As we all know, one of them resulted in a victory for Labour against Ted Heath. Therefore, the Tory party—I do not see why it is hiding its light under a bushel—was determined to get revenge. I could see it in their eyes in here.
I have lived long enough—I did not know whether I would—to see that what my hon. Friends and I said during that strike was right. I said 75 pits would be closed. The Tories were trying to say that only 20 would be. When they closed Cortonwood, it was in the top 75, not the top 20. So it was evident that we were right. In many industrial disputes, a striker does not manage to live long enough to realise they were right. I think I am nearly right now about the EU, but I will not go into that because it is another matter.
What I am saying is that we are after closure on what was an important industrial dispute. It was an honourable strike, and I do not see it in the way that the Tories portray it. It is true that policemen stopped me from walking in my constituency at Shirebrook where the police were gathered in strength. I had to walk on a constituent’s wall to get around. Yes, I went through all that, and I have been in jail and all the rest of it—not on that strike, but another one.
Anyway, many months ago, I asked the Speaker for closure. I thought he was so clever—he has a bigger vocabulary than any of us—he would be able to find a way to get the Government to admit that we needed closure. Why? Because it was not one Minister lying for 10 minutes or 10 seconds in the House. This was about a long lie that lasted for 12 months. So how many Ministers did lie?
Conor Burns
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman another minute. He referred to the miners’ strikes of the 1970s and the determination of the NUM then to bring down Ted Heath’s Government. Does he agree that Arthur Scargill’s objective in the 1980s was to break the Thatcher Government, something the Labour movement could not manage at the ballot box?
Mr Skinner
The truth is that, if the deputies, who had a 70% ballot, including in Nottinghamshire, had used that ballot, we would have won. If there had been a second front of the dockers that lasted not for a week but for a month, we would have won. If Mrs Thatcher had not got the oil from Gaddafi—yes, Gaddafi. She begged Gaddafi to sell her more oil. Just think about it. That combination in the tent. God almighty. If that had not happened, we would have won. So we had many opportunities. Do not think it was a runaway victory. We fought as well as we could, but we were battling against not only the police. All the higher echelons of state were ranged against us. It has never happened before, apart from during the 1926 strike. That was an honourable year. Men at 60 were prepared to sacrifice the roof over their own head for a 16-year-old lad in a coalfield they did not even know existed. That was honour, and I am proud to have fought every single day. I would love to do it again.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I am not sure whether I can match the passion of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but I will pay tribute to him as a man of principle who sticks to those principles, unlike those on his Front Bench. I am extremely disappointed tonight in the tone of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As someone who represents a constituency that used to depend very much on coal mining, there is much in the motion that I can agree with about the legacy of the coal industry. But what has disappointed me most today, and will have disappointed many of my constituents, is that the debate has all been predicated on the events of 30 years ago, trying to wind the clock back to then. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should reflect on their 13 years in government, on the fact that there were some people on their Benches looking for this type of closure, but on three occasions, between 2007 and 2009, the Labour Government refused to provide information under the Freedom on Information Act 2000. So Opposition Front Benchers have a lot to answer for to their Back-Bench Members.
I want to move on to what is happening now. I was also very disappointed that Labour Front Benchers did not mention the problems faced by my constituents and the sad closure of Daw Mill colliery. I know that some Labour Members were also saddened to hear about what happened. We did not hear one word from Labour Front Benchers about the men who lost their jobs at Daw Mill. We did not hear one mention of the people who lost their jobs in the supply chain, the people who have had their pensions reduced, the people who lost their concessionary coal allowance, which was later reinstated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the people who lost much of the redundancy payments that they were expecting and had to rely on statutory redundancy.
That was highlighted in a letter to one of my local papers, the Nuneaton News, from a Union of Democratic Mineworkers official. He strongly criticised the lack of action from local Labour councillors at the time of the Daw Mill closure, but he also strongly criticised the Leader of the Opposition, because the UDM wrote to him at the time, when it was desperate for help, and he did not even have the courtesy to reply. I think that that, along with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), really shows the support that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to give the coal industry and the people who worked in it. It is not the same as the real commitment to those people shown by some Labour Members who have spoken today.
The motion also mentions the health legacy of the coal industry, such as respiratory illnesses, and that is important. I congratulate the Labour Government on the work they did to get some compensation for miners, but they also have a legacy to answer for themselves, because in my constituency, and others like it, where there are many such legacy issues, the health funding was one of the lowest per head of population in the whole country. That is not looking after people who worked in the mining industry or who are living with its legacy.
I am glad that this Government have started to address the inequality in health funding. Progress on that has not been as quick as I would like it to be, and I hope that those on the Front Bench will pass those comments on to the Secretary of State for Health, but we are starting to make inroads in an area that was completely ignored by the Labour Government.
We are recovering from the legacy of the coal industry in my constituency. Many of the people who lost their jobs at Daw Mill have secured new jobs, although I acknowledge that many of them are not as well paid—it is important that we all understand that. Unemployment has come down by 40% over the past 12 months. We need to make opportunities in those areas, and only by creating the atmosphere in which business can thrive will that happen. This Government are certainly doing that. We are not harking back to the past 30 years. To do so would not be wise, because that will not help anybody.
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit at the moment is set at five minutes, although it could be revised downwards. Only Opposition Members now wish to speak, so with what I will describe as comradely co-operation, more comrades will have a chance to contribute. You do not have to speak for five minutes, so do not feel obliged to do so.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I am happy to contribute to a comradely discussion, Mr Speaker.
South Wales has a long and proud history of coal mining. It reached its peak just before the first world war, when the industry employed nearly a quarter of a million men. After the first world war, it began a slow but steady decline until its demise today. It went from the 1926 miners’ strike, that summer of soups and speeches, as the Rhymney valley poet Idris Davies wrote, to the struggles of the 1930s and the closures of the 1960s and ’70s, although it has to be said that attempts were made by Labour Governments at that time to find an alternative source of employment in the area.
Then, of course, we saw the miners’ strike of ’84 and ’85. I remember the strike, when I was a young man—a very young man—because I was involved in my local miners support group. We met in the local Conservative club, which nobody thought was strange because the whole community supported the miners in my village. We were absolutely clear that the fight was about defending jobs and communities. We were under no misapprehension at that time—it has been proven since: as far as the Conservative Government of the day were concerned, it was a political strike. They were out to break the trade union movement, and the vanguard of the movement was the National Union of Mineworkers. Let us make no mistake about it, because that was proven beyond doubt. After the strike was over—yes, the miners were defeated—the full vengeance of the Government was displayed in the number of pit closures that occurred.
The Government said that they acted on economic grounds, but that lie was shown up very clearly in the case of Tower colliery in Cynon Valley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) led the miners of the colliery in a sit-down protest. Eventually, although the Government wanted to close it, a miners’ co-operative was formed and it maintained its profitability for 13 years after the strike. That showed, above all, that the Conservative Government were concerned not about the economics of the coal industry but about the politics of this country. That is why it was correct to have that dispute, even though the miners lost. I am proud to say that the south Wales miners remained largely united and, with dignity, led the other miners back to work.
During that whole period of adversity and decline, one of the hallmarks of communities in south Wales was the amazing sense of community solidarity that existed then, which I believe still exists today. That was shown clearly in 1926 and in the 1930s, but it was shown very recently as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) said, last year, in the village of Senghenydd in my constituency, we had an enormously successful community initiative to raise money to build a national mining memorial. That was important in itself, but also because it showed the community coming together to pay tribute to past sacrifices and say, “We are united today and we are looking forward to the future.”
We still face huge problems in south Wales, which are partly a legacy of what happened with the Tories and the coal industry. We are still seeing acute levels of unemployment, poverty and low pay, with economic inactivity continuing. In the aftermath of ’84 and ’85, the Conservatives deliberately encouraged miners to go “on the sick” so that they did not show up in the unemployment figures. We are still living with that deliberate act of Government policy.
Today it is high time that, once again, we all join in a comradely way to make sure that the needs of the south Wales coalfield are addressed. I hope—indeed, I am confident—that when we see a Labour Government elected in a few months’ time, they will work in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly to make sure that we have, once again, dynamic policies for the south Wales valleys that will bring prosperity to the people we represent.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
I hope to take all five minutes for my speech, Mr Speaker. I apologise for that, but though I rarely speak in the Chamber, it would be remiss of me not to speak on this subject.
I am going to put a different spin, if that is agreeable, on what has been said already. I started in the pit when I was 15 and was going down the pit at 16. I will not go over all the history, but I worked in the pit for 20 years. In Scotland, we were out on strike along with the rest of the coalfields. Major decisions were made. The judges in Scotland ruled that the strike was legal there. Scotland was the only area that had a ruling on that basis.
I would like to talk about the role that everybody played throughout that period and the strength we gathered from it. Women did not just stand behind us—by the end of the strike they were standing in front of us, usually trying to protect us because most of us had been arrested umpteen times on the picket line. Great things happened as a result. Women ended up at the forefront: they became councillors, politicians and trade unionists. Some even became MPs.
We talk about the victimisation and hardships of people who want to go to work, but let me tell you about the people who worked all their days in the pits and the sacrifices that were made. I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on one point: I never agreed with a ballot then, and I never agree with a ballot now. That is because an older man who had been in the pit for 40-odd years would rightly want to take a redundancy payment, but the younger men were entitled to a future. If there had been a ballot, older men would be voting for younger men to lose out. We therefore had a show of hands, and we had solidarity—there was a lot of solidarity. A lot of older people in the collieries made sacrifices on behalf of the young.
There were sacrifices in my area of the Lothians: 46 men from one pit ended that strike sacked, 36 men were sacked from the pit up the road, and five were sacked from another. Let me tell you about victimisation: of the four branch officials at Monktonhall, three were sacked, and of the 12 committee members, eight were sacked, to make sure that when we went back to work we would toe the line. We should remember that before the strike started union officials up and down the country were told, “There’s your agreement.” Previous agreements were torn up and they were told, “You’re starting three shifts next week.” We were pounded for a year before the strike started, but it goes back further than that.
In 1979, that fateful year, 11 Scottish National party Members joined the Tories, brought down a Labour Government and gave us 18 years of the Tories, but has everyone forgotten the Ridley report? It recommended taking out the union movement because we would get a majority here. The trade unions had 12 million members in those days. The report identified two unions in particular: the dockers and the miners. Unfortunately, it fell to us—I wish it hadnae, but it did.
The bottom line is that we have to learn from the past to determine what will happen in the future.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate and powerful case. Does he agree that there also needs to be an inquiry into the convictions in Scotland during the miners strike, and is he surprised that the Scottish Government have not agreed to such an inquiry?
Mr Hamilton
I am not surprised. The SNP were tartan Tories in the past and they are making a similar alliance now. The Government have not agreed an inquiry, but they should.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that today is the 75th anniversary of the Valleyfield pit disaster, when 35 men went to work but did not come home to their wives, mothers and families. Does he agree that we owe them and their families a legacy, to make sure there is a stronger future for all our communities?
Mr Hamilton
I accept and agree with everything that has been said. I was present at the Auchengeich disaster memorial, which reminds us of the price of coal. It is really important that we get that in perspective.
I worked in a colliery for 20 years and was there during the miners strike. Although this is my story, it reflects what happened right through the coalfield. I spent from October to December 1984 in Saughton prison. I was accused of assaulting a man who had been my friend for many, many years. I had a two-day trial by jury in Scotland, after which the jury took 20 minutes to decide that it was a stitch-up. It took them 10 minutes to elect the chairman of the jury, so it only took them 10 minutes to determine that it was a stitch-up. That is what was happening the length and breadth of the country. I only say that because many, many miners went to jail and were found innocent, but they never got to go back to work.
Remember that the deal was clear: intimidate the work force, and the best way to do that is by intimidating the union and taking out union officials. I do not want to go on about the history, but it is important that we learn from history in order to deal with how we go about the future.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. That is an old saying, but it is true. On victimisation, 206 men were sacked in Scotland and 1,000 men were sacked throughout the UK. Some got back, but it cost them dearly, not just in employment, but in health and everything else.
Mr Hamilton
I havnae got time. Victimisation happens right now. Just look at Grangemouth. They sacked the senior shop steward there—this is 30 years on, by the way—and told the rest of the work force, “You’ll do as you’re told or you’ll end up the same as him.”
On blacklisting, just talk to the construction industry. When blacklisting took place, it took me two and a half years to get a job. That was before I came here, before I became a councillor and before I started a company. I was sick of going for jobs and being told, “Yes, you’ll start on Monday,” only to then get a letter saying otherwise because they had checked their computers—remember the McWhirter twins?—and found that my name was blacklisted along with those of hundreds and thousands of other people. That is happening in this day and age.
Then there is phone hacking. Everybody sympathises with the Dowlers, but let me say—it was called phone tapping in my day—that the police throughout the country used to tap the phones at all the strike centres. I remember an occasion when there was a message to go to picket a place, and 450 police turned up. I sent messages out along the lines, saying, “No, we’re going to occupy their headquarters,” and that is what we did the following day.
I want to end on a serious note. We are talking about history, but we are also talking about the future. We have got to learn the lessons of the past. In the 21st century, do we want to live in a society that has all the hallmarks of being the worst place in the world in the 20th century? If this is the 21st century, let us be human beings about this.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that the limit will have to be cut to four minutes after the speech we are about to hear.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
To help, Mr Speaker, I will not take interventions.
I was amazed by the lack of seriousness among Government Front Benchers when they thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) was talking about Jimmy Savile. He was talking about Lord Saville’s report on Bloody Sunday and the Hillsborough report. This issue has exactly the same stature: things went on in the name of the state and, whatever our views about what happened in the past, we as representatives of the state today have a responsibility to the future to release the papers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said.
This debate is opportune because there have been reports in the papers over the past few days about the state of energy supplies in this country. A recent report in a newspaper called The Register stated:
“The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years… Everyone seems to have seen this coming—except the people in charge.”
We saw a lot of it coming 30 years ago, but nobody listened to us. What do we have now? We have a situation in which, as we are told in the same report:
“The UK government will set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts”.
What a farce. One of the worst things about it is that one way the Government will do so is by continuing every year to import 50 million tonnes of coal that has blood on it—the blood of Chinese miners, of Russian miners and, as we saw earlier this year, of the 300 Turkish miners who died.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was absolutely right to say that we should have had a much more pro-coal attitude in this country. The problem is that they shut the coal mines when we were the leading proponents of clean coal technology in this country. The film “Brassed Off” was mentioned earlier. It was set around Grimethorpe colliery, where we were making oil out of coal 25 years ago, but it was closed on a whim and at a stroke of a Minister’s pen.
I want to ask Ministers four specific questions. They are about going forward, not about the past, and about how we should address this issue today. First and foremost, will they give a commitment to release all the papers identified from the 1980s? Without that, we are wasting our time.
Secondly, will Ministers give the Coalfields Regeneration Trust the real support it needs? People passionately support the CRT—including the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), whom I respect massively—but the truth is that it has been cut, cut and cut again, and it has been told that it must become supported by grants because it will not be getting any public money. We need such public money to rescue these communities.
Thirdly, will Ministers accept the details of the report produced by Sheffield Hallam university, and will they work with it and the all-party group on coalfield communities to try to address the problems that there are in every coalfield across this country?
Fourthly, the Minister for Business and Enterprise mentioned the support for Kellingley and Thoresby collieries several times, but will Ministers confirm for the record and admit that the money—it is a loan, because UK Coal has to pay it back—was only lent to the two collieries if they agreed to be shut down within 18 months and not, as was said earlier, have their life extended to 2018? It is a fact that that was the only ground on which the money was loaned.
There is no doubt that we are where we are because of a deliberate policy. Through the 1980s, there was an attempt to cut back: between 1985 and 1991, some 120 pits closed. I have to be honest about the fact that many of them were well past their sell-by date. I worked at one of them: it had been going since 1825 and was on its last legs. In 1992, on the back of the election, Michael Heseltine came up with a hit list of 31 top-quality mines that could still have been producing coal for this country. By the way, there was not a word about that in the manifesto—not one word. At the time, they said Arthur Scargill was lying, but they proved that he was not, because those 31 pits were shut within weeks.
As well as the pits being closed, the manufacturing industry in parts of the world like mine was decimated. Companies such as Huwood, Anderson Boyes, Gullick Dobson and Dowty, which had been leading the world, went to the wall. I have a friend who still works in coalfield engineering. In 1984, he worked in Motherwell. In the 1990s, he worked in Ilkeston in Derbyshire. He now travels every week from Leeds Bradford international airport to Dortmund because we no longer have that industry in this country, when we used to lead the world in it. Hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses closed, including shops, and communities were decimated. The truth is that we have left no future for our kids.
I say to the Minister today: please give us justice, give us some relief, give us the truth.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, my borough of Blaenau Gwent had the privilege of screening the Welsh premier of “Still the Enemy Within” in our historic and award-winning Market Hall cinema. That moving documentary about the ’84 strike captured the most important trade union dispute of our lives. It reminded me of the worry that I felt for my family—the knot that I had in my stomach for that whole year, when nearly all my uncles and cousins were colliers on strike. It took me back to the time when the community was united in standing by our lads. It also reminded me of Tory Minister Nick Ridley’s insidious plan to take on the miners—the miners whose side I would always be on and for whom I would always work.
Blaenau Gwent was built on the two pillars of coal and steel. The community and the culture were as strong as those pillars. There was not a lot of money in anyone’s pocket. I remember picking coal off the mountains as a small boy to heat our home during one strike. Families knew the toll that the heavy industries took—a terrible legacy that is shown these days in our poor health record. Despite all that, we had strong roots to rely on and high hopes for the next generation.
In the 30 years since, Blaenau Gwent has had a fight on its hands to get back on its feet. The two pillars are long gone and not enough private sector industry has filled the gap. Blaenau Gwent is slowly pulling itself up by its bootstraps, but we need a new deal to get us properly back on our feet. We have received good support from the Welsh Government and Europe for towns such as Ebbw Vale, which has a new school complex, a new hospital and much more on the site where the steelworks once stood. We now need support that not only strengthens our public services, but gives us a chance to thrive once more.
Blaenau Gwent is not alone. Our neighbouring valley boroughs need support too, and we need a valleys agenda to help us move forward. That is why I will continue to campaign for infrastructure improvements, such as the electrification of the valleys rail network and a new metro system. That would help to improve the access that valley people have to the bigger jobs market on the coast.
We need first-rate guidance for young people to dramatically improve their social mobility and access to the professions, so that they can get well-paid work and do not get trapped in low-skilled, low-paid jobs. We need a range of employers to be given every incentive to make coalfield communities such as Blaenau Gwent their home. Half measures are not enough. We have a strong responsibility to give every young person in Blaenau Gwent the chance to succeed. They do not have to pick coal off the mountain during strikes like we did, but they have their own difficulties in getting a good start in life.
The people in the south Wales valleys towns deserve the best possible support and a new deal for a better future. Only a Labour Government can see that job through.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I have a series of questions for the Minister.
In 2001, I was elected in a constituency that was awash with heroin, death from heroin and families plagued by heroin. We have beaten that back. Under the last Labour Government, crime was reduced by 400%. We now have a 30% cut in policing. Will the Government reverse the cut in front-line policing that I am seeing in my community? Will they get the police back on the beat in our communities, which we have lost under this Government?
Secondly, we are forced by the Government’s inspectorate to have housing where we do not want it and where the community rejects it, despite their so-called localism. There is a proposal from the council for 750 houses to be built on the Harworth colliery site with housing zone status. That is about to be determined by the Government. Will the Minister announce that we are going to get that, so that we can build housing there and move forward in that community?
Under the last Labour Government there was huge investment that led, for example, to Laing O’Rourke and the Steetley brickwork sites, creating 500 jobs. It led to the Manta Wood site with thousands of jobs, including at B&Q, Keltruck, and many others. We now want a brand new employment zone along the A1 down from the former Harworth colliery, and to create thousands of jobs, looking into the future, five, 10, and 15 years ahead, as well as tomorrow. Will the Government give us support and assistance in getting that?
Under the last Labour Government we got rid of the roundabouts on the A1—every single one went, which meant a 10-minute saving per journey for every company. That is huge amounts of money and jobs for major distribution companies. The Elkesley bridge, announced in 2009 by a Labour Government, is only just being built now because it was delayed by this Government. With high-speed rail coming in, will the Government commit to giving us the bypass and dual carriageway that we need to connect my community with new high-speed rail, and a rail link that is direct and immediate so that when it comes we can link to it?
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has done tremendous work, as has the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Under the previous Government we got £1.5 million for Manton miners welfare, which is the most successful football project for kids anywhere in this country, with the participation of other sites that CISWO owns—there are many more across the country. Will the Government put the money in to allow those sites to be properly regenerated and developed for sport in this country, because they are sat there waiting for it?
We have the biggest investment in new secondary schools per pupil anywhere in Britain, and in Bassetlaw, seven out of eight schools are newly built. However, we are still waiting for the one at Selby Park, which was meant to be built last. It was to be started in 2010, so will the Government announce after the five-year delay that Selby Park secondary school will be rebuilt like all the others in the middle of a former mining community that needs it?
Under this Government we have had to fight off privatisation and the closure of fire stations and ambulance stations. We want a guarantee that the NHS will not be privatised and that our 999 services will still be there. Finally, we must look to the future. The 400th anniversary of the pilgrim fathers is coming up, and there is Sherwood forest, which should be a new national park. There are new kinds of industry, so will the Government help us to develop them into the future?
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I will be as brief as possible. First, the “State of the coalfields” report published in June highlights major issues in coal mining communities, not just the closure programmes, but problems that have been there for decade upon decade and particularly concern jobs and ill health. It is all to do with income. Although the Government were right to say that unemployment is decreasing in mining communities, pro rata it is not decreasing half as much as it has done in the healthier south-east of this economy. That issue must be addressed and is highlighted well in that report.
The first intervention made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) was about who closed the coal mines in the last century, but it is a nonsense argument to say that Labour closed more mines between 1964 and 1974. The real question concerns who closed the coal mines, and when they closed, how much coal was imported into this country to replace it? Never under the Wilson Government did we bring coal into this country to replace coal lost as a result of the closure programme, which is what we had to do under the Thatcher Government. I came to the House in 1983, and I remember the coal miners’ strike—I have Orgreave in my constituency. I had left the coal industry fewer than 12 months before to come to this place, and I remember what happened.
I want to say two things. One concerns policing, and there are a lot of lessons to be learned from that. A national reporting centre was set up during the miners’ strike. Pro formas were handed out for police to charge people using effectively the same language. My constituency backed on to Nottinghamshire. People were prevented from leaving Yorkshire to go to Nottinghamshire, miles away from where there may have been a breach of the law. That was always going to be challenged, and it should have been challenged because the policing of the strike was wrong. In May 1984 the Police Federation condemned the use of pro forma charge sheets against miners.
Do not get me wrong: I and others in this Chamber criticised the police and the stone throwers. On several occasions I called for a public inquiry into the policing of the miners’ strike and I still believe we should have one now, because this should never happen again in our communities.
I hope we have learned from what happened at that time, which was revenge for 1974. I was a striking miner at that time and remember it well. I joined the Labour party in the February of that year.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) talked about regeneration and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is regenerating communities by giving grants to individual groups—a wonderful thing to do. The economic regeneration, like the advanced manufacturing plant that has been mentioned, began under the last Government through the regional development agency, which was abolished when this Government took office, and through objective 1 funding, because we were that poor that at the time we received European money. We should not forget that Europe did a lot to turn south Yorkshire round, although, as the report published in June this year showed, there is still a lot more to do on jobs and ill health in mining communities, which we have suffered for generations.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It has been humbling to listen to comrades who were involved in the miners’ strike. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) that I was indeed one of the women who was brought into the Labour movement—and very proud to be so.
I agree with everything that has been said about justice for communities, but I want to make a specific point about the plight of my coalfield community. The bottom line is that to this day the coal industry remains important to our local area. The open-cast companies have been responsible for the worst environmental disaster imaginable, with two companies being placed in administration in 2013. The immediate result was the loss of more than 300 jobs, but the massive scale of environmental devastation left in east Ayrshire soon became evident: an estimated 2,000 hectares of unrestored and disturbed land, with almost a quarter of the area having 22 voids, 16 of which are filled with water more than 50 metres deep, and often unstable cliffs.
Independent mining engineers have estimated restoration liabilities in line with the original planning permissions and approved restoration plans at £161 million—money that we do not have. The total amount available, if we are lucky, is only £28.6 million. An independent report by the council highlighted problems with its operations and with companies reneging on their responsibilities. That is why the communities that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) represent have been left devastated. Many failures, far too many to mention, are highlighted in the report. I strongly believe that, based on the findings of the report, there might be grounds for investigating the conduct of the directors of the coal operators, and I have raised this with the investigations and enforcement services of the Insolvency Service.
This remains a bruising experience for the communities of east Ayrshire and I have raised my concerns over the environmental devastation and lack of accountability numerous times and will continue to do so. I have raised this on the Floor of the House with previous Ministers and with this Minister. I look forward to the response. I know that in the past few days the leader of East Ayrshire council has raised it again with the Department. Responsibility is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but so far we have got absolutely no change from either.
I am a member of a coal taskforce—a cross-party initiative—that works closely with the communities. It is true that we have made some progress but, at the end of the day, we need funds to further the restoration. Hargreaves, a new company, has taken over some of the mines, but there is no way it will deal with the whole issue. I ask for a response from the Government. What will they do to help us? The disaster is the equivalent of foot and mouth and flooding. It should not have happened, but that is not the fault of my constituents. I yet again make a plea for assistance with this devastating problem.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
This has been an extraordinary debate this afternoon. The wisdom, passion and experience of millions of people have been distilled by Labour Members. Only three Government Back Benchers spoke, but they gave not a word of contrition. There was not even any body language, to show a sense of guilt, remorse or apology for what was done during those years of the miners’ strike. The passion expressed exemplifies the feelings that still exist in the mining communities.
Jon Trickett
I am not giving way to any hon. Member because we are running out of time.
From time to time, passion leads hon. Members to say things—I am referring to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood). We recognise that there are ongoing investigations and it would be wrong to reference any particular individual. It would be wrong to prejudice those proceedings.
I was a plumber at the time of the strike. I was elected to the council in the middle of the strike in September 1984. I spent part of my time going round pro bono fixing the heating and plumbing systems of striking miners. I was repeatedly stopped by the police, both in the process of my election and going about my lawful business. That exemplifies the experience of many tens of thousands of people in the mining communities during that time.
There is a special dignity for those who work with their hands. The Tories simply do not share that belief. They have a different value system, one based on greed and hierarchy. They believe that the closed circle that runs our country—their spokespeople in the House—were born to rule, and that the rest of us were born to serve. That characterised their attitude during the strike. If hon. Members do not believe me, they can look at the Prime Minister’s comments in Glasgow in 2008, when he said, effectively, that the poor are responsible for their poverty. He should tell the mining communities that they were responsible for their poverty. Hon. Members should look at the next leader of the Conservative party, Boris Johnson, who only last year when talking about inequality said in The Daily Telegraph that some people are too thick to get ahead. He should tell that to the mining communities after their experience.
The miners had a totally different set of values from those of the Tories. The Tories despised their values. Their values were of community, and of mutual support and solidarity. To this very day, there is an elemental sense of equality in mining communities. The miners did not know and never would accept the meaning of the word “deference”, and rightly so. The age of deference should have died long ago, but the Tories hated the idea that working people—any working people, but in this case the miners—should organise themselves around those values of community and solidarity and create the most powerful trade union this country has seen.
The 1984 Cabinet papers reveal the truth, the underhand tactics and even the lies of the Government of that time, both out in the communities and in the House. People talk about miners who continued to work, but they were lied to about the Government’s intentions. That is what happened.
The Government launched a full-scale assault on the mining communities and, in doing so, destroyed the independence of the police force. There were trumped-up charges all over the coalfield communities. Criminal justice was reduced to a political instrument. There is even evidence that members of the armed forces were dressed in police uniforms by the then Government, all this to achieve Tory party political objectives.
But we are not simply speaking today about history. The Tory attitude to the miners and the former mining communities is symbolic of a wider view that they have of working people as a whole. We need only look at the explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts, temporary work and false self-employment to see that the Conservatives have not changed. They are still the same old nasty party.
Once again the Conservatives are turning their back on mining communities. In my constituency, and I guess elsewhere too, the same women who worked in the soup kitchens during the miners’ strike, and their daughters, are now working in the food banks. How can that happen in one of the richest countries of the world in 2014? Nobody would believe it was possible. The Government have failed to understand that if society asks people to work with their hands in the bowels of the earth to help to create the wealth of our country, that society—our country—owes those people a debt of gratitude, which we might describe as a social contract. When mines are closed or industries die, we have a moral duty to look after the people who created the wealth of our country in such difficult circumstances.
The previous Government did much to honour the idea of a social contract. We spent billions of pounds compensating tens of thousands of former miners for miners diseases, from which many are still suffering today. In my constituency 12,500 miners or their families went through my office during those Labour years and received damages of over £100 million—in one constituency alone. The Labour Government invested £1.5 billion in coalfield regeneration, creating employment or training for 150,000 people. It was Labour that set up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which assisted more than 400,000 people in finding jobs, accessing skills, getting education and improving their health.
Although much was done in those 15 years, the job is not finished. There are still high levels of ill health in my constituency and in all the coalfield areas, with 7.4% of people in the Yorkshire coalfield areas suffering ill health, compared with 5.6% nationally. Then, in mining areas with high levels of chronic diseases, we face the insult of GP cuts and hospital closures.
Unemployment is still 40% higher in coalfield areas than the national average. Deprivation levels in coalfield areas remain at 43%—
Jon Trickett
I am not taking interventions.
Our society—our country—owes a debt to the miners and to all manual workers. Before I hand over to the Minister, I want to ask her four questions. First, will she on behalf of her party finally express some humility and apologise to the miners and the communities which it left devastated? Secondly, will she now authorise the release of all the papers held in the Government archives to find the truth about what happened in the mining communities, and will she authorise an independent inquiry into the events that surrounded the strike?
Thirdly, may we have a clear assurance that if the Government are still minded, even at this late stage, to find state aid to help the three remaining deep mine pits, that aid will not accelerate closure but will allow the pits to continue until the reserves are exhausted? Finally, will the Minister commit the Government to the full-scale ongoing process of regenerating the coalfield areas? Those people put themselves in harm’s way for the health and wealth of our country. Do we not have a responsibility to make sure that those communities are properly remunerated and regenerated in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
As ever, I have come to the Chamber this afternoon in the spirit of being helpful and focused on the needs and ambitions of communities across the country. Usually, there are asks in Opposition or Adjournment debates—for more investment, greater freedom or support for public services and good causes—but there has been little of that this afternoon. Understandably, there is speculation about why the Opposition have used up their time on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I could continue to speculate about that, but I would rather focus on the needs of the communities that Opposition Members are supposed to be serving. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the important role that our nation’s mining heritage can play in that.
In that respect, this debate is timely, as this Thursday sees a ceremony marking the groundbreaking Betteshanger Sustainable Park development in Kent—Betteshanger, of course, being the last pit to close in Kent. I was fortunate enough to visit the site only last week, to see for myself how the landmark development will transform the former Betteshanger colliery into a 21st-century global laboratory for green technologies. This pioneering project, backed by £40 million of investment, with £11 million of public sector funding, including £2.5 million from the Government’s coastal communities fund, has helped to trigger £29 million of private investment.
Betteshanger Sustainable Park is a major shot in the arm for east Kent. It will celebrate Kent’s coal mining heritage, which is juxtaposed with sustainable technologies in a world-class, zero-carbon building. It will deliver new jobs and regeneration to the whole area, putting the local community right at the heart of the development and attracting significant private sector support. The development will also provide improved access to cycling and outdoor pursuits—important facilities for local people.
The centre, scheduled to open in spring 2016, will create a new national eco-tourism visitor destination, attracting more than 1 million visitors a year. It will showcase mining heritage and sustainable energy production. A bespoke green technologies enterprise complex will provide space for companies in food security, environmental technology and green business. The Betteshanger sustainable education centre will support world-class research and development in environmental and countryside programmes, climate change, sustainability, and agro-ecology and production. The park itself, a gateway to east Kent, will provide lifelong learning, shops, public spaces and events, and create 1,000 jobs.
Penny Mordaunt
I am going to carry on.
That is just one example of how such communities are regenerating themselves—[Interruption]—although I am sorry that the Opposition do not want to hear it. The Government’s approach, in Kent as elsewhere, has been to enable local people, businesses and organisations, who know better than anyone else what is needed and where, to make their own decisions and set their own priorities. That is as true for coalfield communities as it is anywhere else. As part of our long-term economic plan to secure Britain’s future, the Government have agreed a series of growth deals with businesses and local communities across England which will support local businesses to train young people, create thousands of new jobs, build thousands of new homes and start hundreds of infrastructure projects. There is an opportunity for local enterprise partnerships that cover former coalfield areas to play a major role in taking regeneration forward.
We have also created enterprise zones in former coalfield areas—for example, the Sheffield city region enterprise zone, which has sites on a number of former local collieries. The Orgreave colliery and coking plant has now been transformed into a centre for advanced manufacturing, while Markham Vale is benefiting from £14.2 million of capital grant funding to develop a sustainable business park, which has just announced the latest new occupier, Inspirepac, which is expanding its operation and creating hundreds of new jobs. Many Members have also mentioned the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has created and safeguarded more than 4,000 jobs, helped more than 125,000 gain new skills—
Helen Goodman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister who opened the debate said that unemployment in my constituency, and in several others, had fallen. I have checked, and the Office for National Statistics says that in June 2010 unemployment was 4,300, while the latest figures are 4,400. I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to correct himself at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Speaker
The point is on the record, but that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister will respond if she chooses to do so, and not if she chooses not to.
Penny Mordaunt
Not much has been said by Labour Members about the issues of concern to all our constituents, so I am happy to provide some balance. I can understand Labour Members not wanting to talk about growth or job creation in their own constituencies, but I had thought that at the very least they might wish to address some of the outstanding issues. Today, for example, there has been some sad news that a manufacturing plant in Barnsley has announced that it is going to close, with the loss of 120 jobs. I am pleased to see that those whose jobs are at risk are being properly supported, but I was surprised not to hear about that in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher).
As I say, I can understand the Opposition not wanting to talk about growth and jobs, but I would have thought that they would want to discuss the remaining challenges. That is our focus. It is we who are focused on getting people back into work and supporting businesses and helping communities to regenerate themselves and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, Labour seems to have different priorities.
The contributions we have heard this afternoon have fallen firmly into two camps. From those on the Opposition Benches, we have heard speeches that have made the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and his hybrid car look positively “with it”—speeches that have been focused on the past or on smearing members of the upper House. There was not a pipsqueak from the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) or for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) about the achievements of businesses in their constituencies and how they are reinventing themselves in rail manufacturing, to give just one example. No Labour Member has sought to explain this afternoon why they did not reverse any of the trade union reforms they have so vilified today, or why in its 13 years in government, Labour did not tackle any of the issues Labour Members have raised today.
By contrast, contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) have been focused on the future, on growth, job creation and helping their communities to achieve their ambitions.
Let me put on record the achievements of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which now has a sustainable future, after its investment in property and other assets. There is also the work of the Homes and Communities Agency’s coalfields programme, which was due to progress the physical regeneration of former coalfield sites. This work is nearing completion, and the associated land assets are expected to form part of the HCA’s up and coming programme to dispose of public sector land. The HCA has invested about £660 million in coalfield areas during the life of the coalfields programme. The DCLG’s coalfields funds, the coalfields enterprise fund and the coalfields growth fund have also been investing in innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in deprived former coalfield areas. This will continue until 2016, when the investment phase is due to end. Other sources of investment for SMEs across the board are now available, and these funds have proved to be much more effective than the coalfield fundings, being directed through local enterprise partnerships. Much has been achieved, but there is obviously much more to do.
In closing, I will say sorry. I am sorry that Her Majesty’s Opposition are stuck in the 1970s. Their constituents and their businesses are firmly in 2014, and I hope that for their sake, their Labour representatives join them in the 21st century some time soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the economic legacy of the pit closure programme in coalfield communities across the United Kingdom; notes that the recent release of the relevant 1984 Cabinet papers showed that the Government at the time misled the public about the extent of its pit closure plans and sought to influence police tactics; recognises the regeneration of former coalfield areas over the last fifteen years, the good work of organisations such as the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, and the largest industrial injury settlement in legal history secured by the previous Government for former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema; further recognises the ongoing problems highlighted recently by the report produced by Sheffield Hallam University on The State of the Coalfields, which revealed that there are still significant problems for the majority of Britain’s coalfield communities, such as fewer jobs, lower business formation rates, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, higher numbers in receipt of welfare benefits and a struggling voluntary and community sector; and therefore calls for the continued regeneration and much needed support for coalfield communities as part of a wider programme to boost growth in Britain’s regions.
A5 Trunk Road (M42/M69)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
When Members have toddled out of the Chamber, speedily and quietly, Mr Marcus Jones can rise to his feet to orate.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I am delighted to have been able to secure a debate about one of the busiest and most congested parts of our strategic road network. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) is present—he, too, has a constituency interest in this busy stretch of the A5—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his time, and for the consideration that I hope he will give to the debate.
Let me explain why I am concerned about this stretch of the A5, and why I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink about the future of that busy highway for the sake of my constituents who live on the route, and for the sake of economic growth in the west and east midlands corridor.
The A5, or Watling street, which marks the northern boundary of my constituency, was built by the Romans, who originally built the road from Londinium to Deva—or London to Chester, as we know them today. I have not established the exact date when Watling street was built, but the fact that the Romans withdrew from Britain in 410 AD gives us a slight clue as to the longevity of the route. I am certain that the sheer volume of traffic that would use Watling street in the 21st century was never envisaged, even once the ownership of cars became commonplace after the second world war. That is why so many other sections of the busy road, which now stretches from London to Holyhead, have been substantially changed to reflect the volume of vehicles that use it.
Today, the A5 between junction 10 of the M42 and junction 1 of the M69 is one of the most congested routes on the strategic road network, particularly between the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout. That section is considered to be the 15th most congested section of road on the network. Many of my constituents live along Watling Street and on feeder roads such as the Longshoot, Higham lane, Weddington road and Woodford lane. They live every day with the imposition of queuing traffic, high levels of noise and massive pollution.
The pressure on the route is often compounded when traffic shifts from the M6 to the A5. There are regular closures on the M6. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have expressed concern in the House before about the safety of junctions 1 to 4 on the M6, where there are regular accidents. My constituents are affected by the way in which the traffic shifts from the motorway through my constituency to the A5 in order to reach the M42 and the M69. You probably think that that is a subject for a debate on another day, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give my comments some consideration tonight.
Over the decades, this section of the A5 has undergone numerous redesigns to deal with safety issues and to mitigate the growing number of vehicles on our roads. For many years my constituents have suffered from the disruption of regular roadworks that are intended to improve the situation. At this very moment, work is taking place from the Dodwells roundabout to the Royal Red Gate junction, where the A5 meets the A444. Just tonight, I was interviewed on BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire about the issue, along with a very disgruntled lady who was less than happy about the current disruption. I think that that disruption is extremely unfortunate, but it is quite necessary. Much of the work that is being undertaken between the Royal Red Gate and Higham lane junctions is facilitating the new Motor Industry Research Association technology park, which is creating more than 2,000 new jobs. As well as the new jobs, that part of the route will have a very positive effect on the local area because it is being turned into dual carriageway. Inevitably, that progress will put greater stress on the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout east of MIRA, but that will largely be mitigated by the current pinch-point scheme now under construction. The changes now taking place on the A5 will have a positive effect and there will be gain for the pain that my constituents and the many users of this busy route are experiencing.
I am also convinced, however, that we need a longer-term solution and we must seek it now. We cannot wait five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we consider the future. That would not be right for my constituents or the wider west and east midlands economy.
A substantial amount of development is planned along the A5 corridor both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. As my constituents know, I do not agree with all the development plans being promoted by the local planning authority in my constituency. However, it appears from the approach it is taking that these developments will go ahead whether I or my constituents like them or not. We must therefore think about substantive solutions for this section of the A5 to deal with the future issues.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will also be aware of the significant partnership-working currently taking place on the issue between the Highways Agency, the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, the Leicester and Leicestershire LEP, Warwickshire county council, Leicestershire county council, and the Nuneaton and Bedworth, Hinckley and Bosworth and North Warwickshire borough councils. The Minister will know that those agencies have jointly started to conduct some very embryonic work on a strategic enhancement of this section of the A5. They are looking at the issues and constraints that affect that busy section of highway.
That work has been conducted by the partnership, which has been formed because there is a strong business case for a long-term solution to the problems we face on that section of highway. It is thought that a long-term solution for that section of the A5 could bring savings of £680 million through better travel times, lower vehicle operating costs and a reduction in the accident rate on what is a busy stretch of road. That proposal aligns with the strategic growth aspirations of both the public sector and the private sector in the area. This evening I am asking the Minister to look at the detail of the embryonic work that has already been conducted and that I am sure his Department has seen.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the A5, which is an important route from the M1 at junction 18 to the north-west, avoiding the M6. I wonder whether we might persuade the Minister to look at the southern part of the A5 as well, from the M69 down to the M1. There will be very substantial housing and commercial development at the junction 18 end, and we could use that as an opportunity to improve that thoroughfare.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who represents Rugby. I completely agree with his request in relation to the section further down the A5, which can only help the situation further up the A5, to the benefit of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. I would also say in that regard that the work currently going on at the Catthorpe interchange, where the M6 meets the M1-A14, will have an extremely positive effect for our constituents in addressing, hopefully, some of the issues—not all, but some—that I referred to earlier: the A5 and Nuneaton get so clogged with traffic due to accidents on the M6.
This evening, I am asking the Minister to speak to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor about this issue, which is a matter of major concern for my constituents and many other people living in the region. He will know that the embryonic work has been carried out. I am now looking for a sympathetic ear in the hope that he will put forward my argument that funding for a further in-depth investigation and feasibility study of this busy stretch of the strategic road network should be made available. The investigation needs to include all stakeholders, particularly the people who live on and are affected by the current route.
I know how diligent the Minister is. He has helped me personally with other issues in my constituency, including the fallout following the closure of Daw Mill colliery. I remember the assistance that he gave me at that time, and I am confident that he will try to help in whatever way he can now. We have an autumn statement coming up, and I am sure that he will make a strong case to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor so that we can look at the long-term future of this busy section of the A5, which needs urgent consideration. I hope that the points that I have put on record tonight will go some way to enabling the case to go forward, so that we can do the right thing for my constituents. That has not been achieved under numerous Governments over the decades, and my constituents have had to put up with absolute mayhem on that section of this busy route.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for sharing the debate with me. He has done a great job in representing Nuneaton in the House since his election. He has been a credit to his constituents and it has always been a pleasure to work with him.
The problem with this section of the A5 is a problem of success as much as of failure. The huge expansion of MIRA as well as of the business park that was agreed by my right hon. Friend the Minister’s coalition colleagues, has created thousands of jobs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, this is a unique stretch of road. Indeed, the section to which he referred, between Dodwells bridge and the Longshoot, actually consists of two roads: the A5 Watling street and the A47. However, the one does not run above the other. Both are confined into the space of a narrow highway the width of an old-fashioned turnpike.
My hon. Friend has talked about the importance of the road generally. I should like to alert the Minister to a specific problem that is affecting my constituency at the crossing of the A444 and the A5 at the Royal Red Gate junction. I raise the matter because it reflects badly on the organisations concerned, including the Government, the Highways Agency, the county council and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, none of which has properly consulted Witherley parish council about the matter.
I should like to say a few words about parish councils. The people representing their residents on parish councils are the salt of the earth. They are often very clever people such as the chair of Witherley parish council, who was the head of government and industry affairs at East Midlands airport. We have in this instance a complete failure of communication, in that the local people are under the strong impression that they are not being properly consulted. I ask the Minister to ensure that, when the roundabout at the Royal Red Gate junction is developed, clear signage is put in place to divert the long-distance traffic off on to the M42 and well away from the A5. Also, we do not want the problem of rat runs being blocked, or unblocked, without consultation. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for raising this important matter, and I look forward—as I am sure he does—to hearing the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate on the A5 trunk road between the M42, junction 10 and the M69, junction 2. As has been said, he has been a tireless campaigner on the need for future investment in this road, and I recognise his continuing courageous determination in that respect. He has raised this issue on behalf of his constituents, local businesses and the local economy. C.S Lewis said that
“courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point”.
My hon. Friend’s courage has been in evidence once again tonight in raising these matters.
This Government recognise the crucial role that transport infrastructure plays in facilitating growth across the country and creating a more balanced economy, but that alone would not be justification, of itself; I take the view, and have increasingly evangelised it in the Department and more widely, that improving transport is also about well-being, communal opportunity, individual chances to gain employment and new experiences, and good civil society. I see transport and communications in that broader perspective, which I know my hon. Friend shares. In connecting communities and in enabling people to access jobs, services and leisure, transport can play a vital role in regenerative efforts. That is why we have been determined to reverse the effects of the previous Administration’s neglect by securing significant levels of investment in our strategic road network.
All Governments make mistakes and all Governments do things well. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I like to be generous in these matters, but one of the previous regime’s mistakes was to allow their approach to roads to be driven by the piecemeal, the ad hoc and the reactive. By contrast, this Government are taking a strategic, long-term, lateral view of the importance of investing in roads, which is why we have committed five-year funding to strategic road investment. Hon. Members will know that the detail of that investment in strategic transport infrastructure was set out by the Chancellor in last year’s spending review statement. The Treasury Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s future” set out that this Government will invest more than £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads over the period up to 2020-21. That long-term vision, backed by funding, will build consistency and coherence into the approach we take to road development. It means that existing roads will be improved—we are resurfacing about 80% of the nation’s roads— and we will invest £10.7 billion in major national road projects, as well as £6 billion in the maintenance of strategic roads.
On the future investment in the strategic network, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process. Route strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning across the network, through greater collaboration with local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of those investments. The process has been hallmarked by two stages, the first of which has been completed. It identified performance issues on routes, future challenges and growth opportunities, taking full account of local priorities and aspirations, with the finalised evidence made available on 23 April. The second stage is well under way; utilising the evidence, we are establishing outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network, and we will take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions, which will cover operational, maintenance and, if appropriate, road improvement schemes to inform future investment plans.
Mark Pawsey
Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of the improvement of such roads to the road haulage industry—many of its firms are based in my constituency—and the important part that logistics plays in our national economy?
Mr Hayes
Indeed, and it was for that very reason that I met the representative body of road hauliers just last week, in the spirit that my hon. Friend personifies. In congratulating and applauding the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), who have been tireless campaigners in the defence of and, moreover, in their aspirations for their constituents. They have all taken a particular interest in the A5.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I say that, as a Transport Minister, he is also the people’s friend? In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), may I pray in aid the A5, which is a very important route that my constituents use from the exit of the M42? One part of that exit, which is not dualled, is the exit going towards my hon. Friend’s constituency through north Warwickshire. The route is important for infrastructure and for my constituents. I urge the Minister to listen to what he says.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend follows in the tradition of his predecessor, Sir Robert Peel, who also represented Tamworth, in his determination to do what is right for those whom he serves. I prefer to be inspired by Disraeli, as perhaps my hon. Friend does too. None the less, that is an important tradition, and he makes, as always, a powerful argument in this Chamber.
The Government already recognise the importance of improving the A5. The Highways Agency pinch-point scheme for the M42 junction 10, which was completed earlier this year, along with the Highways Agency pinch- point scheme for the A5-A47 Longshoot and Dodwells junctions, which has recently started on site, are due to be completed by March 2015.
In addition, the MIRA enterprise zone, which is located adjacent to the A5 in Hinckley, was successful in securing regional growth funding with which it is providing A5 improvements. Those improvements include increasing the capacity at the A444 Red Gate junction as well as improving the access arrangements to the site itself. Those works are currently on site and are expected to be completed by March 2015.
Overall, these schemes show Government investment of around £15 million into improving this section of the A5. However, I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is concerned that the scale and potential economic and housing growth along the corridor will place increasing pressure on the A5 and that—he has made the case tonight—further investment in the route is necessary. To that end I commend the efforts made by—
Mr Hayes
Let me finish what I was saying, as I am about to commend my hon. Friend and I know that he would not want to miss that.
I was about to say that I commend the efforts made to date by my hon. Friend, along with the relevant local stakeholders, to engage with the Highways Agency through its route strategy process. I recognise that concerns over the capacity of the A5 were raised by a number of local stakeholders during the Highways Agency’s route strategy stakeholder event, with a particular reference to the notable economic and housing development planned along the corridor.
Mr Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, which will, I am sure, be matched with action by him to support my constituents in relation to this important route. May I also impress on him the importance of consultation with the public in relation to any changes to the A5? Over many years, there have been lots of different reconfigurations, particularly at the Red Gate and Longshoot junctions, on which, unfortunately, my constituents have not been consulted. Many think that, as a result, they have not seen the best outcomes.
Mr Hayes
At this point, to the distress of my officials no doubt, I will detach myself from the prepared brief and say two things. First, if that is the case, then I will give this guarantee to the House tonight from this Dispatch Box that we will improve the way in which we engage with local stakeholders to ensure that any omission or error is not completed. Secondly, as my hon. Friend mentioned that the A5 was a Roman road, I will draw on G.K. Chesterton’s poem, “The Rolling English Road”. I am inspired by the following words. Chesterton talked about walking with
“clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth.”
I assure my hon. Friend that with that clear sight, this listening Minister in this listening Government will ensure once again that local people’s views are taken fully into account.
David Tredinnick
I am not seeking a commendation such as that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton.
There has been poor consultation on the Red Gate junction. If the Minister is going to put up barriers on these major roads, they will have to be concrete to make sure that no one can break through them when they are not supposed to.
Mr Hayes
I am mindful of what my hon. Friend says and I want to pay particular attention to those remarks and his earlier remarks if I have time in a few moments. He raised some important concerns that are particular but deserve full consideration.
As I say, I commend the partnership working between local authorities along the corridor, with the relevant Government departments, including the Highways Agency, and the efforts that have been undertaken recently to carry out an initial study of the potential substantive options for the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton paid attention to that in his remarks. Although this is only an initial step, as he acknowledged, I understand that the embryonic work indicates that a very significant scheme to improve the full length of the route between the M42 and the M69 to dual carriageway standard may be an appropriate long-term option.
This proposal is being considered by the Highways Agency through the route strategy process. At this stage I cannot guarantee that funding further to progress the study work for such a solution to the A5 will be included in the upcoming roads investment strategy, but I will guarantee this evening that it will be actively considered, along with other proposals for the strategic network, and mindful of the remarks of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have fought this brave campaign, I will reinforce those concerns when I return to the Department tomorrow morning.
I want to say a particular word to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, because he has raised some specific doubts about some of the road closures that have taken place. This is not the first time that he has raised them in the House. Again, his diligence speaks for itself. I want to give him this assurance. I understand that the road closures in their current format meet safety and access requirements and though the disruption is significant for some, I know he welcomes growth across the network. As a result of his intervention tonight, I will ask the Department to look again at the impact of those closures, what more the Highway Agency can do to make sure they are as minimal as they can be, and to take any further measures to ease problems that may arise from that disruption.
I said at the outset of the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has done the House a service. It may be unconventional, but I take the view that Government policy should be framed and shaped through debates such as this. It is not sufficient for a Minister to stand here and not respond to hon. Members’ concerns, on whatever side of the Chamber they sit. I will ensure that in all the work we do as a Government, and our agencies do on our behalf, the considerations of hon. Members, representing and articulating as they do the concerns of the people they serve, are at the very heart of what the Government do.
C. S. Lewis also said:
“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.”
I know that my hon. Friend’s goal, and that of other hon. Members, is that the A5 serves its purpose in delivering the well-being that I described and fuelling the economic growth that we all seek. This debate has taken that dream one step further.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 6 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
Copycat Websites (Government Services)
(9 years, 6 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
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
People’s experience of the internet is generally good. Whether for skyping friends and relatives, ordering groceries online or even starting a business, the internet has changed the world beyond all recognition. Like many, I am pleased that older people, who may have viewed computers with suspicion in the past, have embraced the internet positively.
Sadly, although the internet provides great opportunities, it also presents threats. One is copycat websites for Government services, which are part of a growing industry that exists purely to trick the public out of their hard-earned money. That industry thrives by using underhand methods to fool people into paying way over the odds for Government services. In many cases, the victims are too embarrassed to report being ripped off, or simply do not know where to go to complain.
Research by Which? has revealed that more and more of its readers are being exposed to such websites each year. The sites exist for virtually anything, including paying taxes, obtaining driving licences, changing one’s name, applying for passports and birth certificates and even registering a bereavement. People are being tricked into paying up to £1,000 more than they should for such services.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not only that people are being duped into paying over the odds for Government services but that they are sharing personal information that should be secure? When renewing her driving licence, an 82-year-old constituent of mine thought that a company called Net-secure was the payment arm of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Her bank cancelled her payment to that company, but months later she found a similar payment had been taken from her by a company with a similar name. We should bear in mind that aspect as well.
Chris Evans
I agree with my hon. Friend. I raised the matter with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday. What tends to happen is that people’s personal information is sold to criminal gangs, which then use it for further scams and to rip people off.
Often, as we know, the services I have mentioned are free through official channels. I welcome the extra funding for the National Trading Standards Board that was announced recently, but I have to say that action on the issue has to date been painfully slow. Copycat websites are taking money, through unfair means, from every MP’s constituents, yet in most cases the companies that trick people are doing so legally. It is not just that the sites are able to charge a reviewing and forwarding fee that in most cases is not actually required; many also charge an administration fee, which is not quoted until it is too late to back out of the transaction.
Perhaps most worrying of all, as my hon. Friend said, is the potential for identity theft. The sites collect all sorts of personal data. No one really knows what they do with the information, but there is the potential to sell it to criminal gangs.
In my constituency a gentlemen called Mr Tom Williams was recently tricked into paying an extra £40 for a tax disc. Like many people across the country who have been caught out by such websites, Mr Williams looked at the design of the site, which looked like an official Government site. It ranked highly on search engines, which also suggested that it was an official Government site, and it seemed to be a professional and effective service. Only later did Mr Williams realise that he had paid significantly more than he needed to for his tax disc. His case is not an isolated incident.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I have had constituents caught by precisely the same DVLA scam. Like him, I have been frustrated by the slow pace of change and the almost complacent attitude of the Office of Fair Trading to the implications of this issue.
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree. The worst aspect of the DVLA scam is that people need a tax disc. It worries me that, as we move away from the traditional tax disc to a system of paying by direct debit, people could perhaps be scammed monthly, and pay over the odds every single month, because websites will be getting residual income every time.
Research conducted by Ipsos MORI for the Advertising Standards Agency found that the features that are important to people in deciding whether a site is official include the general design, the look and feel, the text describing the service and—perhaps most tellingly—the presence of a professional logo. Most, if not all, copycat websites are designed to look as much as possible like Government sites. They use text that describes services that sound official and many have logos that make them look like they are representing the Government.
On Sunday I checked one such site, europeanhealthcard. org.uk. It carries a picture of a European health insurance card front and centre, and describes itself as “a registered institution” that guarantees
“genuine service and complete secrecy about your personal information”.
It promises
“a full and comprehensive review of your application and forwarding within the mentioned time-period”
and states that it will
“make sure that all your details are filled in properly, without any typographical mistakes”
and ensure that
“all the necessary information is presented in the application form for a speedy delivery.”
However, hidden in the terms and conditions of the site, it is made clear that the company is unable to do anything to ensure a “speedy delivery” and that it will not accept any liability if data are spoiled.
In effect, the company promises a service that it is unable to deliver. It promises to help with people’s applications and to keep their data safe, but its terms and conditions make it clear that none of that is guaranteed. Even in the event that personal health information is lost or misplaced, the company claims that it has absolutely no liability. It is fair to say that if a website charges for a free Government service, such as the European health insurance card, but does not guarantee anything it claims to be able to do, it is not offering a fair price. That site is just one example of websites designed to have the look and feel of Government sites; they promise a professional, effective service for a fair price but, when looked into, provide anything but that.
I could give examples of many more websites that act in that manner and make every effort allowed within the law to trick people out of money. What is more telling is the silence of such companies. Many do not have contact numbers available online and are registered to post office boxes. As for those who do list contact numbers, my staff have contacted them but so far have faced a wall of silence, and have been unable to speak to anyone involved with corporate affairs. They have never been allowed past the operator. That is not just our experience. When newspapers have launched investigations, they have found it impossible to get in contact with the operators of copycat websites. It seems that, when faced with scrutiny, the companies that run such sites shut them down. I invite anyone running any of those companies who wishes to defend themselves to get in contact with me personally. I am more than happy to hear what they have to say.
We need concrete action to tackle copycat websites, to deal not just with their presence online but with the companies and people behind them. Since receiving extra funding six months ago, Trading Standards has taken action against a small number of copycat websites and has posted a new web page with guidance. But Ipsos MORI research for the Advertising Standards Agency has shown that people with the lowest levels of online literacy are the most at risk of being tricked by the sites. An online guide will do little to help those people avoid paying over the odds for Government services.
I welcome the decision by Google, working in conjunction with the Government, not to take advertising from a website once it has been identified as a copycat. That is a step in the right direction, as most of the websites pay for adverts that are often placed above the official Government website in search results. However, it takes time to work out whether sites paying for such adverts are indeed copycat websites. As we know, the internet moves far more quickly than Government or, indeed, society.
Although the regulatory agencies try to keep people safe from copycat websites, their actions are limited by the law. I accept that no regulation should make it difficult for legitimate companies to operate, but can anyone really claim that the tactics pursued by copycat websites are anything less than unfair? I fear we are heading towards the same situation that we faced with nuisance calls, when it took years for relevant legislation to be updated.
Earlier this year, amendment 69 to the Consumer Rights Bill would have made it unfair behaviour for a consumer to be mis-sold a service on what they believed was an official site. At the time, the Government argued that the amendment was not necessary—that they were working with search engines and regulatory agencies and that that would stop misleading websites. Since then, five people have been arrested in connection with copycat websites, and 25 sites have been shut down. Those figures are woefully low.
In January this year, The Mail on Sunday reported that a trading standards investigation and enforcement manager had told it that it was “extremely difficult” for trading standards to take action against most copycat websites. The investigation found that many people who ran copycat websites used multiple addresses and registered offices to confound trading standards. Even when the people behind schemes are identified and caught, most are found to have done nothing against the law.
It is time for the Government to look again at the legislation on copycat websites. Although trading standards staff are working to the best of their capacity to tackle these websites, they are dealing with a fast-moving world, and once one website is shut down, another is set up almost immediately under another name. While progress is slow, the least digitally engaged—often older and more vulnerable people—are being tricked into spending more of their hard-earned money than necessary. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I would like to see a three-pronged attack on copycat websites. First, there should be prevention. Transport for London already writes to anyone who has paid the congestion charge through a third-party website informing them that they have done so, and it is also consulting on a proposal to ban payment of the congestion charge through such websites. That is a good idea, which the Government should take on board. In addition, when someone is reminded by letter that they need to renew their TV licence or car tax, they should be alerted to the existence of copycat websites and directed to sites with addresses that end in .gov.uk.
Secondly, there should be regulation. When people are stung by copycat websites, there should be only one agency that they can complain to. At the moment, it can be one of three: the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards or the Office of Fair Trading. There should one number and one website.
Thirdly, there should be legislation. The Government should look again at the Consumer Rights Bill and the amendment that I mentioned. Where someone believes that they are using an official website, but they are being tricked, there should be some remedy in law and some way for them to be compensated for their loss.
Much has been done in this area, but there is still much more to do. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these proposals and finally put a stop to people being ripped off online.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I apologise for my tardy entry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate, and on the clarity with which he described the harm that copycat websites inflict on many of our constituents. As he indicated, they are not always illegal, but they often trick people into paying extra for services provided more cheaply or free of charge through official Government channels.
There are, of course, legitimate third-party services that help people to make transactions with the Government, and we are not here to criticise, for example, the Post Office check and send service for passports, or accounting firms that check people’s tax returns before they submit them, because such services really do add value. However, there are plenty of websites that do nothing other than charge a fee for the regular application or service. As I shall explain, the people who tend to use Government services most are often those who are least digitally literate.
Many Government services are also offered offline, but it is clear that many will be offered only online in future. That has clear benefits for the Government and the people and businesses using those services, but like other Members here, I have been contacted by constituents who have fallen foul of copycat websites, and the Minister must set out for us what he will do to address the issue.
To give one example, a man in my constituency, who was actually comfortable using technology and the internet, renewed a tax disc online. He used what he thought was an official website and was charged an extra fee. He was not a vulnerable person—he was confident about using the internet and digital public services—but he was scammed by this copycat website.
Technology is transforming our lives and will continue to do so for many years to come. It is transforming Government services and the way they are delivered. It has the potential not only to save money, but to empower people. As a country, we are not even beginning to reap the positive benefits that such changes can bring. Technology, and the internet in particular, have often been hailed as forces for freedom, democracy and accountability. As someone who worked as an engineer in technology for two decades before coming to this place, I have spent my life championing the ability of technology to transform our society for the better, as we all want it to. However, technology can also provoke fears and suspicion, particularly among certain groups, and copycat websites are one of a growing number of wider security and consumer rights concerns.
Digital government is a relatively new development in the long history of governance, but the Government have known about the growing problem of copycat websites for some time. As my hon. Friend said, the Opposition tabled an amendment during the passage of the Consumer Rights Bill earlier this year specifically to allow us to look at the sources of mass applications and block websites not providing an actual service. The amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that Ministers were beavering away behind the scenes and that action would be forthcoming. However, seven months have passed, and the only discernible action I have seen is a trading standards press release warning people to
“Wise up to the web”.
When the Minister responds, will he tell us what work has been going on since the debate on that amendment, what is planned and what the timeline is, because I am not convinced that Ministers are doing enough to protect citizens and businesses, or to help them protect themselves? Will the Government support Opposition amendments on this issue to the Consumer Rights Bill when they are re-tabled in the Lords later this year, or will we have more weasel words from Ministers?
When I asked about this issue in a written question in January, the Treasury said that it took no interest in the use of third-party websites, and that it responded on a case-by-case basis. It apparently said that because the Cabinet Office is leading a cross-Government initiative on the issue. The Minister is not from the Cabinet Office, but can he update us on that initiative? Can he at least tell us what it is called and what it has achieved so far?
Ministers need to ensure that individuals, businesses, industry and the public sector are protected as much as possible from digital crime and fraud. Part of that is about ensuring that people have the skills to protect themselves and to be confident online. However, the Government have a lamentable record on digital inclusion and skills. Their own digital inclusion strategy, which took four years to produce, has as its premise that 10% of people will be left behind by technology. I would not say that it was a good start for an inclusion strategy to exclude one in 10 people. Will the Minister therefore explain his view of digital inclusion as one way to address the harm caused by copycat websites?
Right now, as my hon. Friend so elegantly described, many people are experiencing what I call digital discomfort: the sense that the security services know whom we are calling and that Amazon is telling us what we should be buying; concern that online porn is too accessible to our children; or the nagging doubt that the website on which we renew our passport may not be the Government website that we think it is—the one we trust. Not enough is being done across the board to protect and include the most vulnerable. If we do not act quickly to tackle problems such as copycat websites, we risk undermining trust in digital government specifically, and technology more generally. As we know, trust is hard to gain and easy to lose. There is a general issue about trust in digital services, which is why we must work hard to give the public the confidence to put their trust in the digital services offered by Government.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Ministers announced over the weekend that they would finally take action on nuisance calls. That is a welcome move after years of dithering. It should not have taken so long, or taken so much pressure from Members, to get the Government to move on that. None of us advocates knee-jerk reactions, but copycat websites have long been a growing scam, and I feel that the Minister should now be prepared and able to set out a concrete plan of action.
Some 80% of Government interactions with the public take place with the bottom 25% of society, but only a quarter of people living in deprived areas have used a Government online service or website in the past year, compared to 55% nationally. There are still 5 million households that have no access to the internet because either they do not want it or cannot get it. Millions more do not feel confident using it, for one reason or another, be it security fears or a lack of digital literacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn mentioned research by Ipsos MORI for the Advertising Standards Authority, which found that those who were less confident online or had low digital literacy were more likely to go on to or use copycat websites. That may seem obvious, but it is an important point. There is a wider issue of digital inclusion that I am afraid the Government do not take seriously enough. We have some excellent digital services. The DVLA is often praised, and the Government Digital Service’s award-winning gov.uk website recently celebrated its 1 billionth hit.
Further down the track, more and more services will be delivered digitally. Universal credit is one. A copycat website for a tax disc is a problem, but copycat websites for universal credit—should it ever be launched—will be, by an order of magnitude, a bigger problem for many of the poorer and least privileged among us, as well as for the Government.
I am sure that the Minister will talk a lot about cross-departmental working and Cabinet Office initiatives. I know that it is outside his portfolio, but can he tell us what is going on with local government? Research in support of the review of digital government that will soon report to the Labour party has found that local government technology varies considerably. Among local authorities, where so many public services are delivered and where many citizens get most of their experience of Government, there are pockets of greatness but a vastly disparate set of solutions and services. In my constituency, Newcastle council’s trading standards service produces a newsletter informing local groups of the latest scams, including copycat websites, and things to look out for. If we can prevent some scams of that kind at source, local trading standards offices such as Newcastle’s, which is under incredible financial pressure, will be freed to concentrate on other issues.
Research by my office on police capability found that police practices and resources for cybercrime and fraud vary greatly across the country. Again, that issue is outside the Minister’s portfolio, but in his discussions with colleagues has he made an assessment of the scale of the problem and the resources needed to respond, specifically within police forces? On a similar topic, has the Minister had any information from the Government Digital Service on the scale of the problem and of the response required, and the resources it is putting towards addressing it?
Technology offers us an unprecedented opportunity to transform public service delivery. We must ensure that that opportunity is not undermined; we cannot afford to underestimate the possibility. Politicians must champion the positive power of technology and we must not allow emerging threats to stifle the huge opportunities that it offers us, socially, culturally and economically.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), for their contributions.
I share the anger and frustration about the cause highlighted by the hon. Member for Islwyn. I took up the matter when some of my constituents highlighted cases involving passports and driving licences. It was not then formally part of my portfolio, but as my role has expanded, I have had more opportunity to influence the direction of policy. I am pleased to say that I think we are making progress, although I noted that the tone of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central suggested that more progress could and should be made.
To start with my glass half full, I will talk about the success of the Government’s vision for digital by default services, which is driven by a desire to give the public the kind of Government services that they expect. Those are services that are simple, fast and clear, and that can be accessed easily at times and in ways that suit people. There has been a step change thanks to the use of digital services that are now built more and more around the needs of users, not the Government. The Government Digital Service is an unequivocal success story of the present Government that needs to be talked about more, and I hope that whoever takes over—us or them, or anyone—will continue to build on that effective work.
The use of the Government Digital Service has the happy benefit that it saves money. Last year we saved more than £200 million on digital and technology-related expenditure as part of the overall £14 billion of efficiency savings achieved across the Government as a whole, and that was all achieved while continuing to drive improvements in how people access information and services. That is a clear example of how to get more for less.
There is much to be celebrated in the progress we are making, and much of that is down to the head of the Government Digital Service, the remarkable Mike Bracken. There are now 14 new, transformed, digital services being used by the public, and they comply with a stretching Government service standard. Their success is evident. For example, more than half of applications for carer’s allowance now come via the new digital channel. Digital can act as a catalyst for change. However, we recognise that high levels of digital take-up will be achieved only if the public feel confident about using Government services online. As the hon. Member for Islwyn and others pointed out, the problem of misleading third-party websites can dent that confidence.
Let me be clear: sites that try to palm themselves off as legitimate Government services need to be stopped. I am sure that that is something on which we all agree. Abuse involving such services can take a range of forms, all of which can have a negative impact, including brand abuse, which is the misuse of Government logos to imply affiliation with or endorsement by the Government. Phishing—that is with the letters “p” and “h”, Mr Gray, in case you were thinking of fishing, at which you are a dab hand—is the practice by which unscrupulous people try to acquire personal information, such as user names, passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity. Scamming websites are third-party sites that levy charges for access to Government services and claim to provide additional services that actually offer little or no value.
Dr Whiteford
The Minister makes an important point, but my correspondence with Government agencies indicates that those copycat websites are operating within the law. There is a compelling case that the easiest way to tackle the problem is through legislation, so will the Minister look again at that?
Mr Vaizey
I will turn to that point in a moment. I agree that some of these websites arguably work within the law. That causes a problem, so I shall explain how we plan to deal with that in a moment.
Citizens can now interact with the Government online by applying for passports, booking MOT tests for cars, obtaining replacement birth certificates and applying for driving licences. I am told that people can also apply online for a licence to be buried at sea. That is the least used Government service at the moment, but now that the application is digital, the attraction may increase. Many Government services are provided free of charge, but some, such as applying for a passport, involve a fee. The process is generally straightforward: follow the instructions and pay the charge—job done.
To find the websites on which to access the services they need, the vast majority of people will have to use an internet search engine, and that is where we come across the first difficulty. Most people inadvertently end up on misleading websites through the sponsored adverts section on search engines such as Google or Bing. The content on the Government’s site, gov.uk, is optimised to ensure that, as far as possible, it tops the rankings in search engine results but, unfortunately, the sponsored adverts section sits above the organic search results, so people who are unfamiliar with the layout of a search engine page often click on to the misleading website by mistake.
The Government have worked with the search engine providers to understand the terms and conditions they have adopted to guide the use of their sponsored ad slots. Although problem adverts are not necessarily illegal, they often break the search engine provider’s terms and conditions, but sometimes they are not actively removed unless complaints are received. We sat down with the Government Digital Service, Google and Bing to agree a mechanism for flagging adverts and websites in breach of search engines’ policies so that they can be taken down. The arrangements are operating effectively. Departments are working with search engine providers when such sites are identified so that the adverts can be removed. Search engine providers have introduced forms so that users can report problem websites, and we will continue to notify them of sites that are brought to our attention.
When we have discovered, or members of the public have highlighted, the misuse of Government logos, we have ensured that they are removed from offending sites. Such sites have included those for renewing driving licences. When necessary, we have used specialist lawyers. I am pleased that there has been a significant drop in the number of reports about websites misusing our logos and thus misleading users.
Some Government services are hit harder than others. Services that tend to involve one-off transactions are the ones to which such third-party websites offer access, such as for passport and driving licence applications, and for booking driving tests. Infrequency of use creates a problem because the users of services provided by Departments and their agencies may not be familiar with the look and feel of those sites, and the wide demographic base of users limits the impact of broad-based communication and education. That does not make the problem insurmountable, and nor does it mean that education about the best way to access Government services should not be part of our approach to tackle the problem, but we must do that creatively.
A further complication, which goes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, is the difficulty of categorising all activities of the websites that we have been talking about as bad or misleading. In 2012, the Office of Fair Trading looked into online commercial practices relating to Government services and concluded that it was not appropriate to take formal enforcement action. Its investigation did not reveal widespread attempts by non-Government websites to misrepresent their affiliation with the Government. Moreover, the OFT took the view that the overall depiction of the sites investigated, including their branding, colouring and images, did not create the misleading impression that they were official Government websites. Many of the sites carried statements explaining the nature of the service provided and disclaiming any official status or affiliation with the Government, and the OFT considered that those statements were sufficiently unambiguous and prominently displayed.
The OFT’s findings and the means by which such sites promote their offerings both bring us back to education. How do we help the users of our services to spot when they are on a Government website or that of a third party? How do we ensure that citizens and businesses can enjoy the benefits and additional value that competition through third-party provision of access to Government services can bring without fear of being exploited?
The number of complaints we receive about misleading websites still represents a small fraction of the total number of service users. Ensuring that the look and feel of Government services become more consistent, as well as providing access to such services through one site, will help our efforts to get users to the right place.
Chris Evans
The Minister says that the number of complaints made about copycat websites is quite low. Before raising the matter at last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions, I did some research into scams, and particularly scam mail. Only one in five crimes are being reported because of embarrassment or shame, or because people do not even know that they have been ripped off. Is there any evidence of how many people are not reporting when they are scammed by copycat websites?
Mr Vaizey
I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some evidence before I conclude my speech; otherwise I will write to him. Although he raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, I am not aware of the difference between those who report misleading websites and people who choose not to report them, or of what that survey was based on.
We started an education campaign in July using social media to raise people’s awareness that when they want to use a Government website, they should start at gov.uk. To maintain momentum, there has been a focus on Twitter activity in subsequent themed weeks based on some of the main services that are being targeted by misleading websites. We have also worked with external organisations such as Which? In July, it published a consumer piece, “How to spot a copycat website”, which is an excellent guide from a trusted source for the public. We have also worked with digital journalism, and “Government Computing” published an awareness-raising piece on the #StartAtGOVUK campaign. We will continue to work on innovative ways to raise awareness, and any thoughts and suggestions from hon. Members will be most welcome.
We have also been leading a cross-Government approach to address individual complaints. For the first time ever, we have set up a webpage via which consumers can report copycat sites. Full details of that one-stop shop can be found on the gov.uk website, and it represents a modern and dynamic response that is appropriate to the online era.
I shall talk briefly about enforcement. In March, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the then Minister, provided £120,000 in additional Government funding to the national trading standards e-crime team to support enforcement action against copycat websites. In late June, four search warrants were executed on properties, leading to the arrest of five people and the disruption of the operation of at least 25 copycat websites. A criminal investigation is ongoing.
Government agencies are individually proactive in this area. The Intellectual Property Office pursues, prosecutes and puts out of business the operators of websites offering copyright-infringing material that can be found through search results. I am pleased that the main search engine providers are fully engaged in supporting us in that.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a robust system that includes the use of a third-party security firm to find and shut down rogue sites that are engaged in phishing activity. In 2012-13, it shut down 560 rogue sites, and it has continued to warn taxpayers to be on their guard against fraudulent phishing e-mails after almost 75,000 fake e-mails were reported to the taxman between April and September this year. Those e-mails promised a tax refund, which is obviously incredibly tempting, and asked for the recipient’s name, address, date of birth, and bank and credit card details, including passwords and their mother’s maiden name. HMRC has worked with law enforcement agencies to help to close down more than 4,000 websites that are responsible for sending out such e-mails. It has made it clear that it never contacts customers who are due a tax refund by e-mail, as a letter is always sent through the post.
People’s behaviour and their expectations of online services are constantly evolving. We do not want to stifle innovation, but nor do we want to impact on websites that honestly and legitimately provide value-added services now, or those that could emerge in the future. I fully recognise that there is still work to be done, and we wrote to all MPs and peers recently to outline what activity we are undertaking.
Opposition Members referred to amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill. I am not sure whether the relevant amendments were debated in the Lords yesterday, but the Government did not support them, as they seem effectively to impose a burden to regulate such websites, rather than outlawing them. However, we will obviously look at any suggestions that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central makes.
Chi Onwurah
To clarify, the amendment is yet to be debated in the Lords. Will the Minister set out his position?
Mr Vaizey
As I understand the position, we oppose those proposals as they would impose a regulatory burden on the Government effectively to regulate these websites. It is not clear whether an amendment will be pressed to a Division, but I will keep in touch with the hon. Lady about the Government’s position, if it evolves.
I agreed with what may have been implied in some of the hon. Lady’s remarks about the need to work more closely with local government. The Government Digital Service has delivered a revolution in how the Government engage with the citizen, and that revolution could well be cascaded down, as it were, to local government. That is not to say that local government is not doing its own pioneering work, however.
The hon. Lady was right to talk about digital inclusion. On one level, I am on the front line of that, in terms of rolling out broadband and mobile services so that people can actually access online services, but the other part of the equation is encouraging people to use those services once they can access them. As she knows, the charity Go ON UK works with 60 stakeholders to encourage people to use these services. Many of the counties in charge of their own broadband roll-out schemes are also encouraging people to get online. We believe that the best way forward is a grass-roots campaign that works with charities that can get out to individuals, or encourage them to come to local community spaces, so that they can see the huge benefits of being online. As we roll out universal credit, the Government should look carefully at how we encourage people to access benefits online.
This has been a useful debate. Although this might not have come across because of my heavy cold, I feel almost as passionately about the subject as Opposition Members. Given the huge success of the Government Digital Service, with a genuine revolution in engagement with the citizen, it is important that that revolution is not marred by unscrupulous copycat websites. The Government have to strike a balance between those websites that are genuinely innovative and provide a useful service, and those that are either simply trying to fleece the customer or, even worse, to phish their contact details and then do even worse things with them. We are raising awareness through our campaign and working closely with the search engines, which is the right thing to do, because search engines are the means by which most people come across these websites. When there is a clear breach of the law, we are using agencies to enforce the law.
Personal Independence Payments
(9 years, 6 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
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I welcome this debate.
The measure of a Government’s compassion is their treatment of the most vulnerable members of society. Although we all recognise the unfortunate reality that we must deal with our nation’s deficit, that should never be done on the backs of that section of our society. I requested this debate in response to the dreadful experiences of some of my constituents with personal independence payments. Many of them require the state’s support in order to enjoy a life that those of us fortunate enough to enjoy good health often take for granted. For them, a fair measure of support makes the difference between spending their lives at home, isolated, alone and cut off from the rest of society, and enjoying as active a life as possible and participating in their communities.
Colleagues will know that in the past I have raised the deficiencies of the former disability living allowance. When a constituent of mine endured the difficulties associated with a laryngectomy—the removal of the voicebox, which is almost always carried out as a means of treating cancer—I spoke in the House. The benefits process was so convoluted that it resulted in an individual having to fill out an application form of massive proportions. That would be difficult for many of us, let alone for an individual with a profound physical or mental disability. In this individual’s case, using a telephone was just not possible. Enable, the charity supporting people with learning disabilities in Scotland, has said:
“Whilst it may be possible for many claimants to make this initial call without support, it is our experience that people with a learning disability are often unable to do this and require the physical support of advice services. This is especially true when no family or other support is available to assist.”
Citizens Advice Scotland agrees.
I sought this debate today not least to congratulate Citizens Advice Scotland, which runs the Scottish citizens advice bureaux, on its 75th anniversary. I warmly commend its excellent staff and many volunteers. Crucially, it released a report recently that shows that the rollout of PIP to replace DLA is in an utterly shambolic state. I commend that report to the House for its consideration, and I intend to make a number of references to it. For example, for some rural residents in the north of Scotland the nearest assessment centre is in Inverness, which requires an 80-mile round trip. In some cases, people have to go even further, travelling distances of up to 100 miles, and even in urban areas there are serious problems.
I will give another example of a person who was contacted by Atos for a home visit, so that they could receive a medical assessment for PIP. The individual was receiving in-patient care in hospital on the arranged date and informed Atos, which told her that non-attendance at the meeting would affect any award of PIP. Therefore, the patient had to arrange for an early discharge from hospital and pay for a taxi back to her home. Using a walking frame and with a nasogastric tube in place, she was told by the health care professional who arrived to see her that the assessment could not be carried out because she was too ill. Of course, that left the patient very upset and the health care professional informed her manager of this. Consequently, the health care professional was told that she could carry out the assessment if the patient agreed that it could go ahead. Afterwards, the patient had to get another taxi back to the hospital, at a cost of another £12.
Numerous cases involve what is at best a very sceptical line of questioning and at worst an outright interrogation of a claimant’s circumstances, and I know that many of my colleagues know of similar experiences.
Another decision involved an individual with heart failure who was initially refused any component of PIP, because she had walked from the car park to the assessment centre, albeit with enormous difficulty.
Time and again, the main reasons why people are asking for PIP decisions to be reviewed are, first, the failure to consider fully the impact of a client’s condition during the medical assessment, and, secondly, inconsistencies in the information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions following a decision.
Decisions about the refusal of the mobility component also cause problems. In its comprehensive report, Citizens Advice Scotland states that it has found selective use of evidence in order to make a decision not to award the benefit. Clients feel that not all of their circumstances have been considered, or that they have been over-simplified.
Another awful example is that of a client who had just been awarded a PIP daily living standard rate. He was told that he could drop dead at any time due to a heart condition, and he had a specialist cardiologist’s report from the beginning of last year stating that. The person is so traumatised by the wait and the hardship that have been caused that he cannot face the appeal; he has been told to avoid stressful circumstances at all costs. All that, and much more of what is in the report, is totally unacceptable.
Four in five advisors say that delays are causing worsening health, and in nine out of 10 cases are causing additional stress and anxiety, not to mention financial strain, while claims are being assessed.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am sure that we will continue to discuss this issue during the course of the day.
What can double or treble delays is the delay upon delay in the appeal procedure. I know of the case of someone who first applied for PIP back in September 2013. She was refused it in the first instance. She was then successful at the first-tier appeal, but the Department has not yet decided whether or not to appeal to the next tier up; because of various delays and errors, that decision has not yet been reached. So, 13 months after first applying, she is still facing nobody knows how many months of delay, and that kind of thing is causing people much tension and pressure, is it not?
Mr Clarke
I know why my hon. Friend feels so passionate, and the experience that he has shared with us is reflected in the views expressed in the report that I am asking the House to consider.
Another example I can give is of an individual who has serious health issues and who last year was diagnosed with throat cancer. He has been waiting for an appointment with Atos to be assessed for PIP. Due to the length of time that his processing is taking, he is now in a great deal of financial difficulty, with rent and council tax arrears of almost £2,600, despite his wife working full-time.
As we all know, PIP is an important passport to many other benefits, such as carer’s allowance, disability premiums, the mobility scheme, concessionary travel schemes, etc. It is indeed a lifeline for people who could not afford to leave the house otherwise and it is a vital part of their personal finances. It cannot be right that many of them face ruin and destitution while they are waiting for their claim to be processed.
This extreme financial hardship has caused a number of individuals to rely on handouts from friends and food banks, and on the accumulation of debt to an unsustainable degree. I know of an individual who has been waiting for an assessment since November 2013, but now his income has been so reduced that he cannot travel to appointments; if he pays for transport, he cannot top up his electricity meter. He has post-traumatic stress disorder and his current situation is resulting in his becoming more withdrawn and reluctant to request help. His mental health is deteriorating as a result. He has worked his entire life and in his 50s is a first-time claimant.
In Coatbridge, which is in my constituency, on 1 April there were 82 PIP applications for daily living claims and 160 mobility claims. I checked with Coatbridge CAB this morning and discovered that all these claims are lying in the in-tray of Atos or DWP and not being brought to a conclusion. I also clarified the position of the CAB in Bellshill, which is also in my constituency. It is handling a PIP claim that has been pending for 10 months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) tells me that there are similar problems in his city, and on that point I will give way.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing a welcome and—in many ways—a well-timed debate. He has just described what we are experiencing in Coventry, including sloppy paperwork and long delays in receiving benefits, especially the earnings supplement, which is claimed by 25% of the claimants in Coventry. CAB time is taken up with that.
We see the same if we look at matters nationally. About 75,000 people are affected nationally, so what is happening in Scotland is also happening in Coventry and the rest of England. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said. Despite that, we should congratulate the city of Coventry, because it is trying to get on top of what is, quite frankly, an overwhelming problem. This whole facility—the entire benefits system—must be looked at now, because it seems to be a shambles.
Mr Clarke
I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened to underline my assertion that problems exist throughout the whole United Kingdom.
The truth is that the picture is depressing, and it is not as if the Department for Work and Pensions has not been warned. The National Audit Office, which published a report in February 2014 entitled “Personal Independence Payment: early progress”, investigated the performance of the DWP as it introduced PIP. It found that
“the Department did not allow enough time to test whether the assessment process could handle large numbers of claims. As a result of this poor early operational performance, claimants face long and uncertain delays and the Department has had to delay the wider roll-out of the programme.”
The Department anticipated that it would take 74 days to decide on a claim, but the actual average wait is 107 days. For terminally ill claimants—I underline “terminally ill”—the process was taking 28 days on average against a departmental assumption of 10 days. That represents a wholly unrealistic assumption of the capacities of both the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos in Scotland. The end result is a system that would not work on paper, clearly does not work in practice and is further straining claimants’ finances and health.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said in response to the NAO report:
“The Department need to understand the causes of this backlog to develop a clear plan on how they are going to work with contractors to clear it, and ensure there are suitable processes in place to make sure this does not happen again.”
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I have experience in my constituency, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does in his, of people winning an appeal after a considerable amount of time. The person will receive their PIP allowance some six months after, but their housing benefit is not backdated to the point at which they lost their disability allowance. When the benefit is lost, the person also loses their passport to housing benefit, but local authorities do not backdate to the day when the person lost their disability or other benefit. People are therefore left with substantial debts in their housing account that no one will pay for.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If I may say so, I am pleased that we have here so many Coatbridge-born Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). Not least you, Mr Gray, have close associations with Coatbridge—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that my father was born and brought up in Coatbridge and that my grandfather was a butcher in Coatbridge, but that need not imply any sort of sympathy with his case.
Mr Clarke
Mr Gray, I do not think that anybody would confuse your neutrality in this debate with the opinions that you rightly express when you have the opportunity.
Mencap, when giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, asked that the reassessments of people currently claiming disability living allowance be stopped until the huge delays in assessing people’s PIP applications were dealt with. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, chaired admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), released a report in March 2014 entitled “Monitoring the performance of the Department for Work and Pensions in 2012-13”. It found that the current level of service offered to PIP claimants and the length of time that disabled people had to wait to find out whether they were eligible was “unacceptable”. Statistics published by the DWP on 11 February 2014 showed that 229,700 new claims had been submitted up to the end of December 2013, but that only 43,800 decisions had been made. Noting that some claims were taking six months or more to process, the Committee called for “urgent action” on the current “unacceptable service” provided to PIP claimants. While some of the reports were published several months ago, the situation has hardly changed. Statistics released by the DWP in September show that, of the 529,400 cases registered for PIP between April 2013 and the end of July 2014, just over 206,000 had been processed and awarded, declined or withdrawn. That means that just under 40% of cases registered for PIP have been cleared in 16 months, which is a wholly avoidable disaster for claimants.
The problem is not exclusively Scottish. The Government, through the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are gambling that the British public are suffering from austerity measures and that they have little interest in how people with disabilities are being treated. The Government are wrong, and their standing in the eyes of the public is suffering. People with disabilities have families and friends, and the British people are profoundly fair. In any event, it is morally repugnant for the coalition Government to mistreat vulnerable people as a result of a bureaucratic logjam that they have created and for which they must accept responsibility. In other words, it is a United Kingdom Government problem.
I have congratulated Citizens Advice on its report, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight and promote the outstanding work of local government and their partners, which engage closely with vulnerable people. In my constituency, for example, North Lanarkshire council has recognised the plight of vulnerable people and has impressively put substantial additional resources into tackling their welfare issues, providing even more welfare rights officers. No praise is too high for the marvellous work that they do.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
If my hon. Friend allows me, I will not, so as to give the Minister time to reply.
In conclusion, the Secretary of State should have the humility to offer a profuse apology for the stress, hardship and financial inconvenience that the roll-out of PIP has caused to so many people. He should publicly apologise on behalf of his Government. There should be a clear timetable for dealing with the transition to PIP, and it should be agreed in consultation with local government, Citizens Advice, MPs and interested charities. There should be no further roll-out of PIP until all the problems and backlogs have been sorted. There should be a further independent inquiry to identify how the Department for Work and Pensions got into this hopeless mess and how it will respond.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate. I used to sit in debates that he led when I was a shadow Minister, so I know that he has long-standing interest in disability matters and it is good to hear his views.
I also pay tribute to Citizens Advice. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Citizens Advice Scotland, but my constituency team works closely with the citizens advice bureau in the Forest of Dean. We assist some of its clients, and sometimes it assists a number of ours.
As the right hon. Gentleman referred to our overall treatment of the most vulnerable in our society and disabled people, I will begin by putting on record that the amount of taxpayer money spent on personal independence payments and disability living allowance for working-age people has been more in real terms in each year of this Parliament compared with the year that we came to power. To be clear, more resources are going to support people with disabilities to enable them to live independent lives and to work.
I have been frank in oral questions in the Chamber, and during a lengthy evidence session with the Work and Pensions Committee, that the delays that people face are unacceptable. I have not tried to hide from that and I am committed to putting it right. It is literally my top priority, and it was one of the things that the Prime Minister specifically asked me to address when he appointed me in July. The right hon. Gentleman, having set out his concerns and those in the reports, will want to know what the Department is doing to deal with the issues.
Mr Harper
I may at the end of my speech, but if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will try to deal with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. As this is his debate, it would be discourteous if I did not do so.
We have a new team of officials in the Department that is working on a daily basis with our assessment providers. Atos deals with assessments in Scotland, while Capita is the other provider in Great Britain. I look at their performance on a weekly basis to ensure that we are driving through improvements. The capacity of the providers has increased. We have doubled the number of health professionals carrying out the assessments. We have increased the number of assessment centres and extended the opening hours. We have also increased the number of paper-based assessments, which occur when the evidence that the claimant sends to us makes it sufficiently clear that a decision can be reached without needing to get them to attend a face-to-face assessment. We follow that process when we can. If claimants have also had a work capability assessment, we are looking at using the report from that as part of the evidence, and that is enabling us to make more decisions on paper, thus sparing the claimant the need to come in for a face-to-face assessment.
We have made a number of changes to our processes and IT systems to ensure that the transmission of information from the provider to the Department is streamlined. We have also looked at what we communicate to claimants regarding the information with which they provide us in the first place to ensure that we get the right information that enables us to make a decision earlier in the process.
We have increased the number of decisions we have taken. We made more than 35,000 a month according to the latest published statistics, which cover up to July. Since then, we have continued to build significantly on those numbers week on week. I will not pretend that the problem is fixed, but we are moving in the right direction. We will deliver the Secretary of State’s commitment to ensure that, by the end of this year, no one will have to wait more than 16 weeks for their assessment, and we will look to improve that further next year.
In Scotland specifically, Atos, which is the assessment provider there, has more than trebled its output this year. It is now clearing more cases than we send it and working through its backlog. The picture is improving, but I do not want to take away from the fact that people have been inconvenienced and experienced some delays. In Scotland, we have seen one of the best improvements for any part of Great Britain. There has been a 40% increase in the number of home consultations. The right hon. Gentleman and the report to which he referred said that given the geography and population density of Scotland, travelling to an assessment centre can involve a lengthy journey. More home consultations are taking place, and there is a new assessment centre in Edinburgh, with more to follow in Aberdeen and Dundee in the coming months.
We have improved the communication to claimants at the front end of the process so that they know the best evidence to supply and how long their claim may take to be assessed. We stress the importance of sending us relevant information to speed up the claim. We have also been communicating better with claimants to confirm when we have received their forms so that they know that their claim is in the system.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the performance of the system for claimants who are terminally ill. I am pleased to say that our dealing with those cases is now pretty close to our target. He is right that the performance earlier this year was not adequate. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), put a lot of work into dealing with that, working closely with Macmillan Cancer Support. I think we have got that part of the process working well, as is right, because it is important that we make timely decisions for those with terminal illnesses and give them support. The assessment providers are giving claimants better information about where they are in the process, how long a claim may take and who to contact at each stage of their claim.
On assessment outcomes—while the right hon. Gentleman talked about delays, he also touched on the assessment itself—we want to ensure that people get high-quality, objective and fair assessments. We want everyone to get the right decision first time. The report included several quotes from CAB customers on both sides of the argument, a number of which demonstrated that once people had received their assessment, they felt that the process was fair and that it reached the right outcomes. There were, of course, some quotes setting out other experiences, but I thought that the Citizens Advice report was fairly balanced and demonstrated that the quality of assessment is good.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the impact of some of the delays, and we also heard about that in interventions. Of course, a delay in a claim can cause claimants a cash-flow issue. It is worth saying that if someone is successful in getting PIP, their award is backdated to the date of claim, but I accept that some face such a issue. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit. It is not designed for those who are unable to work, as that is what jobseeker’s allowance and the employment and support allowance are for. Under the ESA, people are paid an assessment rate from when they put in the claim. If people are unable to work because of their disability or health condition, PIP is not the benefit that deals with their lack of income.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the important issue of passporting, which is where getting PIP entitles someone to other benefits. I was asked about carer’s allowance, and when someone gets PIP, that will be backdated, and the carer’s allowance can be backdated, too.
Michael Connarty
The Minister must accept that if housing benefit is not backdated, people can be left with a substantial debt, even if they get PIP on appeal.
Mr Harper
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about that. PIP and DLA are not passported benefits for housing benefit. There is a disability premium in housing benefit, but getting PIP or DLA does not entitle someone to housing benefit. If he wants to write to me about a specific case, however, I will look into it. PIP and DLA can give a bit more housing benefit if someone is entitled to that. However, they do not determine whether someone is entitled to housing benefit, so I am not sure I follow his point.
Michael Connarty
I will do what the Minister suggests. After the debate, I will be meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), about that very point.
Mr Harper
Okay. On other passporting issues, blue badges can be issued without PIP being in payment, so if someone is not getting PIP, it does not mean that they cannot get a blue badge. NHS help with travel expenses and prescriptions is based on the receipt of income-related benefits. Local authorities are able to provide social care or help with adaptations on the basis of their assessments, and they should not exclude people just because they are not entitled to the personal independence payment.
In the couple of minutes remaining, I shall say a little more about claims relating to those who are terminally ill. In addition to the things that I have mentioned, we have put in place a dedicated phone service for such claims, as well as an electronic form so that the medical information we require from GPs and consultants can get to the Department as quickly as possible. As I said, we are now achieving the performance that we would want from the Department, so we have made progress in that area.
I understand the frustrations that people have experienced. There have been cases in my constituency of people waiting too long. I have been frank about that, and my top priority is to improve that situation. We are making progress and moving in the right direction, and we will hit the Secretary of State’s commitment by the end of the year—I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance about that. I have clearly set out that we are spending more money on supporting those on DLA and PIP in every year of this Parliament compared with the year we came to office. It is not the case that we are dealing with the deficit off the backs of disabled people, and I want to ensure that the customer experience is improved.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about an independent review. He will know that Paul Gray has been appointed to carry out the first independent review. He has taken evidence from a range of people involved in this benefit. He is due to provide his report, which the Department will publish, by the end of the year. It will set out, according to his terms of reference, information about the quality of assessments, how the providers are performing and whether the assessments are correctly putting people into the right categories.
Mr Cunningham
I will be as quick as I can. On the 75,000 claims waiting to be assessed, what progress has been made in England? The Minister has talked about Scotland, but what about England, where there are similar problems?
Mr Harper
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, as I do. We are making progress in England. By focusing on Scotland, I was not trying to say that that is the only place where we are making progress, as we are making progress across Great Britain. I was simply making the point to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that the performance in Scotland is better than it is elsewhere in Great Britain, and I hope that what I have said will reassure constituents.
Education for Young People with Disabilities (UK Aid)
(9 years, 6 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
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I do not know how long we have for our speeches, given that this is a long debate and there are not many of us in the Chamber. However, we are considering an important topic. The timing of the debate presented some challenges for Department for International Development Ministers, who are all over the world as we speak, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), are present, because it is important that we hear from the Government and the Opposition. I welcome this opportunity for the debate given DFID’s recent commitments, the progress made on addressing the issue of UK aid to education for young people with disabilities, and the report published earlier this year by the International Development Committee and the Government’s largely positive response to it.
I approach this matter as a former teacher—education is important to me, as it is to other Members of the House—and co-chair of the all-party group on global education for all. Education is fundamental to ending the poverty, discrimination and exclusion faced by disabled people in developing countries, but it is estimated that in most countries disabled children are much more likely to be out of school than any other group of young people. Disability has long been neglected as a niche area of development, deemed by many to be either too complex, due to the wide range of challenges that it presents, or too small to be core to development issues.
The millennium development goals fail to mention disability, but disabled people make up an estimated 15% of the global population, and disability is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Some 80% of disabled people live in developing countries and the United Nations has labelled them the world’s largest minority. It is estimated that there are 93 million disabled children globally and, as I said, they are more likely to be out of school than any other group of children. In Ethiopia, less than 3% of disabled children have access to primary education. In some countries, being disabled more than doubles a child’s chance of never enrolling in school. Disabled children are also less likely to remain in school. There are huge challenges throughout the developing world in keeping children in schools, but that challenge is heightened for children with disabilities. Difficulties also present themselves when attempting to transition to the next grade of education.
The exclusion of disabled children not only denies them their core human right to education, but makes it impossible, unless we address the matter properly, for the world to reach the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015. Some 58 million children of primary age are still out of school. While it is undeniable that progress has been made, it has now stalled. It is estimated that disabled children could make up a third of the out-of-school population. Without specific targets to include disabled people, it is clear that many of the millennium development goals will not be reached.
I welcome DFID’s progress in recent years, including through several commitments made under this Government and the previous one. In 2000, DFID was the first donor to develop an issues paper on disability, and development guidance notes on disability-inclusive programming and education for children with disabilities. DFID also commissioned research to help to address some of the evidence gaps around disability. In 2008, under the previous Government, DFID was the first donor to support the Disability Rights Fund, and constructive progress has been made more recently. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), has been championing the cause, in particular by announcing that UK aid will fund accessible school construction. DFID is working with partners to improve the data on disabled children and education in developing countries. The UK is playing a vital role in championing a post-2015 agenda that leaves no one behind, specifically by saying that no target will be considered unless it will be met for all social groups, including those with disabilities.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. It is appropriate that disability issues are being debated in the Chamber and Westminster Hall at the same time. It is good that we have an all-party, no-party approach on the matter. Does he agree that while there has been substantial movement from both the previous and present Governments—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and Ministers, who are receptive to what is said about this issue—the notion of being a young girl in poverty with a disability in the developing world should concern us all, because those girls are literally at the bottom of the pile? Anything that we can do to focus attention on that in the post-2015 agenda is vital.
Mr Williams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He speaks with passion on such matters in the all-party group. We have examined targets in the past, and he is right that part of the challenge has involved a narrow focus within the broad issue of getting out-of-school children into school. There are key issues affecting gender and disability, and there is often a critical crossover between the two. I concur with his generosity towards this Government and the previous one, but there is still a huge amount to do. If this debate serves one purpose, it is that of continuing to highlight the real need for action.
I welcome the UK’s position as a leading donor to education, including with the pledge of up to £300 million to the Global Partnership for Education in June, and the way in which DFID Ministers have worked with GPE to ensure that disabled children are prioritised. As co-chair of the all-party group, I have visited Nigeria, Zanzibar and Tanzania during this Parliament. I pay tribute to the DFID staff whom I met in those countries, as well as those throughout the world, who are working hard in the educational field to further our aims on the ground.
The Government published their response to the thorough International Development Committee inquiry early this year. DFID committed to publish a new cross-departmental disability framework, and the work to develop it is going on right now. I believe that the aim is to launch the framework in November. DFID has pledged to prioritise education in the framework, which goes back to the point that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) made about a cross-sectoral approach. There is a package of issues relating to disability, education, inclusion and gender. I look to the Minister and DFID officials to reaffirm that education is prioritised as a key sector and that the educational needs of those with disabilities will be thoroughly addressed.
The framework is welcome. However, one of the past challenges has been that while DFID produced optional guidance for their country offices that said the right things, it did not incentivise action. The Department has just published a new inclusive learning topic guide for its staff, which is an excellent resource, but it is still just guidance. How will DFID ensure that the new disability framework is implemented after its publication? Will the framework include mandatory, action-orientated requirements for, with strong accountability mechanisms for reporting on, the inclusion of disabled people in aid programmes? That is the situation for gender, and that needs to be the case for disability, too.
Will the Minister outline what DFID will be do to support and train country staff on disability inclusion? That, too, is a key principle. We need to ensure that all teacher training programmes that are supported by UK aid promote inclusive teaching approaches, and that all education aid programmes will measure whether they are reaching disabled children and young people. While I commend the Minister for the positive commitment to ensuring that UK-funded school construction projects are accessible to disabled children, that is not all that is needed.
Physical accessibility to buildings must be complemented by an attitudinal change, and inclusive teaching and learning environments. During a visit to a school in Lagos, I remember that the head teacher was keen to show us the DFID-funded toilet block. There was a dire need for the block, as it was a big school and there were issues to do with water and sanitation, so DFID had addressed that. The head teacher proudly showed us the toilet block, with its accessible ramps and equipment, but I saw very few people with disabilities accessing the facilities in that school.
I also visited a school in Zanzibar that had a wheelchair ramp to assist with access to a classroom, but I then saw in that classroom 60 to 70 teenage children in front of the teacher with no desks and no seats, so there was no conceivable way in which a wheelchair user could have accessed it. We need to be mindful of the teaching and learning environments in which schools operate. A ramp is no good unless the needs of the children who would use it are also met through their education provision.
Children with disabilities have the same right to education as all other children and UK aid can help by supporting the resourcing of inclusive education that ultimately benefits all children, not just those with disabilities, and that helps to change negative societal attitudes and discrimination about disability. It is particularly important that we develop inclusive teacher training so that more teachers in developing countries are equipped to include children with disabilities. The UK is a world leader on aid to support teacher training, so we could make a big difference.
The challenge so far has been to address the shortage of teachers and the need to get more children into schools. Getting more children into schools means that more teachers are required, so we have seen short cuts in some parts of the world, especially in teacher training courses and the professional development that is offered. If challenges on teachers’ pay are not addressed, the teaching profession does not get the esteem that it does in our country. Those multi-faceted problems need to be addressed.
I ask the Minister to make a commitment that UK-funded teacher training will promote inclusive teaching methods and curriculums. That must not be lost in the big challenge of training more teachers in that valued profession to address the growing number of out-of-school children across the world.
Will DFID put in place disaggregated data for its programme and funding to measure how many, and to what extent, children with disabilities are reached and supported into education? The biggest challenge is to identify the scale of the problem that we need to address. Will DFID encourage an increase in its targeting of resources into the area of disability and education, such as through the creation of a disabled children’s education challenge fund? Such a fund would be similar to the laudable girls’ education challenge fund, which I remind hon. Members is an innovative £355 million fund to tackle the extreme marginalisation from education of the poorest girls. May we have something similar for disability? We all know that disabled children suffer from extreme marginalisation in developing countries and that they should be supported with targeted additional investment, as well as mainstreamed, in a twin-track approach. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on creating such a fund.
I welcome the commitments already made that DFID will work with partners to strengthen data. Lack of data at a national level both reflects and compounds the invisibility of people with disabilities in development efforts. That is a major barrier to the recognition of disability as a core development issue.
Information is often speculative and out of date. I am aware from my friends in the third sector—I pay particular tribute to Results UK, which was responsible for my trips and provided the secretariat for our all-party group—that DFID held a conference on disability data last week, so I would be grateful to know what outcomes arose from those discussions.
What is DFID doing to support the capacity of national Governments and international organisations to collect and use data on children and young people with disabilities. How many of them are in or out of school? We need to ensure that the UK champions the strengthening of data in developing countries so that our development efforts mean that no one is left behind, although I realise that that task is huge.
Let me set out two ideas that could well be used. In Nigeria, I saw that DFID had successfully promoted school-based management committees to try to create a community leadership in schools to encourage young people into school and to liaise with parents and stakeholders in the community. In effect, the committee would operate like a school governing body, but with tentacles that were more developed for attracting young people into schools. We talk about disability issues being hidden, so community engagement and empowerment should be a great tool in assisting those who are currently excluded.
I saw another project, albeit in a health context, in a rural part of Zanzibar, where we were looking at malnutrition and early-years education. Volunteers went out into villages and communities to talk to young mothers about malnutrition. They located children who were suffering from malnutrition and encouraged their mothers to go to the hospital or health centre to get the support that they needed. We know about the hidden problem of disability, so I am looking for strategies to empower communities to make information available so that action can be taken.
Research by the Global Campaign for Education has noted that DFID has undertaken some activities in Nigeria on the inclusion of children with disabilities in its education work. It has supported censuses of out-of-school children, with results aggregated by gender and disability. Good, practical work has therefore been done on the ground, but while the information contains three sub-indicators on inclusion, the Department’s business case makes scant reference to disability. Nigeria is one of the largest recipients of UK aid, including through the education sector support programme, which will provide up to £134 million between 2008 and 2017. The programme is delivered by a consortium headed by Cambridge Education. Given the scale of funding it receives, one would expect that children with disabilities would be a much more prominent element in it.
Finally, our attention turns to the post-2015 agenda. I welcome the Government’s championing of an agenda that leaves no one behind, and that should be our guiding principle, especially as it is expressed in the idea that no target will be considered to be met unless it is met for all social groups, including people with disabilities. As we know, the millennium development goals did not mention disability at all, but 2015 gives us a crucial opportunity to change that.
How are Ministers seeking to ensure that the needs and rights of disabled people are recognised as an agreed priority in the final goals and targets? We particularly need to consider a tangible measure of how we ascertain that no target is met unless it is met for all. International negotiations are always challenging, involving many different agendas, but I hope that the Minister will reassure us that DFID is working with other Governments to consolidate support and ensure that the “leave no one behind” target does not get lost.
I have not mentioned any individual examples and will refrain from doing so, but I should reiterate that behind every one of the statistics, there is a real human story. Handicap International came to see me last week and showed me a charming photograph of Fanta, a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy from the Kono district of Sierra Leone. The photograph shows her smiling because, as part of a DFID-funded GEC project, she had just received a wheelchair that will allow her to access her local primary school for the first time. That will be to the benefit of her school, of Sierra Leone, and, above all else, of that young lady.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this excellent debate and on his contribution to it; there was little, if anything, that I disagreed with in what he had to say. It is a real shame that there are not more Members in this Chamber. I suspect that we are preaching to the faithful.
I will start by quoting from article 26 of the universal declaration of human rights, which the UK signed back in 1948. Back then, we said:
“Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.”
So, 66 years ago we signed up to free primary education for all—not just for those in the developed world, or those who could afford it, or those who were not disabled, but all children. However, for many children, particularly those living in the developing world, that is as far away from becoming a reality as it was 66 years ago.
Even in countries where children get access to primary education, millions do not complete it, or else leave school with limited skills and poor levels of reading and writing because the quality of teaching is variable, to say the least. Women and girls fare poorly, with less than 50% of girls making it to secondary education in some African countries. Across the world, women make up almost two thirds of the 796 million adults without even the most basic literacy and numeracy skills.
Although those statistics in themselves are awful, as has already been pointed out, the children who fare worst in this situation are those with disabilities. The United Nations millennium development goals committed to providing universal, free primary education for all children by 2015, yet we are still short of 1.8 million teachers to deliver that, with 1 million needed in sub-Saharan Africa alone. That situation is unsatisfactory for everyone, but for disabled children and their families the picture is far worse. Disabled children are far more likely to be out of education than the general populace and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said eloquently, a disabled girl has virtually no chance at all of going to school.
For those few disabled children who get access to education, what is provided is far from appropriate and in the vast majority of cases falls well short of meeting their educational needs. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about physical access, which is part of the issue, but making education accessible in terms of access to the curriculum and an inclusive culture is as important—if not more so—as ramps, wider doors and so on.
The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has forced some recognition of the rights of disabled people to be involved in their own development. It places an obligation on signatories, including the UK, to ensure that their overseas aid programmes include disabled people. However, the millennium development goals are largely silent on disabled learning, and so miss out a whole 15% of the world’s population. Data on this subject are not good—although I congratulate the Department for International Development on its recent work to improve data—but even from the poor data we have, it is estimated that disabled children make up one third of the out-of-school population across the world.
I want to set our debate in the context of what is happening to disabled children across the world. I do not think that we can afford to be smug about this issue in the UK. We require disabled children to attend school, but far too often we provide for disabled children by segregating them in special schools. In my experience, too many of those schools have low expectations of their pupils, and I say that as a supporter of special schools—I am a strong supporter of inclusion, but it must sit firmly on a foundation of good special schools. However, in my experience, even in 2014 too many of our special schools have low expectations of children with disabilities.
Even those countries that we consider progressive and enlightened often have a far worse record than we do. The hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned that the UK is something of a beacon of good practice in this regard. I am a member of the Education Committee. Last year—or the year before; I am not sure—we travelled to Denmark. When I asked what percentage of children with disabilities there attended special schools, I was told it was 6% of the school population. I was amazed; in the UK, 1% of our children attend special schools. That means a huge number of children in this country are attending mainstream schools and having their needs met very well in those schools.
I never quite got the previous Secretary of State for Education to accept this point, but when we look at the PISA—the programme for international student assessment—tables we are not comparing like with like. In this country 1% of children with disabilities attend special schools, but 6% or more do so in some of the jurisdictions at the top of the PISA tables, and in countries such as Singapore or China disabled children never get access to mainstream schools at all.
On that trip to Denmark, we clearly looked shocked when we learned that fact, and officials were quick to tell us that they were going to do something about the situation because they recognised that it could not continue. I then asked how many children attending special schools in Denmark went on to university. Basically, the officials said it was none, as children from special schools went on to get Government pensions, by which they meant benefits. Although the situation is better in the developed world, when it comes to disabled children, none of us can afford to be smug.
Most disabled children in the developing world who manage to go to school face learning in segregated schools with very large class sizes, poor teaching from teachers with inadequate training and skills, and a lack of resources. We know that education is fundamental to reducing and ending poverty. Good quality, free education should be the right of every child, including every disabled child. More than anything else, education has the power to transform lives, and will help economic development and poverty relief, contribute to social stability and promote global health. We know that children whose mothers have received five years of education are 40% more likely to live beyond five years of age. That is as true for a disabled child as it is for every other child.
I call on DFID to introduce a disability strategy that gives disabled people full and inclusive access to its programmes, with clear baselines, milestones and success criteria. The strategy should make it easier to access funding for programmes that support disabled learning, and should make sure that all mainstream civil society organisations that DFID funds do the same. To do that, DFID must build a larger team of disability specialists, so that it can champion disability learning in its programmes, provide disability training for its own staff and even—here is a revolutionary idea—employ a few disabled staff in its programmes overseas.
I welcome the Government’s response and commitment to the report by the Select Committee on International Development. DFID has argued that a disability strategy is not the right approach and prefers to take a more holistic view in its social inclusion programme.
Before I came to Parliament in 2010, though not immediately before, I was the person who turned up in a school or local authority the week after a school had gone into special measures and the senior management team had gone. The two things I did immediately were: first, make friends with the secretaries, because they made life bearable; and secondly, put together a strategic plan with clear goals for what I would achieve and by when. I then measured periodically how far I had achieved those goals. The bottom line is that what gets measured gets done. Taking a holistic approach generally means faffing about a bit with nothing really changing. A strong framework setting out clear goals, milestones and success criteria, and measuring impact, is the only way to change things. Anything else is just nice warm words. Will the Minister be brave and ambitious today?
I started by quoting from article 26 of the universal declaration of human rights from way back in 1948. Sometimes it feels as though we had greater aspirations and hopes for our children and ourselves back in 1948. We were living in a time of austerity, and the UK was practically bankrupt and saddled with massive debts after fighting total war for five years, but we had ambitions for ourselves and our children. We created the NHS, a welfare system with a safety net for the poor and a free, compulsory education system for our children. We had a commitment to provide the same for others throughout the world. The Minister can be the new Clem Attlee. What better time to rediscover the same ambition, aspiration and courage we had in 1948, and to secure the universal free education for every child, including disabled children, that this country has promised to deliver, but has failed to for more than 60 years?
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. It is also slightly intimidating to follow two former teachers. In my duties as a Member of Parliament, I am never more nervous of my presenting skills than when following teachers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate on such an important issue.
It is true for many that we remember the people who taught us, although I am sure that they do not remember the many hundreds of children they taught. It shows the great contribution made by former members of the teaching profession in the House and we should be proud of that, not least the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) who, as ever, showed her expertise on the subject and her absolute determination to achieve for children not just in this country but around the world. I agree with so much that has been said. It is good, helpful and right that we can speak as one across parties on such an important issue as the rights of children with disabilities wherever they are in the world.
We know from our constituency experience how often disability is closely tied to poverty or disadvantage. The matter is being discussed on the Floor of the House now. In the developing world, that problem is magnified many times, and when reading the International Development Committee’s recent report on disability I was struck by what Professor Groce of University College London said:
“If one goes into the poorest…slum or the most marginalized rural village and asks ‘who is the poorest person in your community’? one will almost invariably be directed to the household of a person with a disability.”
The World Bank estimates that eight out of 10 disabled people live in developing countries, and that people with disabilities make up 20% of the world’s poorest people. In reality, I suspect that that figure is probably an underestimate. The great philosopher and economist, Amartya Sen, has pointed out that the poverty line for disabled people is significantly higher than for many other people because, as we recognise in our social security system, the cost of day-to-day life is often inflated by the sheer fact of disability.
The debate today is focused specifically on education for children and young people with disabilities and with good reason, as we have heard. In many cases, young people with disabilities in developing nations find themselves doubly disadvantaged, living in nations where youth unemployment may be as high as seven or eight in 10, where poverty wages are most prevalent among the young, where access to education remains far too low, and where young people disproportionately lack access to health, or are more likely to face violence and displacement. On each and every one of those counts, a young person with a disability is more likely to be negatively affected.
It is often suggested that the very welcome forward movement in poverty reduction that has been achieved under the auspices of the millennium development goals has in part been a case of picking the lowest hanging fruit and upping the incomes of those closest to the poverty line. If that is the case, young disabled people are perhaps the hardest to reach among that group. A key focus of the sustainable development goals that will replace the millennium development goals next year must be to address the hardest parts of poverty reduction, to ensure that no one is left behind and to include within the development agenda help to bring those with disabilities out of disadvantage and poverty, not simply focusing on income, although financial disadvantage is significant. I agree that education for the most excluded people in society must be at the heart of what we try to do in the coming year within the sustainable development goals.
I do not want to dwell on the negative, but there is no question but that being disabled as a child in a developing country makes them far less likely to access education. Some of the figures are startling and bear repeating. Some 85% of children not in school in Nepal are disabled and only 3% of disabled children in Ethiopia complete primary education. Ethiopia has made great strides in poverty reduction, but still only 3% of disabled children make it through primary education. For those who do receive education, the correlation between disability and poor outcomes is striking.
The underlying reasons are manifold, but all too often are based on negative attitudes and discrimination. Disabled children are hidden away or placed in segregated education and Governments provide low prioritisation or split responsibilities for the education of disabled children. Teacher training is vital in poorer countries, particularly in helping disabled children to meet their potential. Those fundamental problems must be placed at the centre of development policy.
The Government inherited a strong focus in DFID on disability issues. In 2000, Britain became the first donor to develop guidance notes on disability-inclusive programming and specifically on education for children with disabilities. In 2008, we were the inaugural donors to the Disability Rights Fund. The Government have continued to take important steps. In particular, I welcome on behalf of the Opposition the decision to require all school building funded through DFID programmes to incorporate the principles of universal design and to tackle the huge data gaps on children with disabilities and education. It can be hard to get people excited about data, but they are at the heart of developing effective policy in this and every other development area. The sustainable development goals have the potential to take forward our ambitions for the poorest people in the world, so they must be rigorously data focused.
The sustainable development goals will, I hope, address the fact that the millennium development goals noticeably failed to mention disability as an issue to be addressed. I would, however, offer a warning. The fact of having something codified does not guarantee progress in itself. The Indian constitution directly protects disabled people from discrimination, but in few nations are disabled people more discriminated against than in India.
We want the sustainable development goals to be focused in a way that encourages development that works for all, including the most marginalised groups. The UN high-level panel recommended that the post-2015 goals should specifically state that no target should be considered met unless it is met for all social groups, including people with disabilities. The Government have publicly backed the inclusion of such a caveat, and I support them in doing so, but it has disappeared from the outcomes document of the UN open working group on sustainable development, which was published in July. Will the Minister therefore update us on where the negotiations stand on ensuring that the sustainable development goals do, indeed, work for all and do encourage Governments worldwide to tackle some of the hardest development issues, including education for children with disabilities?
If we are to be successful in encouraging other nations—donors and recipients—DFID must lead the way. In its recent response to the Select Committee report, it promised to publish a DFID disability framework in November. Will the Minister confirm that the Department is on track to publish that framework and that education will be a key focus? Will he set out how the Department will ensure that what will no doubt be the finest of words also become concrete actions? Will DFID country offices report back frequently on how they are supporting and including disabled people?
I have a further question on some of the practicalities. Does the Minister believe that DFID has the skills base genuinely to develop world-leading disability policy? As we have heard, the UK plays a proud role in the field, and we want to see Britain at the heart of new thinking. In response to the Select Committee, the Department promised to increase the number of disability specialist staff, but only to two. In comparison, 21 staff are working on gender issues. I have absolutely no interest in playing gender off against disability, because they are both vital issues, but the comparison is striking. Does the Minister think that the Department has the advice and support it needs on disability issues?
In conclusion, this has been a useful debate on a crucial issue. DFID has a good track record on disability issues within development, and I feel sure we can be a world leader. However, we need a genuine commitment throughout the run-up to the next set of development goals to make sure that the global development agenda is clearly based on the principle of “no person left behind”.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The Deputy Leader of the House has many interesting roles to perform in life, but today’s might be one of the more interesting, because he is standing in for Lynne Featherstone and he has been asked to be Clement Attlee, so let us see how it turns out.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am indeed playing a rather unusual role today, but it is refreshing to be taking part in a consensual debate, with cross-party agreement about what DFID does. I wish the same could have been said about our debates on the Bill that became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, for which I was one of the responsible Ministers. The House’s consideration of the Recall of MPs Bill has also not involved the unanimous cross-party support demonstrated in this debate.
We heard about the background of the participants to the debate, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing. I was interested to hear about his past life as a teacher. Indeed, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) was also a teacher. I have not been a teacher, although both my parents were at some point in their working careers, so we are all in good company. Given that this is a cross-party, consensual debate, I would like to acknowledge the role that the Labour Government played in helping us to get to our current position in respect of international development, our spending on it and the prominent role we play on it internationally.
I do not think that I am going to be the next Clem Attlee, but those of us in this select group of Members of Parliament can play an important role in making sure the priority that successive Governments have placed on international development remains. There is an awful lot of pressure on the international development budget, and one prominent party—the UK Independence party—would, if it had its way and was represented in large numbers in this place, simply seek to do away with it, or at least a significant part of it, even though one can only imagine what impact that would have on things such as Ebola. I therefore welcome the fact that we are having a consensual debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he plays as co-chair of the all-party group, which monitors these issues.
My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is in Bangladesh on a departmental visit, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, is in Berlin at a conference on the Syrian refugee crisis. They have asked me to pass on their apologies for not being able to attend this important debate, but the issue is a particular priority for the Department, and my right hon. Friends will pay close attention to the debate and respond to any points that I do not have a chance to deal with. If I have any credentials at all in terms of my ability to respond to the debate, they will be that I was the Liberal Democrat international development spokesman for a number of years.
In the global context, disability continues, as we have heard, to be one of the primary causes of educational disadvantage and exclusion, creating the largest single group of girls and boys who remain out of school. Even in those countries close to achieving universal primary enrolment, children with disabilities continue to miss out on education and, as a consequence, on opportunities to access meaningful employment and a sustainable route out of poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion cited an example of a school with a ramp, but said that in practice, however, if any child managed to get into that school in a wheelchair, they would not physically be able to get into the classroom because of overcrowding. Anyone, including me, who has been on such visits abroad—in my case to Ghana—will know that a very basic school with little more than mud floors will not be an ideal environment for someone with a disability to access education.
What is positive is that all Members have probably been lobbied in the past few months by school children in their constituencies about the need to ensure that all young people, including those with a disability, go to school. I certainly have, and I congratulate St Mary’s in Carshalton, which joined the Send All My Friends to School campaign. The school asked me to go along and receive the cut-out figures the children had created of pupils and to send them off to the Prime Minister. I did that, and I am pleased that he responded to the pupils’ letters about that important campaign.
The challenges involved in ensuring that disabled children can learn are fourfold. First, responsibility for children with disabilities in the countries in which we work is divided across education, health and social protection, which often results in a focus on social welfare and special treatment, rather than on inclusion and equity. Secondly, there are often school-level barriers, including physical access, inflexible and inappropriate curriculums, inadequate teacher training—that has been mentioned frequently in the debate—and discriminatory attitudes that reinforce the marginalisation of children with disabilities. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion referred to that. It is not simply a question of providing accessible schools; it is also about changing the mentality of some of the people responsible for ensuring that children get to school and, once there, are fully involved in the educational process.
Mr Mark Williams
On the first of those points and the issue of cross-departmental responsibilities, and given the visits that my right hon. Friend has made to Ghana—hon. Members have no doubt visited other countries where this would apply—does he share my frustration that in the Government Departments of countries I have been to there is all too often a silo mentality, meaning that that the issue gets lost? Kind and generous words can be heard in health, social services and education Departments, but action on the ground is impeded by a failure to work together. I should be grateful for anything we can do to encourage countries to leave the silo mentality behind.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely, but even in a well-run Government such as ours, there is still always a risk that there will be a silo mentality and that Departments will not communicate with each other as would entirely befit them. There are ways for us to help, but we have not managed to perfect that even within UK borders.
The third of the four challenges is that we struggle to understand the extent of the problem, because of a lack of disaggregated data by sex, type of disability and level of functioning. That makes educational planning for inclusive learning extremely difficult. Linked to that, the evidence base on learning outcomes for inclusive education for children with disabilities focuses largely on high-income countries—particularly the US and UK—and there are challenges in identifying good-quality evidence from low and middle-income countries. Finally, there has been a lack of the political will and commitment needed to drive improvements in learning for children with disabilities, and that has limited the ability of Governments, donors and others to assess, monitor and address the situation of those children.
I am pleased to say that the UK is at the forefront of seeking to address those challenges. Through DFID’s work, the UK is committed to ensuring that all children are able to complete a full cycle of quality education, and we are increasingly focusing on the most marginalised as part of the “leave no one behind” agenda, which includes a special focus on children with disabilities. In September 2013, we made two public commitments: first, to ensure that all directly funded school construction is fully accessible; and, secondly, to work with partners to improve data on children with disabilities and special educational needs in and out of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), made the point that getting quality data is one of the keys. It is not possible to deal with a challenge without knowing the scale of it, and it is fair to say that at the moment we do not.
Across DFID’s global and country programmes we are supporting a range of activities to support access to education and learning for children with disabilities. Depending on the context, we are working through either partner Governments or local and international partners. In the majority of our programmes we support an inclusive approach to ensure that all children can be educated in mainstream schools. In our most mature and innovative programmes, such as Pakistan’s Punjab programme, we are looking at new partnerships with respect to children with learning disabilities. The Pakistan office is currently assessing the feasibility of implementing our school construction standards in the £104 million reconstruction and rehabilitation programme. Current projections indicate that 50,000 classrooms may be reconstructed or rehabilitated. That work is really about extending the present programme of ensuring that all new schools are fully accessible. DFID’s policy on accessible construction has since triggered similar commitments among other global partners, including UNICEF.
Often children can suffer many types of disadvantage. DFID’s girls’ education challenge, which targets the most marginalised girls, is funding disability-focused projects in Uganda, Kenya and Sierra Leone, totalling more than £9 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion referred to that and asked whether DFID would be able to create a disability education challenge fund. I suppose the answer is that the girls’ fund is clearly a new model, which has not been tried before, to ensure that 1 million of the most marginalised girls get the quality education that they deserve by 2016. As it is a new programme, its effectiveness will need to be assessed, and we perhaps need to get through that challenge before we embark on a new disability education challenge fund. However, I shall draw the proposal to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
My hon. Friend talked about disaggregated data. There is a critical gap with respect to evidence and data on disability prevalence, on which DFID is focusing. As he will know, the Government hosted an important conference jointly with the UN on 23 October to improve disability statistics. During the conference we committed to developing guidance on disability data disaggregation with the UN’s Washington group on disability statistics. We are certainly working towards the goal that my hon. Friend set out of ensuring that disaggregated data are available, and that we can identify where the key problems are and what is effective in ensuring that education reaches the most disadvantaged. To improve education-specific data, we are supporting UNESCO’s institute for statistics in regularly publishing education indicators disaggregated by specific population groups, including people with disabilities, and in developing new standards for school censuses and surveys related to marginalised populations.
As hon. Members know, the true benefits of education accrue only if children achieve good learning outcomes. Our recently published inclusive learning topic guide brings together for the first time evidence on what works in inclusive learning for children aged 3 to 12 years in low and middle-income countries. It focuses on the varied learning needs of children who either are not benefiting from the learning opportunities available to them, or do not have the opportunity to engage in learning at all, owing to their impairments and disabilities. It explores the role of inclusive approaches in contributing to inclusive societies and, ultimately, inclusive growth, and addresses some of the contested and debated issues around terminology, discrimination, and segregated and inclusive schooling. The topic guide supplements our guidance note on educating children with disabilities, and both resources are available freely to all policy makers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and the hon. Member for North West Durham asked what was being done to train staff in inclusion. DFID is rolling out training to its in-country staff on the inclusive learning topic guide. Once the framework has been developed, we will consider how we can continue to upskill our country staff. That is work in progress.
At the global level, we are working closely with the World Bank, the Global Partnership for Education, UNICEF, Australia, Germany, Sweden, the United States Agency for International Development and Norway to ensure that more countries eligible for GPE funds implement an inclusive approach to education, with a specific focus on children with disabilities. Our influencing efforts made disability a priority for the June replenishment of the GPE. Twelve countries pledged at that event to do more for children with disabilities, including Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Ghana.
My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is an unrelenting champion for children with disabilities and I know that she raises the issue at every opportunity, in every meeting, with ministerial counterparts when she travels to partner countries. I do not know, but I imagine that she has travelled to Nigeria recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion raised the issue of disability not being mentioned in the business case for the Nigeria education programme. I reassure him that the programme is in line with DFID’s three priorities in education: improving learning, focusing on girls and ensuring that the most marginalised can learn. DFID business cases are used primarily to assess the evidence on and financial basis of programmes, and do not contain all the detailed information on programme delivery. Disability will clearly be part of the programme.
The International Development Committee’s recent inquiry into DFID’s work on disability recognised that we are doing some impressive work already, but that more ambition would be transformational. DFID is committed to developing a framework to strengthen our work on disability further, and it will be published on 3 December—I think that my hon. Friend referred to the end of November.
My hon. Friend asked how the framework would be implemented. As he knows, we have made two public commitments: first, about accessible schooling; and, secondly, about improving disability data. Through the second commitment, we are working to develop disability-sensitive indicators, which currently do not exist, to measure progress on disability-sensitive education and inclusive learning. That is how we will be able to monitor that things are, in fact, working, and that this is not just fine words without matched fine action, to which the hon. Member for Wirral South referred.
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I am sure that the teachers present will have given her top marks for her presentation, so I do not think she needed to worry about that. I hope I have answered most of her questions, but I might need to return to her point about whether DFID has the skills base to develop disability policy. If I do not get inspiration about that point, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hears that that is a particular concern, and I am sure that she will want to respond directly. As my right hon. Friend makes disability issues a priority, however, I am sure that she would not want a situation in which there were not the necessary skills in her Department to deal with that critical issue.
As the 20th anniversary of the Salamanca framework for action passes, we must ensure that co-ordinated action from Governments, donors and other key stakeholders is able to secure better access to schooling and inclusive learning outcomes for disabled children, as well as wider benefits for inclusive societies. The economic and social costs of exclusion are high. Many low and middle-income economies suffer greater losses from maintaining large out-of-school populations than they would from increasing public spending to achieve universal primary enrolment. It is clear that enrolling all children in basic education is a productive and smart investment. The economic benefits of education are well established and the inclusive growth to which it can contribute is, by definition, grounded in societies that are open, equitable, tolerant and just.
As I have just received inspiration, I can say in response to the hon. Member for Wirral South that DFID has increased the specialist headquarters staff to two. We also have a secondee into the Australian Government, who are world leaders on disability policy. There has been some strengthening of the team but, none the less, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may want to respond to that point in writing.
Recognising and valuing diversity within learning communities and welcoming all children into the classroom must be pivotal components in all learning strategies. Leaving no one behind at school and in wider society is essential not only to a sustainable approach to development and poverty eradication, but to the attainment of the freedoms, dignity, tolerance and respect that are fundamental to our common humanity.
Furness Line
(9 years, 6 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
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As I give the Minister time to settle, I advise her that I will be sitting down sooner than I would otherwise in order to let the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), my friend and constituency neighbour, contribute to this debate, which is at least as important to his constituency as to mine.
The Furness line is a vital rail route through my constituency. It is an arterial route used by residents in the Kent estuary and across the wider Cartmel peninsula. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to highlight the large challenges facing the line and, as a result, the communities and the economy to which it is so vital. I will talk about the future of the line, its immense significance to the local and national economy, the need for new investment and the need for the Department for Transport to take seriously the responses to its recent stakeholder consultation on the TransPennine Express and Northern Rail franchises.
The Furness line takes passengers and freight from the main line at Lancaster through to Barrow, with the largest section of the line running through my constituency and the South Lakeland district. There are stations at Arnside, Grange-over-Sands, Kents Bank and Cark, which are well used and take tourists, commuters and schoolchildren, among others, to and from destinations along this economically vital and uniquely picturesque line.
I am hugely indebted to the work of those who put together the exhaustive 90-page Furness line study created by the Railway Consultancy Ltd, which the Minister displays. The study was supported by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. The Minister has already seen the report, but as she has demonstrated, I made a point of forwarding an additional copy to her ahead of this debate.
The Minister will see that the report is dedicated to the memory of Peter Robinson, whose sudden death on 6 August devastated all of us who knew him. Peter was chair of the Furness Line Community Rail Partnership and the source of all knowledge and wisdom on Furness line matters. I was with him at a meeting on the future of the Furness line just a day or three before he passed away. It was an honour to know Peter, and he is hugely missed.
The report that Peter helped to author is an extremely important piece of work. I am a regular user of the line, but I was nevertheless shocked by the full extent of the failings of the current transport infrastructure and its wider impacts. The report concludes that the Furness line is not fit to meet present demand, much less to cope with the expected population and employment booms in Barrow and Ulverston in the coming years, which I am sure the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness will talk about in due course. We are committed to working together across parties to build a future-proof Furness line.
As well as thanking those who created the report, I thank its funders—local councils, businesses and rail operators—and the hon. Gentleman, whose work has been instrumental in bringing the report to fruition, and whose commitment to defending the line is second to none. The report highlights the line’s short-term and long-term needs. In the short term, the report calls for the urgent return of the two-hourly Manchester airport service and additional trains during the tourist season. Given that this is the line that serves the western Lake district, I hope the Minister will publicly indicate her support and give a clear signal to the rail operators that residents, commuters, the vastly important tourism sector and the wider business community all need the service.
The report also suggests a rationalised timetable and highlights the inadequate number of trains between Barrow and Lancaster on weekday mornings, which prevents residents from commuting by train. The undermining of the line in recent times is apparent in the fact that the Barrow to Manchester airport service has reduced from eight to five trains a day; the Manchester airport to Barrow service has been reduced from 10 to five trains a day since 2007.
Manchester is the business capital of the north-west. Barrow-in-Furness is at risk of being left as one of the few major towns in the north of England without high-quality direct access to that regional capital and its international airport. Many of my constituents, particularly in Grange, Flookburgh, Cark, Cartmel, Allithwaite and Arnside, commute by train and have been hit by that downgrading. Children who would have had safer, quicker journeys to school are now forced to take longer, more costly and more dangerous trips instead. The hugely significant local tourism economy, which is worth £3 billion a year, has been damaged unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us much more encouraging news. I would be grateful if she confirmed that she sees improving the Furness line as being in the long-term economic interests of the region and the nation, and that its success will be prioritised.
The reduction in through trains to and from Manchester means that many passengers now have to use the Manchester to Scotland services between Lancaster and Manchester. The new four-coach electric trains have shorter carriages than the previous three-coach class 185 diesels, and the limited increase in capacity is proving to be dramatically insufficient to meet the needs of both Scottish and Furness passengers—standing is a regular, if not daily, occurrence. Additionally, the downgrading of those services has exacerbated problems with bus links, which the Furness line study identifies as a major issue. Joining up the connections between public transport is vital, and I hope that the Minister will give her support to significant improvements.
The study calls for train operators to co-operate with the area’s biggest businesses to ensure that arrivals and departures coincide with shift patterns. The report states:
“Timetable analysis shows some very significant failings in the level of service provided… the current service is not fit for purpose, through failing frequency, capacity… We have been appalled to discover that significant existing markets are not being addressed, leading to major losses of traffic. The shortfall in service provision is so great here that there is an overwhelming case for immediate action.”
Looking to the future, the report has a vision for the line right through to 2030. It takes into account the expansion of BAE Systems in Barrow, GlaxoSmithKline in Ulverston and the proposed nuclear power station at Moorside. It accurately envisages significant increases in local population and employment, due in part to the far-sighted and successful land allocation strategy of South Lakeland district council. The report is also correct in foreseeing that industrial developments for major employers at Ulverston will lead to a 16% increase in jobs over the next few years, and that all those people will need to get to work.
There can be no doubt that demand will continue to rise. In the longer term, a regular hourly local service calling at all stations needs to be supplemented by faster regional services to and from Manchester airport. The lakes line between Oxenholme and Windermere is scheduled to be electrified in 2016; the study suggests that an increase in the number of trains on the Furness line would justify its eventual electrification by 2030. Virgin Trains should be asked to investigate the operation of through-to-London services from Barrow, with their introduction possibly on an initial two-to-three-year “use it or lose it” basis. Will the Minister use her good offices to help us make that case to Virgin Trains?
Industrial growth, an expansion in resident populations and a huge increase in the tourism economy suggest that the Furness line’s future should be very bright indeed; the purpose of this debate is to seek the Minister’s help in ensuring that it is. However, as we seek support to protect and enhance the line’s long-term future, we are horrified that short-term decisions in the immediate future may fatally undermine that work.
The Minister will know that the Department’s suggested remapping of the TransPennine Express and Northern Rail franchises has undergone a recent stakeholder consultation. She will also know that, along with many others, I responded to that consultation. On behalf of my constituents, I once again urge her not to proceed with the proposed transfer of the Furness and Windermere lines to the new Northern franchise. She should be clear that making that decision would significantly downgrade the Furness line and would constitute a huge blow to our local economy.
The majority of services on the Furness line are operated by TransPennine Express. Since the announcement last March that TransPennine Express is to lose its fleet of nine class 170 units, there has been intense speculation about the effect on train services in the north. Despite efforts to find a solution, there are apparently no spare diesel units available. Unless there is political intervention at a high level, we could see TransPennine Express move out of the Furness line at the timetable change in May 2015, when the class 170 units are due to transfer to the south of England. We can only assume that the Furness line will be relegated to being a branch service between Barrow and Lancaster, operated by Northern from next May using lower-quality trains.
The Minister will know that Northern has accumulated a reputation on the Furness line for its high number of cancellations. That has been going on for some years now. I am sure that both the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I would be happy to furnish her with details of those cancellations. Northern is aware of the debate, but still cancels trains. She will understand why residents and business leaders of south Cumbria are staggered by the Department for Transport proposal that all Furness line trains be transferred to Northern at the commencement of the new franchise in 2016.
The Minister will know that I have written to the Secretary of State on the matter. I am hopeful that the Department will understand the hugely damaging effect that such a transfer would have. Will she agree to rethink the suggestion and consider retaining TransPennine Express services on the Furness line? I am sure that the Minister will agree that at a time when we need the Furness line to be geared to the forthcoming high level of investment and job expansion in the area, the initial proposals make depressing news indeed. [Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that the signal has turned to red and we must all get off the train, but we will get back on when the Division is over, and we will add the lost time to the debate.
Tim Farron
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Given the strategic importance of the Furness line and the clear and impressive expansion of demand into the future, surely now is the time to plan to upgrade services, not downgrade them. Nothing would strengthen confidence in the line more than a commitment to electrification. Will the Minister help to provide that confidence by setting out a timetable for electrification of the Furness line, and will she give us an undertaking that at the very least a feasibility study will be done of that electrification project?
I want us to be positive and optimistic about rail services in Cumbria, in north Lancashire and across the whole region. This week’s talk of High Speed 3 is music to my ears, although the suggestion that it might only be an enhanced line from Manchester to Leeds is somewhat underwhelming. An HS3 to boost northern England would run from Hull to Liverpool, creating a coast-to-coast corridor of growth. Electrification of the lakes line shows that our ambition in the south lakes has paid off, but that optimism is challenged when it comes to the Furness line. I want that to change. The line serves a uniquely booming industry, Britain’s most important tourist destination—the Lake district—and a growing and vibrant residential and commercial community in South Lakeland. There is no logical reason for the Furness line to be anything other than equally booming. My plea to the Minister is to use her influence to prevent the mistakes that would undermine that success, and to instead back a winner.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We lost seven minutes to the Division, so the debate will now finish at 4.37 pm, which means that the halfway point will be at 4.22 pm.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate, on making such an excellent case, on being generous in his words and on giving me the chance to contribute. Before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I echo his words about Peter Robinson, whose death was a sad loss to his family and the community.
There has been much talk about investment in the northern rail network over the past few days, but once again, the so-called HS3 proposal concentrates on linking the major cities of the north, ignoring smaller towns and communities. It comes down to the kind of country we want to be. If we are not prepared to see smaller communities decline and fade, it is not good enough just to say it. Our rail links in the south Lakeland and Furness area are just as vital as those anywhere else, and yet in the case of the Furness line they are under threat of being downgraded.
Amazing things are happening in south and west Cumbria in addition to the great potential of the visitor economy. We have the most advanced manufacturing in the country at Barrow shipyard, which will be taking on an extra 1,000 people in the years to come; civil nuclear expansion up the west coast; cutting-edge biopharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline in Ulverston; offshore wind; and increased estimates of gas reserves in the Irish sea. This is an economy powered by entrepreneurial talent and an incredibly skilled work force, but we need the Government to play a role in tackling our biggest challenge, which is geographic isolation.
We know that the Government can act. Just yesterday, Ministers confirmed £2.8 million to rescue the air link between Newquay and Gatwick. In many ways, the south-west peninsula’s transport situation resembles that of south and west Cumbria, and yet the potential economic, energy, defence, and research and development contribution to the nation that would be unlocked by the Furness line is significantly greater than that of links in the south-west peninsula.
I am proud to have launched the Cumbria Better Connected campaign, and to have seen the way that people have rallied around it. When I questioned the Secretary of State for Transport last week, he promised to read our report carefully; in truth, he may have meant that he wanted the Minister who is here today to read it carefully. The report makes it clear that not only is the current service on the Furness route already below the required standard but that the threat to direct services to Manchester and its critically important international airport has the potential to damage our economy severely, putting in jeopardy all our amazing potential.
My constituents have already seen our rail service deteriorate in recent years. In addition to the cuts to services that my hon. Friend outlined, we have of course seen the reintroduction on the line of the depressing Pacer units, which are 30-year-old buses on rail bogies and which are completely unsuited to journeys of more than an hour along the Furness line. Now the axe hovers over the direct service to Manchester again. The recently closed consultation about the new specifications for the Northern and TransPennine franchises raises the possibility of removing Barrow and Ulverston’s direct trains to Manchester entirely, downgrading them to stopping services or diverting them away from the airport. Electrification of the rest of the TransPennine network leaves Furness as a diesel outlier that is under threat of returning to a branch line, which is hardly fitting or suitable for an area that is about to receive industrial investment on the scale of the investment in the London Olympics.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the Government publish their response to the consultation on the Northern and TransPennine franchises? Will she listen to the clearly expressed voices of the passengers and businesses in the area saying that a fast, regular and high-quality direct service from Barrow to Manchester airport is essential for the area? Will the next franchise holder be provided with modern and fast diesel units, enabling them to operate on the busy west coast main line, regardless of whether those services are part of the TransPennine or Northern franchises? Given the ongoing need for such units in the north on routes such as the Furness line, will the Minister prevent any further transfer of express diesel trains to other areas, which—as my hon. Friend has said—happened with nine TransPennine units that moved to the Chilterns? Will she commit to the removal of Pacer units from the Furness line at the very earliest opportunity, please? And finally, so that representatives of Cumbria do not have to restage this battle every few years, will she ensure that, as my hon. Friend suggested, a serious study of the economics and practicalities of electrifying the Furness line features in future Network Rail work programmes?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I call the Minister with responsibility for rail to respond to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; the phrase “the Thin Controller” is running through my mind.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on his stirring contribution. It is quite clear that everyone who is in Westminster Hall loves their trains and is passionate about the railway. I also pay my own tribute to Mr Robinson for all he did in working with the group that secured, saved and promoted what is a vital railway line. The Furness Line Community Rail Partnership has done sterling work over the years, as indeed has the Furness Line Action Group, whose reports and submissions my team and I have gratefully received and read.
Community rail is a vital and innovative part of the rail industry. It gives responsibility for services to local people who care so much about them. On this line in particular, community rail provides a wonderful—indeed unique—travel experience for passengers. I myself use a wonderful line—it runs down to Pewsey, Bedwyn and beyond—but although Wiltshire offers beautiful scenery of white horses, we cannot offer passengers anything on the scale of the Furness line. Of course, it is for that reason that the Furness line particularly boosts tourism, as it helps us to show off some of Britain’s most beautiful areas.
We do not want community rail simply to survive. We want it to thrive, and that most certainly goes for the Furness line. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness so eloquently put it, the line is about not only taking people to see wonderful scenery, tourist opportunities and wildlife, but providing a vital economic artery for south Cumbria.
I was struck by page five of the report to which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred, which says that the Furness line has a “twofold” purpose:
“To carry local traffic, and to provide a…link to the regional centre of Manchester and its airport.”
That is absolutely right, and I recognise all the work that the community rail partnership has done to promote the service locally and to improve the station facilities. We already see that work starting to come through. However, I also recognise the disappointment that was caused when the through services between Barrow and Manchester were reduced in May.
One thing I have learned in this job is that our rail network is terribly complicated. We end up with all sorts of dependencies against a backdrop of unprecedented passenger growth. There has been a doubling of passenger growth in the past 20 years, and in this particular area, the fare-box revenue—the value of growth—went up by 6.4% just last year. Indeed, some of the most crowded services in the country are now outside London. Against that backdrop, may I say that we have had decades of under-investment? Investment has failed to keep up with the growth, so we end up with operators struggling to deal with some of that growth and sometimes having to make decisions about reorganising train services.
In this case, as we know, the reduction in the through service was prompted by the launch of the new timetable for TransPennine Express, which takes advantage of the widely acclaimed electrification between Manchester and Scotland. That allowed for an increase in services, including a fifth TransPennine Express train each hour between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and York. However, that had the consequence that some other services were lost, although the Furness line’s services to Manchester airport are still over and above the minimum set out by the 2014 passenger requirement.
John Woodcock
I guess that the Minister’s previous comment is, in very strict terms, true, but the services are above the minimum requirement only because her Government changed that requirement by radically taking it downwards.
Claire Perry
Part of the direction of travel is to allow operators to change services, especially when there is unmet demand, and I shall say a little about the overall structure of the TransPennine franchise. However, in a way it is a testament to the busyness and value of the line that the operator decided to deliver over and above the service requirement. Of course, there is still a vital weekday peak-time morning service from Manchester, which is timed to arrive before 11 am.
I reassure the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Barrow and Furness that the reduction of services in no way reflects the importance that the Government place on the line. Let me put things in context. As I said, the national network suffered from decades of under-investment, and we have been dealing with huge growth in passenger numbers on an ageing and intensively used network throughout the country. That is why we need High Speed 2, of which I am a strong supporter, not only because it will reduce journey times, but because it will deliver vital increases in capacity to these north-south links. I also take the point about HS3 being a vital east-west link. The view of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that it should go from Hull to Liverpool will be of interest not only to passengers, but to the freight industry, as we have important freight paths across the country, running north, south, east and west. That is why the delivery of this £40 billion rail modernisation programme—the biggest investment since Victorian times—will transform services right across the country, especially across the north of England, where there has not been investment for decades. There will be more capacity, better connectivity, shorter journeys, cleaner trains and greater reliability.
Hon. Members will have seen the improvements in the stations to which our constituents travel. The new Manchester Victoria station is nearly complete, and other schemes will follow. I say gently to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that the last time the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises were let in 2003 and 2004 by the then Labour Government, that was done on a zero-growth and zero-investment basis, which was an incredibly short-sighted decision. If we believe in growth throughout the country, we have to invest in the vital rolling stock that moves people and goods around. I am passionate about the need to change that mindset, which is why these enormous capital investment programmes are coming to fruition. We have signed the agreement to provide the first electric trains on the Northern Rail network at the end of 2014.
To refresh hon. Members on the timetable for the letting of the franchises, earlier this year we launched the competition for the TransPennine and Northern franchises. The process is due to start in February 2016. Planning for passenger growth and better services will be at the heart of those franchises. Crucially, we are taking the franchises forward in concert with local authorities. I do not underestimate the importance of the involvement of Rail North and Cumbria in specifying what these communities need and what the service should look like. We do not want to leave that to officials sitting in Whitehall. We want local communities to say what is important to them, what services work and what sort of trains are required to run those services.
The hon. Gentlemen raised a vital point about the importance of rail to the overall economic vibrancy of a region. We cannot think about rail just in a silo. It is a vital part of stimulating economic growth and also of responding to economic growth. As we heard, this is an area that is attracting huge investment from a business point of view.
The consultation posed tricky questions about the future operation of the Furness line, and it is important to ask tough questions so that we get answers. We asked about the appropriate number of through services and shuttle services to Lancaster, and the more than 20,000 responses to the consultation that we received enable us to see how we can design the specifications for the two franchises. I assure hon. Members that we are giving careful consideration to views that are expressed. They will understand why I cannot go into details, but the invitation to tender will answer a lot of the questions, and that will be issued in December.
The question of the class 170s has been raised several times. Hon. Members have my personal commitment, along with that of the Department, that the cascade problem will be solved by the end of the year. The situation is unfortunate, but there is a huge desire to resolve it and to ensure that there is no interruption in rolling stock.
Work is already being led by Network Rail to consider the strategic priorities for further investment for the next control period, starting from 2019. Again, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness rightly pointed out, rail investment cannot be thought of in a narrow cost-benefit silo within the Department. We have to think about gross value added and the vital importance of connectivity to economic growth, and such thinking will inform future investment strategies for the railways.
Of particular interest to the future of the Furness line will be a refresh of the industry’s electrification strategy, on which consultation is due next year, and the northern route study, on which work is due to start in 2016. I understand the importance that the hon. Gentlemen place on the future electrification of the Furness line. I hope that they are both aware that the Secretary of State announced last December the creation of the northern taskforce, which is made up of three north of England MPs and two council leaders nominated by Rail North, with representation from Network Rail, to advise on priorities for the next generation of electrification projects in the north of England. The task force is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and its members include my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). It is considering all remaining non-electrified rail lines in the north of England, including the Furness line. Its interim report is due in early 2015 so that the recommendations can be put against Network Rail’s draft electrification strategy.
We will continue to hear how the Government are progressing HS2, which will provide the capacity and connectivity that the country needs in the long term. As I said, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have given their backing to the development of HS3 to create a northern economic powerhouse.
I shall try to answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. If the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale would like to write to me about some of the specific things he asked today, just to make sure I get the full detail, I would be delighted to respond.
We are expecting a response to the 20,000 consultation responses at the same time as the invitation to tender is published in December. We will of course listen to all views before taking decisions, and I will be happy to meet any or all hon. Members affected. New diesel rolling stock is absolutely vital, and I want to flag up that although electrification is a hugely important part of the rail strategy, passengers want to be able to get on a train, have a reliable journey and pay a reasonable amount for their tickets, and that may well sometimes involve a diesel train. Even if there is an electrification ask further down the line, it should not prohibit us from putting in place new investment right now.
The point about the Pacers—the buses on bogies—which I saw lined up at Doncaster station only last week, was very well made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, and he is not the first to make it. He will know that the ITT will ask for a fully priced option to replace the Pacers. However, I am told, following reading through responses to the consultation, that there may be times when the use of a Pacer might be appropriate. Indeed, local communities have said they would rather have a Pacer than nothing at all. I do not want to make blanket statements about Pacers, but I do take the point about using them on commuter lines, as many people have explained their shortcomings.
I hope I have answered the majority of the questions that I have been asked. I hope also that I have been able to provide some reassurance to the hon. Gentlemen that the Government are addressing the problems that have held the railways back in this country, which invented the railways, for so long. For me and for the Government, investment in railways is investment in growth, and that is just as relevant to the Furness line and to south Cumbria—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but that debate has pulled into the station.
UK Visa Applications (Malawi)
(9 years, 6 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
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. We are debating in the presence of the Malawian high commissioner to the UK, who is here to observe our proceedings. I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate this afternoon. I am grateful to the Home Office Minister for being here to respond to it. I am aware that he has a full range of responsibilities. Although Malawi is important to me and to many other Members of this House, I am sure that it is not necessarily at the top of his agenda. I took the opportunity earlier to provide him with a list of the points I want to raise, so I hope he will be able to respond to at least some of those points this afternoon.
I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party group on Zambia and Malawi. I chair the Malawi part. As I am sure Members are aware, Malawi has strong links, through David Livingstone, with Blantyre in my constituency in Lanarkshire. That is the basis for my interest. It is a long-standing interest also shared by many of my constituents, which is why I am keen to pursue some of the issues this afternoon.
I should also say that I am indebted to the Scotland Malawi Partnership, a non-profit organisation in Scotland that works to ensure that relationships between projects and communities seeking to support Malawi are well linked up. It works as a resource for a range of charities, some large and some very small, that support communities in Malawi. It has provided me with some of the case studies and detailed information that I want to touch on this afternoon.
This is not a new issue. Through the all-party group, I have been involved in meetings with the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development over the past year to express some of these concerns. Each time, they have said that they understand that there are frustrations, acknowledged the issues and said that the matter was really for the Home Office. That is why I am grateful that a Home Office Minister is here. I hope that he will be able to respond to some of these issues.
As the Minister will be aware, there was a short general debate on Malawi last week in the other place. In the debate, Lord McConnell, the former First Minister of Scotland, who was involved in the founding of the Scotland Malawi Partnership, and Lord Steel, the former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament—I visited Malawi with him and others last year—raised the frustrations that had been expressed to them about the way in which the visa system operates for applicants from Malawi. They did so in the context of a much wider debate on Malawi, which focused on the UK’s relationship with Malawi and the strong community relationships with Malawi that exist in many parts of Scotland.
The context is significant for this debate, because the point I want to get across to the Minister is that there is real concern that the relationship is being undermined by the frustration, the difficulty, the bureaucracy and the cumbersome nature of the visa application process, which enables people to visit the UK in support of many charitable, educational and religious projects at a community and local level. The nature of that relationship is important, particularly because with Malawi, due to issues that are rightly of concern to the UK Government, it is not possible for there to be direct grant aid from Government to Government. A lot of the aid and support is channelled through charitable and other projects. That makes the issue even more significant, and the frustration is in danger of undermining the relationship.
As such, there appears to be a contrast between some of the language and ideals that the Government say underpin their international development efforts and those that inform the way in which this aspect of the immigration system works. They talk about inclusion and equality as core principles, yet it is near impossible for anyone other than the wealthiest of the urban elite in countries across Africa to secure visas to visit the UK. These visits are often for legitimate purposes. In many circumstances, all the costs are being met by reputable charitable organisations and groups in the UK. They are more than happy to provide any assurances that are needed that the visitor will be there for those purposes and will be able to return at the end of the visit.
I raised an example at a business statement in the House just two weeks ago. Christian Aid held an event in Parliament to highlight the impact of climate change on some of the poorest countries of the world. Representatives from organisations working with Christian Aid from the Philippines, Bolivia and Malawi were due to be at the event, but the Malawian representative was unable to attend due to problems securing a visa. Sadly, that is not unusual. I have heard examples—I know of some personally—of teachers, charity workers and people working with Churches being unable to fulfil long-standing partnership engagements in communities across the UK, including in Scotland, because of the changes to the application system for visas from Malawi.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have come along to endorse what he is saying. I have constituents and organisations in my constituency that are involved in the Scotland Malawi Partnership and want their concerns raised in the House. I hope that the Minister can respond to them. As my hon. Friend has set out, it is not just about projects in Malawi and similar projects elsewhere; this issue is of great concern to those involved in that partnership. I hope we can get some results from the Minister this afternoon.
Tom Greatrex
My hon. Friend makes a good point on the growing sense of frustration felt by many of those involved in Malawi on the difficulties people have had in securing visas to visit the UK. I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to some of these more detailed points as we develop them this afternoon.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Would it not be odd if citizens in Malawi were being deprived of visas to come to the UK when those against whom corruption allegations have been made were still able to secure visas?
Tom Greatrex
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is alluding to the ongoing investigation into the misappropriation of aid funds in Malawi and more widely. He makes an important point. The examples I am talking about are individuals involved in projects, partnership arrangements or exchange visits, often with schools or Churches and other organisations. They are not part of that wealthy elite. In many cases, they struggle to secure a visa when they have a legitimate reason to visit the UK and are support the underlying Government policy on aid and development in Malawi. He makes that point very well.
A recent example, provided to me by the Scotland Malawi Partnership, is the experience of Donald Osborne, who has worked with Malawi for a number of years. He was organising a visa for a Malawian teacher to visit Scotland, and the application was rejected not once but twice, and without any notification. That speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Malawi is 170th out of 187 in the human development index. In Malawi, around 60% of the population live on £1 or less a day. For every 1,000 children born, 68 will die before the age of five. Only 16% of children will have the opportunity to attend secondary school. The partnerships that Malawi has with the UK, in my constituency, in Edinburgh and elsewhere across the UK, promote development to address those issues through a person-to-person model. The relationships between individuals, communities and families enhance the effectiveness of Government-to-Government relationships to tackle poverty. Some of those relationships have been under strain as a result of the events to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
Many aspects of the visa process make it extremely difficult for Malawians to visit the UK. Lord McConnell highlighted in the other place last week how damaging the application process can be. He asked the Government whether steps could be taken to improve the system. The revised system provides a remarkably long, complex and often confusing process. The online process requires details from the applicant and the sponsor and has a detailed application form that requires an extraordinary level of supporting evidence and runs to 15 pages. That it is online is a clear difficulty for many people living in Malawi, as access to the internet is often difficult, time consuming and expensive. Power supplies and connections are unreliable and unpredictable.
I completely understand the need to be thorough—the process should be thorough—but the Government need to be aware that an online system, which seems straightforward from our perspective in the UK and in Europe, is very much more difficult for those applying from Malawi, particularly those doing so through the third-party contractor that has been running the system. I know that the operator of that system changed relatively recently. How many complaints have been made about the online system? Are the Government aware of the proportion of Malawians who have regular access to the internet? Was that taken into account prior to the changes to the system being introduced through Pretoria? Do the Minister and the Home Office have data available on the number of online applications that are started but never completed?
There is also a lengthy series of offline processes, which include posting passports to another country for assessment. At every stage, the process seems to confuse and frustrate many prospective applicants. The minimum cost for applications is £144, including the basic visa charge. It costs £59 just for an appointment. That translates to some 2,500 South African rand or some 107,000 Malawian kwacha, which is more than 30 times the weekly wage for the average Malawian and for which there is no refund if the application is unsuccessful. Indeed, I have heard of many cases in which repeat applications have been made, so how much money has been taken through unsuccessful visa applications, in particular from people from Malawi?
Furthermore, the move to a cashless system has made applying for UK visas in Malawi difficult for many people. In debates in the other place, Lord Steel explained the issues with a cashless system. International credit cards do not exist in the same way in Malawi, and it is illegal to pay in rand without the specific permission and authorisation of the national bank. The Government are therefore asking people to pay in a currency to which they have limited access. That has become a barrier to visa applications and has also worryingly led to an increasing number of industry intermediaries, who make onward electronic transfers on behalf of applicants, often involving high fees and cursory regard to the system’s robustness and whether applications are ever formally concluded. That is but one aspect of the system that causes discrimination based on wealth.
The Minister will be aware that many Malawians do not have an internationally recognised credit or bank card, but I wonder whether the Home Office took that into account when deciding how the system would work. Has any consideration been made of how much industry intermediaries make each year through charging to make electronic transfers? Are there any concerns about the quality of those transactions and the potential for fraud in the visa application process? We are told that the solution is for the UK sponsor to pay the fees, but that rarely works. The IT system regularly crashes and is unclear, making it hard for the sponsor to be able to get to the appropriate place in the application and make the payment. How many UK sponsors have been unable to pay fees for applications? What is the figure as a percentage of all applications?
The system also means that all UK visa applications from Africa are now handled in regional hubs, which causes delays as passports, birth certificates, bank details and other essential documents are sent back and forth across the continent, not always reliably. Decisions are then made by those who have almost no knowledge of the country concerned. Applicants have even had to fly across the continent to collect their passports in urgent situations. I understand that the move to regional hubs was partly about efficiency, but the Government should be concerned about reliability. How has the move to regional hubs affected the time scale involved in securing visas? What is the current backlog of the hub in Pretoria?
In last week’s debate in the other place, Baroness Northover stated:
“Poorly paid people from Malawi are not discriminated against in applying for visas. There is no income threshold.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 858.]
While it may be correct that there is no income threshold, that is not the same as there being no disincentive based on income. For example, applicants must demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to cover the costs of their visit and to return to Malawi, meaning that more than 90% are simply not rich enough to be allowed to accept an invitation to the UK. They must also prove that there is a strong reason for them to return to Malawi, through either employment or family ties, but Malawi has a great deal of poverty and a lack of formal employment—85% of Malawians are subsistence farmers. Often, the events that people want to come over and take part in are run by organisations that are willing and able to provide any necessary assurances that the event is the reason why the applicant wants to come over and that the person will return, but that is almost impossible to prove in the application process. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.
Before I conclude, I will outline one recent example. Members will be aware of the work of Mary’s Meals, which feeds many people in Malawi and across poorer parts of Africa. The head of programmes for Mary’s Meals in Malawi, which currently feeds 690,000 children, was refused a visa on the grounds that he was likely to abscond, despite letters from the charity’s UK chief operating officer, as well as the country director, providing reassurances about the work that the individual was undertaking.
In conclusion, I return to my central point about the frustration caused by the visa system, how it operates, its cashless nature, which is inadequate for many Malawians, and the implications and consequences. Thousands of people in the UK are involved in projects and community initiatives to support Malawi, often on a local, project-by-project basis involving schools, Churches and community organisations. They want to help, support and underpin the work that the UK Government’s aid programme is engaged in delivering to one of the poorest countries in the world. The Scotland Malawi Partnership is a phenomenal organisation that is helping to facilitate that. It is not an unreasonable group of people, but it has repeatedly highlighted the concerns and the scale of the problem.
We have heard the line-to-take response from Ministers in other Departments, but I hope that the Minister can commit today not only to answering my questions but to re-examining the effectiveness of the system and its processes. This is not about immigration policy so much as the way the system is applied and how it affects people in Malawi. In the short term, will the Minister consider giving the high commission in Lilongwe a front-facing officer to provide face-to-face support to those applying for a visa to visit the UK and guide them through a process that can be confusing, frustrating and incoherent in equal measure? We all understand the importance of ensuring that immigration policy is well designed and robust, but there are real concerns that it is not as effective as it could or should be and that important charitable and support work for one of the poorest countries in the world is being undermined by the system. I implore the Minister to reconsider the matter and to provide a better system in the interests of the people of Malawi and of the UK.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I advise Members that the debate will conclude at 5.7 pm.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate, and on how he advanced his points about the visa arrangements for Malawi and underlined the connections between Malawi and the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. I also recognise his direct constituency interest, it being the birthplace of Dr David Livingstone, whose connection with Malawi started in the 1850s, and I recognise the history involved. It is important to underline the connections between the UK and Malawi, and the movement of people ensures closer engagement between both countries. The visa service has an important part to play in facilitating that movement, while, as the hon. Gentleman understands, protecting our borders and preventing illegal immigration.
In addressing the hon. Gentleman’s questions and points, it is important to give the broader context of our performance and the number of visa applications received from Malawi. I believe that we provide a good service to customers from Malawi. Of the 2,160 visa applications received from Malawian nationals in 2013, 86% were successful. That is an important figure to highlight, given his question about the number of refused applications.
Looking back at the figures for 2010, I note that the grant rate then was 74%. The hon. Gentleman suggests a worsening picture, but it would seem that the grant rate is higher than it was four years ago. The number of applications that we receive from Malawi is comparatively small—I will come on to talk about some of the challenges that that creates—but it is important to see the context of the overall grant rate.
We do process applications within our published customer service standards, and often much faster than that. The global published service standards are to process non-settlement applications within 15 working days and settlement applications within 60 working days. On the gov.uk website, we have published the August figures for the processing time for applications submitted in Malawi for business visit visas; 69% were processed in five days, 90% in 10 days and 100% in 15 days. With regard to settlement, 100% of applications were processed in 60 days. I point the hon. Gentleman to the current performance figures on the website. I take the performance in individual countries seriously, so that we can ensure that we are delivering a quality, timely visa service for the citizens of those countries who want to visit the UK.
In the current economic climate, it is not possible to offer a free, five-day-a-week visa application network in all countries of the world. However, where possible, we do not want to require someone who wishes to travel to the UK to travel to a different country first in order to apply for a visa. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that point.
In order to offer the option of submitting an application for a UK visa in Malawi as well as in other locations, UK Visas and Immigration had to make changes to our visa application footprint. Those are in line with a global model that includes requiring customers at lower-volume visa application centres to provide a contribution to the running costs, and reducing the opening frequencies of some visa application points. The alternative was to withdraw our visa application network from Malawi entirely, which we did not want to do.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the additional £59 charge. That was determined solely to recover the costs of operating the visa application points in this location. Malawi is one of a number of countries in which such arrangements have been put in place. I reassure him that the charge is in no way a means of trying to make money. The UK does not make any money from such charges, which support the visa application service in-country.
The arrangement to clear visas in Pretoria was put in place in about 2008-09. The concept of having a smaller number of hubs to ensure an efficient and effective service has been adopted by us around the globe. We have not seen inefficiencies in it, and it has led to—I hope—better decision making on the applications received. I will come on to that point.
James Brokenshire
I have four minutes left, and as this debate was secured by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I need to give credit to him in the time available.
There is a close tie between Scotland and Malawi, which dates back to the 1850s, and the Scotland-Malawi Partnership plays a key role in supporting links between our countries. My officials in Pretoria, where Malawian applications are considered, have established a good relationship with Mr David Hope-Jones, the principal officer of the partnership, to ensure that citizens from Malawi can apply for visas.
One particular problem raised has been the difficulty in accessing the internet in Malawi and, therefore, in submitting a visa application. UKVI has moved to an application and payment process in which almost all customers apply and pay for their visas online. We have introduced that arrangement around the globe; it is part of the Government’s “digital by default” strategy.
The Visa4UK application portal has been upgraded to provide an improved customer interface, as well as to introduce a number of new features designed to make applications clearer and easier to complete. The move to online applications and payments has delivered a streamlined process that is consistent with a wider global trend for online transactions and payments. It will also be a safer system for both customers and staff, as it reduces the risk associated with handling large amounts of cash.
Customers who do not have a credit or debit card can seek a sponsor to pay online, as the hon. Gentleman said. I made further inquiries and discovered that prepaid credit or debit cards from the major suppliers can be provided by Malawian banks and used for our gateway. There is, therefore, the ability to go to a mainstream Malawian bank to secure that. We have received no official communication from the Malawian Government saying that the permission of the Reserve Bank of Malawi is required for visa payments. The situation in Malawi for applications has improved, and my officials continue to work with sponsors to ensure access to the visa service.
The hon. Gentleman and others have raised concerns about it being difficult for a Malawian to be issued a visa, owing to their modest economic circumstances, even if a genuine sponsor in the UK is meeting the cost of the visit. All visa applications from anywhere in the world are considered on their individual merits against the immigration rules. Applicants should provide evidence to show that they meet the rules and that their circumstances are as they outline. Those intending to visit the UK should provide evidence to show that they can be adequately accommodated and supported during their stay, and that they can meet the cost of their onward journey. That is important to ensure that only genuine visitors come to the UK, and to protect our system.
There is flexibility within the rules for visitors to be maintained and accommodated by friends or relatives. Entry clearance officers will take into account all information provided by applicants and their sponsors when making decisions on visa applications. They will make inquiries directly with sponsors where necessary, but the onus is on the applicant to provide all relevant information in support of their application, including full details of their sponsor’s ability to maintain and accommodate them. However, it is important to note that visitors must meet all the other requirements of the immigration rules. I recognise the point about return.
I have had limited time in which to respond, but I will reflect carefully on what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps I could write to him with further details following the debate.
Written Statements
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fair and Effective Markets Review
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
On 12 June 2014, the Government announced a joint review by HM Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) into the way wholesale financial markets operate.
Wholesale fixed income, currency and commodity (FICC) markets underpin major financial transactions in the global economy. These markets also play a vital role in determining the costs of borrowing for households, business and government, exchange rates, and commodity prices that affect the real economy in Britain. In recent years we have seen abuse and misconduct in FICC markets, and allegations continue to circulate. The Government are determined to take action to help restore trust and integrity and to ensure that the highest standards are expected of those who operate in these FICC markets. It is important that this is done in a way that preserves the UK’s position as the global financial centre for many of these markets, with all the jobs and investment that brings.
Action has already been taken both domestically and in the EU to respond to recent market abuses by regulators, legislators and market participants. In the EU, key changes to the regulatory structure have been agreed under MiFID II and the market abuse regulation. Domestically, as well as enforcement action taken by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Government have taken steps to ensure that robust measures can be taken to tackle abuse and raise standards. This includes legislation to introduce a new criminal offence imposed on people who manipulate the LIBOR benchmark, and legislating to implement recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The Government have also launched a consultation on extending the new legislation put in place to regulate LIBOR to cover further benchmarks in these markets, including benchmarks in the markets for gold, silver, crude oil and foreign exchange.
These are important steps, but the Government are committed to go further in ensuring that markets are fair and effective for the British economy. The Government welcome the progress that has already been made by the Fair and Effective Markets Review. The consultation document “How fair and effective are the fixed income, foreign exchange and commodities markets?” published on 27 October is comprehensive, balanced and rigorous and asks the right questions on what needs to change to address recent misconduct and reinforce fairness and effectiveness in these markets. The consultation document is available on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fair-and-effective-markets-review-announced-by-chancellor-of-the-exchequer
The Government look forward to the review’s final recommendations in June 2015.
Public Sector Exit Payments (Recovery)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
We are today publishing the Government response to the consultation about provisions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill which will enable the recovery of exit payments when high earners return to the same part of the public sector within 12 months of leaving.
These provisions will ensure that the taxpayer is not paying out large sums in redundancies only to incur the cost of re-employing the same person in a similar role elsewhere. This will underpin consistency and fairness across the whole of the public sector.
This measure follows a number of recent high profile cases where individuals have received large exit payments and quickly returned to public sector roles. The Health Select Committee found that among 19,000 NHS redundancies, 17% had been rehired, and most within a year. An Audit Commission report in 2010 found that of 37 chief executives who left by mutual agreement over a two-year period from January 2007, six had been employed in another council within 12 months. In such circumstances, the justification of financial support to bridge the gap to new employment is undermined and this represents poor value for money.
The consultation ran from 25 June to 17 September 2014 and received responses from 27 organisations ranging from health care bodies, local government bodies, trade unions and professional bodies. Engagements with Departments continued throughout this period, and representations were received from their arm’s-length bodies.
Respondents broadly agree that exit payments are primarily for a loss of employment, agreeing that it was reasonable to consider a recovery provision but advised caution over complexity. We have carefully considered all responses in deciding how to move forward with the legislation, recognising the diverse range of views which reflects different work force arrangements across the public sector. As a result of this, the Government have decided to continue with the main elements of this policy:
Require high earning public sector employees or office holders to repay a broad definition of exit payments should they return to the public sector within 12 months on a pro rata basis.
Apply these measures to employees moving between the same part—or sub sector—of the public sector, with the exact definition of these sub-sectors to be determined and consulted upon at a later stage.
Define higher earners as any individual earning above £100,000.
Make changes that represent a baseline legal requirement. Where employers’ existing or proposed policies go further these measures will support rather than replace them.
Following the responses we received, the Government have made the following changes to our original proposal:
Payments in lieu of notice will not be recovered, as these are not payments for a loss of employment.
Those payments that have a potential, if not actual, monetary value will not be recovered because the difficulty of attributing a value would add an administration complexity and the likely cost of doing so could not be justified.
A decision has also been taken not to include a lower earnings threshold for a taper because of cost and complexity.
Special severance payments will be subject to the recovery provisions because they include elements that are paid in respect of loss of employment such as payments made for efficiency reasons, as well as elements that could be attributable to employer fault. Waivers from repayment could be used where these agreements relate to elements of employer fault, such as out of court settlement of an employee’s claims against an employer.
The Bank of England and public broadcasters will be excluded from the scope of this policy, recognising their unique independent status. These organisations are to operate their own proposals which adhere to the spirit of the policy, and the BBC and Channel 4 have already put in place more stringent proposals.
In relation to the Office for National Statistics and some regulators, they will operate as independent individual sub-sectors responsible for their own waiver regimes. This is consistent with independence in the production and release of official statistics, and for some regulators a statutory basis for independence from central Government.
As far as the waiver regime is concerned, there will be no option to waive recovery of payments made to Ministers and their special advisers, and parliamentary post holders.
Further details of the changes to the policy are in the Government’s response to the consultation which has been published on the gov.uk site.
The Government have decided to proceed with legislating for framework powers enabling the recovery of public sector exit payments, and will draft regulations giving effect to the policy taking account of these changes.
Firefighters’ Pension Schemes
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
People are now living longer, with the average 60-year-old living 10 years longer now than they did in the 1970s. As a result, the cost of public service pensions has increased in real terms by around a third over the last 10 years and is now £32 billion a year. The average firefighter retiring at age 50 today is expected to live and draw a pension for 37 years in retirement after a career of 30 years. Lord Hutton, in his independent report, found that the firefighters’ pension scheme 1992 is the most expensive public service scheme and it is forecast to have a cash flow deficit of nearly £600 million by 2018-19. Taxpayers cannot be expected to meet all of these costs.
From December 2011, a number of proposals for reform were discussed between the Department, employers and the firefighter representative bodies. Over a year after the Government published their preferred scheme design in May 2012, the Fire Brigades Union balloted its members for strike action. Since that period there have been further talks to try to resolve the dispute, and three consultations covering the pension regulations. We have listened to the responses made to these consultations and refined the scheme design to address points made by firefighters.
Today, the Government have laid regulations setting out the terms of the reformed firefighters’ pension scheme before Parliament and these will incorporate the changes that we have agreed to the scheme design. Laying the regulations now gives fire and rescue authorities time to implement the changes before they come into effect in April 2015.
We are also consulting on an amendment to the fire and rescue national framework for England to ensure that no firefighter aged 55 or over will face a risk of being left without a job or a good pension. Our proposals underpin the fitness and capability processes that exist within individual fire and rescue authorities and complement the work being undertaken by a fitness group chaired by the chief fire and rescue adviser, Peter Holland. This group will provide an important opportunity for employers, employees and Government to consider the issues around fitness in more depth, and suggest practical action to address them. These steps will benefit all firefighters, not least women firefighters, and those who will work beyond 55 if they so wish. As the impact of working beyond 55 years of age will only start to take effect in 2022, there is time to ensure appropriate procedures are in place to reassure and support both the younger and older worker. This process, linked with generous ill health arrangements and the opportunity for redeployment, should ensure that firefighters can continue to receive one of the best pension packages of any worker.
A third of all firefighters are already members of the new firefighters’ pension scheme 2006, which has a normal pension age of 60. The 2015 scheme maintains a normal pension age of 60 as recommended by Lord Hutton and incorporated into the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Firefighters are the only work force that will not see an increase in their open scheme’s normal pension age as part of the reforms.
As a result of our consultation and representations received, we have made a number of changes to the scheme originally proposed. We have extended the enhanced early retirement arrangements so that they now apply from age 55, meaning that, as a member of the 2015 scheme, a firefighter retiring from age 55 will keep a significantly higher proportion of their pension than if they were in the 2006 scheme.
Members of the firefighters’ pension scheme 2015 will also earn more pension for each year that they are a member of the 2015 scheme than if they were in the 2006 scheme. The reformed 2015 scheme further improves on the existing firefighters’ pension schemes by removing the cap on the amount of pension that can be earned, providing pension enhancements when taken after normal pension age, and giving members greater flexibility by allowing partial retirement. The 2015 scheme also introduces a career average pension arrangement, which is a fairer pension scheme for lower paid members who tend to have flatter career progression.
We have also put in place very generous protections, which see a greater proportion of firefighters protected from the reforms than any other large public service pension scheme. A member of the firefighters’ pension scheme 1992, who on 1 April 2012 was aged 45 or over, will see no change in their benefits or retirement age. Firefighters aged 41 or over at that date will receive tapered protection, meaning that they will continue in their existing scheme for a longer period of time. As a result, less than a quarter of firefighters will see a change to their normal pension age in April 2015, and no firefighter will have to work beyond their current normal pension age until 2022.
Where firefighters are transferring to the 2015 scheme, they can be reassured that the pension they have built up in their existing schemes will be fully protected, and they can still choose to retire at the age they currently expect—which could be from age 50. Pension earned in the 1992 scheme will be enhanced further to recognise loss of access to double accrual, and all benefits earned in existing schemes will be calculated on the member’s final salary on retirement. 1992 scheme members will also see a reduction in their employee contributions of two percentage points in 2015-16. After tax, this puts £460 back in their pockets in that financial year.
Members will continue to benefit from ill health and survivor benefits, providing important cover for the member and their family should the worst happen. The Department has also agreed to reduce the cost for authorities that choose to retire a firefighter over the age of 55 with an unreduced pension, providing them with greater flexibility to manage their work forces.
Importantly the reforms are fairer for taxpayers. They put the schemes onto a sustainable footing by removing the final salary risks associated with the old schemes, and by introducing a cost cap to limit future taxpayers’ exposure on the costs of the scheme.
The Government recognise the importance of reassuring firefighters about changes to their pension in the future. We have given a 25-year guarantee that no changes to scheme design, benefits or contribution rates will be necessary, other than within the reform framework. On 10 October 2014, we issued a consultation on setting up a national scheme advisory board and local pension boards, following Lord Hutton’s recommendations on better scheme governance. We have proposed that local pension boards will include serving firefighters who will, for the first time, have a direct involvement in looking after their pensions.
Alongside the pension regulations, the Department is also responding to the “Normal Pension Age for Firefighters” review prepared by Dr Williams who made three recommendations to deal with the design of the pension scheme and a further seven recommendations on supporting firefighters who remain operationally fit until age 60. We have accepted two of the three recommendations on the pension scheme design, and the 2015 scheme reflects this. However, the Department could not accept the recommendation to reduce the pension of firefighters who are permanently unable to undertake the role of a firefighter.
The remaining recommendations concern fitness standards, assessments, training and data collection, all of which will be considered by the fitness group to be chaired by the chief fire and rescue adviser. Finally, the Department is content to commission subsequent reviews to further consider the impact of a normal pension age of 60 on firefighters.
We have arrived at this final scheme after extensive consultation and consideration. It is a sustainable and fair pension package, which takes into account the unique role of firefighters. Copies of the associated documents will be placed in the Library of the House and they are also available on my Department’s website.
Pensions (Contingent Liabilities)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am pleased to inform the House that I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence has received approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) to recognise a new class of contingent liability associated with the provision of pensions to staff compulsorily transferred from the public sector under new fair deal arrangements.
As part of the naval base operating centre transformation programme, and after a competitive procurement process, approval was given to outsource provision of reception centre services at Her Majesty’s naval base Devonport to Babcock International Group. The contract was awarded on 1 September 2014 and will lead to the transfer of 20 assigned civilian posts under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) legislation on 1 December 2014.
This transfer of undertaking will be implemented under new fair deal arrangements, which will generate future contingent liabilities for pension costs. HMT approval was granted on 8 August 2014 and I am advising Parliament of the approval of contingent liability for pension costs associated with such transfers under new fair deal arrangements.
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
In accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s ratification process, the Government are laying before Parliament the text of Protocol 15 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the European convention on human rights, under Command Paper No. 8951 with an explanatory memorandum which explains the effects of the protocol, ministerial responsibility for its implementation, and financial implications resulting from ratification.
The key objective of the United Kingdom’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was to secure agreement to further reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. That objective was achieved. The resulting Brighton declaration on the future of the Court, agreed on 20 April 2012, was a comprehensive package of reforms to tackle the excessive backlog of cases pending before the Court, and made clear that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing human rights rests with national Governments, Parliaments and courts. Together, these reforms help to ensure that the Court focuses on allegations of serious violations or major points of interpretation of the convention. Refocusing the role of the Court should reduce its backlog and thus deliver swifter justice for the fewer cases before it.
The Brighton declaration was the result of a hard won—and ongoing—negotiation on the future role of the European Court of Human Rights. It therefore represented a significant step towards realising the goals set out by the Prime Minister in Strasbourg in January 2012, to ensure that the Court does not function as a “Court of fourth instance”. It was not however the end of the reform process: as mandated by the Brighton declaration, work continues at the Council of Europe to consider further reforms in the context of the long-term future of the Court and the convention system.
As part of the package of reforms, the Brighton declaration included agreement in principle to amend the convention in five respects. Protocol 15, the text of which will be laid here today, makes these amendments. Since it was opened for signature on 24 June 2013, Protocol 15 has been ratified by 10 states and signed by 29 others. It will come into force once ratified by all high contracting parties to the convention, and will represent an important part of the implementation of the Brighton declaration.
The Brighton declaration also included agreement in principle to the drafting of Protocol 16 to the convention. This creates an optional system by which the highest national courts can choose to seek advisory opinions on the interpretation of the convention from the European Court of Human Rights. It will come into force once it has been ratified by 10 high contracting parties to the convention, and will apply only to those countries that have ratified it.
Although the Government were pleased that they could help secure agreement on advisory opinions in the Brighton declaration, they have long made clear that they are unconvinced of their value, particularly for addressing the fundamental problems facing the Court and the convention system. The Government will therefore neither sign nor ratify Protocol 16 at this time. They will instead observe how the system operates in practice, having regard particularly to the effect on the work load of the Court, and to how the Court approaches the giving of opinions.
Infrastructure Bill (Roads Reform Elements)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
In June 2014, following the introduction of the Infrastructure Bill, which contains legislative proposals on transforming the Highways Agency into a Government-owned strategic highways company, the Government published a suite of documents that set out further details of the key elements that together will form a cohesive and robust governance framework for the new company.
These documents explained how the governance regime for the new company would allow it the autonomy and flexibility to operate, manage and enhance the network on a day-to-day basis and deliver more efficiently, while ensuring it acts transparently, remains accountable to Government, road users and taxpayers, and continues to run the network in the public interest.
Today, I am publishing a new document, “Transparency for Roads”, setting out the respective roles of the new monitor and watchdog, who will monitor and improve the performance and efficiency of the company and represent the interests of road users. As a result of this, the management of the strategic road network will be more transparent and accountable than it has ever been before.
These roles will be performed by the Office of Rail Regulation and Passenger Focus respectively, the latter of which expects to change its name to Transport Focus to better reflect its intended wider remit. To ensure that its continued role in rail, as well as its proposed expanded role in roads is understood by passengers and road users, Transport Focus will work under two sub-brands “Transport Focus—Passengers” and “Transport Focus—Road Users”.
Following further refinement, I am also publishing updated versions of:
“Transforming our strategic roads—a summary”, an introduction to roads reform that summarises the reasons for change, what this involves, how the new regime will work and the benefits the change will deliver for road users and the nation as a whole—with additional information about roles and responsibilities in the system of governance for the new company, and how this system will ensure the company fulfils important obligations on issues such as safety, the environment and co-operation with others; and
“Strategic Highways Company: draft Licence”, which indicates the manner in which the Secretary of State proposes to issue binding statutory directions and guidance to the new company, setting objectives and conditions around how the company must act—updated to reflect further development work carried out over the summer, particularly with regard to safety and the environment, as well as co-operation, asset management and research, and the processes for setting and varying a road investment strategy.
These take into account proposed Government amendments tabled to the Infrastructure Bill to ensure that, in setting or varying the RIS, the Secretary of State has regard to road user safety and the environment, and that appropriate consultation takes place, and also to strengthen role of the monitor, giving it the ability to carry out independent enforcement activity if the company fails to deliver.
Taken together with the measures in part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill, the proposed governance regime will provide a strong, certain framework for managing our roads. It will strengthen accountability, drive efficiency, increase transparency and create far more certain conditions for investment, enabling the supply chain to gear up for the Government’s ambitious plans for the future. This will support the economy, promote jobs and skills and ultimately transform the quality of our national infrastructure and the quality of service for road users. We look to move to the new model with minimal disruption.
As the Bill remains subject to parliamentary approval, these documents remain subject to change.
A copy of each of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/roads-reform
Further information on the Infrastructure Bill is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/infrastructure-bill
Grand Committee
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. I also remind noble Lords that the Committee of the whole House has already considered Clauses 1 to 12 and Schedules 1 to 3. Accordingly, the Grand Committee will start at Clause 13.
Deregulation Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment probes the changes to Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986, which requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK Government against claims arising from their activities. The clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability, which until now has been unlimited. We accept that for British companies considering projects in outer space, unlimited liability is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of space work—no pun intended—this could result in work being lost to other countries. Indeed, one could say other universes but perhaps one should not.
We support the intention of Clause 13, which is to cap the liability at €60 million for the majority of space missions and to give the Secretary of State powers to vary this limit by secondary legislation. However, I have three questions for the Minister. Where precisely in the government accounts will the uncapped portion of the liability, which I assume is a contingent liability, be recorded? Under government accounting rules, does this not score against the deficit? If so, how much will that be in a typical year and will the individual amounts be recorded in the notes?
Secondly, the Explanatory Notes state that a minority of space missions will retain an uncapped liability. What criteria will be used to determine whether to cap or not? When the Minister responds, could he give me some more detail on that? If necessary, he may write to me if he does not have the detail to hand.
Thirdly, I note that the regulation of space activity is currently a reserved item, so it is not a matter for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, has this issue been offered to the Smith commission as a possible devolution item? I am sure there would be wide support for Scottish space missions being covered by the new financial powers now available to Scotland or those that are likely to be available in the near future. As a rather more technical question, are there any Barnett consequentials? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and his questions. The United Kingdom’s space sector contributes more than £11 billion a year to our economy, with an average annual growth rate of more than 7%. The sector directly employs more than 34,000 people. The Government are committed to the goal of raising the UK share of the projected £400 billion global space market to 10% by 2030, from approximately 6% currently. The proposed amendment to the Outer Space Act 1986 contained in the Bill is one of the measures designed to help us achieve this ambitious target.
The Outer Space Act 1986 is the legal basis for the regulation of activities in outer space carried out by organisations or individuals established in the United Kingdom, its Crown dependencies and certain Overseas Territories. The aim of the Outer Space Act and its licensing regime is to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international treaties covering the use of outer space. One of these is the liability convention, under which the UK Government are ultimately liable for third-party costs for accidental damage arising from UK space activities. Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires licensees to indemnify the Government against liabilities resulting from their space activities. This is an unlimited liability on licensees.
Since it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, there is a requirement on licensees to obtain third-party liability insurance, usually to a minimum of €60 million for the duration of the licensed activity, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the remainder under Section 10 of the Act.
As the noble Lord said, UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Furthermore, they say that licence conditions relating to insurance place them at a significant disadvantage. Given the global nature of the space industry, this could result in work being lost to countries outside the UK, in particular to countries where operators may not be subject to unlimited liability, such as the USA or France.
The UK Space Agency has reviewed the Act and identified areas where there is room for improvement. In particular, the treatment of contingent liabilities under the Act is now out of date compared with other space-faring nations and other United Kingdom sectors that have comparable contingent liabilities. A public consultation was undertaken and the majority of respondents were positive about the benefits of capping the unlimited liability requirement to €60 million for the majority of missions. The Government therefore decided to undertake a two-part approach to address the industry’s concerns. In the first part, we reduced the insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million. This was well received by the industry. Clause 13, which we are discussing today, is the second part. It amends the Outer Space Act to cap the unlimited liability. This will be managed through the Outer Space Act licensing regime, as the amendments to the Act provide for the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of a licensee’s liability under the indemnity in each licence.
Our initial intention is to set the cap at €60 million for the majority of missions. Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to set or vary this liability limit on a licence-by-licence basis. This will provide the flexibility to ensure that UK space operators remain competitive internationally without the need to undertake further legislative reform. For example, companies are now developing ever-smaller satellites, such as CubeSats. These offer lower-cost, and possibly lower-risk, access to space, and potential growth opportunities for the UK. For non-standard, high-risk missions we would retain the flexibility to increase the liability cap.
The UK Space Agency is currently reviewing its approach to this emerging class of satellite and this amendment will allow the Government to react quickly if a lower liability cap is appropriate for a particular mission, thereby ensuring the UK industry remains competitive. An impact assessment has been completed and the benefit to business is estimated to be in the region of £13.5 million over 15 years. Clause 13 is designed to balance the risks to the Government arising from UK space activity against the need to enable UK industry to exploit the opportunities available to them.
The noble Lord asked how these liabilities would be represented in the national accounts. I think I shall have to write to him about that. The noble Lord also asked what criteria would be used to determine which missions will be within the cap. As I suggested in my answer, there will be a risk-based approach; we feel it is appropriate to retain the flexibility to set the amounts under the amendment on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord asked about the devolution position. We are not planning any change in that area. He kindly said that it was a probing amendment. I hope that that will satisfy him and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for a very full response and for answering two of the questions. The third one about devolution might bear further examination at some other stage, but I am sure that it is way above our respective pay grades, if there are any. On the other hand, I will look with interest at the letter that deals with the way in which these contingent liabilities—which I think the Minister confirmed they were—are going to be recorded in the accounts and whether they have any impact on the deficit. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment in place of my noble friend Lady Worthington. It concerns shippers of gas.
The existing regulations for gas importation and storage came into force in 2009 and applied to activities within the offshore area comprising both the UK territorial sea and the area extending beyond the territorial sea designated as a gas importation and storage zone—a GISZ. This clause alters the regulations that currently prohibit the use of an offshore installation for the unloading of gas without a licence.
Under the proposals, a third party wishing to unload their gas at an installation owned by and licensed to another party would not themselves need to be covered by a licence as long as the owners of the facility had the correct licensing documentation. The question that I should like to pose to the Minister concerns the related health and safety legislation and whether that would still apply. Can he tell us what enforcement regime is being considered, if one is necessary? What laws and processes has he put in place to ensure safety in this potentially dangerous area, and how will that enforcement appear on the ground? I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to correct an oversight in the Energy Act 2008. Sections 2 to 16 of that Act provide for a licensing regime governing the offshore unloading of natural gas from liquefied natural gas tankers to installations sited offshore so that it can then be transported to the UK by subsea pipelines. The intention behind the 2008 Act was to create a streamlined consenting regime for the construction and operation of such an installation, and the key purpose of the licence is to apply appropriate regulation to the construction and operation of the installation. The Secretary of State is responsible for granting licences for this purpose.
Clause 15 will amend an oversight which has led to a duplication of licensing requirements. As things stand, it is not only the company which owns and operates an installation that needs to hold a licence but a company that owns liquefied natural gas and is having it imported into the UK via the unloading installation. This is an unnecessary burden on the gas trader. Clause 15 will make an amendment to the Energy Act so that a person—the gas trader—who, by agreement, uses an unloading installation does not also require a licence provided that the installation is already operated by another person who has a licence for that purpose.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s specific question, all existing legislation in relation to the protection of the environment and health and safety considerations remains unchanged by this change to the Energy Act. I hope that that satisfies her and that she will therefore be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for his answer, which has indeed satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the relevant clause before us amends Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993; these provisions relate to smoke control areas. The Act requires the Secretary of State to publish lists of authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces that can be used in smoke control areas. Currently, this is done through regulations that are updated every six months. Clause 16 removes the need to issue regulations, replacing them with online lists to be published by the Secretary of State, which will be revised,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable after any change is made”.
The Secretary of State must keep an up-to-date and easily accessible authorised list on the gov.uk website.
This is a probing amendment. Will the Minister confirm that the criteria for selecting which fuels are considered safe and clean enough to be used will not change? If the clause is designed purely to speed up this process, it is one that we would thereby support. It should not be meant to change the terms or processes for the selection of fuels. It is important that it is made absolutely clear to people that this provision is about speeding things up, as opposed to making any back-door changes to which fuels could be used. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the Clean Air Act, which was first introduced to combat the smogs of the 1950s, designates smoke control areas within which it is an offence to emit smoke unless using authorised fuels and/or exempted appliances. Clause 16 amends the procedure by which the Secretary of State specifies authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces. They are currently specified by way of six-monthly statutory instruments, as the noble Lord explained. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to specify the products by publication of a list on the Defra smoke control web pages instead. The list will be published on a monthly basis and therefore reduce the delay that businesses and consumers currently face when new products are brought on to the market. The Act provides local authorities with powers to designate smoke control areas, within which it is an offence if smoke is emitted from a building’s chimney unless an authorised fuel or exempt appliance is being used. It is also an offence under the Act to acquire or sell an unauthorised fuel for use in a smoke control area.
The Secretary of State currently has the power under the Clean Air Act 1993 to exempt fireplaces by order and to authorise fuels by regulations, if she is satisfied that such products can be used without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. Following assessment by technical experts to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, the authorised fuels and exempt appliances are specified in statutory instruments which are made every six months. Under the current system, manufacturers face a delay of up to eight months between that assessment and bringing new fuels and fireplaces on to the market because they have to wait for that legislation to be made.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I confirm that the amendment made by this clause will not change the technical standards that products have to meet to be specified. Applicants will still be required to prove via testing that their products are capable of being used without producing any—or any substantial—quantity of smoke, thus keeping the inherent safeguards for air quality. The technical experts who currently provide advice with regard to the statutory instruments will continue to assess test results and provide recommendations to government with regard to the suitability of products for use in smoke control areas.
The details of specified products in the legislation are highly technical. The authorised fuel schedules are defined in technical terms covering matters such as the composition of the fuels, the manufacturing process, the shape of the fuels and their weight and sulphur content. Similarly, the exempted fireplaces schedules contain highly technical conditions of exemption relating to how individual fireplaces should be used and what fuels should be used in them to qualify for exemption.
It is worth noting that my department is not aware of the smoke control statutory instruments, which have been issued since 1957 and biannually since 1970, having been debated in Parliament on any occasion. The lists published on the internet will be subject to defined and robust audit procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data entered. These will include checks being undertaken and the lists being signed off by senior, responsible Defra staff. The process will enable specified product lists to be updated on a monthly basis.
In addition to including the same level of detail as the statutory instruments, the lists of specified products on the internet will also indicate the dates of new product specifications and of any variations or withdrawals. This is an improvement on the current system, where it would be necessary to compare lengthy SIs for consumers and local authorities to identify any changes. Therefore, there is an element of safeguarding for consumers as it will ensure that there is legal certainty with respect to which products may or may not be used at any given time. Members of the public without access to the internet will be able to request paper copies of the lists from my department.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee initially expressed concern over the move from a legislative to an administrative process. However, I understand that it now finds the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the procedures for specifying products and the levels of control that will be in place sufficiently compelling in favour of the amendment—that is, the amendment made by the clause rather than the noble Lord’s amendment. It has, however, requested assurance that adequate steps will be taken to ensure that persons who have been lawfully using specified products do not end up inadvertently committing offences as a result of specifications being withdrawn. The Government would not want to create a situation in which people could inadvertently end up being in breach of the law.
A decision to withdraw an approval may take place only if evidence demonstrating that a product is not eligible for use in a smoke control area comes to light. Defra has advised that it is not aware of any specified products ever having been removed from the lists previously. Based on this information, while it is possible that a specified product may need to be withdrawn, it would be highly unusual. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, does that, and of course he will, perhaps I may say that for more than 10 years in your Lordships’ House I was a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, although I am not now. With the volume of statutory instruments that goes through that committee, any diminution of those orders is obviously a good thing. Even though, until now, no complaints have been made about individual smokeless fuels or individual smokeless fuel burners, that does not mean that there never will be. In a parliamentary setting—in other words, if the order is to continue—that gives the opportunity for any Member of either House to speak to the order, whether it is an affirmative or a negative. My noble friend did not say which it was and, for the purposes of my argument, it does not particularly matter. When we have this list system, how can anyone, whether a member of the public or a Member of either House, question, for example, a new smokeless fuel?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the answer to that is that the inclusion in the published list will be information that the public need. They certainly can contact my department. Ultimately, it would remain subject to judicial review if it ever needed to come to that. The information will be public. All that will happen is that we will streamline the process so as not to clog up my noble friend’s committee.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me those assurances and for his comprehensive assessment of the clauses in the Bill. I am very pleased that, from his assurances, the technical standards will continue to be monitored. On this occasion, I am happy to comply with the pleadings of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I know that this is the amendment that everyone has been waiting for. This is in the Bill because, previously, there was a provision in European law to sell knitting yarn in specified quantities. That has been revoked, so the clause will remove the UK law that specified quantities in UK law and knitting shops will be able to sell yarn by whichever weight or length they choose. I hope that the Benches opposite will join us in celebrating the fact that this is a deregulation of European law, and that they will agree that this is a very good thing. I hope it is not just as a sop to UKIP that the Government are revoking this regulatory law. There is a celebration to be had here of European deregulation, which I hope everyone will agree is a good thing.
Whom did the Government consult about this? I know that there is no cost involved in the implementation of this deregulation, but will it benefit business and has there been an assessment of how it will benefit those very important people who run knitwear shops?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I entirely share the noble Baroness’s celebration of the deregulatory activity of our friends in Brussels. If she did not point this out, I will: this is by no means an isolated example. We have worked, and will continue to work, with our European colleagues to reform the law to make it more appropriate for business in the modern age.
Clause 17 on the sellers of knitting yarn is a good example of straightforward deregulation. It scraps the Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988 and its requirement that non-prepackaged knitting yarn be sold only in prescribed quantities. It will give greater freedom to manufacturers and retailers to decide what quantities of yarn to sell, and will give consumers more choice. Consumer protection will be maintained. The Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006 will still require both prepackaged knitting yarn and yarn sold with an enclosing band to be labelled with net weight. This will ensure that consumers can continue to compare prices and quantities when choosing which one to buy.
Clause 17 also makes a consequential technical amendment to the Weights and Measures (Specified Quantities) (Pre-packed Products) Regulations 2009. This measure is entirely deregulatory and, as I think the noble Baroness said, the costs arising will be zero. Manufacturers and retailers will not be required to change their existing practices or introduce new sizes as a result of this new clause; it will be their choice whether to introduce any new sizes. She asked about consultation. This is part of the Red Tape Challenge and so was subject to consultation through that process. On that basis, I hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister. If the Red Tape Challenge ran the consultation on this, and if it was anything like some of the other consultations that it has run, it probably involved three people. The clause is probably emblematic of the Act as a whole, which contains lots of minor changes that one hopes might lead to significant growth. On the basis of the Minister’s answer, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borwick
“Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres
In Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops), in sub-paragraph 3(1), at end insert—“(l) any garden centre.””
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, we know that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 means that any shop with more than 3,000 square feet can be opened for only a restricted number of hours on a Sunday. Smaller shops do not have restricted hours. This was a liberalisation although it was actually a tightening of the rules for garden centres, which now suffer because their products are necessarily spread over larger areas. What makes a garden centre unique is its inability to pile it high, unlike other retailers. Whereas a shop with a small floor space can ensure that it sells as much product as possible on Sunday by bulk stacking, that is not true of a garden centre. The products themselves need space to have light, to grow and to look attractive to potential customers. Stacking bay trees up like baked beans, carnations like cornflakes and tulips like tinned tuna would not be an appealing way to display them.
Most garden centres are family-owned businesses, many of which have been owned by several generations of the same family. There are also relatively few big chains of garden centres, with the biggest being only 140 out of the total of 2,400 or so outlets in the UK. The second biggest has 34 stores. They really are small businesses, which existing Sunday trading laws are trying to protect, so we should be ensuring that garden centres, with unnatural demands on their floor space and a tendency to remain small, family-run businesses, are allowed the same opportunities to trade on Sundays as a small retailer in another sector.
I would argue that this is also about getting people out of their houses and away from their computer screens on a Sunday. We are told that we should keep Sunday special and I agree. But we should not keep Sunday special by restricting freedom on a Sunday. Visits to garden centres should be encouraged alongside visits to church as wonderful things to do on a Sunday—lots of time outdoors with children. who are too often obsessed with their iPads. becoming interested in nature.
I know that there are concerns, not least from the shop workers’ union, USDAW, that an amendment seeking to exempt garden centres from Sunday trading laws would create a loophole. Its contention is that the lines would become blurred between what is and what is not a garden centre. What one may have traditionally thought was a garden centre may now sell a wider range of products, so large DIY companies may use a garden centre exemption as a way to open for longer on Sundays. But I am not concerned. According to a survey of its members by the Horticultural Trades Association, around 95% of garden centres have more than 20% of their trading area made up of either outdoor or covered outdoor areas.
Another consistent feature of garden centres is that the roofs of their retail buildings are transparent or translucent—usually glass. That, of course, is to allow for the effective care of live plants, which require light. It would be a huge imposition for other businesses to try to replicate those features to open for a little longer on a Sunday. Indeed, the HTA offered its own definition of what should qualify. It recommends:
“Any retailer which has at least 20% of its total retail footprint made up of outdoor or covered outdoor space, excluding car parking bays, delivery bays or buildings used solely for commercial plant production, or any retailer whose roof’s surface area is made up of at least 20% glass or similarly translucent material to enable the effective care and display of live plants”.
That seems an eminently reasonable definition. I am sure that the Minister could do even better. Again, the cost, time and burden of converting a DIY shop to fit these requirements, all for a few hours’ more trading on a Sunday, would probably not be worth it.
All this goes to show the absurdity of the Sunday trading laws more generally. Nowadays, many workers can go ahead and ply their trade on a Sunday to meet the demand of the customers whom they serve. If cab drivers, barmen and call centre workers want to make some extra cash on a Sunday, there are very few barriers in their way. Why should those people who work in shops above a certain square footage lose out?
Consumers overwhelmingly back change. A ComRes poll in March 2014 found that two-thirds of respondents backed a permanent extension of Sunday trading hours. At present, big supermarket chains create smaller-format stores simply to circumvent the law. The result is higher prices for the consumer, as a study by campaign group Open Sundays shows. The survey measured the difference in price between a basket of goods sold in a store of more than 3,000 square feet and one sold in a convenience store, which is many people’s only option on a Sunday afternoon. Prices were anywhere between 7% and 11% higher than in the larger stores. Is that why the Association of Convenience Stores argues against this amendment?
Throughout the world, the consumer is moving from high street shops to the internet. This is happening at the same time as a move from small shops to large megastores outside town. Charity shops and empty stores now dominate our high streets. If I was a shop worker, I would want my union to combat this trend, because otherwise I would eventually become redundant while our high streets die. Yet USDAW continues to campaign against Sunday trading. Indeed, its campaign could be designed to encourage buyers to use Amazon rather than a shop. The Royal Mail has announced that it is starting to deliver parcels on a Sunday, but why should a buyer not be able to get the same goods personally on a Sunday? Perhaps USDAW should take a leaf out of the postmen’s book.
We have to recognise that people have a right to choose where they shop and when, and bring the law up to date with the digital age. I beg to move.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, my only interest in garden centres is as a customer; I have no other concern. I oppose the amendment. To start to erode the Sunday Trading Act in this way would be a mistake. Perhaps I may quote the right honourable Vince Cable from the time when we were embarking on the Olympics. He said:
“Any move towards the abolition of the UK’s Sunday trading laws would require new legislation, a full consultation and extensive parliamentary scrutiny”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/2012; col. 1293.]
I concede that it is not on all fours, but it is perfectly clear what the right honourable Member meant. The mover of the amendment suggested that there is perhaps much that is wrong with the Sunday trading laws. Okay, let us address that, but we should not make a one-off attempt on this issue.
My second concern—I shall be rather briefer than the noble Lord—is that in moving his amendment, the noble Lord gave definitions, but there is no definition in the new clause that he is proposing. He concentrated substantially on the very small garden centres—which, God willing, will continue—but I know of very few garden centres today, privately owned or company owned, that do not sell a vast range of other commodities, everything from boots and shoes to clothing. Indeed, I have been in some places where they sell stoves and furniture. It would be a great mistake if your Lordships included this amendment in the Bill. It should be returned to, if the noble Lord wishes, as part of a much broader concern, and, in particular, there should be public consultation. The members of USDAW have as much right to say what they would wish as other people who are not intimately involved.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in any of the stages of the Bill until now. Nevertheless, with your Lordships’ leave, I want to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Borwick.
I agree with him that Sunday trading restrictions no longer protect small shops to any material extent. Even if large stores were open for longer hours, it would not have a material effect on the prosperity of many small shops. There will always be people who prefer the ease, the intimacy, the convenience and the speed of shopping at the corner shop, even if the prices are a touch higher.
I respect the opinion of those who think differently, such as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, but this amendment does not seek to remove or alter the current Sunday trading restrictions other than in respect of garden centres. As my noble friend points out, garden centres are completely different. Of course, a proper definition of a garden centre needs to be formulated. However, my experience of shopping at or, rather, visiting a garden centre is that it is good for mind and body. One often walks a considerable distance from the car park to the centre, providing a good opportunity for much needed exercise. A visit to a garden centre can be rewarding and educational. Furthermore, having purchased equipment or plants in the centre, many people hasten home to work in their garden, which, again, is a very healthy and beneficial activity to engage in on a Sunday. I cannot think of any good reason why garden centres, properly defined, should not be exempt from the Sunday trading restrictions. I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have no axe to grind on this but I am not clear about why six hours is not sufficient for garden centres to open. How many extra opening hours are needed? That is the implication of this amendment. I have not quite got my head around it. Should it be eight hours, 10 hours or a free for all and 24 hours? Garden centres have changed. I do not say this very often but I would very much counsel against your Lordships’ House sticking this in when the other House has not. I was a Member of the other place when the Sunday trading legislation was going through. I remember that it was the only time a government Bill was defeated at Second Reading. In the middle of Second Reading, the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was asked: do you promise to put a guillotine on the proceedings of this Bill? He said no. With that, everyone realised that we would be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because this one was not going to pass easily. The easy way to get around that was to get rid of the Bill at Second Reading. Later, there was a more sensible Bill. I remember the look on the noble Lord’s face when he said that because I was in the Chamber.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, about the Association of Convenience Stores. I do not think that the big stores have opened their smaller shops to get around Sunday trading laws. They have opened the small shops to put the small person out of business. Tesco is a classic example, with its One Stop shops. I did a survey a year ago. I live in Ludlow. I shopped for 25 identical items in Tesco, One Stop and the Co-op. One Stop was 10% more expensive than Tesco. However, you have to look really hard in the Tesco annual report to find that it owns One Stop. Tesco also owns Dobbies, a garden chain, but what is there to prevent Tesco converting Dobbies? Most garden centres have land around them that can be purchased, so they could be extended. I am not clear about the real consequences of this proposal.
Finally, I declare an interest. I live in the middle of Ludlow and I have a garden centre on the other side of my back garden. It is the finest privately owned do-it-yourself chain. It sells white goods and has a kitchen shop. It also sells decorating and cleaning materials, furniture, tools and small electrical items. I have not worked it out but the garden centre part of the shop is probably 50%. To give it a plug, it’s called Homecare and is used by everyone.
I have not been lobbied as a Member of your Lordships’ House and, as far as I remember, there was no lobbying during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill as it relates to the relaxation of Sunday trading legislation. I therefore counsel the Committee against going down this route, because it is so controversial. If there is to be a relaxation—and I make no case one way or the other—it is highly controversial in respect of the other place. There must be a proper prior consultation with everybody, including customers and the employees concerned.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I, too, have concerns about this amendment. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, conceded that this really is about changing Sunday trading laws. It seems to me that the noble Lord was quite explicit about that. This would be one stage in that process. I also noted that he talked about people’s right to choose. Part of this issue is precisely about rights: the rights of those who feel they have not been able to choose whether to work or not. That is the issue we are dealing with. I was not involved in the legislation, other than lobbying from outside Parliament more than 20 years ago. However, I remember the complexity of finding a compromise to enable us to move forward: it took a long time.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am concerned because I fundamentally believe in the whole structure of creation as a seven-day cycle of work and rest. I believe profoundly that the way that we are undermining that is fundamentally affecting spiritual and mental health and well-being. It is not incidental that, across the world, people work on this seven-day cycle. When I go around my own diocese, talking to people who work in some of the retail industry in Luton and Stevenage, I see the stresses and strains and I find myself talking to people who, unlike us—perhaps with the exception of one person here who works on a Sunday—feel they have very little choice.
There is a mass of evidence that there is something deep within the Judeo-Christian tradition about that rhythm. It has, of course, never been absolute; we have always had nurses working in hospitals. I concede that absolutely. The question is whether we want to change this consensus on the basis of this amendment. We do not live in a country where everybody wants to go to church on a Sunday; we never have done. However, if you just follow the television schedules you must acknowledge that there is a different rhythm in our national life, which reflects something that is bedded in a religious viewpoint but is much deeper than that.
Those who find themselves being pressurised to work very often say that in their interviews it is one of the questions that comes up very quickly: “Are you prepared to work on a Sunday?”, Some say that they reply that they would prefer not to and suddenly find that they do not get jobs very easily. Those who do get work find themselves pressurised. This concern to find a way forward, even through this modest amendment, needs more scrutiny.
Of course, it has a certain appeal—I thought the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, played it very well in presenting all the benefits. Should not a family be able to take their children and grandparents on a summer trip to the garden centre? It looks wonderful, does it not? There they are, having their cup of tea and refreshments and so on. The trouble is, as has been pointed out by other speakers, that we do not know what this definition is. It would certainly need a much better defined background if it is to work. I was going to talk more about the question of definition but others have already done so. However, it seems to me that this would give the go-ahead for quite a number of DIY stores with a modest area of plants to be able to open.
I am not at all against garden centres—I am a passionate gardener—but this is not a good way of changing our Sunday trading laws. It would open up a wide range of exemptions and a whole new line of work for all my lawyer friends. If we wish to open up the question of Sunday trading and disrupt the consensus that has held for 20 years, we need to do it in a much more measured way than by an amendment to this Bill.
Baroness Trumpington (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether any of the Committee realise that they are looking at the face of history. All those years ago, I took the Shops Act entirely through the House, the long and the short of it. I have to say that I have listened with extreme interest to the speeches that I have heard today. This issue has come up again at what I would have thought was rather an inappropriate time. I agree with the previous two speakers: this goes against my party’s past. I do not know how their minds work now but I agree with what they say. The Shops Act has been of great benefit to a lot of workers and owners, and has provided a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. It is a pity to start mucking about with something that has worked so well for so long; it is unnecessary, and if there were a vote I would vote against it.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I was in the happy position, as a humble Back-Bencher, of listening to my noble friend on the Front Bench taking that Act through, and I think she would agree that many of the arguments that we heard then have been repeated today by the noble Lords, Lord Christopher and Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate, and she managed to satisfy them then. It is quite clear to me that what goes around comes around, and that today history—to an extent, anyway—is repeating itself.
As I said, 20-odd years ago I supported many of the things in this Bill, but I also supported an amendment similar to that of my noble friend Lord Borwick. I had better make the same declaration of non-interest as I did then: although a horticulturalist by training and the director of a mail-order firm in the industry, I have never had anything to do with garden centres other than as a student when I spent three weeks weeding plant pots. We do not even sell to garden centres, so to that extent I have no interest.
The reason why I supported an amendment then, and now, is that I am told by the Horticultural Traders Association that, in the past 20 years, by not allowing garden centres to be totally deregulated, my industry, which employs 28,400 people and contributes £9 billion to the UK economy, has missed out on a vast earning capacity that today amounts to £75 million, which, by virtue of the VAT element of such sales, means a loss of £15 million annually to the Exchequer. At a time when necessary cuts are made every day to public services, I have no doubt that another £15 million would come in very handy.
Tempting though it is, I will not repeat the facts that my noble friend stated in moving his amendment, but I will briefly outline what happened some 20 years ago. The amendment that I supported, and which was passed by your Lordships’ House, was to totally deregulate both garden centres and DIY shops. The Members of another place produced a very short reason for disagreeing with your Lordships: they did not consider it,
“desirable to exempt shops of the kind described in the amendment from restrictions on Sunday opening”.
It is clear from rereading Commons Hansard that MPs of those days believed that the amendment went too far by including shops that sold,
“materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of buildings”.—[Official Report, 30/6/94; col. 926.]
So Lord Hacking, who moved the original amendment, tabled another applying only to,
“trees, shrubs, plants, bulbs or seeds”,
or, “garden supplies or equipment”.
In the debate, the House again divided and the amendment was defeated, I believe for the following reasons: first, that on that day your Lordships had lost the opportunity for ping-pong; and secondly, that shops selling those products also—as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, just pointed out just—sell a whole range of other products, such as books, furniture and paint, to name but a few. It would have been an enormous job for local authority inspectors to ascertain whether the shop in question was “wholly or mainly”, to use the words in the Act, selling the products in question.
As I said, all that was 20 years ago. Membership of your Lordships’ House has changed drastically in that time and, after several general elections, so has the composition of another place. It is certainly time to ask the Commons once again. I hope that my noble friend will pursue this through to Report. He may well be successful in this House, but I would caution him quite seriously, as noble Lords opposite have done, not to use such a broad term as garden centres. To my mind, the term needs to be refined.
While I am on my feet, I have are two things that I should like to pick up. First, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, appreciated that the words “wholly or mainly” are actually in the Act, so will cover such exemptions. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that, under the Act, shops are allowed to open for only six hours between the hours of 10 am and 6 pm. If I were a gardener, it is quite likely that I would like to go and buy my bulbs, seeds or whatever at 8.30 am or 9 am on a Sunday. That is one of the reasons why deregulation should at the very least be considered in this area.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. One of the things that strikes me forcefully is that the existing legislation was introduced in the context of a lot of controversy, argument and differing points of view. It has prevailed, to good effect, for a good number of years now, and those who crafted the Bill, introduced it and took it through the House should be commended. It represents the fruitful outcome of consensus-building in an open democracy at its best. We should be very wary of beginning to unpick that consensus and agreement, which involved a lot of hard work, by seemingly innocent little steps in this direction or that. The fact is that the proposed amendment is a breach in the existing law and the principles and understanding that lie behind it.
My second point refers back to my noble friend Lord Christopher. In his significant office and responsibilities, Vincent Cable used very specific words. At the very least, I would expect from the Government in their reply to this debate, in words of one syllable, a statement about whether they are now repudiating the work and undertaking of Vincent Cable on whether coalition policy applies in this sphere. It is quite simple: a Secretary of State has given a solemn and firm undertaking and this Bill runs against that undertaking. From that standpoint, we need a very specific and clear response from the Government in their reply.
For all sorts of reasons, I find myself in line with the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate. But you do not have to come from his position, or indeed mine, to see the social significance of the prevailing legislation. We live in a society that is becoming increasingly boring in the sense that everything is the same all the time and there is a feeling of playing to the lowest common denominator all the time. In the richness of life, the principle of contrast between the six days and the seventh day is very important, whether you are religious or not. It introduces a rhythm into life, which is terribly important for the fulfilment of people psychologically as well as physically.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very good and interesting debate. It proves that we were wrong to bank on knitting yarn deregulation to be the star of today’s show, although I suspect that we might get a little more of a buzz when we get to byways and highways, and the green and black ones and all the varieties we are going to come to in later amendments. It is probably good that we are dealing with a range of issues today, and of course no debate could possibly be topped if it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose recollections and memories are all so important to us. We should bear them in mind as we think through this issue.
The amendment would change the Sunday Trading Act to allow an exemption for garden centres undefined. We oppose the amendment because we are concerned that there is significant scope for confusion in defining garden centres. A number of businesses could be included because they sell garden products. However, we also oppose it because we think that such a change would amount to an erosion of the law that has stood the test of time since 1994. That could cause confusion and undermine the legislation as a whole. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, the main thesis underlying the speech of the proposer of the amendment was the need to revisit and, if possible, deregulate the whole Sunday Trading Act. Repealing that without going through the process of discussion and debate which, as we have heard, was so much a part of the process of building the consensus around the 1994 Act is obviously something that we would have to think about very hard. This issue is about rights. It is about the rights of some people to keep Sunday special and of those who want to do more with their Sundays. We have, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to be careful about this and take our time to make sure that we get the balance right.
It is important that we get the definitions right. A garden centre can be anything from a very small operation selling plants raised locally to a large store within a much bigger department store. Most garden centres are now large operations that include, as we have heard, indoor and outdoor trading spaces, a wide variety of products, outdoor and indoor furniture, kitchenware, giftware, toys and games. It is hard to distinguish between these multifunctional garden centres and do-it-yourself stores that have large gardening departments, or even supermarkets that sell a wide range of plants and garden products in spring—or all year—sometimes in the car park surrounding the store. Without a definition, we do not know what we are talking about. An exemption for garden centres would therefore inevitably open up loopholes in the Sunday Trading Act and, as we have heard, large stores might seek to have themselves defined as garden centres, as some have already done.
As we have heard, the Sunday trading legislation is a compromise, but it is valued by retailers, employees and consumers. It gives people the opportunity to trade, work and shop on a Sunday but at the same time preserves a sense of Sunday being different from other days of the week. The Government have consulted on this issue three times in this Parliament and have found, as many other surveys have, that the laws have the support of the majority of the public—the latest report that I saw found that 77% supported the current laws—and the majority of the grocery retail community, which is a powerful alliance.
The amendment is premised on the view that if shops were to open for longer, it would be a good thing in terms of the so-called growth agenda, but longer opening hours do not mean that consumers have either the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. That was rather proved in the Olympic period when the Sunday trading hours extension, which was agreed by Parliament, coincided with a 0.4% decline in retail sales in that period. Sunday trading laws also currently provide an important advantage to small stores in a market that is heavily weighted in favour of big supermarkets. Indeed, the removal of Sunday trading legislation temporarily during the Olympics resulted, as we have heard, in a displacement of sales from small stores to large stores.
If the current laws were ever to change, they would need far more scrutiny and due process than is possible with this amendment. The existing Sunday trading laws were put in place after extensive consultation and several years of negotiation with interested parties to build the sort of consensus that has remained in place to date. Any wider change would need the same due process. It is clear that scrapping Sunday trading legislation is not pro-growth and will not deliver higher consumer spending. I hope that the Government will give this short shrift.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would relax restrictions on garden centres by adding them to the list of retailers exempted from the Sunday trading regulations. At present, they can already open for six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm. When my wife told me that she wanted a wheelbarrow on Sunday, despite the burdens of office, I was able to acquire one at my local garden centre within that six-hour window and attend church on Sunday morning. This measure would mean that garden centres could open at any time on a Sunday and open on Easter Sunday, from which they are currently prohibited.
Having thought about this carefully, the Government believe, in line with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Trumpington, among others—although I could not have put it as eloquently as they did— that the current Sunday trading laws represent a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in and sell from large shops on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.
Those advancing the case for further liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws claim that there will be worthwhile economic benefits, including an increase in revenue for garden centres. However, as a matter of interest, the evidence to date is not entirely compelling. The ONS’s assessment of the liberalisation during the Olympics found no significant growth associated with the longer opening hours during the event. Instead, sales tended to be spread out further over the additional opening hours. Likewise, with this proposed liberalisation, customers may not end up spending more but merely spreading their spending over a longer period.
As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned, the industry has talked of a potential £75 million increase in revenue but no details on the increased costs of extended opening have so far been forthcoming. As I have just mentioned, we do, however, have the useful example of the measures taken during the London Olympics. The Government suspended the Sunday trading laws during the Olympics in 2012 so that retailers could take advantage of the unique opportunity that the Games presented. The suspension of the law applied only to the specified period, from 22 July to 9 September 2012. There was an increase in footfall in London but this may merely have reflected increased visitor numbers to the country. An evaluation of the suspension of hours during the Olympics found that the overall sales increases seem to have been modest for large retailers, but that there was in fact a loss of business for the smaller retailers.
Lord Skelmersdale
Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt my noble friend briefly. During the Olympics, there were of course many people up and down the country watching them on television and many people in the Olympic park who were watching the events live. Does my noble friend not think that that could be a reason for there being no real, material difference in sales during the relaxation which he was talking about?
Lord De Mauley
I am sure that my noble friend has a point and that there were complex factors in several directions. I merely state what happened because it is a recent example of a relaxation of the Sunday trading laws and it may be interesting for noble Lords to hear it.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked about the impact on smaller shops at that time. He may be interested to know that the Association of Convenience Stores reported a reduction of as much as 20% in sales over the eight-week Olympic period, and a 30% reduction in footfall. However, I acknowledge what my noble friend has said. During the peak month of August 2012, non-seasonally adjusted national data show that the amount being bought decreased by 2.4%, compared with that July. Over the same period, large stores saw a fall of 3.1% and small stores one of 0.6%. This more than outweighed the benefits to larger London-based competitors, which were the prime beneficiaries. I hope the Committee will understand that such results are at odds with the Government’s Small Business Strategy.
It is sometimes argued that the relaxation of constraints on large shops will provide benefits to their smaller brethren by bringing people into the town or shopping centre but most garden centres—or most that I have been to, anyway—are located away from other retail centres. They are out of the centres of towns, so that argument does not apply to them. It is not clear what makes garden centres a special case in the same way as those currently included on the exemption list. Despite what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, it is not as though people will have a sudden medical need to visit a garden centre, as they might have with, for example, a pharmacy.
Moreover, garden centres have increasingly diversified their products, as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said. Many will now sell furniture, pets, food, books, toys and stationery. As such, garden centres are in direct competition with other large stores, which are still constrained by the Sunday trading rules and it would be difficult to justify giving them preferential treatment, particularly so at a time when we are looking at ways to regenerate local high streets. Additionally, there is no obvious mood for change among the public. In a recent study, 77% were found to be happy with the existing rules while, of those who were in favour of change, 56% wanted further restrictions rather than liberalisation.
This exemption would also enable garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. This would be contentious for those who see Easter Day as a highly important religious day, when families should be free to be together. Garden centres say that this is the middle of their busiest period. However, they are already able to open as they wish on three of the four days over that bank holiday weekend. Some smaller family-run garden centres welcome the opportunity to close and to give staff the day off on Easter Day in the knowledge that none of their competitors will be open. Removing that constraint might distort the playing field in favour of bigger national garden centre networks. Consumer spending is such that longer opening hours are unlikely to achieve additional sales.
I am aware of the various campaigns on Sunday trading and I will continue to monitor the response of the public and the market, but we see no significant change in the situation that might suggest the need to reconsider Sunday trading in relation to garden centres or more broadly. I hope that is clear enough to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. On that basis I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution. I wonder whether technology is stressing the consensus of 1994, which was formed before the growth of the internet age. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 12 but also give notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept, as a minimum, Amendment 12, even if they cannot accept the bigger—and in my view better—alternative, which is to drop the clause altogether.
The Government have come up with the rather strange idea of partial authorisation for insolvency practitioners. This would split in two the regulation of what is quite a tiny profession—fewer than 2,000 people. You would then have a profession for company insolvencies and a different one for individual insolvencies. On the basis of no evidence whatever, the Government have decided, in effect, to dumb down the specialist profession of insolvency practitioners. By doing so, they risk helping the larger insolvency firms at the expense of smaller companies, over 80% of which do not believe that they would get much benefit from lower training costs. Indeed, 90% said that they would not train a partial licence holder. The Government admitted to R3, which is the professional organisation involved, that the clause was not being introduced to fix a problem and they have cited no evidence of any undercapacity in the market or any evidence of complaints about the current system. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which was ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was worried about the lack of stakeholder consultation on the issue. Subsequent discussions with the industry have not alleviated any of its concerns.
Clause 18 would allow insolvency practitioners to undertake corporate bankruptcies, which will almost always affect the financial status of individuals involved, with absolutely no training or qualifications relevant to the needs of such individuals when they also face insolvency. Indeed, insolvency practitioners very often do not know at the outset of a case, particularly with micro-businesses, whether they are dealing with a corporate bankruptcy or with a personal insolvency, given the involvement of personal guarantees and the nature of the creditors. The clause would harm small firms, two-thirds of which do both corporate and personal insolvency, just when the Government’s small business strategy is meant to be helping small firms. They do not like this one. Furthermore, it would add enormous expense to the profession, as it would require the development, the delivery and the oversight of new and additional systems of exam qualification. This would be on the basis of the Government’s own estimate that there will be about only 100 such partial licences.
It is hard to imagine how the Government dreamt up this clause. There is no significant demand—we could not find any—for any change. The only suggestion ever to have been around has been for a personal insolvency-only regime, but never for a corporate-only insolvency regime. There is no evidence of there being a group of people who would just love to be IPs and who are dying to enter the market. Indeed, a number of firms are reducing their workforce and there is no evidence for the argument that we need more.
The Insolvency Lawyers’ Association has questioned the logic of operating this proposed two-tier, mixed system. Indeed, in a way, it would be a three-tier system because some insolvency practitioners would be licensed to do individual insolvency only, some would opt to do corporate insolvency only and some would qualify to do both. R3, the professional body, which knows rather a lot about insolvency, has serious concerns about this change. It considers that partial licences would have a negative impact on business and individuals seeking financial advice, as well as on the quality and competitiveness of the UK’s insolvency regime, which, as I am sure the Minister knows, is assessed by the World Bank as being one of the world’s best.
If we look across all the professions, be they doctors, lawyers or accountants, we see that they always start by getting their initial qualification through a broad training that crosses the whole area of their discipline and they then go on to specialise. The Government seem to want to carve insolvency practitioners out of this, making them jump directly to a specialism. Even worse, it could lower standards. Jenny Willott MP, speaking as a Minister in the other House, said that partial licences will reduce a little,
“the high bar on entry to the profession”.
That sounds to me like a dumbing-down.
We are talking about people’s futures—whether jobs are to be saved or a company liquidated, whether it can be sold off so that some of those jobs can be retained, whether individuals will be made bankrupt, whether creditors will get back money that they have already sent to the insolvent company, whether someone with unsupportable debts can be helped to find a way through or whether a company can be sold to someone else who can keep at least some of it running as an ongoing concern. These are big issues that affect people’s futures.
The clause is misguided; it is unnecessary; and it has been criticised by the profession and other stakeholders. The Government would do well just to withdraw it gracefully rather than be forced to do so. My guess is that the clause would never be commenced and that wiser heads would finally prevail. The provision may be in law but I doubt that it would ever be put into practice, so better perhaps to lift the threat now. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for moving her amendment and speaking to Clause 18. When I came into the Grand Committee—I think that it was during the debate on Amendment 10—I saw the Benches absolutely crowded and I thought, “I didn’t realise insolvency practitioners commanded such interest, not even on a Sunday”.
The noble Baroness made some important points, which I will certainly seek to address, although I think that I will disappoint her, because neither do I feel able to indicate that the Government will accept the amendment nor do they have an intention to withdraw the clause. As she pointed out, Clause 18 will amend the law by introducing a new regime for the partial authorisation of insolvency practitioners. In future, those wishing to become insolvency practitioners will be able to qualify in relation to personal insolvency cases only, in relation to corporate insolvency cases only or in relation to both, as is currently the case.
The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be to allow insolvency practitioners to be partially authorised but only in relation to individual insolvency. As I will come on to when I discuss the clause itself, partial authorisation will remove barriers to entry for those who wish to specialise in just the one discipline. However, I make it very clear that it is not the Government’s intention to restrict this opportunity only to those who wish to deal with individual insolvency. We believe that there should be an opportunity to specialise in individual insolvency, in company insolvency or, and as things stand at the moment, in both. There is no compulsion here; it would be the choice of those wishing to pursue a career as an insolvency practitioner.
The insolvency body R3, to which the noble Baroness referred and which, I acknowledge, is opposed to partial authorisation, has told the Government that 27% of insolvency practitioners work in firms that specialise in corporate insolvency. This compares with 5% who work in firms that deal only with individual insolvency.
The noble Baroness said that take-up of the measure will be small and she asked why we should proceed with it. Existing insolvency practitioners who have gained authorisation for both personal and corporate matters want to continue to cover both areas, but that will not necessarily be the case for new entrants. The Government believe that partial authorisation will be attractive to a minority within the profession who, by focusing on a specific sector or on specific clients, will find that partial authorisation allows them to take appointments in the types of insolvencies that they deal with.
We believe that the changes proposed in Clause 18 will result in lower entry costs into the profession for those who seek partial authorisation and that they will, over time, increase competition and lower fees. That, in turn, can lead to improved returns to creditors in insolvencies. That was certainly my experience when I was a Member of Parliament dealing with companies and small businesses that were often at the receiving end when larger companies went into administration. Very often, it is small businesses that suffer the most when there is an insolvency. If we can improve returns to creditors, including many small businesses, that must surely be a good thing.
It is important to have highly skilled professionals. While we are talking about partial authorisation, company insolvency practitioners and those engaged in personal insolvency matters require a full authorisation. I cannot accept what the noble Baroness says about this being a dumbing-down. Those who pursue that one part of the profession will have a full qualification and therefore I cannot accept that this is about lowering standards. It is important to have highly skilled professionals. We must not forget that imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on entry into a profession itself has a detrimental impact, particularly on the public, who pay for the services of such professionals.
The noble Baroness mentioned exams and seemed to think that there would be an increased cost. I suspect that if someone is aspiring to become an insolvency practitioner and there are fewer exams to take, there will be a lesser cost for that individual. With regard to exams, I make it clear that the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that the recognised professional bodies that authorise and regulate insolvency practitioners must have in place rules to ensure that insolvency practitioners meet acceptable requirements in relation to education, practical training and experience. A memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the regulators that underpins the Insolvency Act requirements provides that applicants for authorisation must hold a pass in the Joint Insolvency Examination Board exams. I assure the Committee that officials will work with the profession to modify the current exam structure to ensure that partially authorised insolvency practitioners can demonstrate a broad knowledge of both disciplines. The exam structure will obviously have to change, but I cannot see that it is going to lead to the greatly increased costs that the noble Baroness indicated.
As I said, Clause 18 is not about lowering standards; it is about setting appropriate standards. We are asking: why should someone who deals with only personal bankruptcy and individual voluntary arrangements have to know about the finer details of corporate administrations, unless of course they choose to do so? If they do, then of course that choice will still be there. For those insolvency practitioners who at present choose to practise only in corporate or only in personal insolvency, the time and money spent studying an area in which they do not practise will add little or no value to the service that they offer their clients.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, having listened to the Minister, I should like to raise a couple of minor issues. Before Report, it would be extremely helpful for the House to have a list of insolvency practitioners who support this proposal. Paragraph 214 of the Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill’s report states that it was told,
“that there was ‘broad support’ for the clause from a range of stakeholders, including some practitioners themselves”.
We did not receive evidence to reflect that view. In a way, part of our problem was that we had only one side of the story. I am not out to cause trouble by saying that it is clear that this clause started life under the previous Labour Government. No one ever says that, but it is true. In March 2010, before the general election, the Insolvency Service sent a consultation letter to all key stakeholders inviting views on the specialist authorisation proposals. Indeed, there was a consultation meeting in April 2010. We did not explore this in the committee and it is a big issue. We had information from the Law Society and I think that we had information from Scotland as well, but the fact is that we did not delve too deeply into where this came from. The minute I see red tape challenged these days I dismiss it because I think it is a farce. However, given that this started life under the previous Labour Government, it might have had some merit. While the papers are not available to the present Administration, it would be useful to ask the then Ministers—I do not know who they were—why they started on this journey before 2010. There must have been a reason to trigger this thing so long ago. It has not just turned up in the Bill after trawling around Whitehall; it started life before the general election. We failed to ask why in the Joint Committee but I am asking that question now.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Joint Committee noted that there appeared to be some confusion about the extent of consultation on this clause. We recommended that there be further consultation on what was then Clause 9. In their response to the Joint Committee’s report in January this year, the Government took the opportunity to repeat the arguments in favour of the clause in some detail. They also stated in paragraph 116 that,
“following the Committee’s recommendation, the Government is inviting any further views on this Clause during the passage of the Bill”.
How did the Government go about soliciting these further views? Who did they invite to give those views and what was the general burden of any of those responses that were made after the Government’s response?
As things stood when the Joint Committee reported, we did not feel that there had been sufficient consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was saying, to enable us to express a firm view on the merits of the clause. I note what the Government have said, but I also note the case put forward by R3. In particular, I note R3’s view that partial licences are not being introduced to fix a problem. It claims that there is insufficient evidence of undercapacity in the market and no evidence that the current regime causes concerns about the quality of the advice given. Essentially, it asserts that the system is not broken and asks why the Government are trying to fix it.
The Government, in their turn, advance two reasons for reform. The first is that the partial licences will benefit insolvency practices of all sizes and the personal insolvency market as a whole. R3 has advanced survey data that it says refutes these claims. Secondly, the Government say that partial licences will increase competition, decrease training costs, lower fees and deregulate access to the IP profession. R3 maintains that there is no evidence of the need for more IPs; in fact, it claims that the market is oversupplied. It also challenges the Government’s other assertions.
All this illustrates the position that the Joint Committee found itself in during December. There are competing claims, somewhat unevidenced, and a narrow consultation base, while the Government have not provided an impact assessment on this clause. It would be easier to make a judgment on the merits of the clause if we knew more and had more evidence. There is a strong case for the Government to agree to further substantive consultation on this issue before we reach a conclusion.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I did not mention that the provision had started life under the previous Labour Government because I did not know that until he informed me of it. Of course, not everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong, as I recall from going through the Lobbies at times in your Lordships’ House. I will take the point that the noble Lord makes and find out just who was behind that, if I might make that inquiry.
There were some specific questions asked and I will certainly respond in writing to those who have contributed to this debate. However, it is also important to make the point that existing insolvency practitioners are, by the very nature of their business and profession at the moment, people who are qualified in corporate and personal insolvency. I understand that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has in the past been an insolvency practitioner and he has indicated that these are two different specialisations. Clearly, however, the practitioners are duly qualified and may well question why everyone coming behind them should not go through the same route that they followed.
It may well be, as we believe, that aspiring insolvency practitioners have shown a desire for some partial authorisation. A survey of members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association showed that non-IP members were in favour of this. It would be wrong to go so far as to say that there is an element of protectionism here. However, one of my arguments is that we are looking at people who want to come into the profession—by their nature they are not already there, giving their views—and there are many benefits to allowing that specialisation.
Since I stood up, I have received a further response to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I understand that this clause is a development of a policy started under the previous Government. An earlier version of it was proposed for inclusion in a legislative reform order, although the measure was withdrawn and, in the event, the order did not proceed. I will not to try to decipher this note further in case I get it wrong—I will write to the noble Lord.
With regard to the question from my noble friend Lord Sharkey, on 23 January the Government, on the recommendation of the Joint Committee, launched further consultation on whether any changes were required to what is now Clause 18. Responses were considered and included representations from insolvency practitioners, creditor representatives and others. I am not sure whether the responses have been published or whether there is any intention to do so, but perhaps I could write further to my noble friend and give him a flavour of the responses before Report.
My point is that we are dealing with people who are looking to the future and may aspire to a career as an insolvency practitioner but who do not particularly want to take on the whole gamut of it, preferring to specialise in one form or the other.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, perhaps I should mention—though it is not an interest, being from so long ago—that I was a member of the Insolvency Practices Council, which oversaw insolvency practitioners. I was there as a consumer, not as a trade union member, of the noble collection of insolvency practitioners.
One of the strange things is that this is a deregulation Bill, but it is going to create a new system of exams, oversight and monitoring. That is somewhat odd in a deregulation Bill, but that is beside the point. The assertion is made that it will attract new entrants, without any evidence. The assertion is made that IP fees will be reduced, without any evidence. The assertion is made that training costs will be reduced. Actually, the main training provider, BPP, has to apply its overheads across the exams, so the cost per exam will go up even if you do two exams rather than three. These are assertions, not evidence.
When I was involved in this area—this may answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, though not to me—there had been suggestions about a personal insolvency-only regime, never a corporate insolvency-only regime. The idea was that people working in debt management companies in particular might want a personal insolvency-only regime. However, despite the fact that I spoke on this at Second Reading and have had lots of lobbying and approaches from everyone else, none of the debt counselling people has approached me to support the idea of a single licence. There has been silence on that. However, it explains why the amendment would be to allow a personal-only insolvency regime. None the less, I remain worried about the idea of a corporate-only insolvency regime, whereby people dealing with corporates would have no training in personal insolvency. It is an issue that we may want the Government to reconsider, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Grantchester
“Rights of way: annual report
The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on— (a) the implementation of the changes introduced by sections 21 to 27; and(b) the effectiveness of the changes introduced by sections 21 to 27,and must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, public right-of-way legislation is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. Looking around the Committee today, I notice that there may well be previous Ministers of Agriculture in the Room who put some of this legislation through. It all builds into an important picture that needs some clarity, and I am very pleased that certain aspects of this are in this Deregulation Bill. They cover important aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, building on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
I declare my interest from the register as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of footpaths. These are not controversial; they are intermittently walked and do not cause disruption to farming operations. However, across the country the situation is considerably less clear. Under the 1949 Act, local authorities are required to produce a definitive map and statement of public rights of way. This is taking some time and continues, such that in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a cut-off date of 2026 was introduced, after which routes pre-existing 1949 cannot be added to the definitive map.
Not only is the process of registration slow and complex, certain elements of the legislation have yet to be implemented and are considered to be flawed. In 2008 a stakeholder working group was set up by Natural England with membership drawn up from public access user groups and land management and business interests, including farming, and the local authorities. In 2010 it produced the Stepping Forward report, which proposed the changes that we are discussing today around the procedures introduced in the various legislation.
The stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested parties to recommend these changes as a package, to streamline the process and to make quicker progress, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026. Some of the recommendations will no doubt help farmers to manage access safely, others will help to bring clarity to user groups and a large number will aid local authorities in bringing forward proposals to reduce confrontation and red tape. The approach from these Benches is to retain this consensus and build on it. The stakeholder working group is still continuing and, with these proposals agreed and implemented through the Bill, it can press forward in addressing further problems and bring these forward as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, there is the task of following up on these proposals. The amendment before the Committee today is to do just this and annually publish a report on how effective this process has now become, how much quicker applications have become to deal with and any unforeseen issues that have arisen. The whole of Schedule 7 defines the new speedier and more streamlined process, but will it find snags? For example, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the schedule change the procedure for initiating action in the magistrate’s court. That procedure has charges applied to it, and these charges for initiating court action have increased substantially. Will this become a deterrent to the effective working of this provision?
Clause 26 opens the way for full cost recovery from a landowner seeking an order. The effect will need to be carefully monitored. Clause 24 revisits the CROW Act 2000 to correct those perceived flaws. It is important that the impact of this so-called right to apply for orders, both on local authority workloads and on the network itself, is properly monitored. The amendment would enable this and other measures to be monitored and their operations made transparent to ensure that the stakeholder working group is working on the right track.
One effect of the amendment would be to continue to build the esteem of the stakeholder working group and encourage it to continue trying to seek consensus on the most controversial aspects of our rights of way. It should be an important aid to the Minister in communicating the effectiveness of the process to draw up a definitive map and statement of public rights of way, and he should welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, before I start, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I should declare an interest in that I am the owner of land over which pass public rights of way.
Perhaps I may also say by way of preamble that the rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. The group consists of 15 members—five from each of the key sectors: local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. It contains members of the Ramblers, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I may say a bit more about that in a debate on a later group of amendments.
Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, seeks to ensure that the Government monitor the success or otherwise of the rights of way reform package after implementation. That is a worthy objective and one with which I have no disagreement. That is why the Government have already given a commitment that they will arrange for the stakeholder working group to carry out a review. We said in the other place during the Committee stage that,
“the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of the review panel, as was set out in another of the group’s proposals. The panel will be able to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 6/3/14; col. 238.]
While it is important to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the rights of way clauses, it seems ironic to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on government and, in turn, on local authorities the statutory burden of making a formal report to Parliament. The additional bureaucracy that such a formal reporting mechanism would create runs contrary to the aims of this Bill. Indeed, the proposal runs contrary to the recommendations of the stakeholder working group itself. In its proposal 21, the group said:
“A stakeholder review panel should be constituted after implementation of the Group’s proposals to review progress with recording or protecting useful or potentially useful pre-1949 rights of way before the cut-off”.
Since the stakeholder working group has shown itself to be so effective in working together to develop solutions, I suggest that it would be wrong not to entrust the group with advising on the most appropriate mechanism for carrying out a review of the reforms. It is in the interests of each of the stakeholders on the group that they do so. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for certain of those clarifications but I should like to press him on the further work of the stakeholder working group. While the amendment limits the annual assessment to a report on the measures in the Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify any further aspects of this group and how he sees further progress being made. Having confirmed that it will continue, does he believe that its membership is sufficiently widely drawn to tackle more controversial aspects, and will the group be encouraged to come forward with proposals in a timely manner? Even though this is a long way ahead, we are aware of the urgency to make progress, as we will see in debates on further amendments that will be coming up shortly. It would be extremely interesting to hear how the working group may approach the more controversial aspects. The noble Lord should be mindful that we may well return to this at a later date, having considered further debate on the amendments. We reserve judgment about how appropriate it is that the Deregulation Bill should include a proposal to monitor its work going forward.
Lord De Mauley
I think that I have explained that the stakeholder working group is quite broadly constituted in its membership. It has tackled some pretty contentious issues successfully, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that. In terms of how it will work as this goes forward, once all the rights of way reforms have been put in place in both primary and secondary legislation, that group can start preparing a review. Of course, any review by that group will be published by Defra and put on its website. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his further clarifications. While it is a complex and controversial area that we may revisit at a later stage, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale
“Presumed extinguishment of intrusive byways open to all traffic in limited circumstances
In section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of magistrates’ court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Where a byway open to all traffic passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling including the gardens and driveways of the premises it is presumed that diversion of the highway so that it does not so pass will make the path more commodious and that the highway is unnecessary unless the court is satisfied that—
(a) the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the path; or(b) the path or way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.(1B) In exercising the powers under this section, the authority and the court shall have particular regard to the presumption that a byway open to all traffic should not pass through the curtilage of residential premises including the gardens and driveways of the premises.
(1C) A “byway open to all traffic” means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.””
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to my other amendments and most of those of my noble friend Lady Byford, which encapsulate mine with major additions. I apologise, therefore, for my long-windedness in seeking to add three new clauses to the Bill. The trouble is that three sections of the Highways Act 1980 are involved.
England has around 18,000 miles of rights of way, which these days are used mostly for recreational purposes. A minority of these pass through gardens. Last weekend, I was walking in Dorset and just before the Recess I was walking on the Quantock Hills in Somerset. Both these walks, as it happens, were through farms and on common land. In a later amendment, I will have something to say about common land.
The Somerset walk took me past a farm in which it would be quite easy to look into the windows had I so wanted. Most people are uncomfortable walking through someone’s garden or alongside a house in the country. However, there is, alas, a minority of walkers who are not so respectful of other people’s property and it means that anyone with a right of way through their property has no right to privacy, security or safety. Young children cannot be allowed to play in their own garden unaccompanied; nor can family pets be allowed to roam freely. There is not even a legal right to have a gate, which is something that I hope we can deal with in a later amendment to the Bill.
In essence, the family home cannot be used as a family home as the Committee would understand it. This means that, as we continue to develop as a country, the situation gets worse for those afflicted. They have no legal defence against theft or vandalism. Criminals can legally wander around to assess a property for burglary and come back to isolated properties when they are unattended. There are numerous examples of walkers peering through the window at those sitting down for a family lunch, and of unleashed dogs running around a domestic garden and chasing resident dogs, killing chickens, ducks, or cats, defecating and so forth. Sunbathing in the garden, having lunch on the patio or a child’s birthday party take on totally different dimensions in these circumstances. Currently, the homeowner has no legal right to apply for a diversion or extinguishment and lives in a permanent trap. The stress and the financial hardship involved in employing specialist lawyers, only to learn that one has virtually no legal rights, have led to illness, mental breakdowns and at least two suicides. The financial resources required to get expert legal help runs beyond most ordinary people’s means and makes justice unaffordable.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to my amendments, which are linked with that proposed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I support his amendment, but it focuses on a narrower base than mine. I must first record my family farming interests and my membership of the CLA, and the fact that we have paths across our farm. The CLA still has concerns about the Bill.
I was sorry not to be available for Second Reading, although I read Hansard with great interest. I will not make a Second Reading speech, but wish to record my support for the aims of the Bill, which brings forward sensible and proportionate measures for improving the regulatory regime in the UK.
My Amendment 17 would require councils in England to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of their powers. Amendment 18 would replace existing Clause 25 and define the purposes in greater detail; namely, “preventing or reducing crime”, to which my noble friend referred, and,
“ensuring the safety of any persons … preventing damage to property … preventing the ingress or egress of animals; or … protecting the natural environment”.
The stakeholder working group on unrecorded public rights of way established by Natural England consisted of 15 people, representing path users, landowners, occupiers and, importantly, local authorities. Much consensus was achieved. The group’s work has been immensely important in the bringing forward of the proposals in the Bill, but one or two items on which there was agreement were not included.
As a result of this work, the Government produced guidance, which has been placed in the Library. However, the particular detail encompassed by my two amendments has not been included in the Bill. Why was this? I understand that the proposals were agreed by the stakeholder working group, which accepted that the guidance should be statutory so that authorities would have to take it into account in their decision-making process. However, I am not clear on that.
The view of the stakeholder working group was that rights of way are so complex that it is important to make them easier for everyone to understand. The complexity leads to different applications of the rules and different interpretations by local authorities. Guidance should be applied fairly, consistently and impartially, with the aim of making regulation less burdensome. Some might argue that my amendments increase burdens but I humbly suggest that a clearer direction should reduce costs and burdens. There would be less doubt because interpretation would be clearly stated in the Bill. I am also aware that some authorities are overwhelmed by the large number of outstanding claims with which they have to deal. We need to make it easier for their decision-making. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, we did not spend a lot of time in the Joint Committee on this because we were not adding things to the Bill. We made recommendations relating to further clauses, which I will not go into. I have been a regular walker in the Lake District for the past 30 years. One of my greatest regrets is that I did not discover the Lake District until I was 45. However, I would never claim that enjoyment of the countryside and the open air, and walking in the Fells, entitles me to go through someone’s garden alongside their private home. There can be no justification for a walker, a person enjoying the country, making that claim. Because of the route that a path may take—sometimes they go through a private garden—you sometimes see a sign that asks walkers not to use a child’s swing and says that if they do, they do so at their own peril. There cannot be an argument to do that.
I was involved in a case about a path being moved. The cost of moving a path a small number of yards—or metres if we are in Europe—is enormous. I cannot see that that cost can justifiably be put on the owner. It is a public good to move a path. In some ways, I am sympathetic to the principle behind the amendment, although putting it in the Bill is asking for trouble. Perhaps we need another stakeholder working group. The one relating to this Bill was admirably chaired by Ray Anderson, who seems to have done an incredibly good job getting a consensus.
By and large, there is a case for change. The Government’s view should not be, “Oh well, this is on the landowner”. It is not quite like that, particularly when you are in the Fells, which is the only area I know in some detail but it may be different elsewhere. However, it does not alter the fact that things change as regards rights of way. A path can be diverted, and the joy of the countryside and the open air can be maintained. My view is that you cannot make a claim about the right to go through a person’s garden. I am not making that claim as a walker. My claim is to access to the countryside. Therefore, there should be movement on this issue but it would be best for it not to be in this Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to attend Second Reading. I had to go to a school event with my children. This package of measures has been agreed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others. However, we need to reflect on the fact that it has been carefully agreed by a wide group of people over two years. If we start to unpick various elements, other issues might fall out as well. We need to bear that in mind very carefully. This has been a carefully agreed package and what might seem a small change, if introduced in one area, might undo the broad compromise and consensus secured on the wider agenda.
My second point is that, looking carefully at the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it seems that in this new legislation there will be a significant improvement—he alluded to this—in the process for owners and occupiers with their ability to apply to make orders to divert or extinguish public paths. I think that the authorities will have to consider such applications within four months. Combined with the draft guidance which I think has been agreed to by the stakeholder working group, and which spells out how order-making authorities must consider this issue as it moves forward, those two changes together—the draft guidance and the new rights that private landowners are being given in this legislation—should be tried and tested before we start making further amendments. For those two reasons, that it is a carefully considered package with broad consensus among a hugely divergent group of people and that there are already some new proposals in the legislation to address some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has rightly raised, I do not feel able to support his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments but first I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, as an ex-chairman of the Countryside Agency and as an ex-president of the CLA. I really rose to support Amendments 17 and 18, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Both amendments seem to bring forward consistency and clarity; certainly, Amendment 17 does that while Amendment 18 creates greater flexibility and less red tape. I endorse the question that the noble Baroness put to the Minister as both these amendments were agreed by the stakeholder working group. The reason, as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that we have fairly limited reform of the rights of way legislation in Clauses 21 to 27 because those were the only agreed reforms put forward by the stakeholder working group. However, these two amendments were also agreed. Why has Amendment 17 been rejected altogether, when it seems to be very consistent with a deregulatory Bill to bring consistency across the country?
Frankly, Amendment 18 has been gralloched—a good expression meaning to remove the guts of something, in this case the amendment put forward by the stakeholder working group. It has been limited to applying only to byways open to all traffic. The other reasons for erecting gates, which are well enunciated in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment, seem perfectly reasonable and appropriate. As I say, they have been agreed by the stakeholder working group.
On the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am on the side here of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: I agree with their principles but they are a step too far. They ought to be thrown back to the new, reformed stakeholder working group for it to look at carefully and see where it can agree amendments about diversions or closures—preferably not closures but certainly diversions—so that they would be easier to make around domestic premises. That would be a very good idea.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, particularly the ones in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford. I do so because they go a little further than those of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which would include only gardens and driveways. My noble friend Lady Byford’s amendments also reflect the recommendations of the stakeholder working party on this subject, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
Although the Government have issued guidance they have put nothing in the Bill, which I find odd. My honourable friend Tom Brake, speaking for the Government at Third Reading in the other place on 23 June, said:
“It is clear, however, that there has to be a change in the way in which both legislation and policy operate if people are to get a satisfactory hearing, and that is what the Government are doing in the Bill”.
He goes on to say that it,
“will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/14; cols. 77-78.]
Unfortunately, that is not what the Government are doing in the Bill because they have not put anything in it on this subject.
We have the guidance but we do not have the legislation, which is what my honourable friend said was needed. Guidance is only guidance; it is not obligatory. We need legislation in this Bill. I am sure that this omission by the Government may be an oversight so I hope that the Minister will accept my noble friend Lady Byford’s amendments, which reflect the working party’s recommendations. If the Minister cannot accept them today, I hope that he will agree to take them away and consider them further.
Lord Plumb (Con)
My Lords, I am a countryman, a farmer and someone who has much experience in the centre of England of the problems before us at the moment, which concern allowing people to move freely in various areas for enjoyment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, speaks of the area that is a natural walking area and he spoke as one who would never dream of passing through anyone’s garden and so on. I am sorry—I will not say he is alone but a lot of people would not see it that way. In fact, they might do the reverse. Speaking as one who comes from the Midlands—I farm between 10 miles from Coventry and 10 miles from Birmingham—there is a mass of people there and they do walk. However, things have changed and, while I agree in principle with both amendments that have been tabled and with the thrust of the proposal that has been made, we must realise that we are deregulating and not creating yet more legislation. Therefore, I hope we are simplifying this so that not only the people who live in the countryside can understand it but also the people who wish to come to the countryside.
The key is education. As many farmers do, I handed down a large portion of our property to my son many years ago and things began to change, as they do when things are moved from father to son. Not long ago, I met an old boy who lived not very far from the farm. I had not seen him for years. He said, “You know, guv’nor, what they say about you up here?”. I said I had no idea. He said, “They say when Henry farmed this farm, anybody who set foot on it got shot. His son brings them in by the busload”. In the past year, he has had 90 visits from schools. He has two people carriers to take the children around the farm, and that is real education. I have been with him on one or two of the trips around the holding and it is very encouraging to see the change in those children, the change in how they look at green grass and, certainly, the changed way they look at animals.
There is a lot to be done here. I only plead that we get it right and we do not make it so complicated that it is almost impossible for people to understand. It must be understood by the property owners and by country people, who are happy to receive people who come to the country as long as the rules are in place and are understood by both parties in the interests of facing a very important area for the future. It is no good doing what was suggested by that old man. I have never shot anybody and I would never stop anybody if I saw that they were reasonable. However, I believe that my son now has less damage done to his property than was the case in my day because he has freed up the footpaths and provided an opportunity for people to visit and walk more freely through the area.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in Grand Committee and I need to declare my interests in relation to this issue and to other aspects of this Grand Committee. I am a member and vice-president of the Open Spaces Society; I am a member and patron of, and am active in, the British Mountaineering Council; I am a member and the deputy leader of Pendle Borough Council; and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. There are probably others that I have forgotten but those will do for the moment.
I hope that the mover of this amendment will have listened very carefully to the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who talked a lot of common sense. When you are dealing with footpath diversions and those footpaths go through or are adjacent to housing in the countryside, common sense is the most important thing that is required in solving the problem. I shall come back to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that at the moment people have no right to make a claim. I do not understand that and perhaps he will explain what he means by it. I am a member of a local authority committee which deals with quite a few of the requests for footpath diversions and extinguishments in my area, which is the Colne area of Pendle. We do so on behalf of Lancashire County Council, which is the highways authority and it has devolved that to us at the moment. We deal with quite a lot of these requests.
Perhaps I may explain the context. We are talking about an area of the Pennines with a very intense network of public footpaths, which were originally used by people to go from one farm to another. That was their original use, although nowadays of course people get in their vehicles and take a much longer route. There is a very dense network of public footpaths across the fields and, because they originally went from one farm to the next—this is an area where the farms are scattered over the landscape—they inevitably went through farms and into the farmyards, because people went from door to door. In the modern age, the farms may still be working farms in some cases but, even if they are, the barns or the former farm workers’ cottages will be occupied by people who are not working farmers; they live there and commute into the towns. In such areas, there is no reason at all why the footpaths need to go along the front of people’s cottages, past their windows and to their front doors. The sensible thing is for them to be diverted around a little settlement of two or three houses that exist in the middle of the fields.
As I said, we get a lot of applications for footpath diversions and footpath extinguishments, although mainly diversions. They are all very sensible and we look at them from a common-sense point of view. This is where I come back to having problems with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If they were put on the face of the Bill and became legislation, they would make it very difficult to apply the kind of common-sense decisions that we make at the moment.
As I understand it, the legislation says that a footpath diversion should be convenient for people wanting to use the footpath. I think that “convenient” is the word that is used but, anyway, that is what it means. So, if you have a footpath going through a farmyard, or a courtyard that used to be a farmyard, and there is a proposed diversion, you look to see whether that diversion is sensible from the point of view of the people walking on the footpath and that the diversion is not too far or too difficult or perhaps goes through difficult terrain, as well as looking at the effect that the footpath has on the people whose houses it goes past. I remember one example where a footpath went through a group of three houses, which now would be quite expensive, and it literally went along the pavement in front of the windows of someone’s house. Quite reasonably, they said that this was an intrusion and was unreasonable. We went on a site visit to look at it and we walked that route and the proposed alternative, but the proposed alternative, which went around the back, gave us a very good view, through some huge glass windows, into the bedrooms and bathrooms of their neighbours. Under those circumstances we said, “No, we’re not diverting this because we are moving one problem and creating another for the neighbours who in fact had objected”.
You have to look for solutions. Our footpaths officer, who we employ, went out to talk to them all and tried to find an alternative diversion that solved it for everyone. That kind of common-sense practical work on the ground has to be done. In most cases it can be done perfectly acceptably and reasonably, and, where councils can do that, it works. In many cases, though, it does not work, and I will explain why in a minute.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendment. He wants to suggest that there should be a presumption for a diversion or a stopping-up so long as the council and the Secretary of State are satisfied that privacy, safety or security are not adversely affected by the existence or the use of the path. Where I live, which I suppose is an urban street in a rural area, I could argue that we are adversely affected by the existence and use of our front street because people can go along it, our front garden is not very big and they can see in. It is a question of degree and looking at what is reasonable. Is someone unreasonably affected by the existence or use of the path in context? If you simply say “adversely affected”, full stop, that is a pretty draconian test. The wording talks about it being “possible” to divert a path, but at the moment the test is whether the diversion is reasonable for people wanting to use the path. It does not say that it cannot be any longer than the existing route but is it unreasonably much further, or is it reasonable that people should have to walk another 20 or 50 yards to remove the problem caused by the path? So all the checks and balances—and it is all a matter of balance—would be taken away by the wording of this amendment, which would put the balance far too much on one side, not the other. Maybe the present system is not perfect but I think that these amendments go far too far the other way.
I will not repeat the points that my noble friend Lady Parminter made, with which I completely agree, about the stakeholder working group and the fact that it has come up with an agreed package.
My final point is that at the moment there is a major problem with all these things, but in my view it is not about the legislation or the rules; it is about resources. In the present situation in local government, where most local authorities, certainly in the north of England, are in dire financial circumstances, desperately trying to keep resources going for old people’s care and that kind of thing, highway authorities simply do not regard this as being of a sufficiently high priority. There is indeed a great waiting list in many areas and it takes a long time. That is the real problem. If they are going to have to deal with these in four months in future, they will not be very pleased because they will have to put resources into what they regard as not being a top priority. For those of us who care about our footpaths, let us see whether that does the trick.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I have interests to declare as a landowner with rights of way over my land, as a veteran of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act open access provisions and as a chartered surveyor who occasionally has to deal with people who are affected by rights of way problems—both public and private rights of way. I am also the chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee, which is the parallel body that brings together a large number of different interests of landowners and users. The Minister’s own department is represented on it. I pay tribute to the professionalism that goes into that, which I know is also a hallmark of the stakeholder working group. For one more day I am also president of the National Association of Local Councils, a CLA member and a vice-president of the LGA. That completes my declarations of interest.
A huge amount of consensus has been teased out between the parties, but it serves to underline some sharp philosophical differences on either side and one must try to recognise that. The consensus, such as it is, depends hugely on the Government continuing to commit to a 2026 cut-off date on the one hand and to the resourcing of the investigation of unrecorded ways on the other. There is no consensus if the Government do not commit or they falter between now and that end date. The entire thing could easily fall apart. A lot of personal commitment and reputational capital is tied up in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to resources. Yes, indeed. In local government terms, this is one of those services that is regularly being bled dry because it is not a priority commitment in the context of unparalleled spending cuts. Would that the cost and uncertainty and sheer bother that is occasioned to owners of land on the one hand and the resources and activity that is put in by rights of way groups on the other—and the demands made on the public purse to try to broker these things—were actually put into the improvement of the fundamental rights of way system rather than going all round the houses trying to decide who was right and who was wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, introduced me some time ago to two people who had particular problems with the way in which public rights of way can impact so appallingly on individual property rights. They are not the only ones. I have met with others and tried to help professionally a third category. I know very well of an example of a couple who live on the Sussex Downs. A footpath runs immediately in front of their front door. Their garden lawn is in the front because the slope rises up behind them and there is effectively no private garden behind. They provided me with incontrovertible evidence, some of which I saw myself, of groups of walkers simply deciding that they would sit down on the green area that was the front lawn. I was also shown incontrovertible evidence of people peering in through the front window of this property. That is as unacceptable in my terms as someone who barricades land that is subject to lawful rights. They are both at the extremes, and those extremes must be excised from our deliberations. The more we can build that consensus in the middle, the less likely it is that those extremes will consider themselves at liberty to perpetrate some quite anti-social acts which are to the detriment of everybody—users and landowners alike.
At Second Reading I encouraged the Minister not to overlook the ongoing needs of the public rights of way system, and I am glad that the Bill contains many valuable measures. The Bill represents a snapshot in time—it had to be compiled at a particular date in order to get the material in there—yet dialogue within the stakeholder working group and the Rights of Way Review Committee is ongoing. The Country Land and Business Association told me—and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has repeated it—that several things agreed within the stakeholder working group are not reflected in the Bill. The implication I am getting from others is that these were not actually agreed and should not go in. I do not know the answer. The Minister and his valiant departmental staff—and they are valiant—must somehow decide who is right and who is wrong. I am not in a position to say.
I conclude by saying that if the stakeholder working group came out with measures that could reasonably be included in the Bill as a matter of agreement, there would be no reason not to accept them. I do not say that with regard to the specifics of the amendments of either the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, or the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It is just a general comment. If the next legislative opportunity is six, seven or eight years down the road, we will be well on the way to 2026, and I would be pretty worried about whether this was actually going to get done. Therefore, the entire premise of this whole set of provisions is jeopardised.
The Government have a pivotal role in this situation—that of an honest broker, assuming that they act as such and do not decide that this is in the “too hot to handle” box and do nothing, and assuming that resources are made available. There has to be a lasting settlement so that the parties on either side of the rights of way argument cease to be hostages to legal, administrative, legislative, political and financial fortune and we can look to a public rights of way system that is ultimately fit for the 21st century, rather than something that enriches consultants and lawyers.
Therefore, if the Minister’s department has, of necessity, been selective about what it has taken into the Bill from the stakeholder working group, the Minister might give us an explanation of that—or, if not, he might confirm that the Bill represents the composite nature of what needs to be in there. In that case, my view would be that no change is better than change that would put us on a slippery slope that would unseat and unsettle the consensus that we have already arrived at—a consensus which I firmly believe we can build on—and that we can progress matters to our mutual benefit across the piece.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a patron of Friends of the Lake District and vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks, but what I want to say now is very personal. If I have come to any conclusion working in those areas, it is that the management of the countryside and the enjoyment of it by the maximum possible number of people, which entails access, is best handled by what both the noble Lords, Lord Plumb and Lord Greaves, were emphasising: reasonableness and common sense. There has to be give and take, and compromise. What matters is that everyone sees clearly that it is about reaching sensible arrangements between people with their own needs for privacy, as I have. The coast-to-coast cycle track goes down a lane beside my house right by the window of one of my rooms—it is not a bathroom; it is a study—so I understand that there are issues in this area, but it is handled sensibly. It is a long-established lane going way back into history before most of the cottages and hamlets were built. Reaching consensus is therefore terribly important.
We have had a special working group working in this area and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly said, we do not want to start unpicking it because we just do not know what that might lead to. The amendments that have been put forward have a lot in them to be taken very seriously. It is not at all a matter of dismissing them out of hand; rather, it is about listening to those arguments and seeing how we can meet them in that context of reasonableness and common sense. I say to those who have tabled these amendments in good faith—and I have a lot of respect for some of them—that, in the Scottish phrase in law, the case is not proven. However, it is a case that cannot just be dismissed; it should be taken seriously and, if it were ever to be pursued, it would be good if it had more hard statistical evidence at its disposal. It is not just about principles; it is about what, in quantitative terms, the effect of all this is and how big a problem it really is.
Lord Grantchester
I very much endorse the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that this group of clauses should be viewed as a package. As all noble Lords have expressed, all these amendments are indeed paved with good intentions. However, they are not completely uncontroversial. The existing provisions are carefully balanced, but presumptions would destroy that balance. Existing legislation already allows for many of the changes. Existing legislation already provides for the diversion of paths out of gardens and farmyards. These changes can and do happen all the time. I am told that, of 1,257 diversion orders that have reached a conclusion in the past three years, 94% did not attract objections. There is a lot of sense in the right to apply being allowed to bed in in the provisions put forward by the stakeholder working group and being properly monitored before there is any amendment to the standard procedures for closing and diverging footpaths.
Amendments 17 and 18 are also interesting in that they bring forward further provisions and further work on the stakeholder working group. I understand that the provisions in Amendment 17 are already agreed in draft by the stakeholder working group and Defra.
Amendment 18 includes elements agreed at the stakeholder working group but go a long way further where the stakeholder group is not agreed. For that reason alone, we would hesitate to endorse that amendment. Specifically, I understand that it is possible to apply to erect gates on restricted byways in line with existing provisions for their erection on footpaths and bridleways, and this is the element that was agreed by the working group. These amendments go somewhat further than the working group proposed by introducing a whole lot of new purposes for which gates and styles may be erected on public rights of way of all kinds. For those reasons we would hesitate to endorse the amendments, although we well recognise the basis on which they have been tabled.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this has been a full and interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friends who have moved amendments and to all noble Lords who have spoken to them. I will begin with Amendments 14 to 16, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. That group, as I explained earlier, consists of 15 members: five from each of local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. The group was founded in 2008 with a remit to develop a package of reforms to facilitate completion of the definitive map and statement—the local authority’s legal record of public rights of way. This is a daunting task on a topic where views are highly polarised, but it is a task in which they succeeded.
Of key significance is the fact that the group has unanimously agreed the key proposal that the 2026 cut-off date—after which it will no longer be possible to record pre-1949 rights of way—should be implemented. However, this is subject to the caveat of what my noble friend Lady Parminter described as a finely balanced package of reforms being implemented as it stands and not being tampered with or cherry-picked.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to address the issue of intrusive public rights of way. This is an issue to which the Government have been giving careful consideration in discussion with the rights of way stakeholder working group and members of the Intrusive Footpaths campaign. The Government acknowledge my noble friend’s point that for householders and farmers an intrusive footpath can have a substantial impact on their quality of life or on their ability to run a business, and several noble Lords have spoken about that. It can cause severe difficulties and there are a significant number of cases where people have been through years of considerable inconvenience and stress. We recognise that there is a need to find an acceptable solution. That is why the Government have worked with the stakeholder working group to include measures in the rights of way reforms package that will make a significant difference to the way that requests for diversions and extinguishments of rights of way will be dealt with by local authorities. I am confident that they will help to alleviate the difficulties experienced by those affected.
The Bill proposes to implement the right-to-apply provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. These provisions give landowners the right to apply for diversion or extinguishment of a right of way. Through clauses in the Bill we are amending them in such a way as to enable people with rights of way through their gardens to make applications. These provisions will come into force, along with the rest of the reforms package, when all the elements of the package are in place. We are working towards implementation by April 2016. With the right-to-apply provisions in place, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests for rights of way to be moved or extinguished, or to dismiss them out of hand. They will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so. There is also—
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, can he explain why the right to apply automatically implies the right for the local authorities to consider? I just cannot see it.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I was some way from leaving that point. I will get there in a moment. There is also the question of whether any orders made would be confirmed. The right to apply provisions will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the curtilage of family homes where privacy, safety or security are a problem.
Under the right to apply provisions, any appeal made by an applicant, whether it is because the local authority has refused an application or because it has failed to confirm a diversion order it has made, will be submitted to the Secretary of State for a decision. The Government will therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance by setting a clear precedent in those decisions. A draft of the guidance has been deposited in the Library of your Lordships’ House. We recognise that it needs further refinement, which is why it remains open for comment.
The rights of way reforms will also give local authorities more scope to deal with objections to orders themselves rather than having to submit every single opposed order to the Secretary of State as at present. The combined effect of these provisions will offer the prospect of real improvement for those people experiencing problems with a public right of way across their property. We want to evaluate how the measures work out in practice before seeking to add to the legislative burden.
The issue of intrusive public rights of way is very emotive. I understand why it arouses strong feelings and why those affected want something done. While putting a presumption on the face of the Act might seem desirable, the new clauses would create regulation where it is likely to prove unnecessary and create more problems than it resolves. The clauses proposed by my noble friend would impose a duty on each local authority to divert or extinguish every right of way that passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling unless they are satisfied that the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the right of way and extinguishing it would not remove access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.
Carrying out a survey to identify rights of way that fulfil these criteria would place a significant new burden on local authorities. The proposed clauses would also have the effect of removing the tests in current legislation that ensure that the public interest in the right of way is safeguarded where that right of way passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling. My concern is that the proposed new clauses do not strike the right balance between public and private interests, which is critical to the agreement reached over the guidance by the stakeholder working group. I invite your Lordships to agree that legislative solutions imposed without a consensus or consultation could result in more disputes and legal challenges.
As the draft guidance on diversions and extinguishments has been developed by the stakeholder working group, it is founded on a strong stakeholder consensus, which means that it is likely to be complied with. We firmly believe that solutions based on agreement and mutual interest result in less conflict, as several noble Lords have said, and less need for enforcement in the long run. The stakeholder working group consensus is the result of many years of hard work and difficult discussions between stakeholders who have commendably agreed to put their differences to one side and work towards solutions that are for the common good. We should not risk putting all that progress in jeopardy by adopting measures that are not founded on that agreement. These proposed new clauses would impose a significant new burden on local authorities and all but remove the current public interest tests.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale questioned the right to apply and whether the guidance would have the intended effect. There is pretty clear agreement among stakeholders that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement and extend the scope of the right-to-apply provisions for such orders will overcome this, because landowners will be able formally to apply and appeal if the authority refuses to make an order or fails to respond.
The other hurdle is getting orders confirmed. However, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the slightly in excess of 1,200 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the remaining 6%, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State. I am not saying that 100% of proposed diversions should necessarily go through. Clearly, that would depend on the proposal’s merits. However, given those statistics we believe that the combination of the right-to-apply provisions and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before seeing how these measures work out in practice.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked why a landowner should have to meet the entire cost of a diversion and I understand his concerns. Where the diversion or removal of an existing right of way is for the benefit of the property owner rather than for the public, I think it is not unreasonable that the property owner should meet the cost. Authorities will not be able to recover more than the actual costs and would have to make clear exactly what was covered by those costs. In addition, as part of the rights of way reforms package, we will be introducing a framework within which local authorities will be required to make it clear to landowners what each stage of the process will cost and what they will be getting for that money.
We expect the costs of making alterations to public rights of way to reduce as a result of the reforms package as a whole, specifically through the following measures: significantly reducing the cost of publicising orders; giving local authorities more discretion to disregard spurious or irrelevant objections; making the exchange of written representations the default for dealing with opposed orders, rather than a public inquiry; and encouraging local authorities to enable landowners to make their own arrangements for undertaking some of the work normally undertaken by the local authority.
My noble friend also asked about the likely average costs to a landowner of diverting or extinguishing a right of way. Those costs will of course vary considerably across the country. They will depend on whether the relevant order is objected to and whether the matter goes to a public inquiry. Information we have gathered through our work gives us an estimated average cost, over a range of circumstances, for making and implementing a legal order to divert or extinguish a public right of way. The least cost is where an order is unopposed or written representations are used to deal with any objections; these average less than £2,500. Costs increase to an average of more than £8,000 where a public inquiry is held and experts and barristers are appointed.
I turn to my noble friend Lady Byford’s Amendment 17. This proposed new clause would give the Secretary of State the powers to issue statutory guidance on the making and confirming of a range of orders to divert or extinguish public rights of way. I recognise that the objective here is to give a statutory basis to the draft guidance on the diversions and extinguishment of rights of way that has been agreed by the stakeholder working group and placed in the House’s Library. We developed this draft guidance in collaboration with the stakeholder working group. The guidance sets out the proposed government policy on the diversion or extinguishment of rights of way that pass through gardens, farmyards and commercial premises. It effectively acts as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through such properties where privacy, safety or security is a problem and exhorts confirming authorities to act on that presumption, wherever possible.
We have great sympathy for those people who experience problems with public rights of way that pass through the garden of their family home. We are on track to implement the right-to-apply provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which give landowners the right to apply for diversion or extinguishment of a right of way. Through clauses in the Bill, we are amending the provisions in such a way as to enable people with rights of way through their gardens to make applications under those provisions. With the right-to-apply provisions in place, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests for rights of way to be moved or extinguished, or dismiss them out of hand. They will be obliged to make an order or justify their reasons for not doing so, on appeal to the Secretary of State.
There is of course also the question of whether any orders made would be confirmed. Under the right-to-apply provisions, the Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders. Government will, as I have said, therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance, by setting a clear precedent.
As I have said, getting broad agreement on this guidance is a fairly significant development. Because it has been developed by the stakeholder working group, there is a strong consensus on it. I am sure that the Committee will agree that new measures such as this are more likely to prove successful in practice because they have been introduced through agreement among stakeholders, regardless of whether they have statutory backing.
Baroness Byford
Before my noble friend responds to the Minister, I wonder if I might raise two issues with him. I thank him for his full response to my two amendments. Do I understand the Minister to say now that the stakeholder working group has not agreed with the two amendments that I tabled? My understanding was that they had been agreed to, and it is important that we have on the record whether or not they were. I do not wish to embarrass him, but from the inference of that he then went on to say that further discussions would take place because this had not been totally agreed. I am a little lost.
Perhaps while the Minister is thinking about that, because I will not get another chance later in the Bill, I thank everyone who has contributed. In an ideal world we would all want the best, and that should be done by agreement and by making things possible, but clearly at times they are not possible and some of the examples we have been given clearly reflect that. However, I would hate to think that we were not tackling an issue that had actually been agreed. If there has been some misunderstanding, perhaps the Minister would come back at a later stage and clarify that for us. In my opinion, it is slightly concerning that at the end of the day we are not clear exactly what has happened.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am sorry if I was not clear. With great respect to my noble friend, I ask her, once she has read what I said in Hansard, might we have a discussion after today? Perhaps that would be helpful.
Lord Greaves
I wonder if the gist of that discussion could be circulated to the rest of us. I am not wholly opposed to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; there is a lot of common sense in it. However, local agreement ought to be possible, and it would be very helpful for all of us to know what the facts are.
Lord De Mauley
If it is helpful to your Lordships, the point that I was trying to make was that the stakeholder working group agreed in principle but that there are also points of detail which we have not yet resolved.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and of course to my noble friend the Minister for his very full explanation of the Government’s—I believe—slightly misguided interpretation of what has been put in the Bill. Were we in the Chamber, I would withdraw my amendment in favour of my noble friend Lady Byford’s Amendment 17, which gives me exactly what I and those who have briefed me would like.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lady Parminter wrote the government line or is following it. She said that the group package should be tried and tested. They both said the same thing, so they are clearly in concert.
Baroness Parminter
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister can speak for himself, but it is not often that he and I are said to say exactly the same things.
Lord Skelmersdale
Does my noble friend want to comment? No? Anyway, they have spoken with one voice, whether accidentally or intentionally. My noble friend Lady Parminter says that it is nice to know.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Cathcart said that Amendments 17 and 18 were agreed by the specialist working group and asked why they were therefore not in the Bill. We have heard a lot on that from my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lord Plumb agreed that there are occasions when walkers—was his word “misbehave” or have I interpreted what he said?
Lord Skelmersdale
Okay. My noble friend Lord Greaves questioned my comment that there was no right to make a claim. He said that in his local authority area there most certainly was. Would that all local authorities behaved in such an exemplary fashion.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, would that all local authorities always followed the excellent example of Pendle Borough Council.
Lord Skelmersdale
I do not think that I have to answer that, thank goodness. For once, I am not the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, echoed my noble friend Lady Parminter and my noble friend the Minister in sticking to what I call the government line, but I am confused. What exactly is the government line? I have in my hand a copy of the Bill that was presented to the House of Commons which was signed by my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin with support from various other members of the Cabinet. My right honourable friend wrote to Nadhim Zahawi MP about this subject on 23 April, because the said MP had forwarded to him a letter from a Mr and Mrs Colin Ray of Wilmcote for his comments. He replied that he was “very” sympathetic towards the problems experienced by some people with public rights of way across their land and that he was pleased to hear that Mr and Mrs Ray thought that the Defra guidance on diverting and extinguishing rights of way was a positive development. I could not agree more—it is a positive development—but it is not positive enough. He went on to point out that it was the guidance that was supported by the stakeholder working group rather than the amendments to the Deregulation Bill, as proposed by the Intrusive Footpaths campaign—which, incidentally, has been briefing me. He continued that the stakeholder working group has agreed that the Bill should be amended to make the guidance statutory; that that amendment is now in hand; and that he envisages that it will be tabled shortly. However, in the Bill in front of us, it just ain’t there.
Going back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said earlier, I regard that as the Secretary of State giving a clear and specific undertaking. I do not like to quote the noble Lord’s words back at him but that is the fact. Having said that, unless the Minister wants to answer me now, or would like to do so privately or on another occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford
“(c) after subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) The modifications which may be made by an order under subsection (2) must be made within a period of one year from the date an owner deposits a map and statement under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.(5C) An application made by a person under subsection (5) must be made within a period of one year from the date on which the owner deposited a map and statement under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.””
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I want to make clear that this is where the stakeholder working group and my amendments do not necessarily agree. My understanding on the other one was that there was consensus but we will return to that next time. These probing amendments look at two issues; namely, time limits and resources. Amendment 19 proposes that there should be a time limit of one year from the date on which the owner deposits a map and a statement under Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980. The amendment would set out time limits for claims and would reflect the position that is taken with regard to village greens, for which claims must be made within a year of the use being stopped or challenged. This also applies to Amendment 21, which would be inserted into the Highways Act 1980.
As regards the time limit to bring user claims under Amendment 21, the Highways Act requires that a claim should be made based on the use which has taken place immediately before the use was challenged. It was not anticipated that the wording might permit claims to be brought based on periods of use which were alleged to have occurred decades previously.
Amendment 20 deals with costs and fees, which were spoken about as regards earlier amendments today. Where a claim of a right of way is made, even if vexatious or spurious, the landowner, if he wishes to defend the claim, will incur significant costs. It is not unusual for a landowner to have costs of several thousands of pounds, making a defence of a claim impossible for those with smallholdings or those who fear that they will not be successful. However, the claimant’s costs are borne not by the claimant but by the public purse.
Amendment 22 looks at user evidence and tries to deal with spurious claims. It requires a witness to complete their own statement and then sign a statement of truth. I think that all Members of this House would assume a statement carries that commitment of truth. The stakeholder working group recognises the importance of ensuring high-quality evidence in claims for rights of way to reduce burdens on individuals and authorities. Should this amendment be accepted, I believe that overall it would reduce costs and burdens for individuals and for society.
I know that many authorities have outstanding claims and it would be helpful if the Minister had an idea of the total number of such claims which local authorities are having to cope with. I believe that in Warwickshire there are more than 100. As the amendment does not apply to the modification already lodged with local authorities for investigation and registration, I invite the Minister to reflect on this question as I may well want to expand on it when we come to later stages of the Bill. It is a case of trying to make sure that we move the proposals forward in the Bill, and I again put on the record that I am pleased to welcome it. A lot of good work has taken place but the questions of costs and of a time limit are still undefined. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support Amendment 19 concerning the time limit. We live in a very crowded island and I believe that England is the fifth most densely populated country in the world. There is huge competition for land use across a wide spectrum of activities, and the planning system is a very obvious example of where the use of land is democratically decided upon. It seems to me that the simplest way to avoid disputes is to have certainty and a clear decision-making process that adjudicates clearly and fairly with clear time limits so that everyone knows where they stand as soon as possible.
The whole point about a Section 31 deposit of a map and statement by a farmer is to create certainty so that the householder, the farmer or the landowner and the public know what is permissible and what is not. With a Section 31 deposit there is usually a conversation between the farmer and the highway authority. The local highway authority agrees the deposit of the maps, so the farmer and the highway authority are in agreement in saying, “This is the situation regarding rights of way on this land”. That clarity is really important to all concerned, including the general public.
A Section 31 deposit is also really important to landowners, among whom I include myself and the son of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I welcome most people on to my land. There are people who walk all over it, and kids cycle across the fields and go into the woods. In fact, I get into trouble because they tend to cycle around badger setts, which brings somebody in authority down on my head for allowing that to happen. I am very happy to allow local people to use the land. Sometimes I have to interfere and say, “Thou shall not do this or that”, but on the whole I am very relaxed about it. I am happy to do that provided they are not creating a statutory right—that is, getting rights that are going to infringe any future use of that land because they are establishing rights of way. That is a really important factor. If people can come along and contest a Section 31 deposit of a map and statement several years afterwards, that is completely wrong, and I think that the general public and the walking public will suffer as a result. It may be that a one-year time limit before anyone can object is too short. I would probably have gone for two or maybe even three years. However, it is important that we have some time limit in this whole area.
The other amendment in this group to which I want to refer is Amendment 22. I had slight sympathy for Amendment 20, concerning costs being made against spurious claims, but it is almost impossible for an applicant to know in advance whether their claim is spurious. Therefore, the way to deal with it is to ensure that the proposed statements are true. That is a very good idea. I do not believe that the minor cost involved is a good reason to bypass this reasonable check on a process. The statement needs to be treated as though it has been made in a court of law, even if in reality it has been garnered around a kitchen table in a very relaxed atmosphere with, quite likely, the witness being led in a very unbarrister-like manner by whichever side happens to be taking the statement. It could be being taken on behalf of the Ramblers or on behalf of the landowner, but having to sign a statement of truth is sufficient to ensure that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That would be a very good thing.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will make great progress on many aspects and procedures covering rights of way legislation. We welcome this further debate on many aspects that the stakeholder working group raised. While we have addressed and debated some of them, there is as yet no agreement and it may be a long way off. However, we have welcomed the debate and look forward to further progress after these provisions have been enacted.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendments 19 to 22 seek to introduce measures that reflect the valid concerns of landowners and farmers about the impact that claims for rights of way can have on their businesses, and about the costs of dealing with such claims during due legal process.
I am aware that there are concerns about the potential effect on some landowners of applications to record a right of way, particularly about multiple applications in an area or even on a single property. An application fee has been suggested as a solution to this issue. However, the introduction of such a fee or charge would be highly contentious. Ministers specifically asked the rights of way stakeholder working group to look at the impact of applications to record a public right of way, particularly at multiple applications, and what measures, including a fee or charge for an application, might be introduced to mitigate this perceived problem. The group agreed to report back to Ministers in the following terms:
“The problem of multiple applications could be an acute one in some cases but it is not widespread and there is little prospect of coming up with a solution, particularly on application charges, on which the full range of stakeholders could agree”.
However, the group’s view was that measures already agreed as part of the reforms package will in any case alleviate most of the problems. The first measure is to raise the threshold for applications. A local authority would be able to reject applications that did not meet a basic evidential test, effectively eliminating spurious or speculative applications. We are proposing to apply this retrospectively, as agreed by the stakeholder working group, by means of the transitional regulations provided for in Clause 27(7), so it would apply to any existing applications that have not yet resulted in an order.
The second enables newly discovered rights of way to be diverted and/or reduced in width before being recorded. This would be by agreement between the local authority and the landowner, with no scope for the agreement to be thwarted by objections. It is possible that this could also be applied retrospectively through the transitional regulations, thus reducing the overall administrative and cost burden of the procedures for recording rights of way.
Taking each of the proposals in my noble friend’s amendment in turn, the proposition to introduce a time limit on applications for an order to modify the definitive map is not as straightforward as it may appear. While it is possible to envisage such a measure for applications that are based solely on evidence of recent use, most rights of way applications are concerned with recording a right of way for which there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence, which may not come to light until many years after a landowner makes a statutory declaration under Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.
Lord Deben (Con)
Could my noble friend explain why it is reasonable for documentary evidence, unaccompanied by usage evidence, to come into discussion many years after an application has been made? This is a matter of history and should remain so. It is surely not an acceptable argument against my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I said that there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence. Let me continue and try to go some way towards satisfying my noble friend. The time limit on the claiming of town and village greens introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 is often cited as a precedent. However, this fails to recognise that the legislative framework relating to public rights of way is different from that of town and village greens. Most notably, a green is not created until it has been registered as such whereas public rights of way already exist in law, regardless of whether they are recorded on the definitive map. The recording process is simply ascertaining something that already exists. Rights of way can come into being though a variety of mechanisms, not just a qualifying period of use. In addition, rights of way can be diverted or extinguished to accommodate development whereas town and village greens cannot.
The stakeholder working group discussed the question of a time limit on applications but has not yet been able to reach consensus on it, despite a willingness to try. However, the group suggested that developments on Section 31(6) deposits should be monitored, following recent amendment to the provisions by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, to evaluate the scale of the problem over time. We intend to continue to do this in collaboration with the group.
The proposed amendment to Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 appears to be linked to the proposal to introduce a time limit for applications. However, the amendment appears to provide that the presumed or deemed dedication of a public right of way on the basis of 20 years’ use cannot have taken place unless someone has made a valid application to add the right of way to the definitive map.
I am not entirely clear if that consequence is intended but, if it is, it would prevent the local authority from recording the right of way on the basis of evidence that it has discovered itself. It would also no longer be possible to establish the public right of way through a court declaration. If this were to be the case, there is an argument that it would create an incentive for users of rights of way to make more applications to ensure that in these cases the presumed dedication had taken place.
Introducing a fee for an application for an order to modify the definitive map would be at odds with the whole basis of the legislative framework that has been in place since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, under which local authorities are charged with recording all the public rights of way within their areas and asserting and protecting the public’s right to use them. The fundamental problem with this proposal is therefore that, in the main, applications are made not for the benefit of the individual applicant but in the public interest. In addition, it is worth affirming that local authorities are already funded for this statutory duty through the revenue support grant. Even if there were no formal application process, if someone provided a local authority with evidence of the existence of a public right of way, the authority would still be statutorily obliged to consider whether to make an order.
The amendment seems to recognise this fundamental flaw in the proposals and seeks to remedy it by seeking to charge a fee even where evidence is submitted without a formal application. This seems unworkable, though, as I do not see how a fee can be charged when the person submitting the evidence is not making a formal application and receives nothing tangible as a result of their actions.
The final proposal seeks to amend the existing form of application for an order to modify the definitive map, which is set out in regulations, by requiring the submission with the application of a statement of truth. There is a case for strengthening the quality of user evidence to accompany applications for an order to modify the definitive map, but we do not believe that further regulation is needed to achieve this. We intend to bring about improvements in the quality of user evidence but through non-statutory means, as part of the review of existing guidance that will be required to implement the reforms package. In addition, we will be looking at extending the new preliminary assessment of applications to cover the quality of user evidence as well as documentary evidence. Moreover, it is already possible for rights of way inspectors to require evidence to be given under oath at inquiries.
Not only do the amendments proposed here go considerably beyond the finely balanced package of reforms agreed by the group but the proposed amendments on charges for applications to modify the definitive map, and on time limits for such applications, are highly contentious. They risk jeopardising the hard-won stakeholder consensus behind the proposed package of rights of way reforms.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked for specific information about costs. I am afraid that they are not collated centrally. I hope that she will understand that.
My noble friend Lord Deben asked why claims should be made many years later. Highway law is predicated on the fundamental principle, “Once a highway, always a highway”. However, the 2026 cut-off date that we are working towards, and which is a key element of the stakeholder working group package, will eventually close off the possibility of recording a right of way on the basis of historical evidence. On the basis of everything that I have said, I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank my noble friends for their contributions to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his very practical look at the amendments that I tabled, and my noble friend Lord Deben for challenging the Minister on the issue of it surely not being right that it might take years. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said because I value his experience and his responses, but I am not really a happy bunny, if I may put it that way. I should like to clarify again that these were considered by the working group. They were not agreed by the working group and I have not suggested that they were, but the issue has been raised and the discussions are ongoing. Even those within the working group who did not feel inclined to support them understood that there was an issue that needed to be debated.
I am just hopeful that between now and Report we may be able to get further enlightenment on some of the issues that I have raised. Certainly the whole question of cost, not only to the individual farmer but to the local authorities, is something that we need to keep at the back of our minds because local authorities are clearly stretched with trying to carry out their statutory regulations and responsibilities on so many different issues.
While I accept much of what the Minister has said, I need to read it very carefully. I am happy to withdraw my amendments but I think I shall be returning to it. At this stage, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Erection of public statues (London)
In section 5 of the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, for “commissioners” substitute “Mayor of London”.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled this amendment because the responsibility that the Government have had for 160 years in giving consent for the erection of public statues in London should not pass away unremarked. Also, perhaps more importantly, there has to be a concern about where the responsibility for all public sculpture in London, not just public statues, should ultimately live. The area of London in question is Greater London but excludes the City of London and Inner and Middle Temples, as the very helpful notes to the Bill indicate.
There is a case for handing over ultimate responsibility for all public sculpture, not just statues and not just new sculpture, to the GLA. The timing of this amendment is interesting in the light of the think tank Centre for London’s call for greater devolution for the GLA, including, I understand, the ownership of public land. There is also a case for treating all public sculpture equally, at least administratively, which, with the change that the Government are making here, we are part-way towards doing.
I say this because I believe it is the specific environment, the place itself, that should be the starting point and of paramount concern. If the environment demands that there should be a sculpture sited in that place, the question should be asked: what kind of sculpture should it be? Should it be a memorialising sculpture or something else? However, we tend instinctively to do things the other way round. There is a national clamour to memorialise such and such a person, and then sometimes an unholy compromise arises in terms of the use of public space.
My first question to the Minister is why the Government are retaining the 1854 Act at all if they are removing the key responsibility for consent for public statues. Yes, I believe that these decisions should be taken with the locality permanently in mind, but I am not at all convinced that the ultimate responsibility for decision-making for new public sculpture in London should reside with the local authorities. Public sculpture generally should be under the stewardship—I stress, the stewardship—of London. New public sculpture in London is foremost a city-wide issue, of primary concern to London and Londoners.
With regard to my amendment, which is really a first stage in my train of thought on the subject, I do not for one moment believe that any current mayor should be making personal decisions about these things. I would have strongly disagreed with any suggestion that Generals Havelock and Napier ought to be removed from Trafalgar Square. Public sculpture should be removed or relocated only under exceptional planning considerations because to do otherwise, for aesthetic reasons or reasons of political correctness, is to excise history and that is wrong.
However, considering the future, I would be very happy—I think that others would agree—if there were a 20-year moratorium put on all new sculptures memorialising the military, the royals and politicians. Our culture is considerably wider than that. Last week, a fellow Peer suggested to me that there should be an independent decision-making body of experts. There is merit in that; in Berlin, for example, I understand that there is a citywide system of open competition for all new sculpture under the auspices of Berlin’s association of visual artists. Comparisons can be made here with the manner in which the very successful fourth plinth project is administered, whereby decision-making is down to an independent group of judges yet the project itself is under the stewardship of the mayor.
My second question is: might the Minister promise to find out whether, over the years, there has not developed a substantial archive reflecting the Government’s involvement with public statues in London? Westminster City Council, for example, confirms in its guidance on public statues and monuments that it currently submits detailed plans and drawings to the Government. Has an archive built up and is it publicly accessible? If so, as it would be of great interest to the public and historians, what do they plan to do with it?
We often take public sculpture in London for granted but when people from this country or from abroad visit London for the first time, the very first things they want to see include Nelson’s column or the Shaftesbury memorial fountain at Piccadilly Circus. Public sculpture is part of the face of London and says important things about our history and cultural identity. It is perhaps too important to be left only to local planning departments and it is fitting that the GLA should take more of a role in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this issue. He makes a good case for this matter to be given more consideration. We are in debt to previous generations—he ended on this—for the substantial collection of public statues that there is in London. According to Westminster City Council’s guide to its process for obtaining permission for statues, they date from the Charles I statue of 1633. I had a look at that the other day and it is in very good nick. We are still seeing modern examples of material being put up and, as the noble Earl says, there are huge impacts on the way in which we view our city, on tourism and in other aspects, so it is important.
Behind the individual questions that the noble Earl has posed for the Government I think there is a real worry about their attempts to deregulate here. While the Government are clearly achieving something by taking responsibility away from the Secretary of State—although that is a deregulatory measure on a Minister and not on business—I am not sure whether they are taking the right step. As the noble Earl mentioned, there is a gap regarding who has responsibilities in this area. Given her previous experience, our Deputy Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, might be in a better position to answer some of the questions about whether English Heritage has a role to play in this. I am sure that she will be too discreet to mention anything at this stage, and certainly not from the chair. However, I am sure that she will have some ideas about that. I am also sure that the Arts Council, in its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, will have things that might be brought to bear.
Whatever those ideas are, it is wrong for any individual politician to take responsibility for this area. That point was well made. I am not entirely clear whether substituting the GLA for the City of Westminster would solve that problem, because we are still talking about political control, but it raises the question: “Why just Westminster?”. Why would we not have wider consideration about where statues might be placed in London as a whole? My feeling is that statues are too important to be deregulated simply by the measure proposed by the Bill. I am not sure what the right solution is but I wonder whether the Minister might think about having a little more discussion about this.
The reflection I have, which I think is shared by the noble Earl whose amendment this is, is that there will be a bit of a gap here. It is not just a planning issue. The issues around putting up any memorialising form, whether it is a physical representation of somebody or an object whose presence is intangible, require aesthetic and other considerations rather than simply being about planning. I am not sure whether the planning system is quite the right place for this to be left. If there is therefore a gap, how would we find a way around it? It may be by having a statutory committee of some kind or simply by inviting some other body to take on a responsibility, which might be advisory. Whatever it is, I share the noble Earl’s concern about this issue.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28 is to remove the current requirement on persons seeking to erect statues in public places in Greater London, excluding the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples, to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before doing do. Controls to prevent the unsightly proliferation of statues in Greater London are already provided for by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This requires that planning permission be obtained from the relevant local planning authority prior to the erection of a statue in a public place in Greater London or the remainder of the country. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but I am sure we can have a useful discussion about it. Given that the aim of this change in Clause 28 is to streamline the current double-handling of applications to erect statues, I cannot really see a benefit in removing the requirement to seek the consent of the Secretary of State only to replace it with a requirement to seek the consent of the Mayor of London.
The mayor plays a key role in the planning for London’s continued success. His London Plan provides the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for development in the region to 2031. He ensures that local plans fit with the London Plan, works with boroughs to develop planning frameworks for major areas of brownfield land and considers planning proposals of strategic importance. In this way, he already has input to the preparation of policies relating to public statues, such as those produced by the City of Westminster. The noble Earl asked why keep the 1854 Act at all? It is worth saying that it provides a power for the Secretary of State to repair and restore, for example, any public statue. I might be so bold as to suggest we would all find that an important power to retain. He also asked whether there are archives. I do not believe there are such archives—I am happy to have a rootle around but I am pretty sure there are no centrally held archives. I have little more to add. I hope I have said enough to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I think it is useful to open discussion on this issue. I am slightly surprised that after 160 years there would not be some kind of substantial file. As I said, Westminster had to submit quite detailed plans and drawings and that has been going on for a long time. Could the Minister promise to look very carefully to see if there is anything there that would be useful? Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
“Mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed roads: removal of burdens
(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing an assessment of the burdens and costs caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed rights of way to—
(a) the users of such rights of way,(b) landowners and tenants, and(c) other interested parties, including highway authorities, Natural England, National Park Authorities, local authorities, parish councils and other community organisations.(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include—
(a) proposals to alleviate such burdens and costs, and(b) an assessment as to whether legislation should continue to permit mechanically propelled vehicles to use unsealed rights of way.(3) The Secretary of State may through regulations implement any proposals contained in the report under subsection (1).
(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) shall be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) The Secretary of State shall not issue a report under subsection (1) until he has consulted with such interested parties as he thinks fit.”
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the Friends of the Ridgeway and as a member of GLEAM, the group which protects green lanes, or tries to. In proposing this amendment, I submit that the opportunity should be seized to resolve the problem of motor vehicle use of unsurfaced highways, with a clear focus and timeframe for the way forward, and to give a clear signal that the Government intend to take action. The Government’s current plan is to set up another stakeholder working group in the hope that it will achieve consensus on motor vehicle use of unsealed highways. I submit that it will not reach consensus because the parties involved have diametrically opposed views. There is no prospect of compromise between those who ride noisy motorbikes and drive specially equipped four-wheel drive motor vehicles and those who value on the other hand the peace and quiet of the countryside, such as walkers, horse riders, cyclists and birdwatchers. There is also a real safety issue involved.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I declare four different interests as regards this matter. First, I have farming and landowning interests, although, whereas there are public rights of way over my land, I do not think that the matters to which the noble Lord refers affect my interests in any way. Secondly, for a great deal of my life I have been an active motorcyclist. Looking back, apart from riding a motor cycle over my own land, I do not think that I have ever gone a yard off the main highway. Certainly, I am not involved in any of these activities. Thirdly, in this aspect, for 14 years, I was president of the Auto-Cycle Union, which is the governing body of motorcycle sport. The ACU issues licences for events and competitors. Official events cannot take place without its licences. It has a very strict form of discipline for those organisers or competitors who break the rules. Finally as an interest, I was a Member of Parliament for 33 years for the southern part of the Lake District, which covered parts of the Lake District National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
I have always been very concerned about the way in which these unsealed roads and byways get absolutely wrecked by totally irresponsible people who use them as race tracks. For many years, I have taken a view that we should try to do something to stop these people who chew up the byway and behave in a totally irresponsible manner. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for what goes behind this proposed new clause. We need to keep it in perspective because, as I understand it, there are 6,000 miles of unsealed roads in the country compared with 115,000 footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways. We are not talking about byways which are the dominant part of those ones where the public should have every opportunity to enjoy the tranquillity of the countryside.
Trying to come to a formula to deal with this, as the noble Lord said, is fiendishly difficult. We have to ensure that some of the vital interests continue to be able to go about their business. The day has gone when the shepherd plodded the moors with his dogs. Nowadays, they use 4x4s, which means that they must continue where it is essential to be able to use these unsealed roads. Shooting interests also often use them, as they should. In particular, I was rather apprehensive when I heard the noble Lord propose this new clause that he was trying to get at properly organised sporting events.
With my former ACU hat on, I was delighted to hear that he is not proposing to get at those organised events, which are done under very strict rules. I remember that years ago when I was in the Commons there was a great problem with unauthorised car rallies that raced through villages in the middle of the night—cars with open exhausts making a perfect nuisance of themselves. Things were changed so that only car rallies organised by the official motor sport organisations were supposed to take place. Nowadays one never hears of this problem. I hope, therefore, that we can get something done. How do we do that? I dislike this new clause for one particular reason: that it is done by statutory instrument. That means that Parliament would have no chance to amend it, and because this is such a contentious issue Parliament should have a way of amending proposals to do with it. This is the aspect of the new clause I am most critical about—it ought to be done by primary legislation, not in this way.
As I understand it, Mr Rogerson proposed—in another place—to set up a group. I do not see terribly much difference, with great respect to the noble Lord who proposed it, between a group being set up and the Minister himself having to lay proposals, which is what the new clause proposes. We know that it is going to be difficult but let us have a group and let them have a go at trying to find agreement about these things. It is essential that we deter the abuses that currently take place and the best way forward would be to follow Mr Rogerson’s proposals. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will stick to that.
I end, perhaps in a rather cynical way, by saying that the last thing this proposal is, is deregulation. It is not deregulation at all. I wonder if it is in order in regard to the Long Title of the Bill. However, I am not going to make an issue of that. I welcome efforts to try to do something about this menace but this is the wrong way to go about it. A year is too short a time. I hope the Minister will proceed in the way that Mr Rogerson suggested.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that this is a very interesting debate, but I am also conscious that by agreement the Moses Room tends to finish soon after 7.30 pm, with a little leeway to go on longer. It would be very helpful, since we wish to finish this clause, if contributions were as brief as is seemly.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of this amendment. Like many noble Lords, I must declare an interest: I am a shareholder in a family company that owns and farms arable land in north-west Essex. I am, and have been for 60 years, a user of footpaths, bridleways and, from time to time, byways open to all traffic, on other people’s land in Essex and in many other parts of England. This is a point on which there is no real difference of interest between reasonable landowners and walkers and riders. All of us can coexist; what none of us can easily coexist with are those who use byways open to all traffic for four-wheeled vehicles, sometimes caravans of them, with their main object, it seems, being to make as much noise and mess as possible.
I have received many letters on this subject—they all seem genuine letters, written by the person who signed them and not copying something out—all in favour of this amendment. I had one yesterday, as it happens, from my brother-in-law, who is over 80 now. He wrote to me that, from his earliest years, he was a regular user of the Long Causeway that starts in Sheffield and goes to the heart of the Peak District National Park and described how that beautiful old path has been repeatedly and seriously damaged by four-wheel drive vehicles. He cited the fact—and I have no reason to doubt it—that the Peak District National Park Authority recently incurred expense of no less than £250,000 in trying to repair the Long Causeway. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for having introduced this amendment. If one looks at the photographs to which he referred and others—the evidence of our own eyes—one sees that this could be described in other circumstances as wilful and irresponsible vandalism. It is the destruction of one of our greatest assets and the people doing it should be treated firmly. Of course, it is going to be a complex area and it will be difficult, but the point is that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is having a go. If his proposals are not right, let us get proposals that are effective but let us stop dilly-dallying on this issue.
Some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, are very valid, not surprisingly, and I am sure that as we take this matter forward they can be considered. If the amendment is brought back on Report, as I hope it will be, perhaps they can be considered by then, which would be very sensible.
Sometimes in this context, there is emotional talk about the right of the handicapped to access the countryside. To those of us who work in the sphere of national parks and the rest, all the evidence suggests that the responsible representative bodies of the handicapped and the others are saying that what is happening is a menace, because it makes walking—for the blind, which is a very obvious example—much more hazardous and difficult. For the deaf—and I understand that problem, being deaf myself—it can be a terrifying experience when this noise suddenly occurs, with no sort of warning.
The point that we need to remember, and it is about social responsibility, is that what a few are doing is placing significant financial penalties on people who are trying to care for these rich and special national assets. This means that the cost of that care very often gets passed on to the taxpayer, to the subscriber and the donor. Is the indulgence of those few in irresponsible behaviour to be subsidised by society as a whole? That is just ridiculous. The financial and Treasury disciplines that apply to most of our lives should mean that we make it a priority to get this situation put right. I therefore again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, most warmly and say that the sooner that we can do something about it, the better.
Baroness Parminter
Can the Minister, in his closing remarks, answer a question that I think will be of interest to all noble Lords? This amendment deals with a very important issue and I think we are very grateful for it having been raised today. The question is how we deal with it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that a stakeholder group is the best way forward. However, there have been questions raised about how much confidence we can have in that as a route to deliver. Can the Minister say what progress has been achieved in setting up a working group on this issue? Has a timetable been set for that working group and if it does not complete by that point, what actions do the Government intend to take? Perhaps the Minister can say in words of one syllable whether he, like his colleague down the other end, has confidence that a stakeholder working group can address this very real problem. The strength of feeling in this Grand Committee today shows it is something that this House wishes to be addressed quickly.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I actually put my name down to support this amendment but, unfortunately, too late to get onto the Marshalled List. My main point directly contradicts what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said. I think this is a deregulatory amendment and, as such, fits in very well with this Bill. If passed it would involve much less work for local highway authorities, organisations and individuals; it would also simplify the law for others. It makes it unnecessary for the local highway authority to classify or define the status of each and every one of these UUCRs—unsealed, unclassified county roads.
We have heard this evening about the lack of resources available to highway authorities and they would inevitably not have the duty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to repair some of these roads. There is less work also for planning authorities and, possibly, the courts. It obviates unnecessary work, research and legal proceedings by the public sector, private individuals and bodies on the vast majority of the 3,000 miles of green lanes. Incidentally, it would prevent most of them being churned up into wet, muddy brown lanes, as has been said, by motorised traffic where drivers have wrongly assumed that they have automatic rights to use them. They do not. Just because the roads have not yet been classified by the highway authority, which has not the time or the resources to do it, it does not mean that drivers have the right to use them. It puts the onus on those wishing to use these UUCRs for motorised traffic to prove their case and it gives them a full three years to do so, which seems a reasonable window. The local highway authority will not have to investigate all the green lanes and by the end of the three-year window, clarification and certainty for all will prevail. That is the key—uncomplicated clarity and certainty.
Under the current circumstances, it is extremely likely that these UUCRs will be left until after 2026 because the local highway authorities are not getting round to dealing with them. They will be left and remain uncertain. Drivers will continue to use them because they will not be properly classified by 2026. Not surprisingly, no progress has been made on that front at all. This amendment is deregulatory for both public bodies and private individuals and I recommend that the Government look very favourably on accepting it. I believe that it would be very popular with walkers, bicyclists and riders, who are a very large constituency.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I support my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s very comprehensive outline of the purpose of this amendment and I, too, express my regrets to the Committee that I was not able to be present at Second Reading. There is, of course, an element of farce, were this not a really serious matter, in that the precedent is claimed by the off-roaders that these green lanes in the past were open to horse-drawn vehicles. I find it very regrettable that some of the national park authorities, which of all bodies should be the basic guardians of this beautiful and threatened environment for which they are responsible, have not been universally helpful. There has been a wide disparity of co-operation across the local authorities. My noble friend indicated the difficulties that they face. There has certainly been a multiplicity of police and local authorities. It is interesting that one of the success stories is the Ridgeway where there is only one police authority, Thames Valley. In the past, there has been a knight in shining armour on that police authority—my noble friend himself.
The Minister has gone as far as he can in flashing exhibits to this Committee, but I know that he has received pictures of the appalling damage that is done on these green lanes. He made the point about traffic regulation orders, and a lot of authorities are very wary of instituting those for the reasons that he gave: the huge potential cost of defending against challenges.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the question of disabled access. There have been unfortunate cases where confrontations between groups of learning disabled people and motorcycles or 4x4s have turned violent. We have to remember that the 4x4 and motorcycle groups are very powerful and persuasive, and they do not always have the restraining and responsible influence of the Auto-Cycle Union, to which my noble friend Lord Jopling has referred. I support the working group. The Government’s apparent policy of reconvening these stakeholder groups, which have hitherto failed to reach agreement, is not helpful.
This is an opportunity that will not occur again. I have a feeling that this has been kicked into the long grass—possibly an unfortunate reference in this context, as the green lanes could probably do with a little more of that. However, this opportunity will not occur again for many years to come. It is a simple amendment to rectify unintended gaps in past legislation and I strongly hope that the Minister will give it some consideration.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the problems arising from recreational motor vehicles—4x4s and motorbikes—using green lanes, unsealed tracks and other classified county roads have become very serious. For today’s Committee I have received a large postbag of submissions highlighting the disruption to quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and indeed the destruction of the pathway that precludes any other use. The Green Lanes Protection Group, made up of some 20 organisations ranging all the way from the Lake District in Yorkshire through North Wales and the Brecon Beacons to Somerset and the South Downs, has provided evidential photographs of the damage, and this is supported by many green lane alliances and concerned individuals.
This is becoming a serious, pressing matter to sort out. We recognise this and, in expressing sympathy, urge the Government to commit to a way forward. However, I hesitate to prescribe how the Minister should approach this, as the amendment does when it says, for example, that within one year of the Bill’s enactment the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report that the amendment calls for.
Perhaps the Minister could say which body, and which process, might be the best way to respond. Would it be once again a stakeholder working group or a sub-committee of wider interest groups that could make recommendations? Legal changes introduced by the NERC Act 2006 have improved the situation by limiting claims for the recognition of additional BOATs and by giving traffic regulation order powers to national park authorities. In places, though, particularly in some national parks, the problems remain extensive and further legislation is most likely to be necessary, along with better enforcement. Any debates on this issue that arise in the context of the Deregulation Bill will be important in paving the way for future legislation.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious and partly ideological debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, particularly inside national parks, my noble friend’s proposal seeks to place a duty on the Government to assess the burdens and costs caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed rights of way. Presupposing that the review would conclude that motor vehicle use gives rise to a burden and cost, the clause would give powers to alleviate these but would not seek any assessment of any possible benefits, or seek to weight burdens and cost against such potential benefits.
I have to say that I have considerable sympathy with the genuine concerns of my noble friend and others about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, I think that my noble friend is right to raise it today. Furthermore, I agree that this issue needs to be tackled and some means of resolution to it found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill said as much, but recognised that this Bill was not the right mechanism for doing it.
The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is a complex, emotive and contentious one where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. Research conducted on byways open to all traffic—admittedly, some years ago in 2005, although I am not aware of there being a significant change—found that although there are some acute cases of damage by recreational motor vehicle use in hot-spot areas, some of which my noble friend and I discussed earlier today, there was no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles. The research found that 85% of byways open to all traffic in England carried either light traffic, at an average of 0.6 motor vehicles per day, or moderate traffic, at an average of 5.0 motor vehicles per day. Not all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is caused by the recreational use of motor vehicles. The research found that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access and just 38% is due to recreation. In addition, it found that 70% of byways were without any drainage. Much of the damage is due to a combination of farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance.
I must also say that there is good evidence that the use of unsealed roads during organised motoring events, such as hill climbs, puts significant amounts of money into rural economies. There are about 150 hill climb events around the country every year, with over 12,000 participants. The motorcycle club trials in the south-west alone are estimated to bring about £120,000 to the local economy. Some groups of motor vehicle users engage in volunteer activities to repair and maintain unsealed tracks, which I think is something that we would all want to encourage.
It is our contention that the most appropriate way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model and, in answer to my noble friend Lady Parminter, such a group will be established as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. Despite my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s scepticism, I point out that the stakeholder working group approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the consensus in the face of diametrically opposing positions over the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in the Bill form the major part. This has resulted in agreement being arrived at through discussion and negotiation.
Lord De Mauley
I was just coming to the noble Lord’s earlier question on timing in a moment.
My noble friend asked what would happen if there was no consensus between the pro-vehicle and anti-vehicle groups. Clearly, consensus would be the preferred outcome but of course we recognise that ultimately this may not prove possible. Even without consensus, at least all the viable policy options will have been properly explored and evaluated by stakeholders, enabling Ministers to make better informed decisions on which proposals to take forward.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the original stakeholder working group took 18 months to reach its conclusions and there is no reason why we should not set a similar timeframe for another. I am grateful to have my noble friend Lord Jopling’s support for this route. Within such a group, recognised experts can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Solutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement.
My noble friend’s proposed new clause would create new regulation, which may not prove necessary after the issue has been properly analysed and discussed by the stakeholder working group and other stakeholders. Furthermore, subsection (3) of his proposed new clause contains a power to adopt some sort of measure to remove public rights of way by regulations. We believe that this would be an inappropriate use of delegated legislation and does not recognise that the best solutions to problems are often those that do not resort to legislation.
I am happy to have further discussions with my noble friend between now and Report but, on the basis of what I have said today, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank my noble friend very much. The Minister’s offer of further discussion is very pertinent because many people in your Lordships’ House feel very strongly about this issue. I was not convinced by the statement that there were only a few places; this is happening all over, and is growing. Urgent steps must be taken to deal with it. I may not be the expert on what those steps are but I am happy to engage in further conversations. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Introduction: Lord Cashman
Railways: East Coast Rail Franchise
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the rail unions regarding the future of the east coast rail franchise.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, levels of engagement with the rail unions have increased since the launch of the rail franchising programme in March 2013. On the intercity east coast franchise competition, this engagement has included a number of face-to-face meetings at official and ministerial level and correspondence covering most aspects of the competition.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, while I am glad that such meetings have taken place, does the Minister appreciate that many of us who use the east coast rail service regularly are dismayed that the Government have refused to allow the current publicly owned operator—which has greatly improved the service, to the benefit of both passengers and UK taxpayers alike—even to bid for the franchise and to be able to continue to run a good service? Does it not seem odd that the Government allow foreign state-owned enterprises to run our rail services in part, yet refuse to allow a successful home-grown public enterprise to do so?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that Directly Operated Railways that took over the running of the east coast service after the failure of the previous franchise was always anticipated to be temporary; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will confirm that. It has done an excellent job; I would not wish to understate that. It is important that the Government have the capacity to step in when something happens within a franchise that makes that necessary. Now, however, we need very significant new investment; there needs to be a long-term partner taking this franchise forward, so it is right to go into the franchising process. I would be glad to address questions on whether we should have our own franchising entity, but I do not want to take too long on a single answer.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister think about the fact that this franchise has failed twice and that the present competition is very uncertain because of the threat of open access operation to whomever the franchise is let? If any of the franchise bidders bid less than what the taxpayer gets from Directly Operated Railways, will the Government allow the latter organisation to continue to run the railway?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the franchise process is in train. The award will come in February, so I obviously cannot comment on the competitors’ offers at this time. That would be entirely improper. It is certainly true that DOR returned profits to the Government—not to the department. It is also important to understand that it has not had the demands that are placed on many franchises in the level of investment required. We will have new equipment coming on to the line and new rolling stock, too. That will mean significant new burdens and we have many greater requirements now in terms of customer service so there is a need for significant investment. That is why a new player needs to come in at this time. It is obviously open to any Government to own companies and use them in various ways. This country used to have an airports industry and ran steel mills and car companies. However, we have found that the franchising system has offered us excellence. Train-operating companies have delivered very good service at very good prices. We have seen the response to that from passengers who have doubled in number in the past 20 years.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
Can the Minister say why the company currently running the franchise is not being given the opportunity to bid or to test itself against the conditions that the Governments are considering?
Baroness Kramer
As I said, the company currently operating this is a government entity. It was designed as a company that could step in when something went wrong. That remains important within the arsenal of our tools. There is a very different set of skills when one is looking at significant new investment and growth. This is the point that we have reached with this franchise, so it is very important that the opportunity is, as I say, open for the train operating companies to bid on this and offer a high-quality service. We will be looking for a very effective winning bidder.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend acknowledge that there are deficiencies in the present service? Does she know, for instance, that while it is possible to have a day in London from Lincoln using direct trains, one cannot do the reverse? As we have one of the most important years in Lincoln’s history coming up next year—2015, the anniversary of Magna Carta—can she will follow up on the conversations I have had with the Secretary of State and try to ensure that next year we have a direct service between London and Lincoln?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I cannot comment directly on an issue that will obviously be under consideration but I will take back my noble friend’s comments with pleasure.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister may have sought to reassure the House that she had some form of consultation with the trade unions but did she have any consultation with the half a million additional passengers that are being carried on the line under the successful operation of DOR? Surely she will accept that only a Government who are addicted to dogma would dispense with a company—an organisation that has run the line so successfully—and put it out to bidders, of which the successful one may well be the state-owned company of another country’s railway.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, it is certainly true that other countries have chosen to invest and own companies across a wide range of industries. This is a particularly difficult industry in which to do that. Its fixed costs are extremely high. It costs something like £7 million to £10 million to put in a bid, with no assurance of winning. It is certainly a high-risk industry and the margins, as the noble Lord will know, even for an effective and profitable company, are quite fine. It is an entirely valid decision not to enter into actually running companies when there are private options that have delivered very successfully up and down the country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Surely my noble friend would recognise that the whole point of competitive tendering is to get the best value and the best deal for the taxpayer. If she is right that the state-owned company would not be able to compete, why is that a reason to exclude it from the process?
Baroness Kramer
Again we can see the complexities of a state-owned company being involved in this. Would we give it preferential financing or would it go out on the market? Let me make this point: do we want to set up a company and pay its senior management very high fees for the possibility that, with bids ranging from £7 million to £10 million apiece, it might eventually achieve a franchise? We have a long history and I have to suggest that the history of companies run over the long term by the UK Government has not been one of outstanding success. We know that we have very successful franchises across the country, so let us take advantage of them to make sure that we get the best opportunities for the many passengers using these services.
Health: Mental Health
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
Access and waiting times for people with mental health problems are a priority for this Government. We are committed to ensuring that access to services and waiting times are on a par with physical health. That is why we have put in place the first national waiting times standards in mental health.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that according to the widely respected Health Service Journal in April this year there were some 3,640 fewer nurses and some 213 fewer doctors working in mental health than two years ago? Surely it is unrealistic—not to say verging on the dishonest—to talk about the Government putting in place controls on access and waiting times when there is no prospect of achieving them.
Earl Howe
If the noble Lord looks across the piece at the workforce statistics he will perhaps be more reassured than he is at the moment. The £400 million that we are putting into talking therapies, for example, will result in a workforce of 6,000 practitioners trained to deliver IAPT. Health Education England has increased the number of mental health nursing training places by 1.5%. In delivering a multidisciplinary workforce, the aim is to have skills that are transferable between different care settings. NICE will be publishing its authoritative guideline on safe staffing. We have already mandated NHS organisations to publish ward-level nursing with midwifery care staffing levels so that there is an incentive for them to make sure that they have their staffing levels right.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
The Government’s five-year plan to improve access to mental health services makes no mention of people with intellectual disabilities who have mental health problems. What steps will the Government take to improve access for this group of patients who have a higher prevalence of mental illness and treatable mental disorders?
Earl Howe
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the five-year plan is truly ground-breaking in many respects. We have identified £40 million to spend this year to support people in mental health crisis and end the practice of young people being admitted to mental health wards. Another £80 million has been freed up for next year to ensure that waiting time standards become a reality, not just for those with mild mental health conditions but across the piece. I will write to the noble Baroness if I can glean any further information about those with a specific disability.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, one of the worrying consequences of the shortage of mental health beds is the number of patients who leave mental health wards and subsequently commit suicide within a short space of time. If a patient commits suicide within a short period of leaving in-patient care, it should be regarded as a never event. That would provide real parity of esteem alongside parity of funding and ensure that patient safety is at the heart of every patient’s release.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. NHS England is currently reviewing the never events framework. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Care and Support will shortly be meeting NHS England officials to discuss the possibility of including suicide following in-patient care as a never event and how the new never events framework will support parity of esteem.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, NHS England made it clear last week that mental illness costs the economy an estimated £100 billion annually, which is roughly the cost of the entire NHS budget. How do the Government justify only 5.5% of the UK’s health research budget being allocated to mental health and, according to MIND today, a paltry 1.4% of Public Health England’s budget being spent on mental health? Is this what the Government mean by parity of esteem?
Earl Howe
My Lords, investment in mental health research by the National Institute for Health Research has nearly doubled over the past four years from £40 million in 2009-10 to £72 million in 2013-14. I hope that the noble Lord will take from that that we put a priority on this. Of course, it is very important that local authorities do not downplay the significance of mental health. We have made it very clear that disinvestment is not an option for them. We are discussing with local authorities this very issue.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister seek to encourage the very good practice of a few areas in providing a seamless service for young people leaving public care from the age of 16 to 25 or 14 to 25 so they get the mental health support to allow them to be successful in adulthood? Does he recognise that effective mental health services for children will much diminish the demand in adulthood?
Earl Howe
I agree with the noble Earl. On 20 August the Minister of State for Care and Support announced a new children’s task force to look at all aspects of child and adolescent mental health services and how best to improve outcomes for children with mental health problems. Its remit includes an investigation of how access across the whole of children and young people’s mental health services could be improved. The task force will report in the spring of next year.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Earl’s question, does the Minister agree that in the context of child mental health—and many of us are increasingly concerned about the younger and younger age at which people are being diagnosed with mental illness—prevention is as important as treatment, particularly in view of today’s news that less is being spent on prevention?
Earl Howe
I agree with the noble Baroness. This is a crucially important area. She may like to note that in the current year we are investing an additional £7 million to end the practice of young people being admitted to mental health beds far away from where they live, or being inappropriately admitted to adult wards.
Unemployment: Young People
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent figures on youth unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, youth unemployment has fallen by a record-breaking 253,000 in the last year. This brings total youth unemployment down to 733,000, one-third of whom are full-time students looking for work. Excluding these students, 6.4% of all young people are unemployed —this is a lower figure than that immediately before the recession.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, these figures are indeed good news. However, as we all appreciate, any case of youth unemployment is a tragic waste of talent, both for the individual and for society. Will my noble friend consider working with ministerial colleagues to insert a condition into all public procurement requiring bidding businesses to offer high-quality apprenticeships? That is a small step but could be significant.
Lord Freud
I accept my noble friend’s point that every case of a youngster being out of work is a tragedy, and that is why we have put so much energy into getting youngsters back into work. We support the appropriate use of apprenticeships in procurement and that can be important for local skills and growth, but we do not support the blanket inclusion of apprenticeships in all contracts. It is up to individual departments. For instance, for longer-term contracts, my department the DWP requires suppliers to take reasonable steps to ensure that 5% of their workforce are on apprenticeships, but there are other contracts where that is not appropriate—for instance, contracts with healthcare professionals.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, youth unemployment is still extremely high, as mentioned by the noble Lord who put the Question. Can the Minister say what further things the Government are going to do to reduce youth unemployment? Will the Government, for instance, commit themselves to matching Labour’s commitment to guarantee a paid job for every young person who has been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for a year or more—a job they will have to take?
Lord Freud
My Lords, when the noble Lord says that youth unemployment is very high, it may be higher than we would like, but if you look at the record, it is now at very low levels. If you look at the real figures, which I have used in this House for the last four years, for all workless youngsters who are not in full-time education—that captures the unemployed and the inactive—that figure is now at 14.9%, or just over 1 million. That figure has only been lower in one year since records began—in 2001. You can see that all the measures we have been taking to get youngsters into the workforce are really beginning to achieve results.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on these figures, which are very encouraging, not least in London where the number of unemployed young people has declined by 57,000, which is significant. However, the figures also reveal that in the north-east of the country, the figures have declined by only 8,000. There, the levels of unemployment among young people remain stubbornly high. Can the Minister tell us what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to help in these areas, where the problem is much worse?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have a number of programmes aimed at getting youngsters into the workforce all around the country. There is a mixture of the Work Programme, the flexible support scheme, the sector-based work academies and work experience. We are using a whole range of programmes to help youngsters into the workforce. They are working not just in London but right around the country. Clearly, we just have to stay on the issue and make sure that we get everyone in every part of the country into the workforce.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, do these new figures, which have a bit of sunlight about them, depend upon our continued membership of the European Union? Is there not something we could do to encourage young people to cross borders to other countries so that they get work experience in different places and build bridges of understanding for the future?
Lord Freud
The fundamental driver of these much sunnier figures is clearly our economy, which is now the fastest growing of the major economies. It is vital that we keep that process going. It is also vital that we have a benefits system that encourages and enables people to go into the workforce rather than being blocked from going into it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, any reduction in unemployment is to be welcomed, particularly youth unemployment. Can the noble Lord tell the House how many of those new jobs are part of the 5.2 million people on low pay in this country? Low pay is now a huge problem for us to deal with.
Lord Freud
The Governor of the Bank of England has said that the only way that we are going to get growth in real wages is by recovering productivity in the economy. One way is clearly to reduce dependency and to get 1.7 million extra people into work. The second way is to get the skills base up, and there are now some really good signs that we are moving that up by serious percentage points. The third way is progression in work, so that people earn more. That is what universal credit is all about.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that we have never had as many people in work as we have now?
Lord Freud
We now have 30.7 million people in work. It is not just about the number; we are now at a 73% rate of employment, which is little short of the all-time high.
Parliament Square: Occupy Protests
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the daily cost and level of police resources used to police the current Occupy protest in Parliament Square.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, London’s police forces receive specific funding in recognition of the additional responsibilities that policing the nation’s capital represents. This includes protests directed at the seat of government, such as the recent Occupy protest.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I am sorry that he cannot count the number of policemen guarding a fence, but perhaps I can help him. Last week, on several occasions, I counted at least 25 police officers standing around the fence which, on a 24/7 basis, would be 100 officers taken off other jobs. Is this really a good use of police manpower, protecting a nice piece of grass in central London?
Lord Bates
My Lords, the police are doing this not of their own volition but because we asked them to do so. We passed the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, which said that that space should be available for peaceful protest and not for Occupy movements. That was something that we asked the police to do, and they did an excellent job in dealing with a very difficult situation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Does the Minister agree that this is a terrible waste of time, energy and resources for the police force? Part of the problem is that you are asking them to police and enforce laws that are extremely repressive. It was a Labour Government who introduced the police reform Act, and you are now enforcing it. Is it time to ask your ministerial colleagues, perhaps, if they would repeal the worst aspects of that Act?
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness is a Member of your Lordships’ House; she is free as a parliamentarian to propose any laws that she wishes; but the reality is that in 2011 your Lordships decided by an overwhelming majority that they wanted this law and they wanted this space for public peaceful protest.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the number of police is an operational matter for the police, but I am also sure that Home Office Ministers are not entirely uninvolved in the policy. Does he agree that the lightest practicable touch is as much as we would want to see applied?
Lord Bates
I understand the point my noble friend is making, but what is a light touch when you are faced with a protest that begins at 50, grows to 100, and then grows overnight to 150? The potential for that to get out of hand, and the risk to the public, is something which the police clearly take seriously, and they are right to do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
What communications were there between Ministers in the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police on the nature of the policing of this protest?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord will be aware that as a result of passing the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which this House did, the Home Office published specific guidance, which I have here and which I will place a copy of in the Library, stipulating exactly what was permitted, what was not permitted, what approval needed to be sought and even stating on page nine the enforcement actions which we would ask the police to do. Having done that, and having published it in this place, the police deserve our support.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Will my noble friend take to the police my feelings, at least, of congratulation to them on doing a difficult job rather well? The easiest way to reduce the manpower required would be for these objectionable people to cease their objectionable claim to occupy part of what is public land.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to convey the sentiments of my noble friend to the police on the role that they do, which is incredibly difficult. The point has to be reiterated that one of the reasons that the police are taking the actions that they are, and why we passed the legislation that we did, was to ensure that Parliament Square is available for those who want to come to make a peaceful protest as part of a democratic society in which we want to live.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the police should be there as much to facilitate peaceful protest as to prevent it?
Lord Bates
That is absolutely right. In fact, the guidance actually states that the first responsibility is with the Greater London Authority in conjunction with Westminster City Council, and it is the local authority representatives who made the first contact in the first instance; and the police are there only in support of the local authority.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister then say when the fence is going to be taken down?
Lord Bates
The decision to erect the fence and the decision to heighten it were gradual decisions taken, in view of assessing the seriousness of the protest, by the Greater London Authority. Therefore, it will judge the situation in the round to see when it is secure to take those fences down. We all hope that it is as soon as possible.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, has it occurred to Ministers to invite these people in to find out exactly what their problem is? Has it also occurred to Ministers that they occupy this square at night because they are homeless and have nowhere to sleep?
Lord Bates
I am sure, of course, that the noble Baroness would be perfectly free as a parliamentarian to invite them into the House, but perhaps ensure that they do not stay too long.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not think that the situation had become unbearable before this was done? For example, when I was being driven past in my car in my full uniform, they came and stood in front of the car and I managed to stop an incident because my Royal Marine driver said, “Shall I re-educate them, sir?” and I said, “Not today”.
Draft Protection of Charities Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Protection of Charities Bill presented to both Houses on 22 October (Cm 8954) and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by 28 February 2015.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 to 23, Schedule 4, Clauses 24 to 27, Schedule 5, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedule 6, Clauses 32 to 42.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
“Mandatory reporting of abuse in relation to regulated activities
(1) Subject to subsection (7), providers of regulated activities involving children or vulnerable adults, and persons whose services are used by such providers being persons who stand in a position of personal trust toward such children or vulnerable adults, who while such children or vulnerable adults are in their care have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting the commission of abuse on such children or vulnerable adults while the same are in their care whether such commission of abuse shall have taken place or be alleged to have or be suspected of having taken place in the setting of the regulated activity or elsewhere, have a duty as soon as is practicable after it shall have come to their knowledge or attention to inform the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) or children’s services or such other single point of contact with the Local Authority as such Authority may designate for the purpose of reporting to it any such matter, allegation or reasonable suspicion.
(2) Failure to fulfil the duty set out in subsection (1) before the expiry of the period of 10 days of the matter or allegation or suspicion first coming to the knowledge or attention of the provider or of any person whose services are used by the provider as defined in subsection (1) is an offence.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the operators of a setting in which the regulated activity takes place, and staff employed at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role, are deemed to stand in a position of personal trust and are deemed to have direct personal contact with such children or vulnerable adults as are in their care whether or not such children or vulnerable adults are or have been personally attended by them.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants are deemed to stand in a position of personal trust only if, and only for the period of time during which, they have had direct personal contact with and have personally attended such children or vulnerable adults.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), children or vulnerable adults are or are deemed to be in the care of the providers of regulated activities—
(a) in the case of the operators of any setting in which the regulated activity takes place and of staff employed by the operators at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role for the period of time during which the operators are bound contractually or otherwise to accommodate or to care for such children or vulnerable adults whether resident or in daily attendance wherever the regulated activity is provided, and(b) in the case of all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants for the period of time only in which they are personally attending such children or vulnerable adults in the capacity for which they were employed or their services were contracted for.(6) It shall be a defence to show that the LADO or that Children’s Services or that such other single point of contact with the Local Authority as such Authority may designate for the purpose of reporting was or were duly informed by any other party during the 10 days referred to at subsection (2) or had been so informed prior thereto.
(7) A Secretary of State having responsibility for the welfare safety and protection of children and of vulnerable adults may in exceptional cases by a letter or other instrument under his hand (hereinafter referred to as a “Suspension Document”) rescind or temporarily suspend the duty referred to at subsection (1) in the case of any specified child or children or of any specified vulnerable adult or adults concerning whom it appears to him that the welfare safety or the protection of such child or children or of such vulnerable adult or adults would be prejudiced or compromised by the fulfilment of the duty referred to at subsection (1) and may where it appears to him that the welfare safety and protection of children is furthered thereby exempt any specified entity or organisation and the members thereof that works with children generally in furtherance of their welfare and safety and protection or any specified medical officer from compliance with the duty referred to at subsection (1) provided always that no allegation is made against such entity or organisation or member thereof or against such medical officer.
(8) It shall be a defence for any person to show that a Secretary of State acting pursuant to subsection (7) has issued a Suspension Document and it shall be a defence for any person employed by or operating as an entity or organisation that works with children or for any medical officer to show that a Secretary of State has by such Suspension Document whether temporarily or permanently exempted it and its members or any medical officer from compliance with the duty referred to at subsection (1).
(9) Subject to sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) below, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or both;but so that—(10) In this section—
“regulated activity” relating to children and relating to vulnerable adults has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;
“providers of regulated activities” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;
“vulnerable adults” has the same meaning as in section 59 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006; and
“children” means persons who have not attained the age of 18 years.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee in July. Amendment 43 provides for a legal duty on those with a duty of care for children or vulnerable adults who are working in a regulated activity to report to the local authority known or suspected abuse of those in their care. The answer that I received from the Minister was that we should wait for the inquiry panel on historical child abuse to consider the matter. Three months has passed since then and the inquiry has still not got under way. As long grass goes, this is a veritable prairie.
At first, we lost the chair—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe that a judge of her standing and reputation would ever be biased in favour of anyone, however well known to her. However, it is important that there is confidence in this inquiry, so I understand her decision to step down. Further time passed before we were given the name of another person to take the chair. There is currently controversy about that appointment, too. Even further time passed before we had the names of the rest of the panel—a very good bunch of people, by the way—and the terms of reference were published. I looked carefully at them and was dismayed to find that there is no reference in it for the panel to consider whether a legal duty to report would help to protect children in the UK. Sadly, it seems that the Home Secretary is against specifying that the panel must look at this, one of many tools that could help to protect children, despite the Home Secretary’s reply to a Question in another place that the panel can indeed consider this matter. I hope that it does. But what if the panel feels that it has quite enough to consider and decides not to do so?
I also have concerns about the powers of the so-called Woolf panel, and I have questions for my noble friend the Minister about this. There have been concerns that the inquiry is not a statutory public inquiry under the public inquiries Act, and would therefore not be able to subpoena witnesses or evidence. The Home Secretary has confirmed that, should the chairman of the inquiry feel that it needs statutory powers, these would be granted by the Government. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that that is still the case? Can he also say whether it would entail the appointment of a different chair, one who is a judge, or could the person currently appointed to chair it operate those statutory powers?
All that aside, it has become obvious to me that, whatever the Woolf inquiry does, it does not have the confidence of survivors of abuse. Many have said that they will not engage with it. I therefore concluded that we need another way in which to give victims a voice and a transparent way in which to hear arguments in favour and those against the introduction of mandatory duties on those with care for children and vulnerable adults.
I do not believe that such a duty should be introduced without very careful thought, or without provision to ensure that the unintended consequences that some groups fear would not materialise. My colleagues and I have therefore had extensive discussions with the Government, and I believe that the Minister will confirm today our agreement that there will be an open and transparent public consultation on whether such a duty should be implemented in the UK, to protect children.
I thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for these discussions, and I especially thank my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and Norman Baker, the Home Office Minister for Crime Prevention, for their good offices in ensuring that we will now have open public consideration of the benefits of this measure. Nobody, whether establishment or not, will be able to get in the way of people saying their piece. It is important for the questions to be open ones, and the process to be accessible and transparent. I would be very keen to be involved in that. I am also keen to ensure that, alongside the opportunity to contribute in writing, survivors can take part in seminars, since many would not feel able to write or send an e-mail. All that is still to be decided.
This process is to be welcomed. Nobody can have any excuse for not engaging with it. It is not led by any member of the establishment, and the responses will be published, with appropriate redactions if any sensitive information, or information that might prejudice the bringing to justice of a perpetrator, is revealed. Then we will be able to hold to account whichever Government are in place next May as to how they respond to the evidence.
My intention in pressing this matter for so long has always been prevention, not criminalisation. I remain convinced that a legal duty would prevent perpetrators taking the risk of acting, if they knew that their colleagues were trained to identify abuse and would act if they became aware of it. Of course, professionals need training to recognise the early signs of abuse. This would protect children. The legal duty would also protect whistleblowers, who have been reluctant to speak out until now because they feared for their jobs. It would also bring more perpetrators to justice.
I accept that resources would be needed to deal with all the hidden child abuse that would come to light. But you cannot fail to turn over a stone because you are afraid of the slime that you might find underneath—and of course, the long-term benefits of a step change in the protection of children are obvious. Despite the Government’s extra £400 million, announced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at Question Time today, only this morning the mental health organisation Mind has published figures showing the lamentable state of mental health services for children in this country, and the small amount of money spent by local authorities on prevention and treatment, while at the same time millions are spent on programmes to prevent loneliness, obesity and so on.
Money spent on training for a legal duty to report, and on dealing properly with the cases that would be revealed by it, would save money in the long run and prevent a great deal of human misery. I heard recently that a majority of people accessing talking therapies were abused in some way as children. So it is clear that prevention must be our first objective, followed by early detection.
My aim in introducing the amendment has always been to give victims a voice, and to ensure that specific attention is drawn to, and evidence heard about, the potential benefits of a legal duty to report. We must ensure that all those well-meaning people out there who work with children turn what they see and hear into action, and feel comfortable to do so. I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm that I have succeeded in that aim. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I once again support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Indeed, since I last spoke in this place on this matter, the need for an obligation to be placed on certain individuals to report knowledge or reasonable suspicions of abuse involving the most vulnerable has become more pressing.
It was with increasing dismay that I read about the events in Rotherham. The independent inquiry report into child exploitation there makes sobering reading. At least 1,400 children were subject to sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013, with collective failings from both the council and South Yorkshire Police. The report noted:
“Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham ... Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to”,
child sexual exploitation.
There has also been the recent case of Thorpe Hall School in Essex. For more than 14 years a senior teacher had secretly photographed young boys undressing in changing rooms. The child protection unit CEOP, now taken over by the NCA, had been aware, via a report from Canadian police, that this teacher was a purchaser of paedophile videos, but more than a year passed from that report before Essex police were notified. Similarly, in the case of Dr Myles Bradbury, the paediatric haematologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, who pleaded guilty on 15 September this year to numerous sexual offences against children, CEOP had, again, been aware since July 2012 that he had been buying paedophile videos online but passed this information to Suffolk police only in November 2013. The National Crime Agency stated that CEOP’s delay in disseminating the information was “unacceptable”.
Sadly, the list continues to grow. In Birmingham, on 18 October this year, the city’s safeguarding children board noted that,
“the perpetrators of these horrific crimes remain at liberty and continue to target other children”.
These numerous scandals have shocked, and continue to shock, the nation and serve to emphasise the importance of imposing an obligation that is subject to criminal sanction if there is a failure to report.
Power and secrecy, which are so often present when abuse occurs, are magnified in an institutional setting, where there is often a considerable power imbalance between the most vulnerable and the perpetrators of abuse. It should not be forgotten that the vulnerable, particularly in institutions, are at risk not only from individuals who may commit abuse but from all adults who fail to report suspicions and knowledge of abuse. Indeed, the vulnerable may be placed in institutions in order to safeguard them from abuse but, ironically, it is in these very institutions that their exposure can become more acute.
This issue will not go away. Time and time again, individuals in institutions have failed the most vulnerable in their care by failing to report. The fact remains that, although child abuse is a crime, reporting it is only discretionary, which is why I welcome this amendment, the provisions of which, as can be seen, have been strengthened and clarified since our last debate. Regulated activity providers and those who are in a “position of personal trust” must be held accountable if they fail to report.
Public opinion is in favour of such legislation, as a recent YouGov poll indicated. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has stated that the introduction of a mandatory reporting provision would close a gap in the law which has been there for a long time. The Child Protection All-Party Parliamentary Group has called on the Government to consider certain institutional duties which,
“require people in leadership positions in institutions ... to report allegations of criminal abuse committed against children by people working on behalf of the institution”.
The former Secretary of State for Education, after hearing the words of a survivor of abuse, also suggested that the Government should re-examine their position, after previously blocking such an idea.
On 22 July this year, the Government co-hosted, with UNICEF, the first Girl Summit aimed at strengthening domestic and international efforts to end female genital mutilation and forced marriage within a generation. As part of this, the Prime Minister announced that mandatory reporting would be introduced for health, educational and social work professionals in known FGM cases. If mandatory reporting is to be introduced in relation to this specific area of abuse, surely it would make sense to extend this to cover other types of abuse. Now is the time. We need to act.
As I stated previously, I agree that imposing such an obligation may increase the number of reports, and this will need to be resourced properly. However, this increase is no bad thing. Knowledge or reasonable suspicions of abuse must be reported. The omission of an obligation has allowed those such as Savile and Bradbury to continue to abuse. I do not agree that the introduction of mandatory reporting will lead to authorities being swamped by erroneous or fallacious reports. In fact, mandatory reporting can highlight cases that otherwise may never come to the attention of the relevant authorities. I hope for an announcement from the Minister that there will be a serious look at the evidence.
We need a culture in our institutions and across our society that prioritises the protection of the most vulnerable over and above all other considerations. As the Home Secretary stated in the other place:
“We know that child sexual exploitation happens in all communities. There is no excuse for it in any of them and there is never any excuse for failing to bring the perpetrators to justice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/14; col. 168.]
This is why I wholly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. A change in the law could lead to a change in culture, helping to raise awareness, where certain individuals realise that if they fail to report their knowledge or reasonable suspicions of abuse they may be subject to prosecution.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, when I was chair of education in Cambridgeshire some 20 years ago, it was brought home to me very starkly how the lack of mandatory reporting had allowed a caretaker to abuse children in a school over a 16-year period. It was not taken seriously at any point over that time when parents, or even some of the children, reported concerns. Had that system been in place—even the first report—the head would have been under a requirement to force a proper inquiry. As a result, this man’s actions would have been curtailed and a large number of children would not have been subsequently abused.
Even though that happened some time ago, the problem still continues. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about some of the larger cases at the moment. I should have declared an interest: I am a trustee of UNICEF. I echo the point of the right reverend Prelate that if we are talking about mandatory reporting for female genital mutilation, which is a form of child abuse, we should also be considering it for wider child abuse as well.
Another point that has been raised outside the Chamber refers to concerns felt mainly by professional psychotherapists about an exemption in their treatment of perpetrators of child abuse, or would-be perpetrators, under the normal terms of confidentiality if there is a requirement to report. The exemption is in proposed paragraph (8) of the amendment. It quite specifically says that it is possible for a person to have that exemption. We need to reassure professionals that important work such as that should be one of the few exemptions allowed to continue without further report to the law.
I want to raise a more topical concern. Much has been said about the Jay report and what has been happening in Rotherham and subsequently in Sheffield and other places. I am very concerned that yesterday UKIP published a photograph showing a young girl who might be deemed to be a victim of abuse while the headline said something like, “1400 reasons why you should not vote Labour in the PCC election” .
Frankly, UKIP’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. Its record on tackling serious child abuse is disgraceful. The only record of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asking Questions about child abuse is on 13 October this year, after the by-election was called, and he has been in this House since 1990. Even that Question was focused entirely on the UKIP obsession with Muslims, ignoring the fact that child abuse happens in all areas of the country and is not exclusive to any culture, community, race or religion.
However, it is not just UKIP in the Lords. In the European Parliament, its Members abstained in a vote to strengthen legislation about sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Further, UKIP’s candidate in the Croydon North election in 2012, Winston McKenzie, said that gay adoption was child abuse. Gordon Gillick, a UKIP Cambridgeshire councillor, told a meeting of some children in care that they were takers from the system and wanted to know what they would give back to society. As we have heard, many children in care are the most vulnerable to grooming and abuse.
We need to have an honest and open debate about child abuse but it is completely inappropriate for a party that has not taken it seriously, even within its own actions when it threw out a paedophile and allowed that person to come back to receptions, particularly those with young UKIP members. We need to make sure that UKIP—it offers a policy of making sure that children are safe—can deliver that by having safe policies itself. I do not believe that the evidence is there.
Finally, I am also grateful for our discussions with the Minister on this. I hope that he will be able to offer reassurance to those of us who want a public debate and public consultation about the mandatory reporting of child abuse. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment and support it strongly. Current child protection systems, which rely upon voluntary reporting, simply are not seen to be working effectively. There is ongoing underreporting of suspicions of abuse or neglect by professionals working with children. Why might this be? It is worth looking at previous studies, which have suggested that barriers to reporting include the professionals’ own values and attitudes—for example, over the acceptability of physical punishment—and confusion over the thresholds for reporting. Professionals may be worried about issues of confidentiality and the potential impact on their relationship with the child and the family.
The current position for someone reporting is that they may, in effect, feel that they are being a whistleblower on a situation that they feel uncomfortable about. Professionals may fear the consequences and the potential impact on their reputation, leading to further hesitation. Reporting a suspicion that turns out to be unsubstantiated should not be a disciplinary matter for professionals, however distressing for those involved. There is a balance of harms here, and the need to protect vulnerable children should be paramount.
I should like noble Lords to think for a moment of the situation of a GP who is seeing people on 10-minute appointments, and who may know a family, see a child, have some concerns but be unable to put a finger on it. At the moment, the hesitation to report remains there. Other pressures of work come in. I must declare an interest here. When I was a GP, I looked after children in a children’s home and became convinced that something was not right. I went to the authority in whose area I was working but we did not get anything specific to happen. I would go out to the children’s home whenever there was a request for an appointment so that I would see the children on their own territory. I tried to see the children on their own when they were referred for a sore throat, sore ear or whatever. I had this nagging suspicion that something was wrong but I could not pin it down anywhere. All that I can say is that the Christmas after my suspicions began to become aroused the children themselves burnt the home down, which confirmed to me that my index of suspicion was right. However, I had no clear evidence on which to report that abuse was going on, although I was suspicious. I would have welcomed having to report that suspicion because it would have allowed me the freedom to state, “I have a really uncomfortable feeling here”, without feeling that I had to accrue the evidence.
That is my personal experience and where I have come from with it. That is why I stand separately from my professional body, the BMA, which has reservations about this amendment. It is concerned that a degree of professional discretion is required to ensure that doctors can take account of an individual’s circumstances and always act to ensure the protection of a patient. My experience suggests that that is incredibly difficult.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on highlighting and pursuing this issue. I also welcome the Government’s common-sense approach as we move forward, as my noble friend said. It will make a difference to children’s futures, and their future mental and physical well-being.
I know that it will make a difference because just last week I gave one of my many talks to more than 200 schoolchildren. I spoke to them about people who may be causing them to suffer physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse. I told them that it was not their fault and, rather, that bad people were taking advantage of their innocence and vulnerability. They must feel worthy and should tell someone, even though they may be threatened by the abuser if they do so. Children need to hear the message and to be empowered in this way.
As so often happens, at the end of that session the organiser of the event, who was aged around 40, came and sat next to me and said that he was that little boy I had spoken about when I talked to the children. He said that he had lived in a children’s home and had been abused, and that he is still living with those experiences. That is because when he did tell someone, he was told to shut up and keep quiet, and that he was ungrateful. His abuser was considered to be a good and kind person in society. The organiser was made to feel that he was the victim on all counts.
This is how abusers operate: they put on a good face for the community, but to their victims they are monsters. Everywhere you go in society and every corner you turn, there will be an adult who is reliving the horrors of child abuse. As I have said time and again in this House, childhood lasts a lifetime, so we have to put measures in place to ensure that for abusers there will be no place to hide. Some people might be wrongly accused and costs may be incurred, but I believe that that is a small price to pay to protect our children from being damaged for life. I therefore support the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I hope will be a good one.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I fear that I may be a lone voice in that I take a slightly different view from that of my colleagues—all of whom I deeply respect. I understand their position. I should also say that I look forward to a full debate on this, and I hope that the Minister will meet with those of us who take a different view as well as with those who are pressing for mandatory reporting. That is because there is another argument, part of which I will cover today. However, meeting some of those in the various fields where this proposal would make their work difficult would be worthwhile.
Of course, when a professional or indeed an ordinary person hears about a child or an adult of any kind—I will not use the word “vulnerable” because it means all sorts of things—who is being abused, they have a responsibility to ensure that they go to some authority. I would say to my noble friend, with deep respect, that, as a doctor, my view is that if she had a suspicion, it should have been forcefully conveyed to the authorities. I think that the problem is that some time ago the atmosphere around child abuse, and particularly child sexual abuse, was very different from the one we know now. I shall come to Rotherham in a moment because it is a different issue. We are in a different era in relation to child abuse and people are now very highly motivated to get it right.
As I said in the last debate, it is important that systems are in place to ensure that there is a clear pathway for reporting. Most organisations are working towards that, if they have not already got it. Most local authorities and statutory authorities have it; here I declare an interest because I am working with the church at the moment to try to ensure that it has that clear pathway to take people through to the reporting place. I do not think that they would knowingly fail to carry out that duty because the consequences are huge. I do not know how many noble Lords watched the programme last night about Baby P and saw the total destruction of people’s careers and indeed lives based on extraordinarily flimsy evidence, which some of us knew about previously. We have to be absolutely sure that, when reporting takes place, it takes place in a structure that can pick things up quickly and get the information right from the beginning.
I will speak about the issue of exemptions. I do not agree that psychotherapists should be exempted. If someone knows that abuse is taking place, they have a duty to report it, whoever they are and wherever they are. The difficulty comes when we are not quite sure. This is where the psychotherapists are anxious, and this is where I am anxious about a whole range of professionals who are working in the field of perpetrators —and I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which works directly in this field—including of course ChildLine and the NSPCC. They have children ringing up about issues that they are not quite prepared to talk about.
If there are going to be exemptions, they have to be absolutely clear. The procedure has got to be right. It is not about whether you are a particular kind of professional. It is about the situation, the circumstance and where you are in terms of the abuse. That is why I value the debate, because ChildLine, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and all similar organisations have very clear guidelines on when confidentiality must be broken in the interests of the child.
I know things can go seriously wrong. I was as appalled, shocked and amazed at what happened in Rotherham as anyone who has been involved in safeguarding for far less time than me—and I have probably been involved in it for more years than anybody in this House. I think, though, that we have to look at the circumstances of those kinds of situations and what is happening in that particular institution and how we put it right, because what really counts are not structures and procedures but culture. It is about whether the people in the particular organisation understand the values that they must have in relation to those for whom they are responsible and whether there is a culture right through that organisation that takes them forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked a detailed question about the statutory inquiry into child abuse. The last issue concerns me particularly. The National Crime Agency is telling us that it cannot deal with some 50,000 referrals that it has at the moment. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation cannot take all the telephone calls, despite the government help that we are getting—and we are working on behalf of the Government to try to take more calls from people who are anxious about their thoughts and behaviour.
As soon as we open the Pandora’s box on historical abuse for the inquiry, the Government will have an avalanche of people coming forward. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, is one I could repeat time and time again. I have been year after year in situations where people come to me and say, “This happened to me when I was 10, when I was 11”. The historical abuse issue, because we did not have procedures in place then, is going to hit the Government and the inquiry like nothing we have seen.
The reason I am so concerned is that we have put all that into a position of trust. It is about getting people to divulge things that they may not have talked about for 40 years. Do we have the resources in place to meet their needs once they have divulged this? At the moment children’s services are totally overwhelmed, CAMHS cannot meet the mental health needs of children in the communities and victim support groups have only just enough money to last until next year. That is the environment in which we are thinking about mandatory reporting. I will be interested in the Government looking at evidence from other countries because my evidence from Australia is that the authorities were overwhelmed at the beginning. They were totally overwhelmed by mandatory reporting.
It ensures that you cannot prioritise work. You have to do something about things that as a professional you might decide are probably not the highest on the agenda. Doctors have to make those difficult decisions, social workers have to make them and the police have to make them. Sometimes they will get them wrong, even if they have mandatory reporting, but at least we should give the services a chance to be able to meet the demand that we have at the moment. If we are going to increase that demand, the Government have to think beforehand about the resources that are going to be needed to meet that promise and the trust that is placed in those resources by the victims who have suffered so much.
As a former director of ChildLine, as a director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and as someone who has worked in this field for a long time, I certainly value the noble Baroness bringing this debate forward. I just come to a different conclusion.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I gather from what has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that an understanding has been reached with the Minister on this amendment, which I hope we will be able to welcome when we hear from the Minister exactly what it is.
We are extremely concerned about the way that children and vulnerable adults have been badly let down, not least in recent high-profile cases. Although we support mandatory reporting in principle, we have concerns about the amendment, and in particular its potential unintended consequences, which may have the opposite effect to that desired.
The amendment states that all providers of regulated activities involving children or vulnerable adults will be required to report any suspicion of abuse to the appropriate local authority. That would potentially cover millions of people being required to report. But the amendment is not specific or clear about exactly who would and would not be covered; nor does it define abuse. The signs of actual or likely abuse can be obvious but potential indicators of abuse, such as becoming more withdrawn, may not be quite so obviously a consequence of abuse; therefore, it would not be obvious that it would be an offence not to report them.
Among regulated activity providers there will be big differences in the level of pastoral support expected. For schools and hospitals, most referrals will be about abuse conducted not at the school or hospital but at home. However, it is not clear that a swimming club, for example, would have the same level of pastoral responsibility in respect of potential abuse. In some cases, conduct should be reported to the police where it is a straightforward criminality issue: for example, if a swimming club or football club suspected one of its coaches of taking inappropriate photographs. In other cases, such as a school, where it is likely to be a safeguarding issue, the reporting would be to the local authority. I do not think that the amendment addresses or reflects those kinds of realities.
There is some evidence from outside the United Kingdom that suggests that a mandatory reporting requirement as broad in scope as that provided for in the amendment can lead to the child protection system being overwhelmed. With social services budgets here facing unprecedented cuts, that must be an issue of real concern. Some evidence from outside the UK indicates that people may play safe over reporting in order to protect themselves from a criminal liability for failing to report, with the consequence that resources are redirected to the investigation and assessment of the increased numbers of reports and away from detection and protection and meeting the needs of children at risk and of vulnerable adults.
That is not to suggest that the current system works as it should: for example, through ensuring that incidents or suspicions of child abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults in institutions such as care homes and boarding schools concerned to protect their reputation are reported and properly addressed. It is also clear that, as in some recent high-profile cases of child abuse, the issue has been one not of failure to report but of failure to act on those reports.
We will await the Government’s response, but while we favour and want to see the introduction of mandatory reporting, we do not believe that the way in which the amendment proposes to do it is the right approach, for the reasons I have mentioned. These include possible unintended consequences that could have an adverse effect on the protection of children at risk and vulnerable adults. I hope that the Government will take on board the principle of mandatory reporting and work with all interested parties to bring forward a detailed proposal that will have the confidence and support of the whole House.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for again bringing this important matter to the House and for her persistence and perseverance in working with us to find a way forward on this issue. As many of your Lordships have said, we are united in our abhorrence of these crimes. We are resolved to lift the stone—in the analogy of my noble friend—and to face and tackle what lies beneath.
This coalition Government are absolutely committed to improving the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults and to doing all they can to protect them from all forms of abuse. In recent years, we have been confronted all too frequently with the most appalling cases of organised and persistent sexual abuse of children. The public have been justifiably horrified by the historical cases of child sexual abuse that came to light in the wake of investigations into Jimmy Savile, and those raised by the more recent cases of organised child sexual exploitation in Oxford, Rochdale and Rotherham, to name but a few. Some of these cases have exposed a failure by public bodies to take their duty of care seriously and some have shown that the organisations responsible for protecting children from abuse—including the police, social services and schools—have failed to work together properly. The recent report by Professor Jay into the horrific cases of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham also highlighted the failure of many of those involved to recognise the seriousness of the problem, and—perhaps most shockingly—their failure to see the children concerned as victims, rather than the makers of their own misfortune.
Each one of these various reviews and reports makes for deeply distressing reading, and this coalition Government are determined to learn their lessons. As noble Lords will be aware, the Home Secretary announced in July the creation of a new independent inquiry which will consider whether, and the extent to which, public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The inquiry will consider all the information available from the various published reviews and will identify any issues or allegations requiring new or further investigation. It will advise on any further action, which could include any legislative changes, needed to address any of the gaps or failings within our current child protection systems on the basis of the findings and learning from the reviews. The inquiry will take full account of what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, and it will make recommendations on that basis.
My noble friend asked about the status of the inquiry. As things stand, the inquiry will, like the inquiries into Hillsborough, be a non-statutory panel inquiry, which means that it will not be able to compel witnesses to give evidence. However, the Home Secretary has been very clear that, if the chair of the inquiry deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert this into a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. This means that, if the panel is converted into a public inquiry, Fiona Woolf will have powers to compel witnesses and subpoena evidence. This power would come to her under provisions in the Inquiries Act, which means that the inquiry does not need to be chaired by a judge.
My noble friend’s amendment would place a duty on providers of regulated activity, and anyone whose services are used by providers of regulated activity, to report known or suspected abuse against children and vulnerable adults to the appropriate local authority within 10 days. Breach of this duty would be a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison. That would essentially mean that anyone who works or volunteers in any capacity with children or vulnerable adults would commit a criminal offence if they did not report suspected abuse of any kind.
Since the debate on this issue in Committee, we have given this matter further careful consideration. It has been discussed on several occasions by the national group, and has been raised by the Home Secretary’s ministerial task force on Rotherham. However, we have not yet come to a firm decision on the matter. This is not surprising given the complexity of the issue. Research is inconclusive in determining whether mandatory reporting regimes help, hinder or simply make no difference to child safeguarding outcomes. In the USA, Canada and Australia, mandatory reporting legislation has been accompanied by significant increases in the number of referrals of suspected child abuse and neglect made to the authorities, a large percentage of which have not been substantiated. That was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland.
There is a real risk that, in introducing a duty, we would divert child protection services from the task of increasing the safety of our most vulnerable children to evidence gathering and investigation of cases that are eventually unsubstantiated and which often lead to significant disruption of family life. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that existing mandatory reporting regimes can lead to unintended consequences, such as creating a culture of reporting rather than acting—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and dissuading children from disclosing incidents for fear of being forced into hostile legal proceedings. That point was touched upon by my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who talked about the need to give people the courage to come forward and recognise that they are the victims of this and should certainly have no shame in coming forward.
I recognise that there are contrary views on the utility of introducing a statutory duty of the kind set out in my noble friend’s amendment, and some of those views have been raised this afternoon. I firmly believe that, given the conflicting evidence of the impact of such a duty and the concerns expressed by groups such as the NSPCC in its advice on this and the General Medical Council—though taking into account the practitioner’s perspective that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, brought to this debate—it would be perhaps a leap in the dark to legislate on this issue right now in this Bill. It is right that, before coming to a final decision on this issue, we listen to the views of the many stakeholders and experts, including victims’ groups, who quite rightly hold strong opinions on this.
I can therefore advise the House that we will now hold a full public consultation on the issue of mandatory reporting. We will consult broadly on the advisability, risk, nature and scope of any reporting duty, including questions on which forms of abuse it should apply to, and to whom it should attach. I should emphasise that the Government will look at all the responses they receive with an open mind. It will be a thorough, open and transparent consultation with a rigorous evaluation of the responses. Although hitherto the Government, like the Opposition, have taken the view that we have concerns about the specific wording of this amendment, we are entering into this consultation in good faith, in our desire to evaluate the evidence that comes forward.
The views of noble Lords will of course be very welcome indeed. There is a tremendous amount of personal knowledge and expertise in this House, and I accept the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in that regard. I would further encourage other Members to make their opinions heard. We intend to launch the consultation as soon as possible. Given the significance of the issue, it will run for the full 12 weeks. We will undertake to report back to Parliament on the results. I hope that this commitment and the spirit in which is it offered to my noble friend will leave her reassured about the Government’s resolve to probe this serious issue by this commitment to consult.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he has just said. I know that it is the convention to thank the Minister for what he has just said, but in this case it is particularly sincere because there have been genuine discussions and I think that what he has suggested will bring the sanitising effect of fresh air to this discussion. I am most grateful to all those who have supported my amendment. It may not be perfect, but it has resulted in the statement that we have just heard from the Government, which is a major step forward.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who was unable to speak today, for adding their names to the amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for their comments, although I would point out that some of the definitions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was looking for are right at the end of the amendment. However, the point that they made makes the case for what the Government are suggesting now. None of us wants unintended consequences. We want children to be protected.
I hope that all those who have an opinion about this matter will be able to put their views to the public consultation, and that those views will be taken into account. While still being convinced that some sort of restricted mandatory reporting for regulated activities would benefit children, I very much accept that we need to hear all opinions and it needs to be implemented in a very careful way that is appropriate to the United Kingdom, although there is good evidence from abroad.
I shall pick up one point, if I may, before I withdraw the amendment. It has often been said, and my noble friend the Minister said it again, that there are large numbers of malicious reports. It has been found by analysis that, yes, there are malicious reports, but it is not a large percentage; it is quite small—under 20%. In Australia, the percentage was exactly the same after the duty was introduced as it was before. Although the raw numbers went up, the actual proportion of those reports which were not able to be substantiated was exactly the same. So it is not correct to say that an awful lot of reports are malicious or unsubstantiated. Let us please be correct about that. That is just one small point that I felt needed correcting.
I am delighted that there will be a public consultation and I would challenge all those organisations that have said that they will not engage with the Woolf inquiry to engage with this one, because there will be no barrier to hearing their voices. I hope that they will make their voices heard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Anonymity of victims where female genital mutilation is alleged
In section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (offences to which this Act applies), after subsection (1)(da) insert—“(daa) any offences under sections 1 to 4 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003;”.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 44, I shall also speak to Amendment 44A. I thank those who have co-sponsored the amendments: my noble friend Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lords, Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lord Pannick.
There are a number of amendments in the group and I welcome that the Minister has tabled amendments that mirror ours. This is a real opportunity not only to ensure meaningful changes to the law but also to ensure that the law is enforced.
The term FGM is becoming more widely known. Many people have a vague understanding that it means that a female, usually a young girl, is cut and her genitals mutilated, but I am not convinced that the absolute horror and brutality of what is involved is as well understood as it should be. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about. The term “female genital mutilation” refers to all procedures involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The World Health Organization has classified it into three different types, including clitoridectomy—I never thought that I would have to say that in your Lordships’ House—excision or infibulation. What does that mean? Clitoridectomy is the partial or total removal of the clitoris. Excision is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the inner labia, sometimes with the excision of the outer labia as well. Infibulation, which then follows, is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and “repositioning” the inner or outer labia. There are other harmful procedures too, but this is essentially what these amendments refer to.
You do not have to be medically trained to appreciate not just the abusive brutality of what we are talking about but the serious health risks for the girls and women who are mutilated in this way, both at the time of mutilation and in later life. The risks include severe pain, injury to the surrounding organs, haemorrhage, infections that can cause death, chronic long-term pain and the obvious complications that occur during child- birth. That does not even begin to cover the psychological trauma that the girls carry for the rest of their lives. Reliable estimates are that, around the world, 130 million girls and women have undergone female genital mutilation. In Africa, 101 million girls aged 10 and over have been subject to FGM, and every year a further 3 million girls are at risk of FGM in Africa alone.
If noble Lords think that this is something that happens in other places and cannot happen here, let me share some horrifying and ugly statistics. A recent report in the UK based on 2011 census data and ONS birth statistics concluded that there are 170,000 women aged 15 and over in England and Wales who are living with the consequences of FGM. It is even more shocking that today in the UK 63,000 girls under the age of 13 are at risk of FGM. It is a serious problem here and it is a serious problem now.
In trying to tackle this we have tended to focus mainly on prosecution but we have not seen as many prosecutions as we would like given the high incidence of this crime. Our Amendment 44, on female genital mutilation orders, is aimed at trying to address the issue through prevention. This proposal is a direct result of the experience of those trying to protect young girls. It would establish female genital mutilation protection orders, which would be civil orders modelled on the forced marriage protection orders that enable a court to make an order to protect a girl or woman. This was originally a recommendation of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. We are very grateful to the committee for its advice and for the briefings it has provided. They have been invaluable in our examination of these issues.
These orders would allow the court to intervene to prevent potential victims being subjected to FGM and would therefore act as a strong deterrent against the practice. The orders provide a range of injunctive remedies to the courts and, crucially, they focus on the victim. The powers include the ability for a number of people—including the potential victim but also a friend or a local authority—to apply to the court, where it is suspected on clear and compelling evidence that a child is at risk of mutilation, for an order prohibiting any interference with the bodily integrity of the child. It would also allow the court to intervene on its own account. The order could contain such prohibitions, restrictions or other requirements that the court considers appropriate for the purposes of protecting a girl or woman. We, like the Government, have largely mirrored the forced marriage protection orders because they have been used successfully hundreds of times now and they share common features with the FGM protection orders.
Girls and young women at risk are often reluctant to provide evidence that would criminalise their families. They are, by definition, young; they are vulnerable and effectively socially silenced. A difference between our proposals and the Government’s is that our amendment amends the Family Law Act 1996 and not the 2003 Act. There are a number of benefits to such orders being applied within family law jurisdiction. For cases involving children, civil protection would complement the existing measures for child protection and judges would be able to consider the full range of options available to the family courts provided for in the Children Act 1989. Civil protection would be more flexible but it would still be backed by criminal sanctions for breach.
All that matters is that legislation works. I appreciate that the government amendment is seeking the same aim by amending the 2003 Act, rather than the Family Law Act. There is an opportunity to better protect the child by amending the Family Law Act, both in terms of the remedies available and the enforcement of the legislation. We have seen already with the existing 2003 legislation that that is quite difficult. I appreciate that the Government have a consequential amendment, Amendment 50A, that in effect links these provisions to the family law, but I hope that the Minister can help on this. I am curious as to why the Government have chosen that route. It is not the route that was used in other cases. I am convinced that we are seeking the same outcome but we want to be convinced that the Government’s approach will still ensure that the joined-up approach to child protection, which is so vital in these cases, will be there. We do not disagree with the Government at all on the intention and the principle. We just want to ensure that we have the right route. We prefer—and our evidence backs this—the route through family law as a better approach than amending the 2003 legislation.
I turn to government Amendment 46G on female genital mutilation protection orders. We were very pleased to see that the Government also want this provision to be part of the Bill, but I ask the Minister to consider our concerns around this. Again, it is a matter of definition. The government amendment uses the definition of FGM that is in the 2003 legislation. That was ground-breaking legislation at the time, but since its introduction it has become evident that not everyone interprets the law in the way that we intended. Specifically, the issue to be addressed is whether reinfibulation is covered. Infibulation is the removal of all the external genitalia and the fusion of the wound, in effect almost sealing the vagina. At childbirth women need to be deinfibulated to have any possibility of a vaginal birth. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber when we last debated this would have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who unfortunately is not here at present. Her experience of helping a woman who needed to be reinfibulated in order to give birth, and the difficulties the woman faced in being unable to have a vaginal birth, is a description that will stay with me for a long time. Reinfibulation involves restitching to reclose and reseal the FGM. That is further mutilation following childbirth. Again we have taken advice, and we are very grateful to the Bar Human Rights Committee and Doughty Street Chambers’ lawyers—who, through their experience of dealing with such cases, have drawn the conclusion that the definition of reinfibulation in the 2003 Act is inadequate and confusing.
A recent report from the Home Affairs Select Committee reinforced that conclusion. It referred to the Director of Public Prosecution’s letter to Ministers which also asked for clarification of the law in respect of reinfibulation. It said that,
“infibulation, also referred to as Type 3 FGM, involves the narrowing of the vaginal orifice, it needs to be opened up during childbirth. The Intercollegiate Group told us there have been cases where women who were de-infibulated during delivery had returned in subsequent pregnancies having undergone re-stitching, i.e. reinfibulation … The Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police, ACPO, the Intercollegiate Group and others all told us this meant there was a lack of clarity as to whether reinfibulation was covered by legislation”.
I have raised this matter directly with the Minister and I am grateful to him for discussing it this time. I fully understand that the Government’s opinion is that this is covered by the 2003 definition. Certainly that is what was intended when it was brought in. However, what matters is what happens in practice. Legal and medical practitioners are telling us something completely different from what the Government believe and what was the intent at the time. A note from Dexter Dias QC, who has acted in FGM cases, informs us of research undertaken by Professor Lisa Avalos—I can supply the Minister and the noble Baroness with this information—and they emphasise that the law’s silence about reinfibulation is causing confusion among practitioners for a number of reasons.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I rise only because of my experience in piloting through the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. I just want to say how glad I am—because we are dealing with a whole group of amendments—that the Government are not only toughening criminal law, but also mimicking, or copying, that Act in relation to female genital mutilation. That is dealt with as a new schedule in government Amendment 46G. I would like briefly to explain why that is very wise.
The problem about using criminal law in this area is that it depends upon all the safeguards of a fair criminal trial. It depends upon there being a prosecution before a criminal court to a high standard of proof, the burden being on the prosecution, and all the panoply of a criminal trial, which may terrify anybody, but certainly will in this sensitive area. It is therefore extremely difficult for a prosecution to succeed in a case of this kind. It is said, and it is the position of the Government, that it is very important to send a signal. I am not, on the whole, in favour of using law simply to send signals.
Although I understand why the Government are strengthening the criminal law, if we are serious about dealing with this odious and significant social evil, the civil law is much more likely to be effective, including the use of the family courts. This is because, as with the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act, first of all you do not need the victim to apply. A third party can do so. In fact, you do not need anyone to apply; the court can do so on its own initiative. Secondly, the application will be heard in private. Thirdly, the outcome will not involve dishonouring the family. It is extremely important in an area of this kind that the victim is not put in a position where if she gives evidence she will be permanently alienated from her family.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is in her place, because she has far more experience of this than I have. Certainly experience of the 2003 Act has been very good in that forced marriage civil protection orders have been made in their hundreds and been complied with. It has worked because it uses the civil route of family law and family courts with all the expertise of those courts, in a way that will not deter victims from coming forward and which will not mean permanent divisions within the family.
As I read what the Government are proposing, that is well understood. That is why the new schedule which is to be inserted on female genital mutilation protection orders largely mimics what we were able to achieve in that Bill. I will explain who I mean by “we”. That Bill had the support of women, including Asian women, bodies such the Southall Black Sisters and the refuges. They really took ownership of it and made sure that it was something that would work. That ownership is vital. What is contemplated here should do that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I would like to ask the noble Lord’s advice on this, because he referred, as I did, to the forced marriage protection orders. I understand that that was done by an amendment to family law. The point on which I was asking the Minister to come back on was whether, by not amending the family law in the government amendment, although we seek to do that in our amendment, we will make it more difficult to bring the law together and deal with it in a family court. Does the noble Lord have a view on that, having dealt with this previously?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
That is a very good question, but I cannot really answer it. My reading of government Amendment 46G indicates that there is a copying in of what had happened with forced marriage. Furthermore, paragraph (7) of the proposed new schedule in the amendment amends the Family Law Act and gives jurisdiction to the family court. I may be talking complete rubbish and I may be corrected, either by the noble Baroness or by the Minister. I am simply trying to get across why the civil route is so important and the use of family courts is so important.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I shall pick up that point. It is perfectly obvious to me as a former president of the Family Division that it does not matter which piece of legislation it is as long as the work done in relation to female genital mutilation is allocated to the single family court and heard either by High Court judges or circuit judges who are ticketed to try family cases. This is really not for the ordinary civil judges in what was the county court.
I am interested by this talk about the High Court or the county court. We should actually be talking about—I say this respectfully to the Government—the single family court. It does not matter whether it goes into the Family Law Act as is suggested in the excellent opposition amendments, which I largely support. What matters is who actually tries it. Just as with forced marriages and every other child protection issue, we have here issues of crime, but we know perfectly well that there has not yet been a single conviction of anyone who has done this. It is a question of culture, too. One has to train people in this country that this is not an acceptable practice. The Government are to be enormously congratulated for working on that—as were the previous Government when introducing the 2003 Act—but nothing has gone far enough.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I would like to see what is good in each set of amendments put together. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition and the Government will get together after Report and thrash out what would be the best of everything and get that into one list that could go into Third Reading. I do not think that the Government go quite far enough. A great deal of what the Opposition are saying is exactly what we need, but it all needs to be put together. Certainly, the most important thing is that it should go to the single family court and be tried by High Court or circuit judges who have specialist family experience.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble and learned Baroness. In doing so, I ask the Minister to give thought to taking away the government amendment to come back at Third Reading with a composite amendment that deals with the two issues that my noble friend related in moving the amendment. The issue of definition is as important as the issue of where this matter is located in law. There is concern out there that the definition that we have may not comply with the World Health Organization definition; even if it does, the way in which it was formulated in the 2003 Act, because of where we were then, is not clear enough to the whole range of professionals. As my noble friend identified, a number of health bodies, even in their own guidance, are telling their practitioners that reinfibulation does not come within the definition of female genital mutilation in the current Act. That has to be dealt with. I welcome the Government’s approach to looking further at what we need to do in the Bill. We have an opportunity here to ensure that we get things right, and the definition is one important issue.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I hesitate slightly, as a male religious leader, to speak in your Lordships’ debate on this matter, but it may be important that I do so. I also hesitate to plunge into the legal niceties that have been raised so clearly by those with more knowledge of such matters. I added my name to Amendment 44A largely because of a phrase in subsection (5) of proposed new Section 63T of the Family Law Act. It states that,
“it is immaterial whether she”,
that is, the girl or woman concerned,
“or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual”.
The context for that subsection is the possibility that an operation might be justified on the grounds of the physical or mental health of the person concerned and that wording makes it clear that custom and ritual cannot be used as support for such an argument.
We are rightly proud of our national values, whereby we respect and indeed treasure the richness of many and varied cultural and religious traditions, beliefs and practices within the life of our national society. But that proper respect for a wide range of such beliefs and practices does not mean that they are all either good or commendable. It is my view that in female genital mutilation we have a practice that we simply cannot condone, even when it is done out of respect for a particular cultural or religious tradition. FGM is at heart, as has already been graphically described, an act of violence and abuse. It is one that is often associated with control—sadly, male control over women. For somebody from my tradition, it is actually an interference with our human createdness in a way that carries no benefits for health or anything else. It is, indeed, the physical removal of the potential for sensual pleasure which is part of our human and sexual createdness. The Church of England’s marriage service, or at least its current version, speaks of the “joy” of bodily union. FGM removes that possibility. For that reason and others, I support this amendment and its intent. Whatever emerges from this debate, I hope that the reference to custom or ritual will remain within whatever emerges as an Act.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not need to reiterate the feelings of abhorrence at the practice of FGM and the enormous number of girls and women who are affected by it. The right reverend Prelate has a very important role in this debate. He should not have hesitated to intervene.
I wish to address a couple of points before I speak to my amendments, which are minnows and just seek clarification. I agree very much with what the noble and learned Baroness said. As one who has been in the lower orders of the legal profession, I am impressed by the way in which members of the judiciary have specialised and gained expertise in a number of areas over the years. I hesitate to make my next remark, and should tug my forelock in doing so, but it is hugely important to ensure that certain members of the judiciary have considerable knowledge and experience of the areas in which they pass judgment. Practice and practical arrangements are also enormously important.
I do not want to argue that this amendment is better than that amendment. However, if there is to be further discussion, which I would never discourage—we talked about consultation on the previous amendment—let us not forget that it need not happen by Third Reading. If there is to be further consideration, it needs to be done well and carefully. The Bill has further stages to go through in the Commons. We are all accustomed to Members of the Commons saying on the record in Hansard, “Let’s send it to the Lords and let them sort it out”. On this occasion, there is time for sorting out to be done, if that needs to happen, before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. As I say, it need not be done by Third Reading, which is not very far away. However, it is important to have something in the Bill on which any further consideration can build. Therefore, I suggest to the House that we should support the government amendments so that we have them as a basis.
As I said, my amendments are minnows. Nevertheless, I will speak to them. The first is Amendment 46C, which seeks to amend government Amendment 46B on anonymity. I seek to understand the import of “substantially” at line 23 of government Amendment 46B. My amendment suggests replacing “substantially” with “significantly”. It is obviously for the court to decide whether a defence would be prejudiced and to what extent it would be prejudiced. Are there any comparable provisions containing this sort of balance elsewhere in the criminal justice system, given the presumption of someone’s innocence until they are proved guilty? I also ask for confirmation that the restriction here applies on an appeal to a higher court.
My second amendment, Amendment 46D, is to the same amendment, dealing with the second condition in the court’s consideration, where it is provided that the effect would be to,
“impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings”.
What might a substantial restriction be that is not an unreasonable restriction and why is the extent of the restriction relevant?
My third amendment is an amendment to Amendment 46E, which is the offence of failing to protect. Again, in order to probe, I am seeking to leave out from proposed new Section 3A(1) the words “under the age of 16” as describing a girl. Indeed, should it be “a girl” or “a girl or woman”? Does girl include a woman? I have not got the words quite right, but that is the import of the provision in the 2003 Act. Why 16? It may in practice be very rarely necessary to seek an order in respect of girls aged 16 and over, but it seems it is not completely irrelevant. The 2003 Act does not have that age limit on a girl and indeed provides for women to be covered as well.
In proposed new Section 3A(4) we are told that a person is responsible in one case where that person has parental responsibility and has frequent contact with the girl. Is frequent contact necessary and, indeed, is it appropriate? How frequent is frequent? I would guess that we expect case law to grow up around this, but I would be grateful for any comments that my noble friend might have. Does parental responsibility extend to care as under Section 3(5) of the Children Act? How does that definition of parental responsibility fit with proposed new Section 3A(5) where there has to be an assumption of responsibility for caring for a girl in the manner of a parent.
I hope that none of this is thought to be too pedantic and too picky. Like others, I am very keen to see these provisions work. If I have by chance lit on anything which needs more explanation than I have been able to apply to it in my own head, then it would be useful to have it on the record.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for setting out just what we mean by female genital mutilation and asking, as a supplementary, whether the current definition of FGM includes wider elements such as reinfibulation. I will deal with that point first. I confirm that the Government’s view is that reinfibulation is an offence under the 2003 Act. That is on the basis that if it is an offence to infibulate in the first place, it must equally be an offence to reinfibulate. The multiagency practice guidelines on FGM have long made clear that resuturing or reinfibulation is illegal in the UK. Current guidance issued by both the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing supports that view.
As we heard in Committee, the whole House shares an abhorrence of the practice of FGM and we can all agree that more needs to be done to stop such violence against women and girls. There are nuances on how best to tackle such abuse, but we all agree on the principle: FGM must end, and this Government are committed to ending it.
I will comment on the right reverend Prelate’s point about the cultural aspect, which adds strength to the argument. I totally share his view. At the Girl Summit in July this year, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary announced an unprecedented package of measures to tackle FGM in this country. This included a number of commitments to strengthen the law. To that end, this group of amendments includes a number of government amendments designed to ensure that our legislative response is as strong as possible. In particular, they will provide for lifelong anonymity for the victims of FGM, introduce a new civil order to help protect those at risk of mutilation, and create a new offence of failure to prevent FGM. I propose to say a little more about each of these new provisions.
On the subject of victim anonymity, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, moved an amendment in Committee to extend to victims of female genital mutilation the same anonymity that already applies to victims of many sexual offences. This followed a recommendation by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I was then able to indicate in response to that debate that the Government were giving sympathetic consideration to the proposal. As many in this House will have seen at the Girl Summit on 22 July, the Home Secretary announced that the Government would bring forward legislation to this end. Amendments 46A and 46B deliver on that commitment. These amendments will give victims of female genital mutilation the benefit of anonymity, as already applies to the alleged victims of many sexual offences under the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Any publication of material that could lead members of the public to identify a person as the alleged victim of an offence will be prohibited. Anonymity should not end where the online world begins; publication would include traditional print media, broadcasting and social media.
Female genital mutilation is an offence of a particularly personal and sensitive nature. Without the prospect of anonymity, victims may be discouraged from reporting such an intimate offence to the police. Granting lifelong anonymity, therefore, will reassure victims that their identity will be protected and will go far to encourage the reporting of this offence. This protection needs to be automatic rather than discretionary; it must apply from the outset, when an allegation is first made, rather than from the point of charge; and it must last for the duration of that person’s lifetime. That is exactly what these amendments will bring about.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has a couple of amendments to government Amendment 46B. They are far from being the minnows that she described. Amendment 46C seeks to amend paragraph 1(5) of new Schedule 1, which sets out the first condition that must be met in order to lift the restriction on anonymity. This allows a court to remove the anonymity that attaches to an alleged victim of an FGM offence where the anonymity results in the defendant’s case being “substantially prejudiced”. This wording is directly comparable to the provisions in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. We do not think that making a distinction between the two provisions would be helpful when both seek to achieve the same outcome.
Amendment 46D would lower the test for disapplying the reporting restrictions. We do not believe that this change provides sufficient protection for the alleged victim’s anonymity. Again, we have applied the two-pronged test that applies under the 1992 Act. By changing the test in this instance, the courts could well be more ready to lift the reporting restrictions as they apply to an FGM victim, thereby undermining the protection we are seeking to afford such victims.
Government Amendment 46G provides for FGM protection orders. It has been tabled in response to concerns that currently there is no specific civil remedy for the purpose of protecting potential or actual victims of FGM. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made that point. The majority of responses to a recent consultation on a proposal to introduce a civil protection order for FGM supported the proposal for such an order, so as to protect potential victims and victims of FGM. The Government strongly believe that there should be a specific civil remedy to strengthen protection for potential victims of FGM and to help to prevent FGM from occurring in the first place. Amendment 46G aims to achieve this.
The provisions on FGM protection orders follow closely the model of forced marriage protection orders provided for in Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996, with some modification to reflect the different nature of FGM offences. The new Schedule 2 to the 2003 Act contains a number of detailed provisions. I do not intend to go through each one but will focus on the key features.
As with forced marriage protection orders, an FGM protection order may contain such prohibitions, restrictions or other requirements as the court considers appropriate for the purposes of that order: that is, for the purposes of protecting a girl against commission of an FGM offence or a girl against whom any such offence has been committed. This could include, for example, provisions to surrender a person’s passport or any other travel document and not to enter into any arrangements, in the UK or abroad, for FGM to be performed on the person to be protected.
Application for an FGM protection order may be made by the person to be protected, the victim or a relevant third party, without leave of the court or any person with the leave of the court. This would clearly allow a wide category of persons to apply for an FGM protection order, which I believe is desirable. In particular, allowing a third party to apply for a protection order on behalf of a victim may be helpful in situations where the victim is unable to do so, for example because she is too young—it is clear that most victims of FGM are girls typically between the ages of five and eight—or because she is too scared to take such an action herself. It will also be open to a criminal court to make an FGM protection order on its own initiative, for example when sentencing a person for an offence under the 2003 Act.
Breach of an order would be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, but with provision, as an alternative, for a breach to be dealt with in the civil court as contempt punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, questioned whether putting FGM protection order provisions in the FGM Act 2003 undermines the court’s powers, compared to putting them in the Family Law Act 1996. We do not think that that is so. The proceedings would be in the family court, with the full range of powers of the court, and expressly without prejudice to any other protective powers that the court may have. The location of the provisions does not affect this. Indeed, it would be helpful to practitioners to have all FGM-related provisions in one statute. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made that point. She also stressed the point about the proceedings going to the family court. I point noble Lords to paragraph 17(1) of new Schedule 2, which makes it clear that the proceedings are in the family court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked whether there would be a bespoke FGM unit, akin to the Forced Marriage Unit. I can confirm that the Government will set up a specialist FGM unit to drive a step change in this very important outreach service, with partners.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester made a point about the provision in the Opposition’s proposed new Section 63T that it is immaterial whether any person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual. The provision in question is already set out in Section 1(5) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and is applied by paragraph 17(1) of new Schedule 2 in the government amendment.
These government amendments, which provide for victim anonymity and FGM protection orders, have substantially the same effect as Amendments 44 and 44A put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I trust, therefore, that she will be ready to support them in lieu of her own.
Amendment 46E provides for the last of the three new government measures. It will create a new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of genital mutilation. Again, this new offence gives effect to a recommendation by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the law to place a positive duty on parents or carers to prevent their children being mutilated. English criminal law does not generally criminalise a failure to prevent an offence. This new offence is unusual but, I think, entirely necessary.
In the context of FGM this approach is justified given the difficulties that have been experienced in bringing prosecutions under the existing law. Even if those who allow their daughters to undergo FGM believe that it is in the girl’s best interests to conform to the prevailing custom of their community, there can be no excuse for such a gross violation of their 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 amendment provides that if an FGM offence—that is, one of the offences set out in Sections 1 to 3 of the 2003 Act—is committed against a girl under the age of 16, each person who is responsible for the girl at the relevant time will be guilty of an offence. My noble friend Lady Hamwee queried why this offence applies only to girls under the age of 16 whereas the existing FGM offences apply to girls and women of any age. We recognise that parental responsibility can be exercised in relation to a girl under the age of 18. However, in the context of FGM where, as I have said, victims are typically aged between five and eight, and given the diminishing control that a parent would have over a 16 or 17 year-old, let alone an older woman, we believe that the offence should apply where FGM has been committed on a girl under the age of 16.
The maximum penalty for the new offence will be seven years’ imprisonment or a fine or both. We believe that this is proportionate when it is considered against the maximum penalties for offences of violence, and bearing in mind that this is an offence of failure to protect rather than of directly perpetrating violence. My noble friend Lady Hamwee also raised a couple of points on the new offence. The offence has been carefully drawn to avoid criminalising people unnecessarily or unjustifiably, so the requirement for frequent contact is intended to ensure that a person who in law has parental responsibility for a girl but who in practice has little or no contact with her would not be caught under this provision. The courts have held that what constitutes frequent contact is a simple question of fact which does not require further elucidation or definition.
On the question of how the new offence applies to children in care, the Children Act 1989 refers to people who have care of the child. This seems to us to be too broad a category to make liable for the new offence. Instead, new Section 3A(4) makes liable, in addition to those who have parental responsibility and frequent contact, the more specific category of those “aged 18 or over”, who have current responsibility for,
“caring for the girl in the manner of a parent”.
The new offence is not a panacea for the long-standing difficulties in prosecuting FGM, but it will help to overcome some of the barriers to prosecution, in particular by reducing if not avoiding the need for a girl to give evidence or to identify who actually performed FGM on her. In so doing, it will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to bring prosecutions in cases where they could not have been brought before. At the request of the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, this new offence, and indeed the other two new provisions, will extend to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. The other government amendments in this group are consequential on the three substantive new provisions.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Everything that the Minister has said is music to my ears, and I congratulate her and the Government. However, she has just mentioned Northern Ireland and that provokes in my mind the question about what happens beyond England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What will be the position if someone goes to Scotland or to another country? The same problem arises with forced marriage. Will the Government take steps to try to persuade other jurisdictions to collaborate, if necessary by amending their laws, so that when people move from this country to carry out this vile procedure, it can apply not only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for bringing up that point. In actual fact, Scotland has very strong provisions in this area, and in a certain sense we are catching up, so I hope that answers his questions.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Sorry, I said not only Scotland but any other country. Scotland sounds as though it is fine. But what happens with any other part of Europe or the Commonwealth?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to my noble friend. I am sure that if other countries or jurisdictions want to take on our legislation, that would not be a problem. I will confirm that with the noble Lord in a letter and also put a copy of that letter in the Library, but I assume that to be the case.
I have been on my feet for some time, but I hope that I have set out in a little detail the effect of the government amendments. I am grateful to the House for bearing with me and commend the government amendments to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She need not apologise for having been on her feet for a long time, as she did as much as she could to address the many issues which were raised in the debate.
On the issue of FGM protection orders, I think there is not a cigarette paper between us on what we are trying to achieve. However, I still do not fully understand—I am not a lawyer, but even the noble Lord, Lord Lester, could not help me out on this one—why the Government have chosen this approach and not the family law approach. That is the other point. I will look again in Hansard to see what she said, but given the comments that have been made around the House, I thought there was a willingness from the noble Baroness and from others for the Government to talk to us and say, “Have we got it right? Can we look at this?”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness, and I think there is a further conversation to be had, perhaps outside the Chamber. I am very willing to engage with her and other noble Lords who may wish to meet with me before Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, because we just want to get it right. On the basis that she is prepared to discuss it and bring something back at Third Reading, we will be happy to withdraw our amendment. I am grateful and I appreciate that.
However, I must express my disappointment with her comment around the legal definition. I was unusually —and somewhat, I would say, embarrassingly—graphic about what reinfibulation actually means. I know that the Government believe that it is covered in law, and I said that in my comments. We believed that we covered reinfibulation when we brought in the law in 2003, but the evidence is that it is not. If the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say that it is not covered, we have to accept that there is a lack of clarity and there is some doubt. With the best will in the world, the noble Baroness saying to me that the Government believe that it is covered is not good enough. I ask her whether, on the same basis, she would be prepared to look at this and discuss this with us.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am extremely grateful. On both those issues, therefore, we would be happy not to press our amendments on the basis of further discussion before Third Reading.
Baroness Meacher
“Offence of encouraging or assisting with the promotion of the practice of female genital mutilation
(1) The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 2 (offence of assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia) insert—
“2A Offence of encouraging or assisting the promotion of the practice of female genital mutilation
A person is guilty of an offence of encouragement or promotion of female genital mutilation if he encouraged or assisted another or others to commit an offence knowing or believing that the other or others would commit that offence.”(3) In section 5 (penalties for offences) insert—
(a) after “under” insert “sections 2 and 3 of”,(b) at end insert—“(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 2A is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.””
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Following legal advice, I amended Amendment 45, and it has now become Amendment 45A. The aim of this amendment is to tackle FGM at its heart. I applaud Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others for tabling amendments which seek to protect young girls from the threat of this terrible torture and to protect their identity. All these are important, although we know that to achieve a prosecution of families committing FGM is not straightforward, and even with all the improvements in the new amendments, I still believe that it will be difficult. I understand that FGM is increasingly happening to tiny children who cannot yet speak, which will make prosecution even more difficult until very much later on because of course the families are trying to avoid detection. Prevention will be very difficult to achieve through protection orders, for example, if this is happening very early on in a child’s life.
Amendment 45A creates an offence of encouragement or promotion of FGM if a person,
“encouraged or assisted another or others”—
that is very important—
“to commit an offence knowing or believing that the other or others would commit that offence”.
The amendment seeks to ensure that if a community or religious leader encourages the practice of FGM, whether to a congregation, a small group of parents or indeed an individual parent, they would be committing an offence and could be charged. We are seeking something very different from the amendments so far, which have focused very much on an individual child and their family, but that is not where the focus should be when the core of the problem is actually in the culture of certain communities. If we want to stamp out the practice, we have to change the culture and the religious preaching.
The Minister explained to me just before this debate that the Bill team believes that the amendment does not achieve what we believe that it will. However, I sought legal opinion from Keir Starmer and his colleague Catherine Meredith, and they came back to me over the weekend and assured me that the amendment is fine and will achieve what we want it to. Of course, this was very late on; although I approached them some time ago, they are busy people and did not come back to us until very late. We therefore have not had an opportunity for the Bill team and government lawyers to sort this out. Not surprisingly, we therefore have a slight disagreement, but I am satisfied on the basis of my legal advice that the amendment will achieve what we want it to achieve and I will therefore speak to it on that basis.
The amendment would make a distinction between religious leaders who preach from the Koran and are therefore authentic—and, indeed, religious leaders who preach from authentic Hadith—who would not be committing an offence and would not be prosecuted if the amendment became law, and religious leaders who preach on the basis of the inauthentic versions of the Hadith, who would be committing an offence; they would be very clearly differentiated from the others. That is very important.
My concern about the parent-focused offences in the absence of Amendment 45A is that if parents believe that their religion requires them to practise FGM, when parents are arrested for this practice and are subjected to a protection order, they will regard the arrest or the protection order as some terrible action of the infidels. They will not be convinced at all and their thinking will not change. In addition, parents who are not directly affected by an arrest will not be convinced. They will think that these are the actions of infidels and therefore they will try to find a way of carrying on with their FGM practice. That is the importance for me of Amendment 45A.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
I have gone into this in great detail since 2003, when the all-party group that I chair held hearings on the subject. We learnt from various groups that gave evidence, and I have learnt since, that it is usually the grandmothers in a family who are most insistent on this practice, and that it is not confined to a particular religious group. I would hate for people to get the idea from what the noble Baroness is saying that this is a practice of the Muslim religion or any other religion. It is confined to small cultural groups. It is often opposed by the religious leaders and men in the community but the grannies insist that it is done.
Baroness Meacher
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. I completely agree: this is not exclusively a Muslim problem. Indeed, there are Christians, apparently, who promote FGM. However, we know that there are religious leaders who preach from the unauthentic Hadith and are certainly promoting FGM; they are rather effective at doing that. They ally, of course, with the grandmothers, and the grandmothers can look to them for support.
Another question is whether this practice is sufficiently prevalent to justify this new offence. Yes, it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to international figures. I simply want to refer to a few from the British Arab Federation. It estimates that more than 100,000 women have undergone FGM in this country and that some 25,000 girls are at risk of having their lives destroyed in this way. The Local Government Association provides a figure of 144,000 girls born in England and Wales to mothers from FGM-practising countries between 1996 and 2010. We do not know how many of these mothers will have changed their minds about this practice, but the figures from the British Arab Federation are certainly alarming and we need to take them seriously.
We must applaud the British Arab Federation for making it its highest priority to work with all organisations to bring an end to this crime. The federation is clear that there is no evidence, as far as Islamic sources are concerned, requiring, justifying or condoning the practice of FGM. This, again, reiterates the point. This is not a problem of the whole of Islam—far from it—or, indeed, only Islam. It affects certain groups and certain leaders.
The descriptions of the way FGM is performed are utterly appalling. Just reading them was a painful experience for me. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, went into this in great detail and I certainly do not want to repeat what she said. As I have already said, there is no mention in the Koran of FGM and no mention in the authentic Hadith of FGM, so there are perfectly proper Islamic texts that do not in any way encourage this activity. Indeed, Islamic law prohibits partial or complete removal of any bodily organ without proven medical need. Thus FGM is unlawful, as I understand it, according to Islamic law. It is important that, in proposing this amendment, we make this absolutely clear. In no way is this amendment an attack on Islam: quite the opposite. It is an attempt to secure the proper practice of Islam. There is a lot of work going on in communities to encourage them to abandon FGM, but this work is being hindered by these leaders who stick to unauthentic texts.
Currently, under Sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, anyone inciting or carrying out FGM in a particular case can be prosecuted for incitement. The LGA argues, quite rightly, that it is not possible under current law to prosecute someone who in general terms says that there are religious, health or other grounds for carrying out FGM. That is the whole point of this amendment and the whole point of referring to the plural: if somebody preaches to “another or others” that FGM is important to their religion, they are committing an offence. This amendment should make it much easier to bring cases against those who promote this practice. Inhibiting the preaching or promotion of this practice is much better than action ex post. That is what we are all working for: to try to prevent this thing ever happening in the first place. A lot of the focus has been on prosecuting people after they have practised FGM and that is just not good enough.
I know that the Government have concerns about whether this amendment really would achieve what we hope it would achieve, but I hope that we can have further discussions. I take the point that there will also be debates in the other place. Therefore, we do not even have to resolve these issues, and the issues around the previous amendments, before Third Reading, although I will certainly seek to do that with my legal advisers. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I intended to put my name to this amendment, which I support. It seems to me that it is more important as a deterrent than probably for prosecutions. Among the various groups that exist—one hopes that they are a really small minority—as the noble Baroness just said, it is very important that the English law is made absolutely clear, as well as the law of Islam. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, just said, this occurs across other religions. That deterrent has, in other areas, quite a useful effect on culture, and that seems to me the most important part of this. I suspect that there will be very few prosecutions, but what is said in English law may permeate through a number of groups where those who disapprove of this already would then be able to point to the fact that it was also contrary to English law, and those who might want to get involved in this would be deterred from actually supporting it. I, too, support this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, towards the end of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to what was troubling me, which is whether we are talking about general encouragement—if I can put it that way—or encouragement to commit a specific offence. Like, I suspect, those in the conversations she had just before coming into the Chamber, I am puzzled by the presentation of the amendment as meaning general encouragement, because I do not read it that way either. With the wording, “to commit an offence”—a specific offence—I thought that the noble Baroness was getting to grips with what is meant by “promotion”, which was the bit that I found difficult to get my head around in terms of its application in the predecessor amendment. However, the noble Baroness told us that it is the reference to “the other or others”—in the plural—which changes that. Bluntly, I do not follow that. I hope that, when she winds up, the noble Baroness will be able to convince me. The offence of FGM might surely and not unusually be committed by more than one person in the case of a single girl. That was certainly how I read this. It is not about committing offences; I read the provision as being about a particular, specific victim.
Of course, I do not take issue with the noble Baroness about the cultural problems and so on. However, I hope that my noble friend will convince the House that this is covered by the Serious Crime Act 2007, with its Part 2 on encouraging or assisting crime. There are extensive provisions in that part. If that applies, then I would not be particularly keen on having a specific offence when it should be covered by the general provisions. It is better that the general should apply to all criminal offences and not have something separate which actually does not amount to anything different. It is the difference that I am looking for.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I am filled with some trepidation and hope the House will indulge me. I have not involved myself in talking on this Bill before. I will do so now very briefly, with the leave of the House, because I think the issue is so important.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on the objective behind this amendment, but we already have a great deal of law in this area and we are to get a whole lot more once this legislation is passed. However, the law itself is not the answer to what I think the noble Baroness seeks to achieve, particularly with an amendment that, I fear, is all too vague. It refers to,
“encouraging or assisting with the promotion of the practice”.
Does that, for instance, include a tribal elder discussing cultural traditions or a parent discussing the family’s heritage and ethnic customs with a daughter? The noble Baroness talked about authentic and unauthentic version of religious tracts. These are very tricky, difficult areas. What precisely do those words mean? I fear that they do not precisely mean anything.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not mean for a moment to embarrass the noble Lord, but I wonder whether he is speaking to the original Amendment 45 rather than Amendment 45A.
Lord Dobbs
The new clause in Amendment 45A is headed:
“Offence of encouraging or assisting with the promotion of the practice of female genital mutilation”.
That wording is still there.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I had gone straight to the text of it. Those words were in the text of the previous amendment and they have been changed. I am sorry if I have perhaps diverted the House in the wrong direction.
Lord Dobbs
I think the original wording is still there and therefore has some relevance.
On the previous group of amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, called very sensibly for clarity. The challenge in this matter is not just the law but the practice itself. The figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, quoted are appalling: 100,000 victims in the UK; and 25,000 under the age of 15 at risk every year, perhaps even more. These figures are horrendous, but they are meaningless without prosecutions —that is, police and prosecuting authorities taking action. That is what is lacking. We have listened to them and they hope for prosecutions, but there has not been a single prosecution for female genital mutilation.
I looked at the figures for West Midlands Police. This is one of the areas where you would expect them to take a great deal of interest, but in 2011 they investigated eight cases. In 2012, that went up to 25, and in 2013 it was 41. They are getting better but very slowly. That speaks to the fact that this is a very difficult area for prosecution authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, spoke to that.
Given the current law and without a single perpetrator having been brought to justice, my fear is that this amendment with its vagueness would be counterproductive and make life more difficult for the prosecution authorities. My fear is that more law, no matter how well intentioned, that is too loose to be effective in practice—the practice is important—will create only more problems in enforcement rather than bring justice to those many innocent children. I applaud the intention of this amendment, but I caution about its outcome.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, the NSPCC asked me to speak to this amendment because it believes that it will be beneficial to many young girls. I am pleased that this is being discussed. As this House recognises continually, FGM is child abuse and we should do all we can to tackle this cruel and painful practice. It is important that legislation is clear on this, but we have to be realistic on FGM that the law can only do so much, as has been said time and time again today. Until the social norms in which FGM operates are challenged, it will be difficult for members of communities to come forward to share their concerns about children who are vulnerable to FGM.
The NSPCC has stated that the amendment proposed is to be welcomed, given that it would create a specific offence and make it easier to bring cases against those who support FGM, even indirectly, whether they reside in or are just visiting the UK. This would help to support the excellent work being done to tackle the practice in communities—work that can be hampered when community leaders, family members and others continue to promote and encourage the practice of FGM.
I am aware that, as we heard on the previous amendment, there are existing FGM laws in place, but I believe that this amendment is probing what further can be done to stop this barbaric practice. We must always have children’s well-being at the top of our priorities. Young girls suffering the horrors of FGM need to know that not just laws but members of society will protect them from the suffering that many young girls are going through today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on bringing this forward. We debated this in Committee and have looked at it before. I have had discussions with the noble Baroness, and indeed with the same lawyers to whom she has been speaking. We have to try to find a way forward on this issue.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on the issue of clarity and on the need for prosecutions. In the previous debate on FGM protection orders, we heard that the right for victims to be anonymous will help to bring some of those cases forward. However, a telling point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, when they said that the purpose of the amendment is as a deterrent. It seems to me that in some of the laws we bring forward we fail when we have to prosecute. The very purpose of the law is that we should not have to prosecute because the law is what stops an offence taking place.
This is a difficult area. We had these discussions in Committee, but I can see exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is trying to do in protecting girls and women from female genital mutilation. It is about those who would persuade, not just by suggesting that it is a good idea but by encouragement and advocacy, while knowing that they have to avoid a charge of incitement. They would not instruct someone to commit an offence but encourage and lead them to believe that it is the right thing to do. I am sympathetic to and supportive of the need to address the problem. The NSPCC has made the point and the Local Government Association has brought forward its concerns as well.
It strikes me—indeed, I am convinced—that, if we are to wipe out FGM within the UK, we have to address the specific issue of encouragement, promotion and advocacy. We know that some of the best persuasion is subtle. There are those families who believe in the practice not through somebody within that family or the community saying, “You must have your daughter cut”, or have FGM, but through comments, persuasion, advocacy and encouragement that can lead families to be fearful if they do not proceed with the process.
Obviously, we do not want to go down the road of criminalising people for the comments they make. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has read the clause in its entirety. He talked about tribal customs or something, but the proposed clause refers specifically to female genital mutilation and that is the only offence in this context.
I acknowledge that this amendment has been tabled only recently and we have not had a full opportunity to distil the detail, and I understand that the Minister will say that the Bill team does not believe that this will address the problem. However, I hope that that is because the noble Baroness realises that there is a serious problem. Young girls in this country are undergoing this barbaric process and procedure because somebody in their community thinks it is the right thing to do. It is shocking that mothers and grandmothers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, having gone through the process themselves, inflict it on their children and grandchildren. Unless we break that cycle and persuade mothers and grandmothers that it is wrong, we will not be able to stop children in this country going through it. That is the point the amendment is trying to make.
We need to break that link—that cycle—of people saying, “This is the right thing to do. You must do this. Your child must be clean”. We have to break the cycle so that we do not have the encouragement, advocacy and pressure that children should undergo FGM. That is the only way we can wipe it out in this country.
Baroness Tonge
I thank the noble Baroness so much for making that point. The encouragement frequently comes from within the family, as it does for male circumcision. It becomes the law of the family; that is what has to be done. It is not just the grandmothers who perpetrate it. The children themselves are led to believe that it is being done for their good, just as male circumcision is sold to older boys. Therefore, they somehow comply and they certainly do not want to take action against their own parents because it is happening within an otherwise loving family. It is a very difficult and delicate process. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is so right to say that what we need is not more legislation—although I welcome it tremendously and thank the Government for it—but some prosecutions.
Lord Bates
Just to clarify, the Companion states that further interventions should be for clarification purposes only rather than further conclusions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It could be argued that that was a considerable clarification. I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
If the Minister’s Bill team does not believe that this addresses the problem, and we in your Lordships’ House all understand what the problem is, can we look at it again? The Minister has been very good and I greatly appreciate her co-operation. We can have discussions before Third Reading and full debates in the other place as well. This is the only opportunity, as we will not have another Bill on this in the short term. We have an opportunity here to get it right. We would welcome discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as well as the lawyers who have tried to find a way through on this without encroaching on the kinds of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, rightly addressed, or on issues of free speech. We can find a way through and this is the only chance we have. If we are to wipe this out in the UK, we have to address it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Again, this has been a further excellent debate on the role of the criminal law in helping to put a stop to the practice of FGM in this country. I am grateful for the constructive approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others have adopted in both debates and in the discussions we have had outside and inside the Chamber.
As many noble Lords have said, we are aiming to get to the same end. It is slightly unfortunate that the amendment was tabled quite late and that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what the amendment seeks to achieve. My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly pointed out, on the point about “other or others”, that the amendment does not seek to achieve what was sought in the original amendment, if that makes sense.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Tonge and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for pointing out quite strongly that this is not a religious matter. There is nothing in any religious text that points to FGM being something that should be carried out on young girls. It is a specific cultural practice that exists in certain communities in the world and has found its way to this country. Legislation alone cannot eradicate a practice that is so deeply ingrained in the culture and traditions of those who practise it and have been doing so for centuries, but I agree that the law is a very important part of our response to the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation, and it is right that we should change it where necessary.
We believe that the new offence that we have just debated of failing to protect a girl from risk of genital mutilation gets to the heart of the issue. The Government’s new offence focuses on those who allow this dreadful abuse to be perpetrated on their daughters rather than on those who may only encourage them to do so. That is not to suggest that encouraging female genital mutilation, or indeed any crime, is in any way acceptable.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that such behaviour also constitutes an offence under the provisions of Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which contains inchoate offences of: intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed. As the noble Baroness observed, the revised wording of the proposed new offence follows closely the wording of the existing inchoate offences. That is both its strength and, dare I say, its weakness. As a result, it would not cover behaviour that is not already covered by the existing 2007 Act offences.
We are not persuaded that creating a specific offence of encouraging FGM is necessary or appropriate. The provisions in Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 apply to all criminal offences precisely so that it is not necessary to create specific encouraging or assisting offences for every crime. We agree that the behaviours now referred to in the noble Baroness’s revised amendment should be criminalised, but that is already the case. This amendment would not advance the criminal law in this area—I suspect this is where we are going to have a further conversation.
We believe that changing the culture and attitudes that allow female genital mutilation to persist will be better achieved through the awareness raising and community engagement that the Government have already embarked upon, rather than through the creation of another, arguably unnecessary, inchoate offence.
I wholeheartedly commend the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others in tabling her amendment. As I have said, this House is united in its desire to eradicate FGM, even though we may differ on how best to achieve that end. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the government amendments that we have just debated represent a substantial package of measures to strengthen the civil and criminal law to tackle FGM. I firmly believe that they offer a better way forward, and on that basis I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for her constructive response and all noble Lords who have spoken very constructively in this debate. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for her very important point that this amendment, unlike any other, would achieve deterrence, and that is what we want to do. We want to deter this dreadful act. We do not want just to prosecute after the event, although it is difficult ever to achieve a prosecution. If we can deter, we have really got to the goal that is now clearly shared across all sides of the House, which is to change the culture on FGM. We therefore need to change the way the leaders operate and the way they encourage people to indulge in this terrible act.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her very helpful support. We must try to find a form of words that the government lawyers, our lawyers and all other lawyers agree will achieve this incredibly important objective. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
“Protection of children from sexual communications
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence where A intentionally communicates with another person (“B”) in the following circumstances—
(a) A is aged 18 or over,(b) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13,(c) the content of the communication is sexual or intended to elicit a response that is sexual, and(d) subject to subsection (3) below, A’s purpose in sending the communication or seeking a response is sexual.(2) The communication may be in any form including verbal, written or pictorial (which may include still or moving images) and may be conveyed by any means whatever.
(3) A does not commit the offence in subsection (1) above where the purpose of the communication is for the protection of the child to which the communication is sent.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person acts for the protection of a child if he acts for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,(b) protecting the physical safety of the child,(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant, or(d) promoting the child’s emotional well-being by the giving of advice, and not for a sexual purpose.”
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to create an offence where an adult engages in a sexual communication with a child or—this is very important—seeks to elicit from that child a sexual communication in response.
The amendment covers verbal, written or pictorial communication. It includes video communication and it covers all forms of communication whether by telephone, the internet, instant messaging and even gaming systems, such as the Xbox. This brings the law in this part of the United Kingdom into line with the law in Scotland, so this is not new territory. I am grateful to the NSPCC for the discussions and briefings I have had, and I know it has had discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. I note that on Friday it launched an online petition on precisely this issue and that by last night it had already achieved 20,000 signatures, so there is a degree of interest and of belief that this is necessary. Indeed, if you speak to many parents, you come across the argument time and time again about why this is important and their concerns for their teenage and younger children.
The reality is that the current law that purports to cover these issues is fragmented and confused. It makes it hard for the police to bring suitable cases against perpetrators and what legislation there is by and large pre-dates the widespread use of the internet and social networking sites. In practice, the current law fails to recognise the nature of grooming. In grooming the perpetrator is not trying to be offensive to the child, to frighten the child or to intimidate the child. The abuser is trying to flatter the child and to persuade the child that they are the person who matters and the only person who cares for them and, as part of that, to persuade the child to respond to them sexually and send them sexual or indecent communications.
This is a widespread problem. Last year, ChildLine reported an increase of 168% in contacts of this nature. ChildLine is receiving reports daily of large numbers of these cases. For example, a 15 year-old girl was groomed by someone who she thought was 17. In fact, he was 44. She met him through a social networking site, and they chatted online most nights. In his guise as a 17 year-old boy, he said that he was in love with her. He started talking about more sexual things. At first she was not too worried as her friends told her that this was just what boys did. She then sent him a picture of herself naked. He had elicited that picture. At this point, he admitted that in fact he was 44 but said that age did not matter and that he really loved her. When the girl said that she was going to stop the contact, he threatened to share her images on the internet and tell all her friends what she had done. That is a real case from ChildLine of the sort of thing that happens. It would have been quite difficult to take the man concerned to court, as I understand it, on the existing basis.
By contrast, there is a case study from Scotland. It concerns a Mr James Sinclair who was 25. He gave a 14 year-old girl a mobile phone and sent her a series of sexual text messages. The girl’s family found the messages and contacted the police to report the matter. The family had reportedly tried for some time to stop the victim having any contact with the accused, but those efforts proved unsuccessful. Police officers examined her mobile phone and traced and detained the offender. Sinclair was put on the sexual offenders register. Under the current law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he could not have been prosecuted because he could have mounted a defence that he did not intend to cause distress or anxiety as the child seemed willingly to engage in the sexualised conversation. That is the context in which we are talking here. The current law is inadequate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 46, which relates to the protection of children from sexual communication. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, his amendment is supported by the NSPCC. It proposes a new offence so that it is always illegal for an adult intentionally to send a sexual message to a child.
In recent years children’s internet usage has grown exponentially. As your Lordships know, children between the ages of eight and 15 now spend far more time online than they do watching television. They are also keen users of social networks, with many engaging in risky online behaviour, including being in contact with people via social networks who are not directly known to them, sharing personal information, which makes them vulnerable to abuse, and sharing indecent pictures. We have heard about that from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Indeed some people behave in very different ways online to offline, apparently. Police interviews with sex offenders show that the majority differentiate the real world from cyberspace believing that their behaviour is acceptable because what is happening is not real or tangible. One offender said that masturbating on a webcam in front of a teenager seemed like “Fun at the time”. He stated that he would not behave that way offline. Consequently, young people are experiencing all sorts of abuse on a scale that we have never seen before. Last year, Childline, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, had an amazing 168% increase in contacts from children relating to online sexual abuse.
The law needs to be changed better to protect children from adults who send these sorts of sexual messages to them. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that existing laws cover online grooming but the NSPCC and others who support this campaign do not believe that is true. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was referred to. But, increasingly, abusers online have no intention to meet and abuse the individual child physically. Therefore, the Act apparently does not cover online grooming. There is a similar situation with the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Finally, if the Crown attempted to prosecute an offence under the Communications Act 2003, the defence could argue that the threshold of,
“a message … that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”
had not been met. The Act also does not cover the use of private networks to communicate.
Current laws mean that police can be powerless to act until a child has been coerced into sharing an indecent image, lured to a meeting offline or, in the worst cases, sexually abused. The confusing nature of the law in this area means far more needs to be done to enable the police to take early action to prevent abuse escalating, reducing the risk to children and young people and helping them to keep safe online.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seeks to close this gap in the law better to protect children online and would enable action to be taken against offenders at an earlier stage of the grooming process before an arrangement to meet had been made. It would help protect children from unwanted sexualised content online, potentially have a deterrent effect on offenders and put more responsibility on adults to ensure that who they are talking to online is indeed another adult. More than 75% of people believe it is already illegal for some aged over 18 to send a sexual message to a child under 16, while more than 80% of people have expressed support for such a change in the law. I very much hope that the Government will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it always seems churlish to take up points in the text of an amendment when one supports the thrust of it but I am afraid I am going to. The action of grooming is hugely serious. On the noble Lord’s example, I wonder whether at least a part of that will be covered by the revenge porn amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill about the use of images, moved on Report. My noble friend Lady Grender, who put her name to it, arrived just after I had managed to find the text of that amendment. However, that is not my only point on this amendment.
The grooming which the noble Lord described often includes a lack of knowledge in either direction of the people taking part in e-mail exchanges. Therefore, I wonder whether it is appropriate to use the words, which I think have come from the 2003 Act, of A not reasonably believing that B is 16 or over, particularly as I suspect—I do not have detailed knowledge of this—that B, the child, may often claim to be older than she or he is. That is probably my major concern. There is also a reference to subsection (3) which sets out the circumstances in which no offence has been committed—but that only applies to paragraph (1)(d) where it must also apply to (1)(c), and it does not actually need stating in either case.
Perhaps I had better not go down the road of whether communications are written or oral—perhaps verbal is the word one should use there. More serious is the question of whether the list in proposed new subsection (4) is intended to be exhaustive. I would have thought not, but it reads that way. In proposed new subsection (4)(d) I query the reference to promotion of,
“emotional well-being by the giving of advice, and not for a sexual purpose”.
I am not sure whether those words correctly describe the difference between the sexual purpose of the perpetrator and the connection between emotional well-being, sexual advice and sexual well-being, which are inseparable.
Finally, might it not be better to go at this by trying to amend the Sexual Offences Act itself? That would lead to consequences, including the sex offenders register, to which the noble Lord quite rightly referred. Again, while I support the thrust of this, I am afraid that I could not support this particular amendment, which would take us in a direction that might be more difficult to untangle.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, as we have already heard, the NSPCC supports the amendment and, as it always hold children’s best interests at heart, it is good that we are debating why it does so.
For children and young people, the internet is an exciting extension of their offline world, a source of information and communication and a way to expand their social lives and networks. However, along with the great benefits of the internet there is also a considerable amount of risk—a dark side, from which we need to protect children by putting measures in place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, ChildLine last year had a 168% increase in contacts relating to online sexual abuse year. This is a most disturbing trend. Young people have told ChildLine that they are experiencing all sorts of new abuse on a scale never before seen, and many parents say that keeping their children safe online is a key concern for the welfare of their child.
The problem is that there is inadequate protection for children from adults who send obscene or disturbing material to them—in the majority of cases, over the internet. The current law in this area is fragmented and confused, making it hard for police to deal with sexual messaging appropriately. Existing legislation, such as the Sexual Offences Act 2003, predates the widespread use of the internet and the huge growth in the number of offenders targeting children online.
Evidence has shown that, increasingly, offenders have no intention of meeting the child because the internet gives them new ways to control and influence children without ever having to touch them. The end goal may now be to persuade, coerce or groom a child to get them to perform sexual acts via a webcam. This can sometimes leave children feeling mentally abused, with low self-esteem, and is often the start of self-harming.
Under the current law it is hard to tackle grooming behaviour at an early stage, meaning that intervention can often be made only when the abuse gets to a more serious and extreme level, such as when the child sends an image of themselves, or when arrangements are made to meet and abuse the child. There have been suggestions that there is adequate provision in existing law to cover online grooming. However, the NSPCC and other children’s charities do not agree. Under existing legislation, many of these offences would not be captured because the defence would argue that the threshold required for the communication to be covered by the offence had not been met. What is the solution? The NSPCC believes that this amendment would close a gap in the law, to better protect children online.
A YouGov poll found that three out of four adults believe that it is already illegal for someone over 18 to send a sexual message to a child under 16. The fact is that no such specific offence exists. Eight out of 10 people polled by YouGov said that they would support a change in the law. This simple and sensible change would have a number of positive effects in relation to protecting children from online abuse, primarily helping to protect children from unwanted and distressing sexual contact online and enabling action to be taken against offenders at an earlier stage of the grooming process, thereby helping to prevent abuse escalating. I hope that the Government will give full consideration to this amendment, to protect our children. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, have undertaken a service to your Lordships’ House by tabling this amendment for debate today. There is no doubt that, alongside the advantages that modern technology brings, it also brings new dangers for children. Looking across your Lordships’ House, I suspect that when any of us went out to play as kids, our parents would tell us, “Careful how you cross the road, and don’t talk to strangers”.
If I am honest, my parents were happiest if they thought that I was safe upstairs in my bedroom with my friends, playing my music or pretending to do my homework. Nowadays, parents have those same fears while the child is at home in their bedroom, on their computer or mobile phone. It is very difficult for parents always to understand or put in the controls that need to be there. The danger has moved; it can now be in the home or in the child’s bedroom. The law has to keep pace with the changes that have come about. The technology has moved, and the law has to move too.
I am very grateful to the NSPCC for what I thought was a very helpful briefing. I also agree with the point that my noble friend Lord Harris made about the “slow burn” of these types of offences. I recall dealing with a case some time ago where there was a man in his 30s, who had a family, who was corresponding with an 11 year-old girl in another country, who thought that she was in contact with another 11 year-old girl. In that case, he was stopped before it went too far, but it is easy to see how over a period of time somebody can believe that the person they are in contact with is someone just like them. It is their friend, whether it is a boyfriend or someone of the same gender. This is the grooming that is referred to.
I will not go into the detail of the legislation, because my noble friend Lord Harris explained that, but I am sure that the Minister’s file covers this area. When he took up his post, he was kind enough to meet me. He thought that I had been a Home Office Minister. I was not; I was a Home Office PPS. Part of my duties as a PPS was to run two paces behind my Minister, clutching the file as he went into Committee. On every page, against an amendment put down by a member of the Opposition was a line which read, “Resist, it is covered by other legislation”. I expect that the noble Lord has a very similar file in front of him today.
I will give the Minister the benefit of my experience on this issue. This came up previously when we were debating the anti-social behaviour Bill in your Lordships’ House. I was brought a proposal from the Manchester police and crime commissioner about how to shut down more quickly premises that have been used for grooming young girls for sex. I was told “We do not have the powers”. I had a letter from Norman Baker, the Home Office Minister which said, “Of course you have the powers; this can be done; you can use the prostitution laws”. How could you use the prostitution laws with an 11 or 12 year-old girl? You could not. However, the advice from the Home Office in correspondence after correspondence was that it was already covered by existing law.
We often hear that it is covered by existing law, but our experience when we see offences being committed, but not being prosecuted, is that the existing law is inadequate. On that occasion we tabled an amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had the same concerns then as she has expressed today about it not being the right kind of legislation and said that it should be in another Bill. Where there is a will, there is a way. If we really want to address some of these problems, we can. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was very helpful on that occasion. I withdrew my amendment. The Government came back with their amendment which we were delighted to support and were very grateful to do so.
There is an opportunity here. The wording may not be perfect; I am sure that the Minister has his note saying, “resist”; but there is an issue here that has to be addressed. Failure to address it now will mean that we lose the opportunity until the next Home Office Bill. I know that they are like double-decker buses sometimes, but we have an opportunity here to bring the law up to date. The law exists in Scotland and is used for prosecutions in Scotland when other laws fail. So here is an opportunity. I hope that the Minister can just put his file to one side and not resist, just until Third Reading, to see whether there is a way forward to address what is becoming a pretty serious problem.
Lord Bates
I am tempted by the Baroness’s offer to put my file aside, but I will stick with it a little because, as we have seen through this whole process of discussion in Committee, which she has been following right from the beginning, it is not the case that “resist” is there because it is something that someone just does not want to consider. All the way through, we have seen the openness of officials to have meetings with groups and with Back-Bench Peers. The genuine government amendments that have been brought forward, and the responses, not least today and on other matters, show that we are all very much on the same side on all of the issues, whether it is FGM, mandatory reporting, or indeed this one.
However, there are genuine differences between people in some NGOs about the best way of achieving this. Officials are using their knowledge and expertise of the system to ask whether this is actually something which is going to strengthen our hand. A great forecast was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of what was actually in my speech. I can assure him that I shall not disappoint him in referring to those specific Acts. One reason why I shall not disappoint him is that the Ministry of Justice has met with the NSPCC, as you would expect, and talked to it about its concerns in this area. It has shared its thoughts on the amendment.
I will try to be as helpful as I can, but I need to get some remarks on the record. If the House could bear with me in my responses, I will come back to the specific issues raised. I share the noble Lord’s objective, which is to ensure that we have a robust body of criminal law to tackle predatory sexual behaviour by adults against vulnerable children. The House remains united in its condemnation of the sexual abuse of children, and it is through the work of noble Lords across all parties and none that we have some of the strongest and most respected criminal laws in the world to deal with this dreadful offending.
I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has proposed this new offence and brought its concerns to this debate. Its efforts, and those of its supporters, have helped to create a tough range of criminal sanctions and provided support to help to protect children. I also thank the NSPCC for engaging in constructive talks with my officials about this new clause. I also mention ChildLine in this context.
The new clause would create a new criminal offence prohibiting an adult from communicating with someone under 16 who they do not reasonably believe to be over 16, or someone who is in fact under 13 years of age, where that communication is sexual or intended to elicit a response that is sexual. The person’s purpose in sending the communication or seeking a response would need to be sexual.
As I said, we have some of the strongest and most robust laws in the world to deal with sexual offences against children. Although we are examining this issue, our preliminary view is that the behaviour targeted by this amendment is already captured under existing law.
I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I outline some of the existing relevant provisions. If a message is sent by means of a public electronic communications network—that would include the internet—and its content is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing, it will fall foul of the offence in Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Those convicted of this offence who pose a risk of serious sexual harm to the public can be made subject to a sexual offences prevention order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned that the situation in Scotland was much better, but in this regard the Communications Act 2003 does not apply to Scotland. It does apply in England and Wales, and there have been 1,314 prosecutions under Section 127 of the Communications Act in 2013 alone. This will cover a range of issues, not the specific ones that he is concerned about, but it is certainly not something that the police feel that they have no opportunity to prosecute under the Communications Act 2003.
I realise that this offence would not apply to non-electronic communication or perhaps private communications networks, but our other laws here are broad enough to capture sexual messages to children in this manner. If the messages, including any sent images, are indecent or grossly offensive, sending them may fall foul of Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I readily acknowledge the point made by my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who talked about 1988 certainly predating the world-wide web in that context, but some of the laws that are in place for offensive materials and activities relating to other media are still relevant to the new media, and we should not just disregard them. They fall foul of the Act provided that they are sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to a person to whom the material is communicated, or intended to be communicated.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I shall try not to intervene too often, given that we are on Report, but I would be grateful for this clarification. The Minister has referred to Section 127 of the Communications Act, which requires the message from the perpetrator to be,
“grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.
He also referred to Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act where the offence is,
“with intent to cause distress or anxiety”.
In the sorts of cases that I have been talking about, there is no intent to cause distress or anxiety. There is no need to be,
“grossly offensive … indecent, obscene or menacing”,
because this is about coaxing the young person through flattery to send a naked image of themselves. Clearly, if it falls into these categories, there is no question that the Act covers it, but these are communications of a different nature.
Lord Bates
I accept that—and this may not endear me to the noble Lord, but I am only halfway through my speech. I will go through some other laws that could catch that particular matter. If it is not the case, I shall certainly come back and address the specific one that he deals with.
It has been pointed out that the Section 1 offence in the Malicious Communications Act is not suitable because it is a summary one and subject to a six-month time limitation on prosecutions. I assure the House that the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill includes an amendment to the 1988 Act, making that offence triable either way, which would have the effect of removing the six-month time limit. The material, depending on the content, could also be caught under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. There was a recent conviction under the Act which captured a paedophilic sexual discussion being held in a private e-mail conversation between paedophiles. This significant conviction demonstrates that the offence can be made out by a publication to one person.
If the contact or messaging involves the creation of indecent photographs of children under the age of 18, legislation such as the Protection of Children Act 1978 could be used against those circulating such images if, for example, an adult is inciting a child to self-produce indecent images. That was a specific issue that the noble Lord focused on. Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 covers the simple possession of these images. There are a range of offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, including laws on attempting these offences, which would very likely cover this behaviour, its consequences or intended consequences. I shall spare the House a list of all the offences in the 2003 Act that might be engaged, but let me offer one example. Under Section 10 of the 2003 Act it is an offence for a person over 18 to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity. This carries a maximum 14-year sentence. Depending on the individual circumstances, this offence would very likely come into play when sexual communications were exchanged with children, or when they were coaxed, or when non-sexual communications were intended to elicit a sexual response.
There are other offences to deal with exploiting children through involvement in pornography and prostitution. I take the point that the noble Baroness took from the example in Manchester. But this is something that is constantly under review, and has to be, as part of wider efforts to tackle this issue. We have had conversations with the Crown Prosecution Service, which does not feel that there is a gap in the law at present. We have had conversations with the national policing lead, who also does not feel that there is a gap at present. These discussions are ongoing, and I will be very happy to include noble Lords—and specifically the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the context of this amendment, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Benjamin, in some of the discussions with the CPS and the police to see what needs to be done and whether the provisions are sufficiently robust to deal with the specific examples and case studies that they have given.
Even if the messages are not themselves illegal, if their distribution or sending to a child is carried out as part of a course of conduct that alarms the child or causes distress—something raised by a number of noble Lords—this could amount to a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the face of it, therefore, it would appear to be the case that the current law, if applied properly, already does what the amendment seeks to do. We should be very wary of adding new offences to the statute book if to do so would result in an unnecessary and undesirable duplication of the existing criminal law. However, the Government are always open to suggestions that could strengthen the law in this difficult and sensitive area.
I agree with this amendment to the extent that we want to be absolutely sure that offenders who communicate sexual messages to children or elicit sexual replies are appropriately dealt with by the criminal law. We are therefore investigating with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that there are no such gaps that could let those who offend against our young people in this manner escape justice. I am very happy to include noble Lords in that discussion. As part of our ongoing consideration of this issue, I have extended that invitation to discuss. I trust therefore that the noble Lord might accept that, in this regard, it is not a “resist” but that the Government are considering carefully what is being proposed, in the light of the existing legislation and to continue that discussion. In the mean time, I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this amendment has had from the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Benjamin, as well as my noble friend Lady Smith. The Minister said clearly that he shared its objectives. I have the advantage of seeing his colleagues behind him and I noticed that not only did quite a number of them seem to share the objectives but they were also not entirely convinced by some of his suggestions that these offences were met by the Bill.
I shall deal quickly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She did not disappoint us in that she made her usual series of very precise and small points on the amendment. I am clear that this is not a professionally drafted amendment or one that would meet all the best requirements of those who sit in garrets in the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice producing these things. My hope was that the Minister would say that there were sufficient points here that he would come back to us at Third Reading with a beautifully professionally drafted amendment. However, I am not sure that the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made were terribly helpful. She talked about the recent amendment on revenge porn. The issue there was publishing material that had been shared in a private capacity more widely because the relationship had broken up. This does not apply in this instance; this is about eliciting an image from a child, not necessarily to share—although that might happen—but simply to obtain the image. So I am not sure that that change necessarily helps us on this issue. I am sure that we could all struggle with defining age and knowledge of age and we could no doubt find ways in which this proposal could be improved. I hope that the Government can accept that there are at least some points here that need to be looked at.
The Minister then went through, as predicted, some of the various sections that we talked about. Most of them require an intent to cause distress or anxiety, or that the matter is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. As I have said repeatedly—I do not think that the Minister has addressed this issue—those are not the circumstances in which such messages are sent. They are sent not to cause offence to the child concerned, but to make children feel sufficiently comfortable to be able to share naked pictures of themselves.
The Minister referred to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. I appreciate that there is a fine line to be drawn here, but I wonder whether it would be sufficient to achieve a conviction under Section 10 of that Act if all that the perpetrator has done is to persuade the child to stand naked in front of a webcam. No sexual activity is taking place there, so there are some issues around that.
The provision in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 depends on whether the sender knows or ought to know that what is happening amounts to harassment of another. Harassment includes alarming a person or causing a person distress—but the child concerned may not be alarmed or distressed at the point when the actions take place. The child may only realise many years later what they have done, and what the implications are. Again, I am simply not convinced that this is covered. Scotland has legislation covering this point; there is a gap in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am disappointed in the Minister’s reply. I take his offer for further consultation at face value, but I am conscious that Third Reading is only just over a week away, and I hope we can make some progress before then. Without that, I would feel that we need to return to these issues at that stage. However, on the basis of the promised discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“( ) after section 4 insert—“4A Anonymity of victims
Schedule 1 provides for the anonymity of persons against whom a female genital mutilation offence (as defined in that Schedule) is alleged to have been committed.”;”
Lord Bates
“(1A) Insert as Schedule 1 to that Act the following Schedule—
Schedule 1Anonymity of victimsProhibition on the identification of victims in publications1 (1) This paragraph applies where an allegation has been made that a female genital mutilation offence has been committed against a person.
(2) No matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the person, as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, may be included in any publication during the person’s lifetime.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, any consent of the person to an act giving rise to the alleged offence is not to be taken as preventing that person from being regarded as a person against whom the alleged offence was committed.
(4) In any criminal proceedings before a court, the court may direct that the restriction imposed by sub-paragraph (2) is not to apply (whether at all in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, or to the extent specified in the direction) if the court is satisfied that either of the following conditions is met.
(5) The first condition is that the conduct of a person’s defence at a trial of a female genital mutilation offence would be substantially prejudiced if the direction is not given.
(6) The second condition is that—
(a) the effect of sub-paragraph (2) is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and(b) it is in the public interest to remove or relax the restriction.(7) A direction under sub-paragraph (4) does not affect the operation of sub-paragraph (2) at any time before the direction is given.
(8) In this paragraph “the court” means—
(a) in England and Wales, a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court;(b) in Northern Ireland, a magistrates’ court, a county court or the Crown Court.Penalty for breaching prohibition imposed by paragraph 1(2)2 (1) If anything is included in a publication in contravention of the prohibition imposed by paragraph 1(2), each of the persons responsible for the publication is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(3) The persons responsible for a publication are as follows—
Type of publication | Persons responsible |
|---|---|
Newspaper or other periodical | Any person who is a proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical. |
Relevant programme | Any person who—is a body corporate engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included, or has functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper. |
Any other kind of publication | Any person who publishes the publication. |
(a) a senior officer of a body corporate, or(b) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,the senior officer or person (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(5) “Senior officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; and for this purpose “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.
(6) Proceedings for an offence under this paragraph—
(a) if alleged to have been committed in England and Wales, may not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General;(b) if alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland, may not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.Offence under paragraph 2: defences3 (1) This paragraph applies where a person (“the defendant”) is charged with an offence under paragraph 2 as a result of the inclusion of any matter in a publication.
(2) It is a defence for the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offence, the defendant was not aware, and did not suspect or have reason to suspect, that—
(a) the publication included the matter in question, or(b) the allegation in question had been made.(3) It is a defence for the defendant to prove that the publication in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the victim had given written consent to the appearance of matter of that description.
(4) The defence in sub-paragraph (3) is not available if—
(a) the victim was under the age of 16 at the time when her consent was given, or(b) a person interfered unreasonably with the peace and comfort of the victim with a view to obtaining her consent.(5) In this paragraph “the victim” means the person against whom the female genital mutilation offence in question is alleged to have been committed.
Special rules for providers of information society services4 (1) Paragraph 2 applies to a domestic service provider who, in the course of providing information society services, publishes prohibited matter in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom (as well as to a person, of any description, who publishes prohibited matter in England and Wales or Northern Ireland).
(2) Proceedings for an offence under paragraph 2, as it applies to a domestic service provider by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), may be taken at any place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
(3) The offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed at any place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
(4) Nothing in this paragraph affects the operation of any of paragraphs 6 to 8.
5 (1) Proceedings for an offence under paragraph 2 may not be taken against a non-UK service provider in respect of anything done in the course of the provision of information society services unless the derogation condition is met.
(2) The derogation condition is that taking proceedings—
(a) is necessary for the purposes of the public interest objective,(b) relates to an information society service that prejudices that objective or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to that objective, and(c) is proportionate to that objective.(3) “The public interest objective” means the pursuit of public policy.
6 (1) A service provider does not commit an offence under paragraph 2 by providing access to a communication network or by transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a recipient of the service, if the service provider does not—
(a) initiate the transmission,(b) select the recipient of the transmission, or(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) providing access to a communication network, and(b) transmitting information in a communication network,include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted so far as the storage is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if the information is stored for longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
7 (1) A service provider does not commit an offence under paragraph 2 by storing information provided by a recipient of the service for transmission in a communication network if the first and second conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the storage of the information—
(a) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(b) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other recipients of the service at their request. (3) The second condition is that the service provider—
(a) does not modify the information,(b) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(c) if sub-paragraph (4) applies, promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the service provider obtains actual knowledge that—
(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.8 (1) A service provider does not commit an offence under paragraph 2 by storing information provided by a recipient of the service if—
(a) the service provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a prohibited publication, or(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a prohibited publication, the service provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or control of the service provider.
Interpretation9 (1) In this Schedule—
“domestic service provider” means a service provider established in England and Wales or Northern Ireland;“the E-Commerce Directive” means Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce);“female genital mutilation offence” means—(a) an offence under section 1, 2, 3 or 3A;(b) an offence of attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offence;(c) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to any such offence;“information society services”—(a) has the meaning given in Article 2(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (which refers to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations), and(b) is summarised in recital 17 of the E-Commerce Directive as covering “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service”;“non-UK service provider” means a service provider established in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom;“programme service” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990 (see section 201(1) of that Act);“prohibited material” means any material the publication of which contravenes paragraph 1(2);“publication” includes any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication (in whatever form) which is addressed to, or is accessible by, the public at large or any section of the public; “recipient”, in relation to a service, means a person who, for professional ends or otherwise, uses an information society service, in particular for the purposes of seeking information or making it accessible;“relevant programme” means a programme included in a programme service;“service provider” means a person providing an information society service.(2) For the purposes of the definition of “publication” in sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings is not to be taken as coming within the definition;(b) every relevant programme is to be taken as addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.(3) For the purposes of the definitions of “domestic service provider” and “non-UK service provider” in sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) a service provider is established in a particular part of the United Kingdom, or in a particular EEA state, if the service provider—(i) effectively pursues an economic activity using a fixed establishment in that part of the United Kingdom, or that EEA state, for an indefinite period, and(ii) is a national of an EEA state or a company or firm mentioned in Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;(b) the presence or use in a particular place of equipment or other technical means of providing an information society service does not, of itself, constitute the establishment of a service provider;(c) where it cannot be determined from which of a number of establishments a given information society service is provided, that service is to be regarded as provided from the establishment at the centre of the service provider’s activities relating to that service.””
Lord Bates
“Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation
(1) The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3 insert—
“3A Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation
(1) If a genital mutilation offence is committed against a girl under the age of 16, each person who is responsible for the girl at the relevant time is guilty of an offence.
(2) This is subject to subsection (5).
(3) For the purposes of this section a person is “responsible” for a girl in the following two cases.
(4) The first case is where the person—
(a) has parental responsibility for the girl, and(b) has frequent contact with her.(5) The second case is where the person—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) has assumed (and not relinquished) responsibility for caring for the girl in the manner of a parent.(6) It is a defence for the defendant to show that—
(a) at the relevant time, the defendant did not think that there was a significant risk of a genital mutilation offence being committed against the girl, and could not reasonably have been expected to be aware that there was any such risk, or(b) the defendant took such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect the girl from being the victim of a genital mutilation offence.(7) A person is taken to have shown the fact mentioned in subsection (5)(a) or (b) if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(8) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), where a person has frequent contact with a girl which is interrupted by her going to stay somewhere temporarily, that contact is treated as continuing during her stay there.
(9) In this section—
“genital mutilation offence” means an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 (and for the purposes of subsection (1) the prosecution does not have to prove which section it is);
“parental responsibility”—
(a) in England Wales, has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;(b) in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));“the relevant time” means the time when the mutilation takes place.”
(3) In section 4 (extension of sections 1 to 3 to extra-territorial acts)—
(a) in the heading, for “3” substitute “3A” and after “acts” insert “or omissions”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) An offence under section 3A can be committed wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom by a person who is a United Kingdom national or a United Kingdom resident.”
(4) In section 5 (penalties for offences)—
(a) for “A person guilty of an offence under this Act” substitute—“(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 1, 2 or 3”;
(b) at the end insert—“(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 3A is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine (or both),(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both),(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).””
Lord Bates
“Female genital mutilation protection orders
(1) After section 5 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 insert—
“5A Female genital mutilation protection orders
(1) Schedule 2 provides for the making of female genital mutilation protection orders.
(2) In that Schedule—
(a) Part 1 makes provision about powers of courts in England and Wales to make female genital mutilation protection orders;(b) Part 2 makes provision about powers of courts in Northern Ireland to make such orders.”(2) After Schedule 1 to that Act (inserted by section 67(1A)) insert—
Schedule 2Female genital mutilation protection ordersPart 1England and WalesPower to make FGM protection order1 (1) The court in England and Wales may make an order (an “FGM protection order”) for the purposes of—
(a) protecting a girl against the commission of a genital mutilation offence, or(b) protecting a girl against whom any such offence has been committed.(2) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this paragraph and, if so, in what manner, the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the girl to be protected.
(3) An FGM protection order may contain—
(a) such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements, and(b) such other terms,as the court considers appropriate for the purposes of the order.(4) The terms of an FGM protection order may, in particular, relate to—
(a) conduct outside England and Wales as well as (or instead of) conduct within England and Wales;(b) respondents who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as (or instead of) respondents who commit or attempt to commit, or may commit or attempt to commit, a genital mutilation offence against a girl;(c) other persons who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as respondents of any kind.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) examples of involvement in other respects are—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, encouraging or assisting another person to commit, or attempt to commit, a genital mutilation offence against a girl;(b) conspiring to commit, or to attempt to commit, such an offence.(6) An FGM protection order may be made for a specified period or until varied or discharged (see paragraph 6).
Applications and other occasions for making orders2 (1) The court may make an FGM protection order—
(a) on an application being made to it, or(b) without an application being made to it but in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).(2) An application may be made by—
(a) the girl who is to be protected by the order, or(b) a relevant third party.(3) An application may be made by any other person with the leave of the court.
(4) In deciding whether to grant leave, the court must have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a) the applicant’s connection with the girl to be protected;(b) the applicant’s knowledge of the circumstances of the girl. (5) An application under this paragraph may be made in other family proceedings or without any other family proceedings being instituted.
(6) The circumstances in which the court may make an order without an application being made are where—
(a) any other family proceedings are before the court (“the current proceedings”),(b) the court considers that an FGM protection order should be made to protect a girl (whether or not a party to the proceedings), and(c) a person who would be a respondent to any proceedings for an FGM protection order is a party to the current proceedings.(7) In this paragraph—
“family proceedings” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (see section 63(1) and (2) of that Act), but also includes—(a) proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to adults,(b) proceedings in which the court has made an emergency protection order under section 44 of the Children Act 1989 which includes an exclusion requirement (as defined in section 44A(3) of that Act), and(c) proceedings in which the court has made an order under section 50 of the Children Act 1989 (recovery of abducted children etc); “relevant third party” means a person specified, or falling within a description of persons specified, by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor (and such regulations may, in particular, specify the Secretary of State).(8) Regulations under sub-paragraph (7) are to be made by statutory instrument, and any such instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Power to make order in criminal proceedings3 The court before which there are criminal proceedings in England and Wales for a genital mutilation offence may make an FGM protection order (without an application being made to it) if—
(a) the court considers that an FGM protection order should be made to protect a girl (whether or not the victim of the offence in relation to the criminal proceedings), and(b) a person who would be a respondent to any proceedings for an FGM protection order is a defendant in the criminal proceedings.Offence of breaching order4 (1) A person who without reasonable excuse does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by an FGM protection order is guilty of an offence.
(2) In the case of an FGM protection order made by virtue of paragraph 5(1), a person can be guilty of an offence under this paragraph only in respect of conduct engaged in at a time when the person was aware of the existence of the order.
(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph in respect of any conduct, the conduct is not punishable as a contempt of court.
(4) A person cannot be convicted of an offence under this paragraph in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.(6) A reference in any enactment to proceedings under this Part of this Schedule, or to an order under this Part of this Schedule, does not include a reference to proceedings for an offence under this paragraph or to an order made in proceedings for such an offence.
(7) “Enactment” includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Ex parte orders5 (1) The court may, in any case where it is just and convenient to do so, make an FGM protection order even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.
(2) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a) the risk to the girl, or to another person, of becoming a victim of a genital mutilation offence if the order is not made immediately,(b) whether it is likely that an applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing an application if an order is not made immediately, and(c) whether there is reason to believe that—(i) the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service, and(ii) the delay involved in effecting substituted service will cause serious prejudice to the girl to be protected or (if different) an applicant.(3) The court must give the respondent an opportunity to make representations about an order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
(4) The opportunity must be—
(a) as soon as just and convenient, and(b) at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.Variation and discharge of orders6 (1) The court may vary or discharge an FGM protection order on an application by—
(a) any party to the proceedings for the order,(b) the girl being protected by the order (if not a party to the proceedings for the order), or(c) any person affected by the order.(2) In the case of an order made in criminal proceedings under paragraph 3, the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to a party to the proceedings for the order is to be read as a reference to the prosecution and the defendant.
(3) In addition, the court may vary or discharge an FGM protection order made by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) or 3 even though no application under sub-paragraph (1) above has been made to the court.
(4) Paragraph 5 applies to a variation of an FGM protection order as it applies to the making of such an order (and references in that paragraph to the making of an FGM protection order are to be read accordingly).
Arrest under warrant7 (1) An interested party may apply to the relevant judge for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person if the interested party considers that the person has failed to comply with an FGM protection order or is otherwise in contempt of court in relation to such an order.
(2) The relevant judge must not issue a warrant on an application under sub-paragraph (1) unless—
(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and(b) the relevant judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has failed to comply with the order or is otherwise in contempt of court in relation to the order.(3) In this paragraph “interested party”, in relation to an FGM protection order, means—
(a) the girl being protected by the order, (b) (if a different person) the person who applied for the order, or(c) any other person;but no application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) by a person falling within paragraph (c) without leave of the relevant judge.Remand: general8 (1) The court before which an arrested person is brought by virtue of a warrant under paragraph 7 may, if the matter is not then disposed of immediately, remand the person concerned.
(2) Paragraphs 9 to 14 contain further provision about the powers of a court to remand under this paragraph.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if a person remanded under this paragraph is granted bail under paragraphs 10 to 14.
(4) The person may be required by the relevant judge to comply, before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the judge to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
Remand: medical examination and report9 (1) Any power to remand a person under paragraph 8(1) may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made if the relevant judge has reason to consider that a medical report will be required.
(2) If such a power is so exercised, the adjournment must not be for more than four weeks at a time unless the relevant judge remands the accused in custody.
(3) If the relevant judge remands the accused in custody, the adjournment must not be for more than three weeks at a time.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if there is reason to suspect that a person who has been arrested under a warrant issued on an application under paragraph 7(1) is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.
(5) The relevant judge has the same power to make an order under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (remand for report on accused’s mental condition) as the Crown Court has under section 35 of that Act in the case of an accused person within the meaning of that section.
Remand: further provision10 (1) Where a court has power to remand a person under paragraph 8, the court may remand the person in custody or on bail.
(2) If remanded in custody, the person is to be committed to custody to be brought before the court—
(a) at the end of the period of remand, or(b) at such earlier time as the court may require.(3) The court may remand a person on bail—
(a) by taking from the person a recognizance (with or without sureties) conditioned as provided in paragraph 11, or(b) by fixing the amount of the recognizances with a view to their being taken subsequently in accordance with paragraph 14 and, in the meantime, committing the person to custody as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.(4) Where a person is brought before the court after remand the court may further remand the person.
(5) In this paragraph and in paragraphs 11 to 14, references to “the court” includes a reference to a judge of the court or, in the case of proceedings in a magistrates’ court, a justice of the peace.
11 (1) Where a person is remanded on bail, the court may direct that the person’s recognizance be conditioned for his or her appearance—
(a) before the court at the end of the period of remand, or(b) at every time and place to which during the course of the proceedings the hearing may from time to time be adjourned. (2) Where a recognizance is conditioned for a person’s appearance as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), the fixing of any time for the person next to appear is to be treated as a remand.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph deprives the court of power at any subsequent hearing to remand a person afresh.
12 (1) The court may not remand a person for a period exceeding 8 clear days unless—
(a) the court adjourns a case under paragraph 9(1), or(b) the person is remanded on bail and both that person and the other party to the proceedings (or, in the case of criminal proceedings, the prosecution) consent.(2) If sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies, the person may be remanded for the period of the adjournment.
(3) Where the court has power to remand a person in custody, the person may be committed to the custody of a constable if the remand is for a period not exceeding 3 clear days.
13 (1) If the court is satisfied that a person who has been remanded is unable by reason of illness or accident to appear before the court at the end of the period of remand, the court may further remand the person in his or her absence.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) may, in the case of a person who was remanded on bail, be exercised by enlarging the person’s recognizance and those of any sureties to a later time.
(3) Where a person remanded on bail is bound to appear before the court at any time and the court has no power to remand the person under sub-paragraph (1), the court may, in the person’s absence, enlarge the person’s recognizance and those of any sureties for the person to a later time.
(4) The enlargement of a person’s recognizance is to be treated as a further remand.
(5) Paragraph 12(1) (limit of remand) does not apply to the exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph.
14 (1) This paragraph applies where under paragraph 10(3)(b) the court fixes the amount in which the principal and the sureties (if any) are to be bound.
(2) The recognizance may afterwards be taken by a person prescribed by rules of court (with the same consequences as if it had been entered into before the court).
Contempt proceedings15 The powers of the court in relation to contempt of court arising out of a person’s failure to comply with an FGM protection order, or otherwise in connection with such an order, may be exercised by the relevant judge.
Other protection or assistance against female genital mutilation16 (1) Nothing in this Part of this Schedule affects any other protection or assistance available to a girl who is or may become the victim of a genital mutilation offence.
(2) In particular, it does not affect—
(a) the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court;(b) any criminal liability;(c) any civil remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997;(d) any right to an occupation order or a non-molestation order under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996;(e) any right to a forced marriage protection order under Part 4A of that Act;(f) any protection or assistance under the Children Act 1989;(g) any claim in tort.Interpretation17 (1) In this Part of this Schedule—
“the court”, except as provided in sub-paragraph (2), means the High Court, or the family court, in England and Wales;“FGM protection order” means an order under paragraph 1; “genital mutilation offence” means an offence under section 1, 2 or 3;“the relevant judge”, in relation to an FGM protection order, means—(a) where the order was made by the High Court, a judge of that court;(b) where the order was made by the family court, a judge of that court;(c) where the order was made by a court in criminal proceedings under paragraph 3—(i) a judge of that court, or (ii) a judge of the High Court or of the family court.(2) Where the power to make an FGM protection order is exercisable by a court in criminal proceedings under paragraph 3, references in this Part of this Schedule to “the court” (other than in paragraph 2) are to be read as references to that court.
(3) In paragraph (c)(i) of the definition of “relevant judge” in sub-paragraph (1), the reference to a judge of the court that made the order includes, in the case of criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court, a reference to a justice of the peace.
Part 2Northern IrelandPower to make FGM protection order18 (1) The court in Northern Ireland may make an order (an “FGM protection order”) for the purposes of—
(a) protecting a girl against the commission of a genital mutilation offence, or(b) protecting a girl against whom any such offence has been committed.(2) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this paragraph and, if so, in what manner, the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the girl to be protected.
(3) An FGM protection order may contain—
(a) such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements, and(b) such other terms,as the court considers appropriate for the purposes of the order.(4) The terms of an FGM protection order may, in particular, relate to—
(a) conduct outside Northern Ireland as well as (or instead of) conduct within Northern Ireland;(b) respondents who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as (or instead of) respondents who commit or attempt to commit, or may commit or attempt to commit, a genital mutilation offence against a girl;(c) other persons who are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as respondents of any kind.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) examples of involvement in other respects are—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, encouraging or assisting another person to commit, or attempt to commit, a genital mutilation offence against a girl;(b) conspiring to commit, or to attempt to commit, such an offence.(6) An FGM protection order may be made for a specified period or until varied or discharged (see paragraph 23).
Applications and other occasions for making orders19 (1) The court may make an FGM protection order—
(a) on an application being made to it, or(b) without an application being made to it but in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).(2) An application may be made by—
(a) the girl who is to be protected by the order, or(b) a relevant third party. (3) An application may be made by any other person with the leave of the court.
(4) In deciding whether to grant leave, the court must have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a) the applicant’s connection with the girl to be protected;(b) the applicant’s knowledge of the circumstances of the girl.(5) An application under this paragraph may be made in family proceedings or without any family proceedings being instituted.
(6) The circumstances in which the court may make an order without an application being made are where—
(a) any family proceedings are before the court (“the current proceedings”),(b) the court considers that an FGM protection order should be made to protect a girl (whether or not a party to the proceedings), and(c) a person who would be a respondent to any proceedings for an FGM protection order is a party to the current proceedings.(7) In this paragraph—
“family proceedings” has the same meaning as in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)) (see Article 2(2) and (3) of that Order), but also includes—(a) proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to adults,(b) proceedings in which the court has made an emergency protection order under Article 63 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) which includes an exclusion requirement (as defined in Article 63A of that Order), and(c) proceedings in which the court has made an order under Article 69 of the 1995 Order (recovery of abducted children etc); “relevant third party” means a person specified, or falling within a description of persons specified, by order made by the Department of Finance and Personnel (and any such order may, in particular, specify that Department).Power to make order in criminal proceedings20 The court before which there are criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland for a genital mutilation offence may make an FGM protection order (without an application being made to it) if—
(a) the court considers that an FGM protection order should be made to protect a girl (whether or not the victim of the offence in relation to the criminal proceedings), and(b) a person who would be a respondent to any proceedings for an FGM protection order is a defendant in the criminal proceedings.Offence of breaching order21 (1) A person who without reasonable excuse does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by an FGM protection order is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.Ex parte orders22 (1) The court may, in any case where it is just and convenient to do so, make an FGM protection order even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.
(2) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances including—
(a) the risk to the girl, or to another person, of becoming a victim of a genital mutilation offence if the order is not made immediately,(b) whether it is likely that an applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing an application if an order is not made immediately, and(c) whether there is reason to believe that—(i) the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service, and(ii) the delay involved in effecting substituted service will cause serious prejudice to the girl to be protected or (if different) an applicant.(3) If the court makes an order by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), it must specify a date for a full hearing.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3), “full hearing” means a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.
Variation and discharge of orders23 (1) The court may vary or discharge an FGM protection order on an application by—
(a) any party to the proceedings for the order,(b) the girl being protected by the order (if not a party to the proceedings for the order), or(c) any person affected by the order.(2) In the case of an order made in criminal proceedings under paragraph 20, the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to a party to the proceedings for the order is to be read as a reference to the prosecution and the defendant.
(3) In addition, the court may vary or discharge an FGM protection order made by virtue of paragraph 19(1)(b) or 20 even though no application under sub-paragraph (1) above has been made to the court.
(4) Paragraph 22 applies to a variation of an FGM protection order as it applies to the making of such an order (and references in that paragraph to the making of an FGM protection order are to be read accordingly).
Jurisdiction of courts24 (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, “the court” means the High Court, or a county court, in Northern Ireland.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to—
(a) sub-paragraph (3), and(b) any provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5).(3) Where the power to make an FGM protection order is exercisable by a court in criminal proceedings under paragraph 20, references in this Part of this Schedule to “the court” (other than in paragraph 19) are to be read as references to that court.
(4) Article 34(3) to (10) of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)) (allocation of proceedings to courts etc) applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that Order but as if the following modification were made.
(5) The modification is that Article 34(8) is to be read as if there were substituted for it—
“(8) For the purposes of paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), there are two levels of court—(a) the High Court; and(b) a county court.”Power to extend jurisdiction to courts of summary jurisdiction25 (1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice, by order provide for courts of summary jurisdiction to be included among the courts who may hear proceedings under this Part of this Schedule.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, make any provision in relation to courts of summary jurisdiction which corresponds to provision made in relation to such courts by or under the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)).
(3) Any power to make an order under this paragraph (including the power as extended by paragraph 29(1)) may, in particular, be exercised by amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule or any other enactment.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “enactment” includes Northern Ireland legislation.
(5) The Lord Chief Justice may nominate any of the following to exercise the Lord Chief Justice’s functions under this Part of this Schedule—
(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined by section 88 of that Act).Contempt proceedings26 The powers of the court in relation to contempt of court arising out of a person’s failure to comply with an FGM protection order, or otherwise in connection with such an order, may be exercised by the relevant judge.
Appeals from county courts27 (1) An appeal lies to the High Court against—
(a) the making by a county court of any order under this Part of this Schedule, or(b) any refusal by a county court to make such an order,as if the decision had been made in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part 3 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3)) (original civil jurisdiction) and the appeal were brought under Article 60 of that Order (ordinary appeals in civil cases).(2) But an appeal does not lie to the High Court under sub-paragraph (1) where the county court is a divorce county court exercising jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15)) in the same proceedings.
(3) Provision must be made by rules of court for an appeal to lie (upon a point of law, a question of fact or the admission or rejection of any evidence) to the Court of Appeal against—
(a) the making of any order under this Part of this Schedule, or(b) any refusal to make such an order,by a county court of the type referred to in sub-paragraph (2).(4) Sub-paragraph (3) is without prejudice to Article 61 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3)) (cases stated).
(5) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1), the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal.
(6) Where an order is made under sub-paragraph (5), the High Court may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
(7) Any order of the High Court made on an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) (other than one directing that an application be re-heard by the county court) is to be treated, for the purposes of—
(a) the enforcement of the order, and(b) any power to vary, revive or discharge orders,as if it were an order of the county court from which the appeal was brought and not an order of the High Court.(8) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 28.
Appeals: transfers and proposed transfers28 (1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice, by order make provision as to the circumstances in which appeals may be made against decisions taken by courts on questions arising in connection with the transfer, or proposed transfer, of proceedings by virtue of an order made under Article 34(5) of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)) as applied by paragraph 24(4) and (5) above.
(2) Except so far as provided for in any order made under sub-paragraph (1), no appeal may be made against any decision of a kind mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(3) The Lord Chief Justice may nominate any of the following to exercise the Lord Chief Justice’s functions under this paragraph—
(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).Orders29 (1) An order made under or by virtue of paragraph 19(7), 24(4) and (5), 25(1) or 28(1)—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may contain incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision;(c) is to be made by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(2) An order made under or by virtue of paragraph 19(7), 24(4) and (5) or 28(1) is subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I))).
(3) An order under paragraph 25(1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(4) Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.
Other protection or assistance against female genital mutilation30 (1) Nothing in this Part of this Schedule affects any other protection or assistance available to a girl who is or may become the victim of a genital mutilation offence.
(2) In particular, it does not affect—
(a) the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court;(b) any criminal liability;(c) any right to an occupation order or a non-molestation order under the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6));(d) any civil remedies under the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9));(e) any protection or assistance under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));(f) any right to a forced marriage protection order under Schedule 1 to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007;(g) any claim in tort.Interpretation31 In this Part of this Schedule—
“the court” is to be read in accordance with paragraph 24;“FGM protection order” means an order under paragraph 18;“genital mutilation offence” means an offence under section 1, 2 or 3;“the relevant judge”, in relation to an FGM protection order, means—(a) where the order was made by the High Court, a judge of that court;(b) where the order was made by a county court, a judge or district judge of that or any other county court; (c) where the order was made by a court in criminal proceedings under paragraph 20— (i) a judge of that court, or (ii) a judge of the High Court or a judge or district judge of a county court.””
Lord Harris of Haringey
“Protection of children: duty on internet service providers
(1) Internet service providers which provide third parties with any means or mechanisms to store digital content on the internet or other location remote from the third party must consider whether and to what extent the services they provide might be open to abuse by such third parties to store or transmit indecent images of children, contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children).
(2) Where an internet service provider considers that there is a material risk that their network or other facilities could be misused as set out in subsection (1), they must take such reasonable steps as might mitigate, reduce, eliminate or other disrupt said behaviour or restrict access to such images.
(3) In this section, “internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 124N of the Communication Act 2003 (interpretation).”
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the Lord Chairman for allowing me to collect my thoughts on this amendment while he was going through those other amendments. The purpose of this amendment, which is rather different from that of the previous one, is to create a requirement for an internet service provider that provides a facility for the storage of digital content to consider—no more than that—whether and to what extent that facility might be open to abuse by the storage of indecent images of children. Where the service provider,
“considers that there is a material risk … they must take such reasonable steps as might mitigate, reduce, eliminate or … disrupt”,
such actions.
The context of the amendment is the fact that there are tools available to internet service providers to find out whether such indecent material is contained on their systems. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, images are reduced to digital content as a series of zeroes and ones, so even a very complex image, whether pornographic or otherwise, is simply reduced to a series of zeroes and ones. Most abuse photographs are circulated and recirculated. Many of them are known to the law enforcement authorities, and it is possible for those authorities to search for identical images, so that they know whether a particular image has appeared before, and in what circumstances.
However, I am told that increasingly, abusers are making tiny changes to images—sometimes no more than one pixel—so that the images are not identical, and are not picked up in the same way by those methods. However, I understand that Microsoft has developed a system called PhotoDNA, which it is making available free to providers. This converts images into greyscale and breaks the greyscale image down into a grid. Then each individual square on the grid is given what is called a histogram of intensity gradients; essentially, that decides how grey each square is. The signature based on those values provides a hash value, as they call it, which is unique to that particular image—I appreciate that these are technical terms, and until I started looking into this I did not know about them either. This technique allows people to identify images that are essentially the same.
Until now, the way to identify which images are essentially the same is that some poor police officer or analyst has had to look at all the images concerned. But it is now possible to do that automatically. Because the technology can operate in a robust fashion, it can identify what images are appearing, and whether they are essentially the same. It is not possible to recreate the image concerned from that PhotoDNA signature; it is only possible to scan systems or databases for signature matches. What is more, because the data for each signature are so small, the technology can scan a large volume of images extremely quickly. Apparently there is a 98% recognition rate.
I have gone through that in some detail simply to illustrate that there are such techniques available. I believe that Google is working on something—which would, of course, have to be bigger and more complex than what has been produced by Microsoft—which will do the same for videos. It will then be possible to identify similar videos in the same fashion.
The benefit of these techniques is that they make it possible for ISPs to trawl their entire database—to trawl what people are storing online and to identify whether some of the previously known indecent images are in the system. They will then be able to see whether there is a package, or a pattern, and whether particular users are storing more than others. That then gives them the opportunity to raise that issue with law enforcement officials or take disruptive action, perhaps by withdrawing service from that user.
The benefits of the specific technology are that humans do not have to scan the individual images. A number of noble Lords have seen the suites used by CEOP or New Scotland Yard whereby a row of police officers sit viewing indecent images of child pornography, which is distressing for those officers and possibly harmful to them in the long term. That does not need to happen in this case. The service providers do not have to store the images that they are matching to carry out this exercise because all they are storing are the DNA hash values of the images concerned, and they are therefore not exposing themselves to potential charges as far as that is concerned. The technology makes this comparatively easy and simple to do and does not involve a great deal of data. It also means that the service providers are not interfering in any way with the privacy of their users other than to check, in this anonymised way where they do not view the images, that no images contained there are of known child pornography.
The purpose of this amendment is to place an obligation on service providers to make use of these technologies as they are developed. Some providers already do this and are willing to do this. I think that Facebook has quite a good record as far as this is concerned. However, the amendment would place an obligation on all of them to consider whether they should use these techniques. As I say, in this instance Microsoft is making the technology and the system available free to providers.
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, goes through whatever drafting faults the amendment may contain, I should point out why I think it is important. In our discussions just three months ago on the DRIPA legislation it was suggested that one of the reasons why the relevant changes were being made was to provide service providers with legal cover against legal challenge in other countries in which people asked why they were allowing law enforcement officials to do these things. The amendment would provide some legal cover for those service providers—in exactly the same way as the DRIPA legislation does—against challenges that this measure somehow infringes the freedom of speech of people who want to store pornographic images of children. The purpose of this amendment is to require service providers to consider whether or not they might be at risk of this misuse and then to take appropriate reasonable steps using the best available techniques to,
“mitigate, reduce, eliminate or … disrupt”,
it. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 47 of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Some may take the view that internet service providers cannot be held responsible for information that people use them to hold. Although, in my view, ISPs certainly do not have responsibility for generating content, they do, however, play a very important role in facilitating it: first, in the sense that storage protects the material in question and thereby helps to guarantee its continued existence; and, secondly, in the sense of providing a basis from which the said material may be transmitted. In so doing, they have a responsibility actively to take all reasonable steps to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that they are not facilitating the storage and/or transmission of material of the kind set out in subsection (1) of the clause proposed in the amendment.
For myself, I would also like ISPs to have to demonstrate that these active steps have indeed been taken, and are being taken, on an ongoing basis. We must foster a legislative framework that exhibits zero tolerance of all aspects of child sex abuse images, including ISPs facilitating the storage and/or transmission of such images. I very much look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say in his response to this important amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I fear that I am going to, as I simply have a question for him. I speak from a basis of almost no technological knowledge, but I would have thought that, presumably, all the services are open to abuse. Can I just ask what consultation there has been on this? The noble Lord talked about the responsible, innovative and exciting—if you are that way inclined—work being done by some of the ISPs. Like him, I have found the big players to be very responsible and wanting to be seen to be responsible. However, the proposed provision would obviously put an obligation on them. I would be interested to know how they have responded to it, if the noble Lord has had the opportunity to ascertain that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on this issue. During the Recess we had a meeting with Microsoft to discuss how it approached this matter. I was grateful for that because I probably share only one thing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that is that I have no technical knowledge or expertise and felt quite at a loss when looking at these issues. Microsoft officials gave us an understanding of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the codes used to identify photographs and the hash code it used and they discussed whether it was an offence to store the coded photograph itself. Microsoft has developed its PhotoDNA technology that enables it to identify minor changes that abusers make in trying to slide past any checks and balances in the system, so it is carrying out impressive work to try to address this issue.
In listening to the presentation, I was particularly shocked by the sheer number of photographs and images, and the numbers of people involved, worldwide. At the beginning of his comments, the right relevant Prelate the Bishop of Derby, I think, referred to a recent case in Southend. That is close to where I live, so noble Lords can imagine that my local papers had a tremendous amount of coverage of that and I had commented on it. The case involved the head teacher of a local private school, who was interviewed by the police following the fact that his name came to light in an investigation carried out originally in Toronto. His name was passed to the UK, but it took far too long—well over a year—for him to be interviewed, following delays at CEOP and the police. When he was finally interviewed, he was found dead the following day. The amount of information that was found on his computer was staggering. Time will tell us the outcome of this as the investigations progress, but presumably that head teacher must have had links with people in other parts of the country and elsewhere in the world, and photographs may have been exchanged; certainly, he obtained photographs from others.
The scale of that activity is phenomenal and it is a tall order to expect the police to visit every single person involved in it. Having said that, I am critical of the fact that so few people, who we know have committed these abuse offences and have inappropriate images of children, have been visited by the police. I think that we could do far better in that regard and the delays are a cause for concern. However, we are talking about a massive number of people, so if technology is available that can block these photographs or allow the police to identify people more quickly, we should take every available opportunity to use it.
As I say, I was very impressed by the efforts being taken both by Microsoft, which briefed us, and by others to ensure that they can identify photographs, code them and pass on information. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not place an obligation on internet service providers but allows them to take action. It basically says that they should consider the issue and, if there is a material risk, they should look at what they can do and take reasonable steps that might,
“mitigate, reduce, eliminate or other disrupt said behaviour”.
There are no sanctions or penalties for failing to do so, but it allows the internet service providers to take some action—action that we would want them to take and, I think, they would want to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already said that he does not feel that he has a monopoly on being the world’s greatest drafter and is prepared to accept that there occasionally may be things that could be improved. He has, however, hit on something here. It is an issue to be addressed. I hope that the Government are having urgent meetings with the ISPs to see how they can work together on this. This amendment provides an opportunity to do so, and I would be interested to know what discussions the Government are having with internet service providers. It is an issue that we need to address. If we can deal with it at source and identify those who are responsible early on, it seems to me that would be a huge step forward in protecting children from this kind of abuse.
Lord Bates
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right again, in the sense that technology is the problem and therefore technology needs to offer the solution. Simply put, the numbers and the scale—of course, she has had those briefings and I have had them, too—are both distressing and mind-blowing in terms of their reach. As the technology is not limited to, and does not respect, geographies or jurisdictions, the matter is a global one. Therefore, we need to work very closely with the industry to ensure that this can be done.
I want to cover some of the issues that are being addressed at present which noble Lords may not be aware of. We recognise the concerns that the noble Lord has raised about the use of the internet to store and circulate indecent images of children. We fully accept that more needs to be done to address this issue, but I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord that legislation is not required at this point, although we continue to keep that option under review.
We believe that the internet industry operating in the UK has taken significant steps, on a self-regulatory basis, to tackle the availability of indecent images online. The internet industry in the UK has worked closely for many years with the Internet Watch Foundation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection command of the National Crime Agency to tackle illegal images. We recognise the support that responsible internet service providers have given to the Internet Watch Foundation, both financially and through taking action on the Internet Watch Foundation’s list of web pages identified as containing illegal images by either taking down such sites, if they are hosted in the UK, or blocking access to them if they are overseas.
The public and businesses can report images to the Internet Watch Foundation, which assesses them and determines whether they are illegal. Indeed, the Internet Watch Foundation took more than 51,000 reports from all sources last year. If the site containing the image is hosted in the UK, the details will be passed to law enforcement agencies, and the ISP will be asked to take down the web page using the “notice and take down” process. In 2013, the Internet Watch Foundation found that 47% of UK child abuse web pages were removed within 60 minutes. Thanks to the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, and the internet industry, less than 1% of the global total of indecent images of children is hosted in the UK.
However, we are not complacent, and we recognise the need to adapt to changing uses of technology by paedophiles. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech to the NSPCC in July last year, we need to do more to eradicate these images from the internet and, in particular, ensure that the internet industry plays its full part in doing so. We have been working closely with the industry, and with its support we believe that significant steps have been taken towards removing these images. We have asked internet search engine providers such as Google—which was referred to by the noble Baroness and also by the noble Lord—and Microsoft to make changes to their search mechanisms, and these measures have been effective in preventing access to child abuse images.
We are also creating a new child abuse image database, using much of the same technology that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to in setting out and introducing his amendment. This will enable the police to identify known images more quickly on suspects’ computers and will improve their ability to identify and safeguard victims from the images. A key part of this is not just about lining up prosecutions by identifying these images or getting the images taken down; it is about realising that the children behind them are vulnerable victims and need to be protected and get the help and support that they need.
Not only do we want the industry to remove such images, we want it to use its technical skills and capability to help develop the technical solutions to prevent the dissemination of these images online. The Home Office and the US Department of Justice have created a taskforce that provides a platform for industry to develop technical solutions to online child sexual exploitation. This work is ongoing under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Shields.
The UK will host a summit in December on online child exploitation. We have invited representatives of key partner Governments and organisations, including the internet industry, to participate in the summit, which will focus on protecting the victims of online child abuse and examine how we can work internationally to prevent children being exploited online.
The Government are very clear that those who provide services online, particularly those where images can be stored—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made—have a responsibility to take action to prevent those services being used for the purposes of storing and sharing indecent images of children. In that regard, as she rightly said, we should have zero tolerance. We believe that internet service providers operating in the UK have a good record in this respect, both through their support for the Internet Watch Foundation and through the actions that they are taking to support the Prime Minister’s call for action.
Against this background of good co-operation and progress at present, we believe that the current system of self-regulation has been effective, and we are not persuaded at this time that more would be achieved by placing a legal requirement on these companies. In that regard I hope that, having heard the progress that has been made and our undertaking to keep this under review, the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lady Smith for the support that they have given to this amendment. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I say that, as I am not doing this on behalf of the Government or anyone else, I am not engaged in a lengthy process of consultation with internet service providers, but I would make the point that this is a very soft change. It is simply asking them to consider and, where they think there is a material risk, to take reasonable steps. It is difficult to imagine any internet service provider, unless it wants to provide a service for expressly illicit purposes, finding this difficult.
I am of course encouraged by what the Minister has described. Most of it does not in fact apply to the issues that I have raised, because this is about images stored for private purposes rather than public purposes. The web page stuff and the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, with which I am very familiar—I think I am an ambassador or a champion; I cannot quite recall what the certificate says—are clearly about public-facing material which people may access. All that work is extremely good. I accept that many internet service providers are extremely responsible and are operating as one would hope in a self-regulatory way. I think this would have helped encourage those that are not being quite so public-spirited or sensitive to these issues to be more so in the future.
However, in the light of the Minister’s undertakings that this is something that will continue to be looked at, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Knives and offensive weapons in prisons
After section 40C of the Prison Act 1952 insert—“40CA Unauthorised possession in prison of knife or offensive weapon
(1) A person who, without authorisation, is in possession of an article specified in subsection (2) inside a prison is guilty of an offence.
(2) The articles referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) any article that has a blade or is sharply pointed;(b) any other offensive weapon (as defined in section 1(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that—
(a) he reasonably believed that he had authorisation to be in possession of the article in question, or(b) in all the circumstances there was an overriding public interest which justified his being in possession of the article.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or to a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine (or both).(5) In this section “authorisation” means authorisation given for the purposes of this section; and subsections (1) to (3) of section 40E apply in relation to authorisations so given as they apply to authorisations given for the purposes of section 40D.””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the violent use of knives and offensive weapons in prison poses a real threat to the safety of prison staff and prisoners. Only earlier this month we saw reports that an officer at Swaleside prison in Kent was attacked with a blade. I am sure that the whole House would agree that the possession of weapons in prison is unacceptable—and yet, unlike in public places and schools, possession of such weapons in prison is not currently a criminal offence. This new clause will put that right.
Amendment 48 would insert new Section 40CA into the Prison Act 1952 to create a new offence for persons in prison to possess any article that has a blade or is sharply pointed, or any other offensive weapon, without authorisation. This will include weapons manufactured by prisoners from everyday items, which are the types most commonly used.
While possession of such items is a criminal offence in a public place and in schools, it is not currently a criminal offence in prison. This has led to a disparity between the penalties available to tackle this sort of crime in the community and those available within prison establishments. This disparity must be addressed. Assaults and violence are a long-standing problem within prisons. If left unchecked, they can quickly destabilise a prison and threaten the safety of both staff and prisoners. While assaults without weapons are more common, assaults with weapons are not infrequent and can inflict life-changing injuries.
The new offence will add to the existing criminal offences in the Prison Act that make it an offence for a person to convey certain items—including firearms, explosives and other offensive weapons—in or out of prison without authorisation, or to be in possession of a camera, sound recording device, mobile phone or other similar device in prison. Possession of weapons by prisoners is currently dealt with through the prison adjudication system. The maximum penalty for a disciplinary offence under the internal adjudication system is 42 added days served in prison compared with the four years’ custodial maximum for the equivalent offence committed in the community.
Criminalisation will ensure that the more serious weapon possession offences can be punished through the criminal justice system rather than the prison adjudication system, as appropriate. The maximum penalty for the new offence will mirror the maximum penalty for the offence in the community: a four-year maximum sentence on conviction on indictment or a fine, or both; or, on summary conviction, a maximum six-month sentence or a fine or both.
There are of course legitimate circumstances in which persons in prison, including prisoners, may need to have sharp items or other articles in their possession. For example, a prisoner may need to use a bladed tool in a carpentry session, or may use kitchen knives when preparing meals. The authorisations framework in the Prison Act recognises this reality. Subsection (5) of the new clause therefore applies the existing authorisations framework to the new offence. Authorisations may be given administratively by the Secretary of State or by the Prison Rules in relation to all prisons or prisons of a specified description. Authorisations may also be given administratively by the Secretary of State, the governor or director of the prison, or by a person authorised by the governor or director in relation to particular prisons.
Amendments 58 and 65 are consequential on the lead amendment. All three amendments will ensure that the current maximum sentence for the offence of possession of a knife in the community is also available in prisons. This will act as a more effective deterrent and ensure that tougher punishments are available to tackle the problem of weapons and violence in prisons. The message to prisoners who want to possess offensive weapons is clear: we do not tolerate it in the community and we will not tolerate it in prisons. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
“Domestic violence as a serious crime
For the purposes of this Act, domestic violence is deemed to be a serious crime.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have tabled the amendment in order to enable this House to have a debate concerning bringing domestic violence within the scope of the Bill. I also welcome Amendment 49C, which is grouped with mine and goes further in a direction with which I concur, although I none the less feel it would be useful to have the words of my amendment in the Bill.
The amendment was tabled partly in anticipation of the fact that Members of the other place are likely to table amendments on domestic violence during the Bill’s later stages and it was thought that, as a result, this place too should have an opportunity to debate this serious offence. The amendment is therefore an enabling amendment and seeks to argue that changes to the law on domestic violence should be within the scope of the Bill.
Last February, my colleague, Elfyn Llwyd MP, introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in another place to criminalise all aspects of domestic violence, including coercive control in a domestic abusive situation. That Bill had all-party support, including MPs from five parties, such as Cheryl Gillan, Robert Buckland, Sandra Osborne, John McDonnell, Bob Russell, Caroline Lucas and Hywel Williams. The objectives of that ten-minute rule Bill have been supported by more than 100 MPs in Early Day Motions that called for coercive control to be an offence in its own right.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In my remarks, I shall focus on the experience of a specific victim of domestic violence—Laura, as she is called—to illustrate why, because of the shocking treatment that she has received not just from her abuser but from the authorities, all the changes that are being proposed are so important.
Laura’s case highlights why the law must change, to take account of all forms of domestic violence, emotional as well as physical, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. Her case also serves to show why police and prosecutors should look at the patterns of behaviour in these crimes.
I will quote Laura’s own words. She said:
“I was made to feel worthless—made to feel that the way I was treated was normal. I was punched, kicked, slapped, strangled, thrown around, spat at and emotionally mocked ... I was locked in and outside my house if I went out or did something without his permission. I was watched by him on a daily basis by cameras that were put up in our home by him”.
The abuse to which the victim was subjected continued over a three-year period. In that period there were numerous witnesses to the abuse, including local builders, members of the public and even a bank teller, who recorded him physically assaulting the victim. Laura has also spoken of the factors that inhibited her from leaving her home. It is important that these are also put on the record, since in many instances people who have not been subject to domestic violence cannot understand why the victim would not leave the perpetrator. It is this precise ignorance among some police and prosecutors that leads to victims not being taken seriously when they finally reach the end of their tether and report the crime.
Laura has spoken about how her abuser threatened to cut himself out of the lives of their children or indeed to harm her, leaving her children without a mother. It is also telling that she said:
“I left on a number of occasions, but he kept stalking and harassing me. In the end I just thought … I may as well return to a controlled situation where I knew what to expect. Also, his side of the family pressured me and made me believe that, every time, he had changed and how unfair I was being on my daughter by taking her dad away”.
Laura eventually went to the police, but she said:
“I was very afraid, so at times I didn’t want to give statements as I knew it was his word against mine. The police were always called by other people, but he was always let off, even when there was strong evidence. The final time I left and never went back I moved to an address I kept secret. I was harassed constantly via the phone, sent death threats, stalked, chased in my car. When he did find out where I was living he tried to break into my house and then when he finally saw me he threatened to burn my house down with me and my daughter in it. Again there were witnesses. People told him to leave and in the end he left … I reported this all to the police. This was the final straw. I did make a statement about the offences he had committed where there were witnesses ... but it turned out that there were no laws in place to protect me at all ... he was let off”.
Laura has spoken about how disappointed she felt at the treatment that she had received from the police. She has spoken about how the police did not always give due credence to how distressing coercive and controlling behaviour can be. For instance, she says that to this day, 14 months after she reported the crime, she is still waiting for the police to take her phone and download abusive messages that the perpetrator left for her.
That is why the training of police and prosecutors must be improved, to take account of all methods of domestic abusive behaviour and to have regard of the impact that this debilitating crime can have on its victims. To make matters worse, this victim was also told that because the perpetrator had left the country for six months, the time limit on his crimes had elapsed and he could not be prosecuted. That is why many campaigners believe that domestic violence cases should not be subject to time limits. I certainly agree on that point.
It is clear that the current law is not working for victims. Laura’s message to those in power is:
“Please recognise the need for change. We need to ensure new laws are brought in ... We need harsher punishment for perpetrators. We need to ensure that we are doing all we can to support victims and to charge the offenders ... The whole background of the relationship needs to be taken into consideration and indeed … the perpetrator’s whole background in general. Information on past relationships where similar incidents were reported, even if no charge was brought forward, must not be ignored. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with”.
I commend Amendment 49 to the House and to the Government.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of our amendment, apart from giving an opportunity to debate the law relating to domestic abuse, is to provide for the Secretary of State to consult on ways of strengthening the law in relation to domestic abuse, which is perpetrated overwhelmingly against women, with that consultation taking place within six months of this Act coming into force. Our amendment also sets out some of the issues that the consultation would consider, without it being an exhaustive list.
Those issues are: should a specific offence or offences criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour, or a pattern or acts of behaviour within an intimate relationship, be created? Should the violent and sexual offenders register include serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators and be managed through the multiagency public protection arrangements? Should a new civil order be created to place positive obligations on serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators? Should the breach of domestic violence protection notices and orders be a criminal offence? Should domestic violence protection notices and orders extend across European boundaries?
One of the problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, is that the Government’s definition of domestic abuse, adopted from the general definition of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is not reflected in the law. The Government’s definition is:
“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”.
The abuse,
“can encompass, but is not limited to … psychological, physical, sexual, financial … emotional”.
However, the current law does not capture the Government’s non-statutory definition of domestic abuse as there is no statutory framework around it. Currently, offenders can be prosecuted only for acts of physical violence, when such violence is often the culmination of psychological and minor physical abuse which constitutes domestic abuse, which is outside the reach of the existing criminal law and does not get reported until it has actually escalated into physical violence—which, to put it mildly, is a bit late in the day.
The figures have already been quoted, but I shall repeat them. According to the Home Office, last year 7% of all women reported having experienced domestic abuse, which is equivalent to 1.2 million women a year. Two out of three incidents involved repeat offenders. The reality is that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents. Since the age of 16, according to statistics published by Women’s Aid and the Home Office, almost one-third of women have experienced domestic abuse. Interestingly —although perhaps that is not the appropriate word—one in three women who attend an A&E department does so because she has been domestically abused.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, according to Women’s Aid, only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents reported to the police lead to conviction and 25% of domestic violence cases that are passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service result in no action being taken. There is an issue around the successful prosecution of cases. In some cases, of course, the victim withdraws their statement to the police of domestic abuse or violence, does not come to court, or comes to court and gives evidence that is contrary to their original statement. However, bearing in mind that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents, the strong likelihood is that any reluctance to go through the legal and court process is not because the domestic violence and abuse did not actually occur, but for other reasons.
An important reason for consultation, including on the specific points referred to in our amendment, is that following the introduction of specific domestic abuse laws in the United States, there was apparently a 50% rise in women reporting the behaviour, and with it a large increase in the number of perpetrators being brought to justice, along with a decrease of over one-third in incidents of abuse. One key area is the need to consult, as the Government have done, on criminalising abuse that involves coercive control in a domestic setting as well as making domestic abuse itself a separate criminal offence.
A further issue for consideration is whether the prosecution of domestic abuse and domestic violence cases should be subject to statutory time limits. Domestic abuse and violence has often gone on for some time before an incident is reported by the victim. Under the current arrangements, many earlier incidents that have occurred and which make up the totality of the abusive behaviour, cannot also be the subject of a prosecution along with the incident that finally led the victim to decide to report what had been happening.
Our amendment also calls for consultation to consider a new civil order which would be intended to prevent further contact that amounts to domestic violence, would prohibit the perpetrator from engaging in certain activities, perhaps including contact with the victim and the children of the victim, and would exclude the perpetrator from the victim’s home. Such a consultation could also consider whether a breach of this civil order should be a criminal offence and whether such notices and orders should extend across European boundaries, with offending histories and restrictions being shared.
The issues to which I have referred and those set out in the amendment providing for consultation are ones that outside organisations and experts in this field have advocated. The government consultation on coercive control has recently concluded. It would be helpful to know, first, what steps the Government intend to take following that consultation and, secondly, whether the issues referred to in my Amendment 49C and others to which I and other noble Lords have referred, are also either being considered by the Government or were part of the consultation that has just concluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate in his response what issues or courses of action the Government are now considering following their consultation on strengthening the law on domestic abuse.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am in no doubt that there needs to be more effort, more prosecutions, more resources, better practice and better training in the area of domestic abuse. I find it difficult to comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because it is essentially a trailer for provisions that we do not have before us, but the first steps must be about implementing the existing legislation in a consistent and robust fashion: prosecuting for physical and non-physical forms of abuse, both of which are possible. However, successful prosecutions are rare. I have mentioned training; there is a need for specialist training throughout the criminal justice system. The issue is hugely important to ensure, among other things, that the basics of violence in a domestic situation are properly understood.
The series of actions that constitute abuse are crimes now. Interestingly, the domestic violence charity with which I have the closest links, Refuge—I do not know whether I need to declare an interest in that I chaired it a while ago—commented in its response to the Government consultation that it is concerned that creating a separate domestic violence offence could in fact lead to it being treated less seriously and being downgraded. We know that the phrase, “It’s just a domestic”, is still hanging around. The charity points out that there is a risk that even physical offences may be downgraded, so I think that there is a debate to be had on that. It does not necessarily follow that badging what is a domestic crime would lead to it being regarded in a different way.
Lord Wigley
I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness. Does she accept that the potential crime of coercive control is not an offence at present? It was listed in the Government’s consultation, and that is one area in which progress could be made.
Baroness Hamwee
Indeed, and no doubt that is why the Government have consulted on it. I, too, am looking forward to hearing the results of the consultation, and I hope that if the responses indicate the need for legislation, there will be legislation. I am not saying that there should not be legislation to fill in any gaps, but that I am not convinced that a completely new approach is what is needed here.
Finally, because I am conscious of the time, I am aware that there is opposition in some quarters to relying on sentencing; in other words, regarding an offence as being domestic as an aggravating factor. If what is being considered in this debate is more serious sentences, we have to look at what sentences are available for the offences as they stand, so I would like to see a general debate about whether there is a sentencing element in this or whether it is about the offences in themselves.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, have not been involved in the conversations during this Bill, but I speak because of the importance of the issue and our debating it in full. I am very glad to be discussing whether domestic abuse, including psychological abuse, coercive control and a pattern of abuse should be seen in the eyes of the law as a serious crime. The impact of domestic violence on women and their children can be devastating and long lasting, yet its essence of power and control is not criminalised.
My noble friend will be aware of surveys which show the strength of support for change. The Victims’ Voice survey found that 98% of victims feel that reform of the law is needed. A survey of front-line domestic violence professionals found that 97% agree that coercive control should be recognised in law, with 96% agreeing that patterns of behaviour and psychological abuse should be recognised in law.
I welcome the Government’s consultation and appreciate that it will take time for my noble friend and colleagues to consider the 700 or so responses before deciding whether legislation would provide better protection to victims, but, like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation. Changing the definition of domestic abuse in March last year was obviously a very important step, but there is a clear need to create a culture where victims report much earlier, are believed when they do and the dynamics and patterns of abuse are recognised and understood. Will my noble friend also look at other countries which have successfully criminalised psychological abuse, coercive control and clear patterns of behaviour, because this could be the catalyst which will not just save money but save lives?
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, I will make a brief response to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the things which struck me very much when I was preparing for this debate was the final page of the HMIC report into domestic abuse, which contains some of the statistics. It lists that in the 12-month period to 31 August 2013, the period which was reviewed, 1.01 million calls for assistance were as a result of domestic abuse. There were 269,700 crimes of domestic abuse. This figure goes to the heart of what my noble friend was saying: there were 57,900 individuals at high risk of serious harm or murder. On average, every 30 seconds, someone contacts the police for assistance with domestic abuse.
I think that those statistics show the importance of the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has brought before the House this evening. I am sure that we are all very grateful to him for doing so, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I am glad to have this opportunity. I entirely agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 49. Domestic violence and abuse are unquestionably serious crimes and must be treated as such. It is an appalling violation of the trust that those in intimate relationships place in each other. Last year, an estimated 1.9 million people were abused at the hands of those with whom they were closest.
The Government recognise that domestic abuse has not always been treated as the serious crime that it undoubtedly is. That is why, in September last year, the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct an all-force review of domestic abuse. HMIC published its findings in March and highlighted serious failings in the police response to these issues, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee touched on under the heading of “It’s a domestic” in terms of giving the seriousness to calls for help in this way that they would in any other circumstance in any other public place when somebody is under threat.
Moreover, the Home Secretary has initiated a number of other measures to improve the police responses to domestic abuse. This includes the establishment of a new National Oversight Group, which she chairs. While further legislation may have its place, new laws cannot be a substitute for the vital work of driving improvements in the response from the criminal justice agencies themselves.
In addition to the important operational improvements, the Government want to ensure that front-line agencies have the tools they need to provide the best possible protection for victims. In March, we announced a national rollout of the domestic violence protection orders, to which, again, a number of noble Lords have referred, that can prevent the perpetrator from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which enables the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner. This, I felt, went to the heart of the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, when she raised that harrowing case study of Laura and the inability to take action. Clearly, this was something where the domestic violence protection orders may not be the solution but they are certainly an indication of a recognition of the problem.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have participated in this debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Hamwee and Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and to the Minister for his response. Needless to say, this was a probing amendment. It was a hook on which to hang an argument here and, had it been included in the Bill, in another place. I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that, as a result of the consultation that is currently going on, the Government most certainly have not closed their mind to the possibility of bringing forward further legislative proposals in the House of Commons when the Bill goes there and that there will be an opportunity for us to return to this matter if such amendments are built into the Bill and it comes back here.
I very much hope that the Government will look particularly at the issue of coercive control, although no doubt a number of other issues will come out of this consultation, and we will be in a better position to comment further when all that information and the Government’s response to it are available to us. On the basis of that and of the cross-party interest that has been shown in this matter and the commitment and the strength of feeling that there is on it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strasburger
“Investigatory powers and crime: legal privilege and journalistic source material
(1) In section 22 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (obtaining and disclosing communications data), after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Subject to subsection (11), nothing in this section shall authorise the obtaining and disclosing of—
(a) items subject to legal privilege, or(b) journalistic source material,for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. (11) The obtaining and disclosing of the items and material referred to in subsection (10) may be authorised by a judge in accordance with the procedure set out in section 22A.
(12) In this section—
“items subject to legal privilege” has the same meaning as in section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
“journalistic source material” means material which may identify a confidential journalistic source.”
(2) After section 22 of that Act insert—
“22A Authorisation by a judge to obtain communications data: legal privilege and journalistic source material
(1) This section applies to an application for a warrant or authorisation under section 22(11).
(2) A person designated for the purpose of this Chapter may apply to a judge for an authorisation.
(3) The application must be made in writing and must set out the grounds on which the application is made.
(4) An application for an authorisation under section 22(11) must be made on notice to any person to whom the authorisation or notice which is the subject of the application relates save that notice of an application is not required if the service of such notice may seriously prejudice the investigation to which the application relates.
(5) Where notice of an application for an authorisation has been served on a person, he shall not conceal, destroy, alter or dispose of the material to which the application relates except with the leave of a judge until—
(a) the application is dismissed or abandoned; or(b) he has complied with an authorisation given on the application.(6) An authorisation shall only be issued or granted if the judge is satisfied that—
(a) it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, and(b) the conduct authorised is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct, having particular regard to the importance of the protection of legally privileged communications and journalistic sources.(7) In this section “judge” means a Circuit Judge.
(8) In this section and in section 22(10) “serious crime” means the committing or suspected committing of one or more of the offences in England and Wales specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007.””
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 49B seeks to repair a serious flaw in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, a defect that has emerged only recently. Your Lordships will recall that many people inside and outside this House have been warning for years that RIPA as a whole is not fit for purpose because, among other things, its scope is far too broad; it has large built-in loopholes; its oversight provisions have proved to be hopelessly ineffective; and it has been left behind by several generations of new technology.
Perversely, the Government have been claiming for years that RIPA is the best thing since sliced bread so far as the regulation of intrusive powers is concerned. But in July this year, the Government finally bowed to the inevitable and accepted that all is not well with RIPA. They set up a review of the Act under David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. His report is due before next year’s election, with a view to legislation in the next Parliament, but the particular problem that has just appeared will not wait two years to be dealt with; it needs to be addressed immediately. It concerns the misuse of RIPA by the police in two ways: to uncover journalists’ sources and to access legally privileged information.
The problem with journalists’ sources was brought to light by the Met’s report on Operation Alice, which was its investigation into the “plebgate” affair. It revealed, presumably by accident, that Met officers had secretly used RIPA to get their hands on the phone logs of the Sun’s news desk and its political editor, Tom Newton Dunn. They then proceeded to trawl through a year’s worth of phone calls to find the source of the paper’s stories about “plebgate”. By the way, not a single prosecution has ensued from Operation Alice.
It then emerged that this was not an isolated case. We learnt that Kent Police had used RIPA to obtain the phone records of journalists working for the Mail on Sunday, and that the Suffolk Constabulary had used it against a journalist at the Ipswich Star. It would seem that there are many more cases but the police are very reluctant to reveal details. The Met commissioner steadfastly refuses to let on how many times his force has used RIPA in this way, or when or why, despite many demands that he come clean about this in his regular so-called transparency sessions, the most recent of which was in September.
Why does this matter? There is a well established tradition throughout the world that journalists do not reveal their sources, and many journalists have ended up in jail or worse—much worse—defending this principle. If potential whistleblowers in this country conclude that journalists can no longer guarantee their anonymity because the police can secretly identify them, a lot fewer whistles are going to be blown. They and we know what would happen to them if their cover was blown. They could be arrested; they would be intimidated; they would be ostracised; and they would lose their job and their pension. If insiders who know about wrongdoing stop coming forward because they can no longer be guaranteed anonymity, important information that deserves to be in the public domain will never see the light of day.
I will give the House a few recent examples. In uncovering the phone hacking scandal, the Guardian was helped by sources in the police, who provided important information on the condition that they remained unidentified. They did this in the public interest, knowing that senior ranks were promoting a false version of events to the press, the public and Parliament. If those sources had been identified, they would have faced the loss of their careers and their pensions.
In another example, two anonymous whistleblowers from inside BAE revealed wholesale corrupt payments by the arms company and that BAE had set up secret subsidiaries in the British Virgin Islands, which it was using to channel corrupt payments to Swiss bank accounts. Even more to the point, it was a third anonymous whistleblower, in an official position, who revealed to journalists that Prince Bandar of the Saudi royal family had been paid a total of £1 billion, plus a gift of a personal Airbus, in order to promote arms sales.
If it were not for whistleblowers, patients at NHS trusts such as Mid-Staffs would still be dying unnecessarily and police such as those at Hillsborough would still be covering up their failings, as would corrupt politicians, dishonest businessmen and child-abusing celebrities.
Prying into journalists’ sources is not what RIPA was intended for, as has been confirmed by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary who took it through Parliament. Two weeks ago, when talking about RIPA, he said that no one at the time imagined that,
“legislation secured through parliamentary debate would be used to fetter the right of a free press in a democratic nation to do a responsible job”.
RIPA was supposed to be a weapon against terrorism and other serious crime, not for investigating internal police disciplinary matters and the like.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this subject as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests listed in the register.
I very much welcome this amendment. Although I have some concerns about aspects of the drafting, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, is to be congratulated on shining a spotlight on an incredibly serious and troubling issue arising from a piece of legislation that is now looking increasingly arcane. I fundamentally agree with him that we cannot wait for a permanent solution to this.
It is an issue that should concern every reporter in the UK and every citizen because of the impact on press freedom and the quality of our democracy. It is also an issue that has a resonance beyond our shores, which should be a real worry to us, because what we are doing in the United Kingdom is sending an authoritarian message to the rest of the world that it is all right for police forces or other public authorities to track down the confidential sources of journalists.
I do not need to dwell on the importance of confidential sources of information. It was put best in the case of Goodwin v United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights back in 1996:
“Without ... protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected”.
That is absolutely right. As we heard, the use of confidential sources is vital for whistleblowing and investigative journalism, but it is also crucial for day-to-day reporting on matters of public interest. In a democratic society, people need to be able to talk to the media about current debates without fear of reprisal or retribution. The alternative is sterile political and public debate, with a profound impact on the substance of our character and democracy. That is what will happen unless the chilling impact of this out-of-date legislation is not reversed.
It is a matter of regret to me to have to ask why we should have been surprised by such recent revelations. The Newspaper Society, representing Britain’s regional press, and the Society of Editors made clear during the passage of RIPA back in 2000 that its terms would inevitably lead to an erosion of the confidentiality of sources because they could so often be easily identified by information obtained under the new powers by a wide range of specified organisations. The newspaper industry at the time suggested that the number of organisations able to exercise RIPA powers should be limited, that the ground for the use of those powers should also be strictly limited to the most senior personnel and that all applications for use of such power should be subjected to prior judicial scrutiny, especially to protect confidential sources. The Act as it arrived on the statute book and various codes since then clearly did not provide adequate safeguards in any way.
Over the years since then, I have heard anecdotal evidence of the problems, often from local newspaper editors voicing their concerns, often about attempts to trace the source of leaks of council information by local authorities using RIPA powers of surveillance and access to telephone records. Occasionally, a case of this arose in the public domain. Back in 2010, the Derby Telegraph reported on how the local authority there dispatched two officers to a local Starbucks to spy on a reporter who had been seen talking to current and former council employees. That council used RIPA powers to do that because they give local authorities the right to watch and record people covertly. Just think about the disastrous impact on local press reporting of local authorities if such sources of information dried up. More importantly, we need to think about the impact on local people and democracy. Incompetence, waste and corruption in local government would remain uncovered and unpunished. It is the ordinary people who pay the bills for that who would really suffer.
As the noble Lord said, we are only now beginning to see the full extent of this problem, partly as the result of the work of the Mail on Sunday, which helped uncover this abuse through a sheer stroke of luck followed up by a brilliant piece of investigative journalism. My real concern is that we may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg. As the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said, we just have no idea about the extent of the abuse. Other examples that I have heard are extremely troubling. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the disturbing case of Sally Murrer, recently highlighted in Press Gazette. Thames Valley Police applied to a court to bug the conversations of this lady but did not tell the court that she was a journalist when it did so. Recently, that force had to admit that it used RIPA powers to bug the car of her alleged police source back in 2006. If either the law or a statutory code had forced police to make that clear, it would—as Gavin Millar, her QC, said—have ensured that the authorising authority had the chance to use the,
“correct, and very strict, legal test for overriding journalistic source protection”.
He also made the point that the use of the Act in this way, which he described as widespread, is almost certainly completely illegal under European law.
Mention of Europe leads me to a very brief point. I said earlier that I am anxious about the impact of this issue beyond our shores. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see how a Government in a Commonwealth country might look at how the law is utilised here and deploy something similar in a turbo-charged manner in their own country. That is already causing considerable concerns among world press freedom organisations. Ronald Koven, the acting director of the World Press Freedom Committee, wrote to me and put it this way:
“Police the world over have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to exercise needed self-restraint and their zeal must be contained by independent judicial supervision. That has unhappily proven to be the case in Britain as well ... It is the view of the World Press Freedom Committee that the law should be amended to impose appropriate and effective judicial oversight”.
We need to be mindful of the way that this issue feeds into debates in Europe, too. There, the European Newspaper Publishers Association—on whose board I sit—made representations on protection of journalistic sources in respect of very similar EU legislation on access to communications content, communications data and surveillance. In the context of the issue that this amendment highlights, those concerns also need to be treated with the utmost seriousness if we are not to end up in exactly the same position in a few years’ time.
I am aware that the noble Lord produced this as a probing amendment and of course he is absolutely right to do so. I support the principles behind it—particularly that of prior judicial authorisation—but, as I said, I have some concerns about the detail, because I do not believe that it would actually deliver the extremely high threshold that should be needed for police or other authorities to be able to access journalists’ sources. I also do not think that judicial authorisation would necessarily apply in all the cases where RIPA powers can be deployed. It is a very good start, but further thought needs to be given in those areas. Of course, there are now a number of inquiries into this issue and the abuse of RIPA. I believe the impact on press freedom and on the quality of our democracy should be guiding features of those inquiries. I hope that my noble friend will listen to the strength of feeling and that—either in this House or another place—the Government will come back with their own amendment to deal with the issue that the noble Lord’s amendment highlighted so importantly today and which, in a free society, we should treat with the utmost seriousness.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I also rise to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, spoke about the need to align PACE and RIPA and thereby to protect journalism. I agree that journalistic material needs to be protected from police officers using RIPA provisions, which were designed originally to get at something completely different. It is equally important, though very much less a subject of public debate, to protect items subject to legal prejudice, which this amendment, if it became law, would do.
I am a solicitor—it is probably my only declarable interest—and, like all solicitors, a solicitor of the Supreme Court, which I would like everybody to remember as a statement. I have been consulted by people anxious about fraud, bribery and commercial organisations who are naturally seeking a safe and effective way of making their concerns known. They are whistleblowers. Any solicitor would make a file note, and it is not a happy thought that a police officer, solely on his own authority, could seek access to that note and thus to the relationship of confidentiality with our clients that we lawyers have been brought up to believe is a vital foundation.
It may also fall to any practising solicitor to be consulted by someone seeking, as for example in the Jimmy Savile saga, to allege that serving police officers were complicit in abuse, and then to be approached by a police officer, perhaps seeking to head off trouble at the pass, being able to access information via RIPA without ever having to explain to a judge what evil it was he was specifically seeking to expose. I accept—of course, I do—that client confidentiality can and must be breached in extremis and with the issue of a warrant or authorisation by a judge, but it should not be possible for police officers to avoid the PACE rules or to go round them and get at the principle of client confidentiality by using legislation that was never intended to do that.
We solicitors are all members of the Supreme Court. We are bound to assist it, but we are bound to assist judges. We are not meant to be a branch of the Executive and, as such, we ought to be subject—and all legally applicable documents ought to be subject—to the power of the courts and not to the power of the police, or indeed, if push came to shove, to the Secretary of State. I commend the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, and to make the same point from the point of view of the Bar. I do not think that legal professional privilege is fully understood. Certainly in the criminal field, there may be a perception that defence barristers get together with their client and cook up some story, and if only the police could have access to the instructions of the barrister or the solicitor, all would be revealed. The contrary is the truth.
If I can bowdlerise a little bit, when I see a client for the first time, I say to him, “Will you please not tell me any bull? I want to know the truth. Unless you tell me the truth, I am not able to help you. I am not able to give you proper advice, just as though you went to the doctor saying that you had a pain in your toe when in fact the pain was in your head. Tell me the truth”. It very often happens that the client will then come out with a story which you can then check against the other evidence in the prosecution case, and go back to him and say, “You did tell me a lot of bull. I really need to know the truth if I am to represent you properly”. He will change his story in some instances and will tell the truth. With that truth, you can win cases or you can mitigate the just punishment that will ultimately be imposed on him and advise him to plead guilty if that is the right thing to do.
It is an extremely delicate relationship between the client and the barrister or solicitor—I have been in the solicitor position as well—that many people do not understand. A judge understands it. If a judge, on a proper application being made to him, decides that it is in the public interest that this relationship should be investigated, and if there is something about the way in which the case is being conducted that gives rise to suspicion so that prying into the papers of the defence is an appropriate thing to do, the judge from all his experience—all judges will have been through the mill themselves and will know precisely how these things should be approached—will give the ultimate permission for the file or the papers to be looked at. Generally speaking, though, he will not do so, and it is quite wrong if the police use RIPA powers—legislation that was intended for a completely different purpose—to break into that very delicate relationship and break it up.
That is the importance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and I support it entirely.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I can be fairly brief in this debate because I think the Minister will have heard the very real and deep concerns across the House on this. It is not the first time that concerns have been raised about the use or misuse of RIPA. In this instance we are talking about the rights of journalists obtaining information from confidential sources to retain that confidentiality without which some information may never come to light. Previously, there had been anecdotal reports of local authorities using the legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, including identifying whether parents were living in a school catchment area. These issues raise serious concerns and have serious implications for individuals and for issues of collective privacy.
I will say something about the wider and serious implications of misuse of the legislation, but I want to address the specific role of journalists’ sources. In effect, we are discussing how new technology has brought with it new challenges for a free press and for personal privacy. Thirty years ago, if the police wanted access to journalists’ sources, they would have to go to a court to obtain their notes. There were no mobile phone records they could access at that time. Similarly, we would not have seen journalists illegally hacking into private phone calls, as shamefully came to light more recently.
Over the weekend, like other noble Lords, I read some of the obituaries of Ben Bradlee, and this amendment came to mind as I was reading about his editorship of the Washington Post. I also watched “All the President’s Men”, which is one of my favourite films. The main people portrayed in that film—Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Ben Bradlee—uncovered the most serious corruption at the highest level of government. I might tag this amendment as “the Watergate amendment” because, although the jurisdictions are entirely different, the principle is the same. Would that story, with all the implications for democracy and secrecy, ever have been told if the Nixon Administration had been able to identify the Deep Throat source or access the records of the journalists he was speaking to? If Nixon had been able to obtain mobile phone records in secret, would we ever have found out what was going on? There will be parallels in the UK, although perhaps they will not be so dramatic. That underlines the value and importance of serious investigative journalism. I am not talking about sensationalist stories about people that most of us have never heard of, but about the best kind of journalism, which I hugely admire, acting in the public interest, not just on what is of public interest.
Noble Lords will recall that, when the Government brought in new powers into the DRIP Act by fast-track legislation to deal with serious and organised crime, including terrorism, we were highly critical of the way in which they acted and of the need to use the fast-track process. Part of our demands in supporting that legislation was that there should be a complete, thorough and independent view of RIPA. We have said for some time that it is becoming increasingly clear and obvious that RIPA is out of date and does not have the right kind of framework or the safeguards we need. Recent reports that RIPA has been used to access journalists’ sources reinforce that. It is right that the Interception Commissioner is looking at it, but in addition it is essential that we get a clear guarantee from the Minister today that this issue will be included as part of the comprehensive review of RIPA led by David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that was agreed by the Government during the debates on DRIPA.
For many, the world seems less safe today. We must be vigilant against organised and serious crime and terrorism. I believe that the public understand and support the need for measures that the Government must put in place to deal with these threats to our safety. In order to have and maintain that public support, it is vital that such powers are only ever used for the purpose for which they were intended. If those powers are abused, whether by government, police or local authorities, it undermines public confidence in the very measures needed for the most serious issues, and that puts us all at risk.
Of course, journalists are not above the law. Like anyone else, they need to be investigated if they have committed a serious crime, and I do not think anybody is arguing otherwise. As noble Lords have pointed out, there is already an independent judicial process with prior jurisdiction needed by which the police can apply for access to journalists’ information, but we have a long tradition of additional safeguards in law to recognise the role of a free press in a democracy and to protect whistleblowers, and this should not be compromised.
That is why we need the RIPA legislation to be examined in its entirety, including in context and in application, to ensure that the legal framework enables the police to access the data they need to solve serious crimes and to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on free speech and the free press on which our democracy depends. The Government must ensure that David Anderson’s review is ambitious enough in scope to resolve these problems and to respond positively to the issue before us now. We seek an assurance from the Minister that this matter will be considered in the review. In addition, the Government must make it clear by whatever means are appropriate that such legislation must only ever be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the purpose of this amendment. I do not believe there is any difference between my noble friend and me, or indeed any of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate, on the key issue at stake here. We all agree that a free and fearless press is fundamental to a democratic society. A key element of journalism is the protection of sources, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not wish to do anything which would undermine the operation of the vibrant and independent press that operates in this country.
The amendment which my noble friend has moved seeks to require public authorities who acquire communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to seek the authorisation of a judge when the material requested is subject to legal privilege or relates to journalistic sources. However, this is unnecessary, given the strict regulation RIPA already contains and the additional safeguards we are already putting in place.
Communications data—the who, when and where but not the content of a communication—would reveal the telephone number a journalist or lawyer calls, but would not reveal any of what was said or written in a communication. Last month, the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner issued a statement in which he said that communications data,
“do not contain any details of what was said or written by the sender or the recipient of the communication. As such, the communications data retained by CSPs”—
communications service providers—
“do not contain any material that may be said to be of professional or legal privilege—the fact that a communication took place does not provide what was discussed or considered or advised”.
None the less, I recognise that this is a sensitive issue. It is personal information and RIPA already applies rigorous controls on its acquisition.
Communications data can only be obtained when their acquisition is necessary for a specified purpose, such as preventing and detecting crime, and then only when it is proportionate to do so. Anyone can complain to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal if they think the powers have been used unlawfully against them. The whole system is presided over, and reported on, by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, a senior judicial figure.
These controls apply to all requests for communications data, and I believe we have one of the most stringent systems to be found anywhere, with both strict internal controls and independent oversight. If any of your Lordships have doubts on this point, I would recommend reading the annual report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Sir Anthony May’s report, published in April of this year, includes a detailed account of how the system works and a full statistical breakdown of communications data requests.
However, we recognise the special considerations that apply to journalists, lawyers and a number of other professions which may involve access to sensitive information. We have announced plans to update the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice. These changes will make clear that specific consideration must be given by the senior authorising officer to the level of possible intrusion in cases likely to involve the communications data of those engaged in certain professions who may have obligations of professional secrecy. These professions include journalism, as well as those of lawyers, doctors and Members of Parliament, and will also include those known to be close contacts of members of these professions. Any application for communications data that are known to be the data of members of these professions or their close contacts will have to state this clearly in the application. It will also require that relevant information is available to the authorising office when considering necessity and proportionality. This change will make clear in the statutory code what is already existing best practice.
We will publish the updated draft code of practice for public consultation as soon as possible, noting the acting Interception of Communications Commissioner’s request to expedite publication of the code. It is also worth pointing out that on 6 October the acting Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, announced that he had,
“launched an inquiry into the use of RIPA powers to determine whether the acquisition of communications data has been undertaken to identify journalistic sources”.
It would certainly be premature to take any legislative action in advance of knowing his findings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked whether David Anderson’s review of RIPA would cover this area. I am sure that David Anderson will wish to look at all aspects of RIPA interception and communications data, including this issue.
In the light of the protections already available, the very clear commitment to strengthen these through the code of practice and the ongoing inquiry by Sir Paul Kennedy, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. The House seems to have one view and the Minister seems to have another. I thank noble Lords who have partaken in the debate: my noble friends Lord Black and Lord Thomas, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cohen and Lady Smith.
I do not think that the Minister was listening to what I said. Everyone outside the Home Office and the Foreign Office knows that the safeguards in RIPA have been proved ineffective time and again. I rather anticipated that the Government would try to fob us off with some tweak of the code of practice. Tweaking the code of practice is not going to offer the certainty that journalists need; it is not going to offer the transparency. All of this is still going to carry on in secret. We will not know what on earth is going on, and it will not give the press, the journalists or the media the opportunity to challenge the police’s intention to seek their phone records and others from the phone companies. So it will not take us any further forward at all.
I have to say that, as you might have detected, I am more than somewhat disappointed with the Government’s response. They have not listened to the debate. I hope they will reflect on the debate and come back with something more substantive. If not, I am quite sure that I and others, including those in another place, will return to this issue with a vengeance. However, for the sake of good order, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bates
“Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c. 67)In the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences referred to in section 3), in paragraph 1(b)(xi), before “the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003” insert “sections 1 to 3 of””
“Senior Courts Act 1981 (c. 54)In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Senior Courts Act 1981 (distribution of business to the family division of the High Court), after paragraph (h) insert—
“(ha) all proceedings under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003;”.”
“Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)In section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (conditional fee agreements: supplementary), in subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(fza) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003;”.”
“11A In section 222 of that Act (transfer of fine orders), in subsection (8), for “section 31 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973” substitute “section 139 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000”.”
“Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27)In section 63 of the Family Law Act 1996 (interpretation of Part 4), in subsection (2), after paragraph (i) insert—
“(ia) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, other than paragraph 3 of that Schedule;”.”
“(1) Section 22 of that Act (order made: reconsideration of available amount) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) any order which has been made against the defendant in respect of the offence (or any of the offences) concerned under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (orders requiring payment of surcharge).”(3) In subsection (6), after “(5)(c)” insert “or (d).””
“( ) Section 107 of that Act (order made: reconsideration of available amount) is amended as follows.
“( ) In subsection (4), after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) any restitution order which has been made against the accused in respect of the offence (or any of the offences) concerned;(e) any order under section 253F(2) of the Procedure Act requiring the accused to pay a victim surcharge in respect of the offence (or any of the offences) concerned.”“( ) In subsection (5)—
( ) for “the court must not” substitute “the court—(a) must not”;( ) at the end insert—“(b) must not have regard to an order falling within subsection (4)(d) or (e) if a court has made a direction under section 97A(2) or (4).””
“( ) Section 121 of that Act (application, recall and variation) is amended as follows.
“( ) In subsection (5), for “(9)” substitute “(10)”.
“( ) For subsection (9) substitute—
“(9) In the case of a restraint order, if the condition in section 119 which was satisfied was that an investigation was instituted—
(a) the court must discharge the order if within a reasonable time proceedings for the offence are not instituted;(b) otherwise, the court must recall the order on the conclusion of the proceedings.(10) In the case of a restraint order, if the condition in section 119 which was satisfied was that an application was to be made—
(a) the court must discharge the order if within a reasonable time the application is not made;(b) otherwise, the court must recall the order on the conclusion of the application.””
“( ) in subsection (3), after “Criminal Justice” insert “(Children)”.”
Lord Bates
“( ) An order under section 97B(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (inserted by section (Orders for securing compliance with confiscation order)) may be made in respect of any confiscation order (within the meaning of Part 3 of that Act) that is made on or after the day on which section (Orders for securing compliance with confiscation order) comes into force.”
“( ) section 65;”
Lord Bates
“( ) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a reference to 12 months in the following provisions is to be read as a reference to 6 months—
(a) section 66(3)(a);(b) in the Prison Act 1952, subsection (4)(b) of the section 40CA inserted by section (Knives and offensive weapons in prisons) above;(c) in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, paragraph (b) of the subsection (2) inserted in section 5 by section (Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation)(4)(b) above;(d) paragraph 4(5)(b) of the Schedule inserted in that Act by section (Female genital mutilation protection orders)(2) above.”
“( ) The reference to an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 in section 3A(8) of that Act does not include such an offence committed before the coming into force of section (Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation) above (which inserts section 3A in that Act).
“( ) In proceedings under section 3A of that Act, a defence under subsection (5)(b) of that section may not be negated by reference to steps that the defendant could have taken (but did not) before the coming into force of section (Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation) above.”
Lord Bates
“( ) section (Knives and offensive weapons in prisons).”
“( ) sections (Offence of failing to protect girl from risk of genital mutilation) and (Female genital mutilation protection orders).”
Lord Bates
“( ) paragraphs 11A and 26 to 33 of Schedule 4 (and section 70(1) so far as relating to those paragraphs).”
“( ) Chapter 3 of Part 1;“( ) paragraphs 2, 34 to 38 and 47(3) of Schedule 4 (and section 70(1) so far as relating to those paragraphs).”
“( ) section 45 and Schedule 1;“( ) sections 46 to 49.”
“( ) section (Female genital mutilation protection orders).”
Lord Bates
Music Education
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of music education hubs and the National Plan for Music Education.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord’s Question for Short Debate is now being taken as last business, the time limit for the debate becomes 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes. Speeches should therefore be limited to seven minutes, except for the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the Minister, which remain limited to 10 and 12 minutes respectively.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this short debate on the national plan for music education, even if it is somewhat later than might have been anticipated. I put down my Question last June, before the Government’s announcement of extra funding for the plan, but I believe there are still issues about its funding and delivery that are worthy of debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak and look forward to hearing what they have to say from their often much more knowledgeable standpoints than I can claim as a mere music consumer, albeit a passionate one, and now also a singer in the Parliament choir.
The second paragraph of the national plan, published by the Departments for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport in November 2011, says:
“Our vision is to enable children from all backgrounds and every part of England to have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument; to make music with others; to learn to sing; and to have the opportunity to progress to the next level of excellence”.
That is indeed a visionary commitment, and one in which the Government should take pride. The challenge now is to ensure that those ambitious aims are delivered.
The plan’s central element is the creation of a network of local or regional music educational hubs across England. The devolved regions are, of course, not covered. These hubs, 123 of them, are responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of music education in their areas, working in partnership with schools, local authorities, music teachers and others. Their central government funding comes from the DfE but is administered by Arts Council England, which oversees them. In addition to the four core roles spelt out in the vision, the hubs were given three extension roles—to provide training and CPD for schools staff, develop instrument loan schemes and offer access to large-scale or high-quality music experiences for students.
I do not plan to rehash the case for the value of music in schools, which is rightly taken pretty much as a given in the plan, but one message coming through strongly to your Lordships’ Digital Skills Committee, on which I sit, is the central importance of creativity to the UK’s future skills base and competitiveness. There is nothing like music for learning creativity, as well as other key skills such as team work, communication and discipline. The main question for us today is whether the plan is on track to achieve its aims and what government and others can do to increase its success.
I shall raise some issues relating to the hubs and their performance to date. Perhaps inevitably, these start with finance. Up to July, central government funding for local music education services, going back before the plan was launched, had been declining year by year, from a total of over £82 million in 2010-11 to £58 million in 2014-15, and no announcement had yet been made on funding beyond that. Furthermore, DfE published a consultation document suggesting that local authorities should not use any of the education support grant that they received from the department to support music education activities in schools. So the announcement later that month that funding for the year to March 2016 would be increased by £18 million, with £17 million of that going to hubs, was excellent news, especially as the ESG proposal was dropped at the same time. The Government deserve warm congratulations on this, at least as far as it goes.
However, there remain some important questions. How and when will the £75 million for 2015-16 be allocated to individual hubs? Will the extra money be dedicated wholly to fulfilling their existing roles? What will happen after March 2016? For hubs to be able to plan ahead properly, they need assurance that they will continue to be funded, preferably at the 2015-16 level, up to the end of the plan period in March 2020. A commitment of that kind was given by the Prime Minister for youth sport in February, so why not for music?
Central government funding represents only one-third of total funding for hubs across the board, although it ranges from 13% to 100% for individual hubs. Schools provide another 31%, with the remainder coming from parents at 17%, local authorities at 8% and other sources at 10%. With local authority funding declining from £25 million in 2010-11 to £14 million in 2012-13, and likely to continue to do so, and with parents seen as unable to contribute much more than they already do, confidence in the level and continuation of the central government funding commitment becomes all the more crucial.
There are other concerns. The performance of hubs is patchy, with some doing much better than others in building partnerships, raising funds and engaging schools, students and parents in stimulating worthwhile and effective activities within the four core roles. I am not aware of much evidence of initiatives to share good practice and encourage weaker hubs to learn from and emulate those that do better, so I was encouraged to receive a briefing from the Mayor of London’s office that outlined the excellent work that hubs in London are doing, with support from the mayor and his music fund, and which expressed the willingness of the GLA to work with DfE, the Arts Council and local authorities to develop a high-quality training programme for music hub leaders. The mayor and his music education task force will launch a London music pledge next month, which includes CPD and new resources for teachers. Another exemplar is the Greater Manchester music hub, working effectively with nine music services in partnership with three local orchestras and the Royal Northern College of Music. London and Manchester may be special cases, but that seems to be just the sort of good practice sharing that is needed. What will the Government do to promote it?
There is worrying evidence, too, that students from poorer socio-economic groups and areas, and children with special educational needs, are not benefiting as much from the music education services on offer. Disadvantaged children are under-represented in ensembles and choirs. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, led a debate in July focusing on the fact that young people with disabilities are considerably less likely to be involved in musical activities than other students.
Access to instruments is another problem. Some of your Lordships may have seen the recent Channel 4 programme, “Don’t Stop the Music”, in which the pianist James Rhodes encouraged people with spare or unused instruments to loan or donate them to schools. Few hubs offer instrument loans at present, but perhaps they could be encouraged to link in to schemes like this.
Another concern is a growing shortage of music teachers. The Henley review recommended the creation of a primary teaching module, but since this has no funding attached to it, few potential teachers are taking it. Finally, the absence of music from Ofsted’s inspection framework means inevitably that schools give less priority to their music education activities than they might otherwise do, particularly as current league tables do not measure arts subjects.
Although it is outside the ambit of this debate, I am especially sorry to learn that the land of my fathers, albeit a few generations back, Wales, the so-called land of song, has no central funding for music services at all and that children there are 10% less likely to learn an instrument than those in England. What a disastrous failure to capitalise on what should be such an asset for Wales.
The national plan for music education is a visionary plan, with enormous potential educational, musical, cultural, creative and economic benefits. Of course I do not expect the Government, let alone the Minister today, to fix all the issues I have highlighted at a stroke. But should they not be blowing their trumpet rather more fortissimo to promote the success of the plan and to find ways of fixing these concerns? It would be interesting to hear something about the views of the plan’s monitoring board on the progress being made. This has now been transformed into a cultural education board. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is not a step towards converting music education hubs into cultural education hubs.
The national plan for music education should be actively driven forward as a developing success story, which will help to cement and enhance the UK’s leading world position in music and creativity. I urge the Government, Arts Council England and the Minister today to be even more positive and energetic in supporting and advancing it. It would be sad indeed if the plan were allowed to fall short of its vision because of a lack of energy or commitment, when its success is so important to us all.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on securing this debate. We are all extremely grateful to him for doing so. I declare my interest as a member of the council of the Royal College of Music.
I was lucky enough to have an amazing music education at school, starting with learning the trumpet at the age of nine, and then taking on three other instruments—some of them, it has to be said, to avoid sports lessons, but that is another story—playing in orchestras and ensembles, singing in the choir, and learning the theory and history of music. I could not have wanted for more, and it has become my lifelong passion as a result. But what I—and, I suspect, all noble Lords—want is for every child to have the opportunity to have their life enriched by music in this way. The establishment of the hub programme, on the back of the national plan for music education, goes a long way to achieving that, and the Government are to be congratulated on their support for it.
The Royal College of Music is part of the Tri-borough Music Hub, which covers Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster. Those are three boroughs with wide socio-economic disparities. In maintained schools in those areas, more than half the pupils speak English as an additional language, compared with 15% nationally, and more than 35% of children qualify for free school meals—more than double the national average. That is just the sort of area where the provision of music education for the disadvantaged is most needed. The college, working with the Royal Albert Hall and Aurora Orchestra, along with 30 delivery organisations, provides a hub which was formed in August 2012 and now serves 154 schools and is responsible for the music education of all children aged five to 19 across the three boroughs. It works strategically with all the schools and music teachers to ensure that music in the curriculum is delivered to the highest quality, providing instrumental tuition, Saturday music centres, orchestras, flagship choirs and massed performances.
This hub has been highly successful in delivering the laudable aims set out in the national plan for music education, about which the noble Lord spoke, with a very high proportion of the schools in the area actively engaging with it. However, like all other hubs, it faces challenges. The biggest—I suspect this is likely to be a recurring theme this evening—is certainty of funding, which is much needed. However, that is also impacting across the whole music education sector for the post-2016 period. When looking at future budgets, one thing we need to take much greater account of are the very high costs involved in hiring suitable venues for large-scale rehearsals and concerts, yet these events, which allow children to take part in very big orchestral or choral events, are crucial to a balanced music education.
We also need to ensure that the work that is done is reaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is something of a postcode lottery about the provision of music education—the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, rightly described it as patchy—and the playing field is still uneven across the UK. Music is a subject where independent school facilities still far outstrip those of state schools. That is a shame, because we should never forget the key that role music education can play in helping shape and improve the lives of those who have not had the best start in life. It is they who need music the most. At the front of the national plan is a quote from Aristotle:
“Music has a power of forming the character and should therefore be introduced into the education of the young”.
It is that spirit which enthused the authors of the report, and it is one that we should be mindful of.
Finally, we have to recognise that the hubs are the start of a journey throughout life for talented young musicians. Some will go on to further study or will make music their careers. They will need continuing support, based on that most expensive educational premise: one-to-one tuition. Here, as your Lordships have discussed before—I am sure this issue arose in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—the role of the conservatoires is absolutely essential. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her closing remarks, would restate the Government’s strong commitment in this area—a commitment which is essential to the delivery of a first-class music education for all our children.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
Perhaps some noble Lords think that music education is a bit of an airy-fairy subject—a “nice-to-have” but not a “must-have”. If there is one canard which the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, enables us to quash, it is this. Music is not just a “nice-to-have”, it is central to good education, as central as maths and English.
Research evidence is conclusive that music improves educational performance. Perhaps I might be permitted to cite one supporting fact. Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, which I have the privilege of chairing, is the second-ranked higher education institution in the country for employment—eat your hearts out Oxford and Cambridge—and 98.9% of our students are in work or further education six months after graduating. Of course, many of them are employed in music.
However, it turns out that a music education is also very attractive to employers because musicians have been taught to work hard, concentrate and set themselves goals, which are just the kind of qualities that make somebody a good employee. That is as true in schools as it is in conservatoires and universities. Music education is not just a cultural asset, although it is that. It is an economic asset too.
The Motion and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, draw attention to the long-term funding of the new music hubs, set up following the excellent report by Darren Henley in 2011. Of course, all our hearts leapt at the £18 million that the Government found in July for music education. First—sorry to look a gift horse in the mouth—that is only for a single year. We have no idea what will happen beyond that year. It has to be put in the context of the slashing of the budgets that went on before—from £82.5 million to £58 million next year, according to the campaign group Protect Music Education. It is not surprising that local authorities are cutting, because they are being cut themselves. We are not spending nearly enough.
It is interesting that both speakers so far have used the word that I was about to use about the performance of the hubs: “patchy”. Patchy is it. Some are performing miracles. Others are not. It is certain that the Government’s pledge:
“Music education hubs will ensure that every child aged 5-18 has the opportunity to sing and learn a musical instrument, as well as perform as part of an ensemble or choir”,
is not being met.
Besides money, two other things would be helpful. The first is investment in leadership development for those people running the hubs. The second—this is particularly important, as the James Rhodes programmes show; I will come back to this—is that you need to educate head teachers and teachers in the value of music. They are under tremendous pressure from Ofsted, the Government and the Michael Goves of this world to show their results in maths and English. That can take their attention away from music, but that music is as central to education as those things. Head teachers need to be taught that.
You cannot get away from it. The heart of the failure is the shortage of funds. I am not sure how many noble Lords saw the Rhodes programme—a wonderful programme introduced by James Rhodes, the concert pianist, whose music, he said, led him away from drug addiction at an early age. He traced many of the problems that are being faced to the lack of instruments. Kids are improvising with toilet rolls and tin cans—Mickey Mouse music. James launched a campaign to get families to root out the instruments from their lofts and cellars. To see on that programme the kids' faces when they received these instruments was a very great joy to behold.
There are so many good people and so many good organisations working in this field. Just to take some that have walked through my door recently in my role as chair of the All-Party Classical Music Group: Future Talent, helping children from particularly deprived backgrounds; Voces Cantabiles Music—excuse my Latin—from the Gresham Centre, working with 20,000 students a year in the UK and internationally; and the One-Handed Musical Instrument Trust on which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was kind enough to point out that we had a debate earlier this year. These are people devoted night and day to music. The passionate devotion of many of the hub leaders—not all, but many—is great, but the mountain that has to be climbed remains very steep. At the end of the day, only the Government can resource the base camps which make the ascent possible. That is why we look forward to the forthcoming ministerial response this evening.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I fear that I am going to agree with all the noble Lords who have spoken—I hope it is not boring, but at least it will be short. I speak as one who cannot remember how to do quadratic equations but whose whole life has been enriched by music and the other arts. My love of these things took root when I was a child and is thanks both to my parents and to the inspiring teachers at my schools who gave me the opportunity and skills to enable me to sing and act. What I did not realise at the time was that taking part in these things was actually benefiting my academic achievement in other areas. Music is worth studying in its own right and for its wider educational value. It teaches young people how to memorise patterns and musical and verbal phrases, how to work as a team and how practising hard enables them to become really skilled at something. Music also builds up self-confidence and self-control. These skills are hugely beneficial for learning other subjects and in the workplace.
In the second review from Darren Henley—the one on cultural education in England, in 2012—he talked about the idea that the study of cultural education subjects in schools in itself creates a culture. This is clearly true. The very best schools, with really strong grades in English, maths and science, offer brilliant music, drama and dance, and stunning displays of art and design. I am sure that there is no coincidence in that. However, we need information for head teachers and chairs of governors to ensure that they recognise the value of musical and cultural activities in their schools. The decisions on budgets and funding are usually made at a school level, so those who do not value music are less likely to ensure that it is a vibrant part of school life. The amount of money available to spend on music in primary and secondary school budgets is far, far larger than the money given to music education hubs, so this local spend really matters. I am one of those who, right from the start, has very much regretted that there is no cultural subjects pillar in the English baccalaureate; there really should be. Perhaps it is good that it is falling into disrepute and disuse.
The first Henley report resulted in the music education hubs, as we have heard, and I think that, on the whole, they have been very successful. They have certainly demonstrated success that can be spread around. However, in order for them to continue they need skilled leadership. We need some of the additional money that has been announced to be invested in leadership for the people running those hubs. It is important that we grow a generation of skilled leaders to run the hubs to their full capability. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this will be done?
I also join others in making the point about equality of opportunity. There are concerns about progression in music for talented youngsters from financially disadvantaged backgrounds. New research from ABRSM, the exam board of the royal schools of music, shows that children from poorer backgrounds are far less likely to progress through the instrument exam grades than those from better-off homes. This means that we are failing to unlock the talent and potential of these young people, which is a real tragedy. Again, can the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to do anything about this?
Finally, as a resident of Wales, I join the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in regretting that the Welsh Government are not providing money for instrument tuition for children. I use the words of Dylan Thomas:
“Praise the Lord! We are a musical nation”.
My husband and I very much enjoy watching the youth Eisteddfodau on the television. The joy on the faces of Welsh children when they sing is quite palpable. Clearly, Welsh children love to sing. What a pity it is that that innate musicality is not supported to develop their talents in instrumental working as well as singing. Unfortunately—well, no; I do not mean “unfortunately” —what I mean is that education in Wales is of course a devolved matter, and so all we can do in your Lordships’ House is call on the Welsh Government to do something about what has just been identified.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House I mentioned that one of the most moving experiences I had had recently was to receive a letter from an inmate of Wormwood Scrubs. I had been working with the Koestler Trust to put instruments into prisons. This man wrote to say that he was incredibly grateful to have been able to use a guitar and that had he had this instrument 15 years earlier he probably would not be serving life for murder. In other words, the means of expression that this instrument gave this prisoner was a release of those turbulent feelings that he had. As we have already heard from many noble Lords, research has discovered that even with children who are quite damaged music can often get through where nothing else can.
I too would like to praise the Government for having had the wisdom to find more funds recently and for recognising that the creative industries are a very important part of the economic and social make-up of this country. It is also important to realise for the future that children who are going to be the top players, if you like the top earners, of tomorrow need to start early. They need to get their fingers and muscles adjusted to the strings, for example, of a violin. They need to be playing instruments at the age of five to have any chance of reaching the top echelons. But it is not just the tops echelons in which we are interested, as we have heard. It is the social cohesion that music brings that is so important.
Before I talk a bit more about what has been achieved and what could be achieved, I would like to mention other areas of music. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate who follows me will endorse my plea to help cathedral choirs retain their music. This is such an important part of this country’s tradition, whether it be Byrd or Tallis or Blow. These are the great masterworks which are part of our heritage. Hopefully it will continue, with my colleagues creating music for churches in the future.
When the Government produced the Department for Education document about more music for the Arts Council to distribute, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, it said something important. I am going to repeat it because it is so important as a mantra. If the Government can keep to this, we will be on the right footing:
“We expect every child to have the opportunity to sing, play instruments, solo and in groups and to be able to take these skills further if”,
through talent or inspiration they so wish.
That is a wonderful starting point, but against it we must look at the conclusions of Making Music, by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. This paid tribute to what has been achieved but also said:
“Although the trajectory over the last 15 years is generally positive, there are”—
your Lordships have heard this before—
“areas of concern: many children and young people have not had access to instrumental lessons, while others have no engagement with formal music tuition after primary school”.
What it goes on to say is so important. It says that children from lower socioeconomic groups, just those ones who might turn to violence,
“continue to be significantly disadvantaged compared with their peers from more affluent backgrounds. Sustained, progressive music education tends to be the preserve of children born to wealthier parents”.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black:
“This report shows that adults who had private lessons as children and sat a music exam were much more likely to still play an instrument—and the higher the grade achieved, the more likely they were to continue learning.
The cost of learning to play and of taking lessons is a major barrier and children without access to tuition are significantly less likely to carry on playing. Regional provision is variable and the diverse ways in which learners progress are not necessarily well supported by the sector”.
There is good news and bad news. How about looking at one idea that would cost nothing? This would be to say not only to schools but also to Ofsted that we want you to up the importance of music.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on introducing this important and timely short debate. I welcome the national plan for music education, which emphasises the importance of music and the creation of music education hubs in this country, I also welcome the fact that the report has taken note of the recommendations made in the Henley review, perhaps the most comprehensive and thorough review of the state of music education in England for many years. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, for his support of church music as well.
There are many benefits in the national music plan, some of which we have already heard about. In particular, it gives an overview of funding aimed at providing a more efficient and equitable system than the one which has traditionally been used. Funding is now weighted for deprivation and allocated on a per-pupil basis rather than the traditional postcode lottery operated through local education authorities. These hubs provide an innovative and interesting method of co-ordinating music education and development between pupils, schools and communities. It fosters the kind of networks that are necessary to develop a thriving local music scene, and there are clear targets which everyone can understand. These are all good things; in theory they are extremely encouraging, and indeed I am encouraged. I welcome them wholeheartedly.
However, I agree with noble Lords who have used the word “patchy”. In my own diocese of Lichfield, the issue about the hubs is that they are often spread too thinly over very large areas, making it difficult for them to be effective. The Lichfield hub reaches right across Staffordshire and teams up with surrounding hubs in Shropshire and the Black Country. While the hubs themselves are a good thing, and the targets they are to be held accountable to are clear, they do not cope well with the sheer number of children they have to deal with on a regular basis. Although the national music plan ring-fences spending on music education, all noble Lords who spoke before me in the debate cited figures that reveal a recent massive decrease, which somewhat undermines any attempt at planning for the future. More reliable help is needed in this department.
We have heard that numerous studies have been conducted over recent years which show the benefits of singing, playing and listening to music not only to general health and well-being, but also to an individual’s mental health. Given the Government’s interest in improving the well-being of the public, perhaps I may suggest that increasing access to music and encouraging participation in performance would be one of the simplest and most effective ways of improving the physical and mental health and well-being of the whole population.
Programmes run by the cathedral, such as the choristers’ arts programme and the MusicShare concerts, along with the curriculum singing days over the year, make improvements in behaviour, cognitive ability and language plain to see. I offer a big thanks to people such as my director of music at the cathedral, Cathy Lamb, who is for so many people the Gareth Malone of the area, opening up possibilities that they hardly dreamt of.
Music is not just a cultural tradition. Having the opportunity to participate in regular music events enables children to grow in self-confidence. That is the trouble with cutting funds. Over the past year it has been noticeable in Staffordshire that the reduction in availability of the Sing Up campaign has generated a marked deterioration in the general ability of children and young people to engage with and understand music. As cuts are made, the success of instrumental learning and one-to-one music lessons is diminished, which significantly affects the opportunities for students to progress. Recognition of the importance of music in education and for general well-being is essential if it is not to return to being seen as elitist, where only those with surplus money can afford lessons.
The benefits of a high-quality music education for children are numerous and significant, and of particular use for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we intend to make any alterations to the national music plan, they should be in the form of an increase in the number of hubs as well as an increase in the regular means of funding for them. This would help to resolve the problems experienced by our local hub in Lichfield. The national plan for music education in schools is not just viable and financially sustainable in the long term, it is, as other noble Lords have said, absolutely necessary for healthy and happy education. It should be extended and improved to help build a happy and prosperous society, where children of all backgrounds can appreciate the benefits of a high-quality music education.
Given the interest in the long-term viability of the national music plan which this debate demonstrates, perhaps I might suggest that there be a review of the effectiveness of the national music plan so that its practical implementation can be better understood and improved. Without music, particularly without music in worship, we are only half human. Our children deserve their schools to open the treasure chest for them afresh in each generation.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for initiating this very interesting debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions from other noble Lords. I am not a musician, but I can truly say that some of the most enjoyable and fulfilling occasions in my life have involved music: the absolute joy of singing in the Christmas Oratorio, the delight of singing madrigals in an English garden on a summer’s day, the pleasure and discipline of playing a violin with an orchestra.
Without my musical education in school, which started at a very early age, I doubt that I would have enjoyed such pleasures. I did not go to an expensive school; I was state educated. At the age of four, we had a percussion band and learnt French time names, and that I found very useful in all the aspects of music in which I have been involved. We learnt the violin in a group session. We were singing in a choir which was selected and trained to sing well for Speech Day. We were given free tickets by the local authority for the Hallé Orchestra concerts. In those days, the director of music of the local authority was very happy to give up his Saturday mornings to take a group of young musicians and train them into an orchestra.
We must not regard the activities that I have just described as being part of life in a bygone era. I share the desire expressed by all noble Lords here today that we wish to see all children enjoying a good music education, because we have heard the benefits that this brings. Learning an instrument, singing in a choir, learning to enjoy listening all have a very important role in children’s academic, creative and social development. Others have expressed that very well already in this debate.
It is a grave disservice to our children if music is badly taught and poor-quality performance is accepted. I was at an event recently where a junior-school choir sang to a poor-quality CD of backing music, with no attempt at clear diction or anything tuneful. The fact that the children appeared to enjoy themselves and, as the audience said, looked very sweet, seemed to be regarded as a good result. If we wish to see children enjoying singing and doing it to a high standard, we need go no further than our cathedral choirs, which we have already heard a lot about today. There, the children enjoy it, they have the discipline and the quality and standard are excellent. There is no reason why other children in school should not also achieve excellence.
Many children benefit from excellent music teaching from excellent teachers, but, sadly, this is not the case everywhere. Developing more competent music teachers is essential if our desire to see improved quality and experiences for our children is to happen.
The national plan for music education in England was an ambitious statement of intent and I congratulate the Government on it. I, too, am pleased to hear of the extra resources that have been put into music education. As we have heard, music education hubs were set up to augment music teaching in schools and colleges. Will my noble friend tell the House what monitoring of the performance and progress of the hubs takes place? If there is any underachievement, what actions are taken to improve those hubs? What progress is being made towards the aim of having a qualified music teacher in each school?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for allowing me to take part in this interesting debate. It was a rare pleasure to encounter ancient philosophy in the preface to the audacious national plan for music education. The Government’s strategy from 2011 cites Plato’s words:
“Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, and life to everything”.
I believe those words. Dare I hope that music was a calming influence on even Michael Gove’s period of office in the Department for Education?
Unsurprisingly, there have been numerous studies about how the study of music and instruments benefits the brain. In 2003, Harvard neurologist Gottfried Schlaug identified notable differences in the brains of adult musicians versus non-musicians. More recently, studies at Northwestern University’s neuroscience labs in Illinois and Emory University in Atlanta have also pointed to the beneficial effect of childhood exposure to musical instruments, and suggest that playing music as a child can help compensate for cognitive declines in later life.
However, despite the weight of academic evidence about the benefits of music and the former Education Secretary’s pronouncement about Plato’s view that “Without music, life would be an error”, the Government are now countenancing consigning some children to such “erroneous” lives without music. Only three years ago, the Secretary of State for Education gave the assurance that the national plan for music education would achieve the Henley review’s guiding principle that:
“Children from all backgrounds and every part of England should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument”,
and,
“to learn to sing”.
It is reported that provision remains patchy, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, and access for all has not been achieved. Ofsted concluded that in the first year of operation, music provision remains weak and poorly led, and it found few examples of good practice in music hubs—brought into existence to improve the quality and consistency of music education—notwithstanding what the mayor has said about what is happening in London, and of course what is happening in Manchester.
Given all the work that remains to be done to realise the promised achievements of the national plan for music education, how can the Department for Education consult on removing the onus from local authorities to support music services? I hope that the Minister will pick up this point. The department’s consultation document points to music hubs to pick up the slack but with downwards budgetary pressure and patchiness of provision, surely this would jeopardise the principle of access for all children and undermine the Government’s strategy. Do the Government continue to support the principle that every child should have the chance to learn an instrument?
My work with people with an autism spectrum disorder, and my own family experience, have shown time and again how music can bring joy and peace and improve the quality of life of people for whom speech or social interaction are cumbersome. Autism takes many different forms but is a lifelong condition, believed to affect more than one in 100 people. It often affects verbal communication and social interaction. Some academic studies and a wealth of anecdotal evidence suggest that children with autism often respond very well to music.
As well as benefiting the brain, the study of instruments can calm people and help them to focus. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that the principle of learning an instrument can improve performance in other areas. Even simply listening can be edifying. Last month, I visited the Tower Project, a day centre for young autistic men and women in Tower Hamlets, where I met a young lady who could not speak but could sing. Music brought her the most happiness during her days at the centre. In these circumstances, music is not a luxury but is essential education.
Only yesterday, the Mayor of Newham told Members of Parliament how he has provided free instruments and tuition in music for all Newham children who wished to access this. I suggest that we should go further at looking at the potential of music education, particularly for people with autism and other developmental conditions. Local authorities, working in tandem with music hubs, are essential agents, given their links to schools and day centres. The onus on them to promote music education must be retained.
The national plan for music education identified that, unlike in art and drama, children with special educational needs are under-represented in music GCSE. What progress has been made in addressing this since the plan was published? How do the Government propose to increase the participation of children with autism and special educational needs in music classes?
I have never belonged to any of the elite music institutions that have thus far been mentioned, but music has been embedded in, and has enlightened, my life. I recall the role that music played in many freedom struggles across the globe, from the protest ballads of Bob Dylan and Joan Baez during the Vietnam War—inspiring a generation of young peace-seekers in the sixties—to the role of Shadhin Bangla Betar Radio belting out to the freedom-seeking citizens, “Amar sonar Bangla ami tomay bhalobasi”, the national anthem of Bangladesh, during the Bangladesh liberation war. It was secretly played by my mother, who took a great risk with her otherwise hidden radio, and inspired my generation. I can say with conviction that music can and does have a profound and lasting effect on a national psyche.
To deprive any child of a musical education is, in the spirit of a former Secretary of State for Education and the words of Plato before him, an error. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the right reverend Prelate that music education must not become the preserve of those children whose families can afford to pay for music tuition. Indeed, we should do more to harness its potential to improve the quality of life for the many disadvantaged in society. I hope the Minister will give some consideration and attention to this issue, particularly as to how we can safeguard music teaching and ensure that appropriately trained teachers are available to meet the needs of people with disabilities during these times of funding constraints.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the key question to ask about music education in schools is this: is the total number of school children from lower income groups leaving primary school who achieve a certain proficiency in the playing of recognised instruments increasing or decreasing? That is the fundamental measure which should tell us whether greater opportunities are being given to children in music education.
It is heart-warming to see all children playing in the school orchestra, but as James Rhodes has noted,
“banging an African drum for 30 minutes once a week for 10 weeks is not a music education”.
I would be wary, then, of arguments or statistics that revolve purely around participation.
A parent whose children are accomplished performers suggested to me that there are valid comparisons to be made between playing a musical instrument and participating in sport. Both require students to put in much time and effort in order to be at all good: there are basic skills to be learnt in playing the violin or piano, as in football or netball. These skills need to be taught by teachers who know what they are doing. Children need to be given the opportunity to begin in the early years to have a chance to develop their interest.
In this era of hubs and partnerships, I nevertheless believe that the emphasis still needs to be on the schools themselves and what the Government are doing for schools. That is where policy should be directed. I have, then, concerns about expert charities coming into schools in deprived areas. That is great in the short term for the schools concerned and may indeed help to change a culture, but there are questions. What about the schools that do not have the luxury of being serviced by such a charity? What happens if a charity disappears from the scene? The problem of music hubs being the major policy initiative is that it is too piecemeal and indirect a strategy to deal across the whole country with the underlying problem, which is, quite simply, lack of resources—hence Ofsted’s report last year that said there has been “little discernible difference” made to music in more than two-thirds of the schools investigated despite the current large spend on music hubs.
Ultimately, a culture of music education and music making must emanate from the schools themselves. But for this to happen, the Government must provide in all schools money dedicated to instrument buying, money for the specialist staff required—crucially in primary schools—and time for proper tuition, both in performing and listening to music. A school with an inherent culture of music-making and music education—or one encouraged to develop such a culture through the provision of resources—is likely to draw in every child with a potential interest in music. If the schools infrastructure is not addressed then the danger is, as for all arts education, that music will become the preserve of the middle classes, since it is expense—the same thing as lack of resources—that will exclude children from poorer backgrounds.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for tabling this debate this evening. I thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions. It is clear that across the House we have an understanding of the transformative power of music as well as an impressive unanimity on the challenges to this sector, which I am sure the noble Baroness will address.
Like many noble Lords, we welcomed the Henley report and the subsequent national plan for music. It led many to think that the Government finally understood the real significance of music in our schools and in our culture. Sadly, despite the excellent examples of good practice around the country which we have heard this evening, the overall reality is that the delivery of the national plan remains a source of frustration and disappointment to many. Why is this? We contend that the heart of the problem is inconsistency at government level. At the same time as Michael Gove was signing off the music national plan, he was devising a curriculum review which excluded music from the EBacc at GCSE level. Despite subsequent concessions in 2013, music now has to fight for space in the curriculum in a way it did not in the past. The result is that the numbers taking GCSE music have been dropping, down 9% since the last election.
As we have heard, this inconsistency is further illustrated by the rather precarious nature of the funding of music hubs. Again as we heard, in the three-year period from 2011 to 2014, national funding dropped from £82 million to £58 million. This was compounded by the DfE advising local authorities that they should no longer contribute to music education. While the announcement in July of an extra £18 million for music hubs was welcome, it does not balance the shortfall. As we have heard, this is creating a long-term funding crisis where the hubs feel unable to invest, employ staff or really develop the plans that they are expected to deliver.
Another consequence of this funding dilemma is the increasing evidence that music education is being casualised, with fewer full-time time music teachers working in schools and more working for hubs on zero-hour contracts, trying to supplement their incomes with private tuition and maybe even other less relevant work. The result of this is that the profession is being deskilled, with a lack of investment in music teachers and their continuing professional development as well as a lack of promotion possibilities for music teachers, which cannot be good for the quality of teaching going forward.
Finally, as the reports from Ofsted and the Arts Council have confirmed, the postcode lottery remains. Some music hubs are doing excellent work and others are struggling to make their mark. Some seem to have defined their role as data collectors and others seem to be paying themselves inflated salaries at the expense of improving local provision. At the same time, children from disadvantaged families continue to have less access to quality music education, so we are failing on the central mission of the national plan to extend a good musical education to all children.
We have to ask whether we are confident that the Arts Council has sufficient levers to raise the game of the mediocre music hubs and schools to that of the best. Where will the real drive and authority to meet the original aspirations come from? Will the new cultural education board bring sufficient additional clout to really make a difference? Surely what we need is a guarantee that every child will have a good musical grounding as well as access to watching the best live performers. Surely Ofsted could play a greater part by insisting that no school will be rated outstanding unless it delivers a broad and balanced curriculum, including a central role for the arts and more specifically, music.
I know that we have rehearsed these arguments and that there is a great deal of unanimity this evening. I hope that we have given the Minister sufficient challenges on which to come back and address those many issues. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really delightful debate and I have a huge personal interest in this. The best lesson that I learnt at school was to read music and sing, and it has given me a portable instrument which I have been able to take all around the world with small choirs. I feel that all children should have the same opportunity.
All noble Lords asked about disadvantaged children and music. It is a core role of music education hubs to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to learn a musical instrument through whole class ensemble teaching, and to help ensure that children from lower income backgrounds have access to instruments and tuition, hubs of discounted instrument hire and lessons for children who are in receipt of free school meals.
I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for enabling us to discuss with such expertise—and, it must be said, passion—the national plan for music education and the long-term financial sustainability of the hubs. As I know other noble Lords are aware, there is already much excellent work that we can celebrate following the publication of the plan in November 2011. The 123 hubs which were set up in August 2012, managed by Arts Council England, are working hard to improve the quality and consistency of music education throughout the country. Data from their first academic year of operation showed that, in that first year, hubs gave nearly 500,000 children the opportunity to learn an instrument for the first time as well as working with almost 15,000 school choirs, orchestras or bands.
In order to monitor progress against the plan we have set up a cultural education board chaired by Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Reform, Ed Vaizey, Minister of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Darren Henley, the managing director of Classic FM whose report led to the national plan for music education being adopted.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Lipsey, spoke about music hubs giving a patchy service and asked whether DfE will support hub leadership to improve. Arts Council England is putting in place a system of peer-to-peer support for hub leaders, and DfE is currently considering spending allocations to hubs for 2015-16 and will consider whether some of the money should support training for hub managers. Arts Council England is working with all hubs and directly challenging underperformance as well as supporting hubs to improve.
Noble Lords are aware that the plan provides a vision which extends to 2020 and confirmed three years’ funding. Long-term government funding cannot be decided ahead of next year’s general election, but we were very pleased to announce in July—several noble Lords referred to this—an extra £18 million for music education in 2015, which takes the total investment to at least £75 million for the next year. In total, £246 million has been provided for the first three and a half years. I have no access to the Prime Minister but, on his pledge to support sport until 2020, I am quite happy to pass the view of the House to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The national plan recognised that central government funding would provide a contribution to the work of music education hubs, rather than being expected to meet the full costs. A key feature of the hubs’ role is an increased emphasis on partnership working, and they are expected to attract additional investment from other sources. The pattern is very different across hubs. In one hub, government funding accounted for only 13% of the total. In others, government funding was the sole source. This needs to improve. Arts Council England is supporting hubs to improve their business and brokerage skills so that they can widen their income sources and expand their core services to schools and young people.
Arts Council England is looking at encouraging the spreading of good practice. In response to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Aberdare, who both used the word “patchy”, hubs are expected to draw in funding from a wide range of sources, such as local authorities, schools, parents and third-sector grants. There are many examples from across the country of hubs securing funding. Noble Lords asked for an example of children in deprived areas. In Hull, the hub has received £10,000 from one council ward to provide bursary funding for local pupils who cannot afford instrumental lessons. East Riding hub is receiving donations of up to £10,000 per year through its engagement with the parent-led Friends of the East Riding Youth Orchestras. In Kirklees, the hub has secured £10,000 from the John Paul Getty foundation to support its orchestral week initiatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, talked about the Tri-borough Music Hub north of the Thames. Perhaps it might like to work in partnership with the South London Riverside Partnership, which consists of the hubs of Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark working together. Those hubs south of the river united their resources and applied for a £99,000 grants for the arts award for a strategic project in partnership with the London Philharmonic Orchestra education team. The BrightSparks education concerts are designed to extend the work of music hubs by providing opportunities for more than 32,000 school children to engage with a symphony orchestra of world-class musicians. The sharing of knowledge, skills and resources between the music hubs and the orchestra has been key to the success of the project so far, helping to raise the profile of the hubs and enabling them to extend and sustain their offer to schools.
It is easy to focus on music education hubs and forget the other elements included in the national plan for music. It is important to be aware that we are continuing to fund the vibrant In Harmony programme, based on the famous El Sistema programme in Venezuela. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. Nothing is new. She was talking about learning the violin in groups, and I can remember my brother doing exactly the same 50 years ago. In Harmony aims to transform the lives of children in six deprived areas: Liverpool, Lambeth, Telford and Wrekin, Newcastle, Nottingham and Leeds.
We are continuing to fund Music for Youth, which provides opportunities for young musicians to perform in some of the UK’s most prestigious venues and gives thousands of young people the opportunity to experience a range of high-quality live music. Thousands of London school children had the opportunity to attend the Primary Proms in the Royal Albert Hall earlier this year, and thousands more children from across the UK will have the opportunity to perform in, or to attend, the School Proms which take place next month, again in the Royal Albert Hall.
My noble friend Lord Black asked me, on behalf of the Government, to reaffirm the commitment to conservatoires. The music and dance scheme receives £28 million a year from the DfE and shares the commitment to allowing all pupils the opportunity to fulfil their talents, regardless of income. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, might be interested to know that one of the recipients of that money is Wells Cathedral School. That sort of tradition is being carried on.
We are continuing to support national youth music organisations such as the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain. These provide opportunities for talented pupils to perform at the highest level, whatever their family income. As well as funding specific opportunities for pupils, the national plan was designed to improve the infrastructure and there has been progress here too. For example, the level 4 Certificate for Music Educators qualification has been developed by the music education sector to professionalise and acknowledge their role in and out of school. Students can train for the qualification with the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music or with Trinity College London. New resources aimed at supporting primary teachers to teach music have been developed and published.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked what the Government are doing to support the sharing of good practice; I think that I have covered that reasonably well. My noble friend Lady Walmsley asked about the EBacc; it is one of those chestnuts that keep coming around. Music GCSE continues to be the headline measure of school performance—the five As to Cs including English and maths measure. Reformed accountability measures from 2016 will include eight subjects, including music.
I still have many questions to answer, so I intend to respond by letter to noble Lords whose questions I have not had time to answer. However, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, talk about music therapy. This was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who spoke about autism; of course, she is an expert in that area. There is a need to start early, to train the muscles and get the muscle memory going. There is the mantra of singing with instruments, solos and in groups. We must work at it. There are large events that children gain so much from going to see and take part in; we have spoken about the proms.
The Government cannot act alone. We are working with schools, hubs, local authorities, the music education sector, music charities, commercial organisations and others to support the vision of a high-quality music education for all young people across England. By drawing the organisations together, we are now witnessing the start of a new era of partnership working in the music sector for the long term. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the debate—and, I hope, my letter—that the national plan for music education is alive and well and that music hubs will continue to play an increasingly pivotal role in promoting and delivering its aspirations for many years to come.