House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
1. What progress he has made on reducing the number of people in workless households.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, given the weekend’s events in my borough, may I take the opportunity, on behalf of myself and colleagues in all parts of the House, to wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured by the tragic events at the tube station in Leytonstone?
When we took office, almost one in five households had no one in work and around 1.4 million people had been on benefits for most of the previous decade. Since 2010 the number of workless households has fallen by over 680,000 to its lowest level since records began.
Dr Lee
My constituency covers the major part of Bracknell Forest. In 2014 it had the second highest percentage of working households in the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that continuing to encourage households into work is one of the most effective ways of improving the life chances of everyone in that family?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is right that growing up in a working family is crucial for the life chances of children. When this Government took office, there were more than 2.5 million children growing up in workless households. That has fallen by nearly half a million since 2010. By targeting worklessness, the five new life chance measures that we have introduced will make an enormous difference to children’s lives. I understand that there are now almost no workless households in the south-east.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I ask the Secretary of State to be a little careful—none of us should get complacent about worklessness. Has he seen the research in the United States on the Uberisation of work, when people cease to have good employers with pensions, rights and contracts, and are increasingly pushed into self-employment, where they have no rights?
Mr Duncan Smith
By the way, I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. It is good to see him back in his place; I understand he has had some difficulties with health treatments.
The hon. Gentleman would be right, if that were the trend and the direction in which we were going. It is interesting that there is a difference between us and the United States. The vast majority of the jobs that have been created here are white-collar and full-time. That is important. Although we think that people being self-employed is excellent for those who choose to do it, we are seeing a huge trend in supported jobs with full pay and full-time work.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The selling point of the Government’s universal credit scheme was that it was supposed to increase work incentives. However, the reduction in work allowances in universal credit due to take effect in April next year will leave around 35,000 working households with no transitional protection and thousands of pounds worse off. Does the Secretary of State accept that these changes will actively disincentivise people to go into work, particularly lone parents?
Mr Duncan Smith
I do not. Universal credit is acting as a huge incentive to go back to work. Even the statistics published over the weekend show that universal credit means that people are 8% more likely to go into work than was the case with jobseeker’s allowance. I remind the hon. Lady that jobseeker’s allowance has been seen by many in the western world as one of the most successful back-to-work benefits. Universal credit performs even better than jobseeker’s allowance by some considerable degree.
Dr Whiteford
With respect, the Secretary of State did not answer the question about the 35,000 households and about transitional relief coming into effect for April 2016, so I ask him again: what about those people who stand to be thousands of pounds worse off in April?
Mr Duncan Smith
As I said before, first, people are getting back to work. Secondly, those who are on universal credit at present will be fully supported through the flexible support fund, which will provide all the resources necessary to ensure that their situation remains exactly the same as it is today.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister has seen the figures that I have. May I take him from rhetoric back to reality? The figures show that although there has been a rise in employment in the past three months, the number of hours that we have worked as a country has fallen. It is a good thing that unemployment has gone down, but surely we need to address under-employment, particularly when there are 3 million people who say they are under-employed. I saw that over the weekend his Minister for Employment was flogging temporary part-time jobs for people to dress up as Santa Claus, but perhaps it would be better if his Department spent a bit more time trying to ensure full-time permanent well paid work for people.
Mr Duncan Smith
It is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to get up and start attacking the Government’s record of getting more people back to work, more people in full-time work and more people in managerial positions. When we took over from the Labour Government, there was a complete collapse of the economy, with people lucky to get a job and even lucky to get part-time work. Two thirds of the rise in employment since 2010 has been in managerial, professional jobs, and permanent jobs are up over 476,000. That is not rhetoric; those are realities.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
2. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people who are long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by over a third over the past year, and our goal is to make sure that all young people are either earning or learning. We continue to provide extra support for young people on benefits and will introduce the new youth obligation in 2017.
Mr Allen
With the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is before the House today, will the Minister do more to devolve greater control of the Work programme to councils and more to empower local managers? When universal credit comes in, will she ensure that the DWP works closely with councils on that support in order to transform the delivery of services to vulnerable people?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and congratulate him on the work he has being doing locally in his community with the DWP and other partners, and the local authority too. He is absolutely right. Through the Work programme, and under devolution, we are working with communities, local authorities, jobcentres and other partners and stakeholders—the specialist organisations that can provide the right kind of support to support employment and to help to get more people back to work. He is absolutely right to hold up his area as a good local example.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that helping young people to embrace work experience opportunities and encouraging employers to create those is essential if we are to tackle youth unemployment and bridge the skills gap?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we can never stand still in relation to employment and young people. I mentioned the youth obligation that we will bring in in 2017, but we are also developing skills and work experience. Supporting young people through work experience and traineeships is absolutely vital, and I know that she has promoted that in her constituency.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
As the Minister will be aware, we are now coming to the festive period, meaning that many people will find temporary jobs. Last year, from October to December, the number of young people in work in my constituency increased by about 15%, and after Christmas it dropped by 10%. What measures is her Department taking to ensure that people are not trapped in a cycle of temporary work?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is right that this is obviously the time of year when there is more seasonal employment in the run-up to Christmas, but support is provided to continue employment after such seasons. Jobcentre Plus will be supporting those who may be in part-time jobs to secure longer-term jobs. I come back to the fundamental principle that it is better to be in work, and have the experience of being in work, so as to develop long-term career and employment opportunities afterwards.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The opening of the new Primark warehouse at Islip will bring 1,000 new jobs to my area and help to reduce youth unemployment. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this jobs boost, and would she like to visit next year when it opens?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind invitation. We are only getting these new jobs created because we have a secure and sound economy owing to our long-term economic plan. Importantly, employers such as Primark and many other retailers are creating great employment opportunities for our young people. I would be delighted to come to open the centre in his constituency with him next year.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
3. Whether he plans for benefit sanctions to be applicable to people referred to the proposed work and health programme.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The Department is developing new provision to support people with health conditions and disabilities and those who are very long-term unemployed. We are currently developing the design of the programme, including the conditionality that will be a feature of it.
Kate Hollern
A survey by mental health charity Mind revealed that a shocking 83% of employment and support allowance claimants referred to the Work programme found that it made their mental health state worse. Will the Government’s new Work and Health programme end the utterly shameful sanctions regime which often leaves those with mental illnesses less likely to access work?
Priti Patel
I am sure the hon. Lady will also recognise that more than 60% of individuals who are on the employment and support allowance say that they want to work as well. That is why we will launch the new Work and Health programme, to look at how we can deliver vital employment support, which I am sure the hon. Lady and all other Members will welcome, to those individuals who are furthest away from the labour market but who want to work. We will do that in conjunction with our stakeholders and better target the accompanying support to get them back into work. Additional funding was made available in the summer Budget for support for those who are furthest away from the labour market, particularly those with health conditions.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on anyone who suggests scrapping the existing sanctions scheme to propose an effective alternative, because there has to be some means of ensuring compliance with the rules?
Priti Patel
Of course, my hon. Friend raises a valid point about what the Labour party is now clearly saying, despite the fact that sanctions have been in place for a considerable time, including under previous Labour Governments. The purpose of sanctions is to support claimants and to encourage them back to work. Let us also remember that the sanctions are there for claimants to comply with reasonable requirements, which are developed with the claimant as well as the work coach.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
In the Work programme, extra help has been given to jobseekers who have been out of work for 12 months, but under the new programme it will not be until two years have passed. Will Jobcentre Plus get extra resources to support people who have been out of work for between one and two years, given that the Work programme’s successor will not be doing that?
Priti Patel
The new programme will be accompanied by a structural reform that will better target support for those individuals who are furthest away from the labour market. On top of that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised again today, universal credit in particular will provide support and engagement for those individuals who are furthest away from the labour market but who are looking for work. Alongside that, the new Work and Health programme will integrate services, particularly for those with mental health conditions or health barriers, to help them get closer to the labour market and back into work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Shockingly, a number of people have died after being sanctioned and we are still waiting for the Government to publish the data on them. We do know, however, following the recent publication of an academic report, that between 2010 and 2013 the Government’s work capability assessment process was associated with an additional 590 suicides. Given that Maximus, the company the Government contracted to deliver work capability assessments, has reported
“not being able to meet certain performance metrics”,
when will the Secretary of State admit not only that his work capability assessment reforms are a danger to claimants’ health, but that they are not fit for purpose and need a complete overhaul?
Priti Patel
Let me remind the hon. Lady that it was her party in government that introduced the work capability assessment—[Interruption.] Let me also point out, as she makes remarks from a sedentary position, that we have brought in a number of reforms, of which she and all other Members will be aware. We are very clear that sanctions are constantly under review, hence the five reviews we have had. Finally, on the data the hon. Lady has just presented to the House, she cannot justifiably or credibly extrapolate those figures and apply them to sanctions and this Government’s policies, because they are completely incorrect.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the trial of locating jobcentre advisers at food banks.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the trial of locating jobcentre advisers at food banks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Jobcentre work coaches undertake outreach work every day in local communities and have recently been helping people with back-to-work support and advice at the Lalley Welcome Centre in Manchester, where a food bank sits alongside other support services. The test is at an early stage and the Department will make the findings public in due course.
Diana Johnson
Despite the fall in unemployment, many working families across the country will be relying on food banks this Christmas. I pay tribute to Sarah Sidwell and her staff at the food bank in Hull. Is putting jobcentre staff in food banks not actually an acknowledgement of the shambolic nature of the benefits system, which is affecting people? Should the Minister not think very long and hard about sorting out the system rather than applying a plaster and putting jobcentre staff in food banks?
Mr Vara
May I gently remind the hon. Lady that we were invited, at the request of Sister Rita, to go to Lalley Welcome Centre, which also hosts other agencies? I might also say to the hon. Lady that that particular centre has a job club, which makes eminent sense. I presume she does not object to that. If she is happy to have a job club there, why on earth does she object to our going there to help people when we have been invited to go there?
Mr Hanson
Will the Minister confirm whether Lord Prior will join in the evaluation of services at that job centre and food bank? As the Minister will know, Lord Prior has indicated that obesity seems to be a problem, rather than poverty. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will include an examination of the reasons why sanctions and benefit delays cause problems for those going to food banks?
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
From my point of view, there is great potential in co-siting jobcentres and food banks if it is done in the right way. On a related subject, can the Minister envisage a future in which jobcentres and councils are co-located across the country?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
In relation to this trial, has the Minister noticed today’s report in the Western Morning News, which says that food bank usage has dropped by 25% in Devon and Cornwall? Does he agree with the Trussell Trust that that is
“a sign that economic recovery is giving more people access to secure work”?
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I report to the Minister the progress in Birkenhead? A benefits adviser has been working in the food bank there, and the number of people having to come back for a second bag of food has dropped by 65%. Whenever the Secretary of State refers to this experiment, he talks about “benefit advisers”, while other senior people in the Department talk about “work coaches”. Might the Minister persuade the Secretary of State to say that his phrase is not an offensive one? If someone who is hungry thinks that the person at the food bank is a work coach, it might put them off going to the food bank in the first place?
Mr Vara
Both terms are applicable. May I just say that we should not get bogged down in the terminology? The important thing is to make sure that people actually have support to get them back to work. As we just heard in the quote from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), our long-term plan is working. We want to make sure that as many people as possible are in work so that they do not have to resort to food banks.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Is the Minister surprised that the Secretary of State has never bothered to visit a food bank? Presumably, people in his Department have spoken to people in food banks. The message we get loud and clear from people in food banks is that the most important thing the Department can do is to fix its broken system of sanctions and stop benefit delays.
Mr Vara
It is always helpful if, when Front Benchers say things at the Dispatch Box, they are accurate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited food banks. As far as sanctions are concerned, may I just tell the hon. Lady that the Oakley review said that 71% of people found sanctions helpful in encouraging them to find jobs?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
5. What steps he is taking to encourage people on low pay to progress through training.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
For the first time, universal credit will support claimants in work to earn more. Work coaches will provide tailored support to claimants on low wages to improve their pay. To help to develop our package of support for people in work, we are implementing a comprehensive test and learn strategy to understand better the impact that labour market policies can have on helping people on low incomes to get jobs in which they earn more.
Neil Carmichael
Does the Minister agree that having a high-skill, high-pay economy is exactly the way to drive up productivity and, crucially, social mobility, which is the key thing underpinning the Government’s strategy?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Low pay and training needs affect many disabled people. Two years ago, almost to the day, the Department announced the extension of the Access to Work programme to disabled people seeking training, internships and apprenticeships. How many people have benefited from that scheme and when will we hear about its progress?
Mr Vara
We are very close to record levels as far as that initiative is concerned. As I said earlier, our long-term economic plan is continuing. While I am at the Dispatch Box, may I say that the House has considerable sympathy with all that the hon. Gentleman and a lot of his colleagues are going through?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
May I pay tribute to your office, Mr Speaker, for the way in which it has combated exploitative internships, which are often unpaid and are used to exploit many young people? Many people begin their career progression with an internship. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that young people are not exploited through long-term unpaid internships?
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
6. What estimate he has made of the proportion of working families likely to be affected by the Government’s reforms to benefits.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
We are fundamentally reforming the welfare system to ensure that the benefits of work are always clear for all. As part of that, we are supporting working families who are on benefits to progress in work, increase their earnings and move away from welfare dependency.
Mr Hepburn
The Government’s humiliating U-turn on tax credits is to be welcomed, but the Chancellor has confirmed that another £12 billion of welfare cuts will take place. Is it not a fact that those cuts will affect the poorest, the most vulnerable and those who are struggling to survive in society, like families?
Mr Duncan Smith
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it was made clear at the Budget by the Chancellor that the total package of changes includes changes to the welfare budget of £12 billion, but that other Departments are also involved in the process of getting rid of the deficit. I thought that the Labour party had said it was in favour of getting rid of the deficit, so the question is what it plans to do. I remind him that a huge amount of the savings are being made because more people are going back to work and fewer people are therefore claiming benefits.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following on from what the Secretary of State has just said, if the British people vote to come out of the EU, we will not be giving £350 million a week or more than £1 billion every three weeks to the EU. Would he welcome some of that money for his Department?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend must not dare tempt me in that direction. What is really important is that we run our economy here in the UK for the benefit of citizens of the UK. We have made our position clear: we want to ensure that those who have not been here for a certain period of time and have not contributed are not able to draw upon our benefits system.
Mr Speaker
On the whole, because the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is dextrous, he was just about within order, but I counsel colleagues that they should take great care, as a general principle, not to shoehorn their personal preoccupations into questions to which they do not obviously relate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
That’s the only thing he does!
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Government’s forced U-turn on tax credits is very welcome to the families in my constituency who were set to be affected by the cut, but many people are being moved on to the universal credit system and will be similarly impacted. Young people will not qualify for the Government’s so-called national living wage. How do the Government reconcile that with the aim of making work pay?
Mr Duncan Smith
The key thing is that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, there is nothing new in the spending review when compared with the Budget. It said that
“the long term generosity of the welfare system will be cut just as much as was ever intended”.
In other words, the £12 billion of savings is pretty much exactly as was announced in the Budget. I say to the hon. Gentleman that universal credit has a huge effect. We published figures this week to show that universal credit means that more people go into work faster, stay in work longer and are likely to earn more money. That is a huge change and it will affect young people dramatically, as much as it will anybody else.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The reforms to benefits, whereby work should always pay more than welfare, are welcome in Louth and Horncastle. As we roll out universal credit across my constituency, will the Secretary of State join me in my constituency to see the changes for himself, including the 40 new jobs just created in Louth at the supermarket Aldi?
Mr Duncan Smith
I know how hard my hon. Friend campaigns to get employment up in her constituency. I am more than happy to come and support her to show that more people are getting jobs as a result of our welfare changes. Unlike the previous Government who spent money and changed very few lives, we are spending less money but changing more lives for the better.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said yesterday that “nobody will lose a penny” under his changes to universal credit, which was a surprise to me. On Friday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a report showing that the Government intend to cut £100 million from the universal credit work allowance next year, £1.2 billion the year after that, and then £2.2 billion, £2.9 billion and £3.2 billion by 2020. By my count, that is a trillion pennies. Will the Secretary of State clarify his remarks and tell us precisely which workers are going to lose them?
Mr Duncan Smith
I just wish the hon. Gentleman would actually go and visit a universal credit site to see the huge difference it is making. In answer to his question, as the IFS said
“no family will take an immediate…hit”
from being moved on to universal credit. [Interruption.] Hold on a second. I remember that it was the Labour party that got rid of the 10p tax starting rate and did not cash protect anybody at all. We are transitionally protecting those who are moving on to universal credit. Maybe the hon. Gentleman is against that. If so, would he like to say why?
Owen Smith
Again, the Secretary of State says this Budget made no changes. He is right, because the changes had already been passed in the summer Budget and in the statutory instrument. The truth is that the Chancellor bailed himself out of the hole he dug on tax credits by raiding the universal credit system, creating a deeply unfair two-tier system. A working mother on universal credit will next year be £3,000 worse off than her equivalent on tax credits. In all, 2.6 million families will be £1,600 on average worse off. It is the new IDS postcode lottery: it is arbitrary, it is unfair, and if you are a low-wage working mother, it could be you.
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman’s party, which opposed universal credit from the outset, can hardly say that it is the slightest bit interested in how it works. The reality is that all those calculations for lone parents do not take into consideration—[Interruption.] No, they don’t. The childcare package that comes with universal credit is dramatic. Unlike tax credit—[Interruption.] Perhaps he would like to just keep quiet and listen for once to somebody who knows what they are talking about. I say to him very simply that the childcare package for universal credit gives parents with children childcare support every single hour while they are in work. Under tax credit, they got next to nothing.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
8. What progress he has made in rolling out universal credit; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
9. What the cost to the public purse of implementation of universal credit has been to date; and how many people have been enrolled on universal credit.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
18. What progress he has made in rolling out universal credit; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Universal credit is rolling out as planned: on track and on time. I can announce today that it will be in every jobcentre by April next year. Estimates of the total cost of implementation have fallen from £2.4 billion to £1.7 billion, with £0.6 billion having been spent to date. Over a quarter of a million people have now made claims to universal credit.
Helen Whately
I recently visited my local jobcentre in Sittingbourne. Job coaches told me how well universal credit is working, giving claimants more flexibility to work and coaches more time to support them. Does the Secretary of State agree that universal credit is helping people into work and making work pay? Will he press on with the roll-out so more people can benefit?
Mr Duncan Smith
Even on the figures we have published in the past 24 hours, it is a reality that people on universal credit are much more likely to get into work, work longer and earn more money—that is the key bit. Rolling out universal credit has a massive effect on the likelihood of people entering into decent work. I also remind my hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) obviously did not want to listen to this fact—that under universal credit the childcare package is for every hour they work all the way up until the moment they leave the benefits system.
Mr Cunningham
What does the Secretary of State have to say about the value-for-money aspects of universal credit, given that only 2% of people have participated and it has cost £3.25 billion to introduce?
Mr Duncan Smith
The cost of universal credit implementation has fallen: it was originally forecast to cost £2.4 billion but is now due to cost £1.7 billion. To give Labour Members a concept of what value for money looks like—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has no idea about value for money because he has been on the Labour Benches for too long.
Mr Duncan Smith
With respect, I meant the Labour Member sitting just below him. The number of people getting back into work directly as a result of universal credit has had a net benefit to the Exchequer of £3 billion-plus. I call that a real benefit in real terms.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the fact that universal credit reached my constituency about five weeks ago, but for the benefit of constituents concerned about what will happen when they move from tax credits to universal credit, will the Secretary of State confirm when that move will now take place?
Mr Duncan Smith
It does not suit the Opposition to know it, but all those who transfer from tax credits, through the legacy system, into universal credit will be transitionally protected. That is critical. They do not want to know that, because, as I said, they are the party who failed to transitionally protect anybody when they abolished the 10p tax rate.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
We welcome the apparent tax credits U-turn, but it appears that the cuts to the work allowance, which will still go ahead under universal credit, will hit families just as hard. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the tax credits U-turn will also apply to the corresponding elements of universal credit, or will he confirm our suspicions that this so-called U-turn is merely a delaying tactic?
Mr Duncan Smith
The universal credit position is exactly as set out at the time of the summer Budget, which means, as we understand it and calculate it, and as figures released in the last 24 hours show categorically, there will be a huge improvement in the numbers of people going back to work, working full time and earning more money. I absolutely believe that, in the next few years, the hon. Gentleman will be one of the first to say, “Thank God we introduced universal credit.”
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
11. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of paying universal credit to households rather than individuals or women experiencing financial abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
For a minority of claimants, including women who may be victims of financial abuse, alternative payment arrangements can be made. We can split payments to members of the household, where necessary, under universal credit. Furthermore, jobcentre staff are trained to identify vulnerable claimants and can signpost individuals, at their request, to local domestic abuse support organisations for further help and support.
Owen Thompson
Research carried out earlier this year by the Trade Union Congress and Women’s Aid, “Unequal, Trapped and Controlled”, found that universal credit had far-reaching implications for women experiencing financial abuse and, in particular, that the single household payment could leave women and their children in financial hardship. Current arrangements could make it difficult for victims to declare the need for a single household payment for fear of their abuser finding out. Will the Secretary of State commit to asking all claimants automatically if they require an alternative payment arrangement, including the choice of paying their landlord directly, to ensure that women and children are protected from destitution and homelessness?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I think we all agree that there is no room for domestic violence or abuse in a civilised society in the 21st century. Advisers are well trained and look out for victims. They look at who has care and responsibility for children and, where appropriate, can split payments or make them more often than once a month—certainly they can be treated differently from those in normal circumstances.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
12. What steps he is taking to ensure that earnings limits applicable to benefits are well publicised.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The way earnings are treated is different across the benefits, but the majority of benefits do not have an earnings limit. Individuals can find general information on benefit eligibility at gov.uk, or they can speak to their local jobcentre staff and work coaches.
Kirsten Oswald
My constituent, a dedicated carer for a member of her family, was awarded carer’s allowance. She took on two small jobs to make up her earnings and to allow her to contribute to the community, while being careful to stay within the weekly and four-weekly earnings limits she had been advised of, so she was shocked to get a call telling her she had breached a monthly limit that she knew nothing about. Does the Minister think that laying that kind of tripwire for claimants is an appropriate way to deal with someone such as my constituent, who is trying her best to make a contribution to both her family and the community?
Priti Patel
I would make two points. I am happy to look at the case, but when it comes to the carer’s allowance, we increased the earnings threshold in April 2015 by 8%. Importantly, this is about providing the right structured approach to support carers who want to work and get the balance right regarding their caring responsibilities.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
13. What recent representations he has received on the discretion which may be exercised by his Department’s staff when recovering benefit overpayments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
The Secretary of State has a duty to protect public funds and to ensure, wherever possible, that a benefit overpayment is recovered. Discretion is exercised where it is not cost-effective to recover an overpayment, or where recovery would cause undue hardship, and is subject to guidelines from Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I accept that completely, but since April it has been possible to recover benefit at a rate of 40% from jobseeker’s allowance. There is much evidence that that is becoming the normal figure. There is no appeal, and on review, people are being told that even if they do not have enough money to eat, that is not a sufficient reason to be able to appeal against the benefit recovery. Will the Minister ask his officials to look seriously at this issue and how it is affecting the poorest people?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I know he has been tenacious in working in this area, particularly on behalf of a number of his residents. There is discretion in the system applied to repayment rates, but the claimant must prove that there is genuine hardship and talk to the debt management team. There is an appeals process, but I will look further into it further.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
14. What progress he has made in reducing the rate of youth unemployment.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Youth unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in over seven years. In addition, the proportion of young people who have left full-time education and are unemployed—5.9%—has never been lower.
Mr Mak
The Wheatsheaf Trust runs an employment access centre, helping young people off benefit and into work in my Havant constituency. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the trust on its work on the ground and confirm that the Government will continue to put young people at the heart of their aspiration for full employment and their long-term economic plan?
Priti Patel
Of course I congratulate the Wheatsheaf Trust on the work it does, and I know that my hon. Friend has made youth unemployment and getting young people back into work a priority in his own constituency. He is, of course, right that as a Government we are committed to helping more young people to secure employment opportunities, which is why we will continue to support work experience programmes and traineeships and will introduce a new youth obligation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
But too many of the apprenticeships have been going to older people who are already in jobs. Does the Minister agree that what is really needed is apprenticeships that provide intermediate and advanced high-level skills and qualifications that are valuable both for young people and the success of our economy?
Priti Patel
I view all apprenticeship skills as providing value-added to our economy. Let me provide the example of my visit to Pimlico Plumbers last Thursday. They are investing in young people and taking on young apprentices—[Interruption.] I hear Labour Members being disparaging about the employer organisation, but it is creating employment and career opportunities for young people, as does every other business and employer organisation that takes young people on at an apprenticeship level. Those organisations are the future; they are the ones investing in our young people, creating great career opportunities and passing on skills for our economy.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
15. What progress he has made in reducing the rate of unemployment.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The unemployment rate, at 5.3%, has fallen by a third since 2010—[Interruption.] I hear sighs from Labour Members, which shows that they have no interest in employment growth in this country.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady says, “Grow up”. Perhaps Labour Members should put aside the disparaging comments they make every time we speak about employment opportunities and growth in the economy. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for over seven years. In addition, the number of people in work has risen by over 2.1 million since 2010.
James Morris
Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 50% since 2010, which has given a lot of security to a lot of people in my constituency. Does she agree that some individuals who might be suffering from long-term mental health conditions want to work, but encounter considerable barriers preventing them from getting back into employment? Does she therefore agree that we need to redouble our efforts to enable those people to get back into work because it is critical to their cure that they do so?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has drawn attention to two important facts: the fact that unemployment has fallen in his constituency and there are more people in work there, and the barriers—particularly mental health conditions—that prevent people from working. We will be launching a new Work and Health programme, and looking into how we can integrate services to provide the right kind of support to help such people to return to work.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Between June 2011 and June 2015 there were 10,920 referrals to the Work programme in my constituency, 21% of which resulted in jobs. Those figures would improve, and employment would be further reduced, if the assessment of claimants that is carried out at the beginning of the process were more adequate and consistent, and ensured that crucial characteristics such as drug problems were not missed. When will the Government introduce changes to the assessment process?
Priti Patel
The Select Committee and many others have said that the Work programme has been one of the most successful employment programmes that the country has seen. Naturally, we constantly review our work in respect of assessments, but we are focusing on targeted support for individuals, because we all want the right outcomes for them. We all want to help them to return to work, and to give them the tailor-made support that they need. Rather than adopting the hon. Lady’s disparaging approach, we are saying that those people need help, and that we will give them help so that they can get back into work.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
17. What his policy is on requiring injured veterans to attend work capability assessments.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
When a service medical board decides that a disabled person should be discharged from the forces, we will use its evidence to determine eligibility whenever possible.
Jo Churchill
I raise this matter on behalf of my constituent Private Troy Watkins, an ex-serviceman who receives payments from the war pensions scheme and who was also awarded a lifetime disability living allowance. Private Watkins is excluded from access to the armed forces independent payment scheme, which, unlike the war pensions scheme, requires just one assessment. Does the Minister agree that what we have at present is a two-tier system which discriminates against service personnel such as Private Watkins, and will she meet me to discuss the way in which it affects him?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I shall of course be happy to meet her. I think it right for the House to recognise the sacrifices made by all members of our armed forces who have been injured as a result of service to our nation.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
19. What progress he has made on increasing the number of people with disabilities who are in work; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
In the last two years the number of disabled people in work has increased by 339,000, but we recognise that the gap between the employment rates of disabled and non-disabled people remains too large, which is why our ambition is to halve it.
William Wragg
May I invite the Minister to a Disability Confident event in my constituency, which will take place next spring? He will meet some brilliant charities, such as Independent Options and ARC, which provide work for, and teach life skills to, people with a range of disabilities.
Justin Tomlinson
I should be delighted to accept that kind invitation. Our reforms of the support that is given to people with disabilities who want to work will give local organisations great opportunities. On Friday I visited Foxes Academy, which has a success rate of more than 50% in providing work for people with learning disabilities; that contrasts with the national average of 6%. Local flexibility is vital.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
21. When his Department next plans to publish information on people who have died after undergoing work capability assessments.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
There are no plans to publish such information.
Tommy Sheppard
That is a source of great regret. A recent study by Liverpool and Oxford Universities concluded that 590 suicides were linked to work capability assessments. When will the Department stop hiding behind excuses and publish the information that we seek, so that we can examine the effect of the claimant system on suicide rates?
Priti Patel
We do not agree with those claims, and the authors themselves caution that no conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
22. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of changes to housing benefit announced in the spending review and autumn statement 2015 on people under 35.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
To introduce fairness, we will cap housing benefit at the appropriate local housing allowance rate for the area from April 2018 when a new tenancy is taken out or a tenancy is renewed after April 2016. That means that the housing benefit of single claimants under 35 who take on a new tenancy or renew a tenancy will be restricted to the local housing allowance shared accommodation rate.
Teresa Pearce
Research shows that it is fairly unusual for people under 35 without children to be given social housing, but the exception to that is care leavers. Can the Minister let the House know whether there will be any safeguards or exemptions for vulnerable care leavers?
Justin Tomlinson
To clarify, this will be a flow measure so there will be no cash losers among those already in the system. We will be looking at the protections in place, recognising those in the private sector which include protection for care leavers.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
I am pleased to be able to update the House today on the next stage of universal credit roll-out. Universal credit is available now in three quarters of all jobcentres, and by April next year will be available nationally. Building on that, the digital service is already in a number of jobcentres, and I can announce that it is being extended to a further five jobcentres as early as next year—to Hounslow, Musselburgh, Purley, Thornton Heath and Great Yarmouth prior to May 2016, when the digital service will be rolled out nationally.
Jo Stevens
I invite the Secretary of State to confirm that current claimants of universal credit will face losses next April as a result of cuts to the work allowance. Can he explain to the House why there is no transitional protection for universal credit, as there is for tax credit recipients?
Mr Duncan Smith
I thought I had made this clear, but I will make it clear again. For those already on universal credit, advisers will support them through the additional resources and the flexible support fund to ensure that their status remains the same. Those moving from tax credit to universal credit are transitionally protected, as has already been stated.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
T2. What steps are being taken to support those with early onset dementia through the ESA process and, where appropriate, how do we support those who wish to continue in work to do so?
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
We fully recognise the devastating impact that a diagnosis such as early onset dementia can have on individuals and their families. That is why we have the work capability assessment, which is designed to ensure that any claimant who is severely affected can be identified at the earliest possible stages and is supported. They will of course be placed on to the highest rate of benefit, where there has been such a diagnosis, and they will be free from any conditionality.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
At the election, the Conservative party promised to exempt pensioners from their proposed benefit freeze, yet as a consequence of the autumn statement some 400,000 of those on pension credit will see their benefits cut, and 800,000 will see it frozen. [Interruption.] There is no point in Ministers looking puzzled; I would have thought they would learn to read the small print of the Chancellor’s economic statements by now. How can it be right, when three quarters of pensioners are facing a choice between heating and eating this Christmas, to be taking more than £100 a year away from so many older people?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The hon. Gentleman really must move away from student politics. This Government have done more for pensioners than any other Government. They are benefiting more now than they would have under any system introduced by the Labour party. The triple lock is making sure they have more money. We have also maintained a lot of the universal benefits, so we on this side of the House will take no lectures from those on that side of the House.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
T6. I recently visited UK Interactive Entertainment to learn more about the work of Special Effect, a charity working with disabled people to make video games accessible to all. How can we further utilise technology to assist those with disabilities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
I was delighted to join my hon. Friend on the visit to that fantastic charity, which has widespread support including from the Prime Minister and the deputy leader of the Labour party. Technology is key to removing barriers and I am delighted that we have the innovative technology prize—we will be announcing the winner in March—which shows that creating innovation and creating more opportunities will reduce more barriers.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. I have a constituent, a single mother of three, who was declared fit for work despite having ongoing complex mental and physical health problems. Since the verdict, she has phoned my office and she says she cannot take any more. Her doctor has also increased her medication for depression. Will the Government admit that in this instance and many others they are pushing the fit for work test too far and it is having an adverse effect on people’s health?
Priti Patel
I would be very happy to look at the constituency case that the hon. Lady has just raised. I also remind her and the House that we have already had five reviews of the WCA.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T7. Since 2010, unemployment in Weaver Vale has decreased by 54%. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the hard-working staff of Jobcentre Plus who have helped to make that happen? Is it not an example of this Government’s long-term economic plan delivering for hard-working taxpayers in Weaver Vale?
Mr Duncan Smith
As my hon. Friend knows, I visited him the other day in his constituency, where he is doing an exemplary job, as is the jobcentre. Employment is improving and unemployment is falling, and that is happening nationally as well as with him. I would be very happy to visit him again.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
T4. Hounslow Community FoodBox in my constituency is a food bank service that is, sadly, growing. A recent worrying trend has been the police bringing people into the FoodBox who have been caught shoplifting because they have no way of affording food. They have fallen through the net. Will the Secretary of State review past decisions to withdraw DWP emergency funds in the case of people who would otherwise be left destitute?
Mr Duncan Smith
We have actually gone in exactly the opposite direction. We are making sure that in all jobcentres, and in all correspondence, individuals are notified that if they have difficulty they will have full access to crisis loans and advance payments. There is no reason for anybody in the benefits system to find that they have no money. They need to go and speak to the jobcentre advisers or ring them on the telephone and they will find themselves supported.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment, I welcome the unemployment figures in my constituency, but will the Minister tell me what more can be done to help the hardest-to-reach young people into work?
Priti Patel
I welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing through the APPG. We recognise that we can never stand still in this area. There is always more to be done to support young people through work experience, traineeships and, importantly, working with employers to encourage them to take on more young people and get them into the labour market, invest in them and train them so that they have skills for the future.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
T5. A devastating announcement has been made in the days before Christmas by Shop Direct, which covers the Littlewoods and Very brands, and its partner, Webhelp, that 400 call centre jobs in my constituency are to be lost. Those jobs are to be transferred 6,000 miles away to South Africa. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that the people affected by those redundancies will get all the support and help they need from his Department?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that. All support will be given by Jobcentre Plus. If it has not already done so, I will ensure that it puts a specialist team in to make sure that all those people are seen as a priority, that all their skills are assessed and that they are got into jobs as quickly as possible. If, however, he would like to come and see me about this or if he can think of anything else we can do, I can assure him we will do everything we can to help his constituents at this time.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Minister please inform the House of the specific plans for constituencies such as mine which have very high rates of employment but suffer proportionally high rates of long-term unemployment?
Priti Patel
I know that my hon. Friend is doing a great deal of work locally in the employment space through apprenticeship fairs and things of that nature. When it comes to supporting people who are suffering long-term unemployment, we are working with our jobcentres and employers and, importantly, Work programme providers to get people closer to the labour market, to support them through training schemes and to nurture them so that they have an easier, smoother journey into work.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
T8. I was delighted to hear from the Minister about all the work that the Government are doing for pensioners. In the light of the Pensions Minister’s announcement that they have finally conceded and announced a review of how rises in the state pension age should progress, will they now right the wrong that has been done to hundreds of thousands of women in this country? Does he recognise that this issue has to be addressed, as the Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—campaign has said, to ensure that women are not pushed into poverty?
Mr Vara
When the Pensions Act 2011 was passing through Parliament, the Government made a concession worth £1.1 billion that reduced the period concerned from two years to 18 months. For 81% of the women concerned, the period will not be extended, and will be a maximum of 12 months. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government have no plans to make any further concessions.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Does the Under-Secretary of State responsible for disabled people agree that, at a time when we are doing so much to encourage people with disabilities to participate in sport, it is a huge missed opportunity that not one of our inspirational disabled athletes is being honoured by the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I thought that decision was a disgrace. I was at the Barclays power of sport event on Thursday—on international day for people with disabilities—and there was collective disbelief among the great representatives of disability sport at that decision. We are not saying that people should always be guaranteed a win, but they should have been included as a consideration, because that is really important for inspiring the next generation.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say earlier that my party never supported universal credit. If that were the case, why would we have spent the past five years harassing him about how slowly he was going with it? However, that does not stop me worrying about the fortunes of the 30,000 lone-parent families in work in Merseyside. Is the Secretary of State for real: can he confirm that not a single one of those families will be a penny worse off?
Mr Duncan Smith
Universal credit actually improves the lot of lone parents dramatically, because the first person into work gets a huge amount more than they would have done under tax credits. Here is the key: I have already said that those who are on universal credit at the moment will be supported by their advisers through the flexible support fund, to ensure that their status does not change.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on protecting the winter fuel payment, but although hundreds of thousands of letters are dropping through people’s letterboxes, figures also show that those who are retired are disproportionately less likely to switch their energy supplier. Will he commit to work with colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to look at how energy switching details can be included with the winter fuel payment?
Priti Patel
I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, and I would be delighted to liaise and work with colleagues to make that point. The more that we all do to switch energy suppliers and producers, the more money we can all save in the long run.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The latest figures from the Department show that a clear majority of the JSA sanctions imposed in April to June, and about half of the ESA sanctions, were on claimants who had already been sanctioned within the previous two and a half years. Why does the Minister think the sanctions process is failing to change the behaviour of so many benefit claimants, and why does she not accept the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee and instigate a full and independent inquiry forthwith?
Priti Patel
We know that sanctions are having a positive effect on securing employment, and the figures actually show that. In addition, the claimant commitment clearly outlines to the claimants and the work coach the requirements on supporting the individual back into work. As we are seeing, JSA sanctions have halved and ESA sanctions are down, and they are supporting more people in getting back to work.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I have a brief question on universal credit, as we continue to roll it out. Is there an opportunity to extend the dedicated telephone line that housing associations enjoy direct to universal credit to citizens advice bureaux, which do an incredible amount of work but are struggling to make contact with the people who can help them?
Mr Duncan Smith
Under universal support, which is delivered locally, we are talking hugely to local authorities and all the local organisations in the area, and my hon. Friend will find that this will be swept up as part of that process; it is a dramatic improvement on where tax credits are right now, because it brings in all those other benefits as well.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The latest projections show that universal credit is running about four years behind the timetable that the Secretary of State originally set out. He has told us today that the new digital IT solution is to be rolled out from next April. How will he merge that with the prior IT system, which is already in use in quite a lot of jobcentres?
Mr Duncan Smith
The universal programme is on track and has been approved by the Major Projects Authority, which has said that it is delisted. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been here long enough to remember, that I will take no lessons from a Labour Government who gave us a tax credit debacle—they rolled it out and more than three quarters of a million people failed to receive any benefit on the day it was launched. He should come to see this system; the live service and the digital service are merged because a lot of the digital service will use elements of the live service. They are therefore merging in the run-up to May and will then be rolled out together at the same time.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister said earlier that there is no place for domestic violence in our country, and I firmly agree with him. When will he confirm how his Department intends to make women prove that they have had their third child by rape?
Mr Duncan Smith
I missed the question, Mr Speaker. There was a lot of noise, so I did not hear it.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady was asking about the treatment of someone who has a third child through rape.
Mr Duncan Smith
My apologies to the hon. Lady. May I say to her that we will come back with our exact reasons and rationale for how we will decide that? The reality remains, however—and this is, I believe, popular among the public—that those who make choices and take responsibility for them want everyone else to do the same as well.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Points of order come after statements. I shall await with eager anticipation the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.
Flooding
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the impact of Storm Desmond and flooding in the north of England.
As the House knows, this weekend has brought some enormously difficult and extreme weather conditions, and I begin by expressing my deepest sympathy to those who have been affected in all parts of the UK. I also wish to commend the Environment Agency, the emergency responders and volunteers who have been working tirelessly throughout the weekend, often in horrific conditions. People have come from all over the country—from as far as south Wales, Lincolnshire and Somerset—to help. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them for their work, and to those who have shown such generous community spirit in offering food, transport and even beds to neighbours.
Over the course of Friday 4 December, it became clear that Storm Desmond would bring an exceptionally high volume of rainfall across the UK. The Environment Agency responded by mobilising its people and assets, moving temporary defences and pumps to north-west England. On Saturday morning, it became clearer which counties would be affected and that we would see very high levels of rainfall that evening.
The Government mobilised a full national emergency response. At midday on Saturday, I held a cross-departmental meeting to assess the projected impacts, which was shortly followed by the mobilisation of 200 military personnel and supporting assets, including making available a Chinook helicopter.
Local commanders were able to call on more than 50 high-volume pumps as well as specialist tactical advisers and rescue boats from around the UK, adding to more than 200 emergency responders already on the ground. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), travelled to Cumbria on Saturday to ensure that the emergency responders on the ground got all they needed. He has remained in the north-west throughout.
On Saturday night, we saw an unprecedented amount of rainfall. More than a month’s rain fell in one day. During Saturday night, main rivers all across Cumbria exceeded the highest levels ever recorded. There is a mark on the bridge in Carlisle showing the flood level in 1853. The 2005 flood was half a metre higher than that of 1853, which was the highest on record until then. This flood was half a metre higher again. It was 0.6 metres higher than previous records in Kendal, 0.7 metres higher in Keswick and 0.3 metres higher in Appleby.
Although more than 8,000 properties were protected by our flood defences, by Sunday morning, more than 3,500 properties had flooded across the country, the majority of which were in Cumbria. In Carlisle, more than 1,300 properties flooded. More than 600 properties flooded in both Kendal and Keswick, with more than 200 in Appleby. Flooding was also seen in Northumberland, with more than 60 properties flooded at Hexham. Some 55,000 properties lost power in Lancaster following the flooding of the electricity substation. Transport was severely disrupted, with roads closed across the north-west and bridges damaged. The west coast main line was suspended.
Tragically, I also confirm that there were a number of weather-related fatalities, with a number of incidents caused or exacerbated by flooding or poor weather. I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to their families and friends. It is a tragic reminder of how dangerous these conditions can be.
On Sunday morning, I chaired a cross-Government Cabinet Office briefing room meeting to ensure that the emergency responders on the ground had all the resources that they needed and to address immediate issues, including the threat to the power supply in Lancaster and Carlisle. I spoke with gold commanders in the worst affected areas during the day to ensure they had sufficient national resources to deliver their emergency plans.
The Prime Minister chaired a further Cobra meeting this morning and is visiting the affected areas today. I am pleased to confirm to the House that progress is being made on recovering from some of the impacts. The number of homes affected by power outages has been reduced to fewer than 5,000 following the restoration of power at Lancaster substation. Electricity companies are working round the clock to restore power as soon as possible.
Transport remains disrupted across much of the area. Many roads remain closed and will need to be repaired. The west coast main line remains suspended to Scotland and service is unlikely to be restored until Wednesday at the earliest. The Government will continue to ensure that all resources are made available to support recovery from this flooding. Cobra will continue to meet daily to oversee recovery efforts and I will be travelling to Cumbria and Lancashire after this statement to continue to ensure that we are doing all we can to help those affected.
I know that local communities will want to know what action Government will be taking to support the recovery phase. I am pleased to confirm to the House that my colleague the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will shortly be opening the Bellwin scheme for local authorities affected by floods, and that 100% of eligible costs will be met by the Government. We will announce further support schemes over the coming days.
Since 2009 we have invested £45 million in new defences in Cumbria, but we will need to reflect on lessons that we can learn from this extreme weather event. In the last Parliament there was a real-terms increase in the investment in flood defences and in this Parliament there will be another real-terms increase in spending. We are investing £2.3 billion in 1,500 schemes throughout the country that will better protect 300,000 homes. The spending review has also confirmed that we are protecting flood maintenance spending throughout this Parliament as well as capital spending.
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by this weekend’s extreme weather conditions. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to do everything we can to support those affected and I commend this statement to the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I have spoken this morning to my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Sue Hayman), for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for an update on what is happening in their constituencies. Understandably, they cannot be here this afternoon as they are with their constituents, and I appreciate that the floods Minister is, rightly, in his constituency too.
Our thoughts are with all the communities in Cumbria and Lancashire that have once again been devastated by flooding. Tragically, it now seems that a number of people have lost their lives; their friends and family have our deepest sympathy and condolences. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services and the Army, who have once again responded superbly.
The immediate priority of course has to be help for all those who have been forced to evacuate their homes and businesses, and making sure that everyone is safe, warm and well. Communities such as those in Cumbria are getting used to rallying round and helping those who need shelter, food and clothing while they contemplate the state of their homes, and they have been magnificent this time, too. They are desperately worried that further rain is predicted for tomorrow, and I hope that the emergency response of which the Secretary of State spoke is geared up to respond to further bad weather.
With the last major floods of 2013-14, the Prime Minister declared that
“money is no object in this relief effort”,
yet it was months before residents, business owners and farmers received support from the Government, and much longer before they could return home. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say today that we must
“make sure everything is done to help in this vital phase of dealing with the floods”,
but it is not enough for the Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary to pledge to deal with the devastation and damage caused. We need a commitment from them to do all they can to try to prevent this from happening again.
It was just six years ago that Cumbria was hit by “unprecedented” flooding, described then as a once in a lifetime or a once in a century event, but it has already happened again. This time, as the Environment Secretary said, it is even worse. Her predecessor was, as we know, not someone who was prepared to acknowledge the risks posed by climate change. Does this Secretary of State agree that extreme weather events are unfortunately increasingly a feature of British weather and that Government policy has to adapt accordingly? World leaders in Paris are negotiating what, we hope, is an historic agreement on climate change right now, yet domestically the Government have repeatedly abandoned measures to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions, and climate adaptation appears to be a worryingly low priority for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. When the Secretary of State travels to the north-west later today I hope that she will see that that cannot continue.
Until the 2013-14 winter floods in the south-west, DEFRA had downgraded flood defence as a priority, despite the fact that the Committee on Climate Change warned that flooding represented the greatest climate change risk to the UK. Flood defence maintenance was cut by 20% in 2010. In one year alone, the coalition slashed flood spending by more than £100 million. Does the Secretary of State accept that that left the UK unprepared for extreme weather events? I know that capital expenditure has been announced and is protected, but DEFRA has said that it cannot tell us about the resource funding for flood defence maintenance from 2016-17 to 2019-20 until next summer. I should be grateful if she elaborated on that and gave us a bit more information.
Will the Secretary of State heed the warnings from experts that we need year-on- year investment in flood defences to meet the increased threat of flooding? Given that this year’s flood defence budget is £115 million lower than last year, and lower than flood defence expenditure in 2009-10, can she honestly reassure the communities affected by flooding that the Government are doing enough?
After the last floods in Cumbria, insurance pay-outs took months and, in some cases, years. Flood Re is not due to become operational until next year, so will the Secretary of State update us on her discussions with the insurance companies since the weekend? Has she managed to secure assurances that householders and businesses will be paid promptly and in full? Local people are finding it impossible to meet the cost of insurance premiums. What reassurance can she offer to people who fear that their premiums will increase even more?
The Secretary of State spoke, rightly, about the need for a cross-departmental approach, with issues such as road and school closures, and the role of hospitals. The point has been made by my colleagues in Copeland and Workington that it would be absolute folly to downgrade the West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven, given that power shortages and the sheer distance that people had to travel meant that the hospital in Carlisle was not geared up to deal with the floods this time round. I am more than happy to confirm that we want a cross-party approach to the problem, working with communities and Government Departments to try to ensure that people in Cumbria and Lancashire are, wherever possible, back home, safe and well with a roof over their head, and as dry as possible before Christmas strikes. I offer the Secretary of State my support in that.
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Lady that we have an absolute focus on making sure that gold commanders on the ground have every support they need to make sure that people are safe and homes are protected, and to aid the recovery effort. We have seen that in efforts to restore the power supply and to report issues on road and transport systems. We are vigilant about the weather outlook. Cobra will meet daily to make sure that we have all those forecasts, that they are taken into account and that we put our resources where they are needed. We remain vigilant on that at all times. We began the recovery and response effort on Friday by making sure that those resources were in place in Cumbria. We can do all we can by mobilising resources such as the Army to ensure that support is on the ground where it is needed.
We have seen an unprecedented weather event. The hon. Lady referred to previous flooding in Cumbria, but this flooding was more extreme—levels were exceeded by half a metre in some key towns and cities in Cumbria. Of course, it was absolutely devastating for people previously affected by flooding who believed that things would be better but who have been affected by flooding again. My huge sympathy goes to those business owners and local residents, and I hope to meet them later today and tomorrow.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the extreme weather patterns that we are seeing. As we say, that is consistent with climate change trends. Climate change is factored into all the modelling work that the Environmental Agency does, but in the light of this extreme weather we must look at that modelling and ensure that it is fit for purpose for future decisions. We constantly review investment in flood defences. It is important that we remain fair to people across the country, and that the people of Cumbria understand why decisions have been made and get the proper protection they deserve.
On flood defence spending, over the last Parliament we spent £1.7 billion in capital spending—a real-terms increase on the £1.5 billion spent between 2005 and 2010. Our next six-year programme is £2.3 billion, which again represents a real-terms increase. It is the first time a Government have laid out a six-year programme so that we do not have lumpy bits of flood spending, but commit to a long-term programme that helps to protect the country better. Including the impact of climate change, that is forecast to reduce flood risk by 5% over the next six years.
The hon. Lady asked about the maintenance budget. We spent £171 million last year on flood maintenance. In the autumn statement the Chancellor confirmed that that will be protected in real terms for the duration of this Parliament.
The hon. Lady also asked about the help that people will get from insurance and support schemes. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary and I are keen to see support schemes that are flexible and simple to operate, so we will work on that in the coming days. My right hon. Friend will host a discussion with the insurance companies to make sure that that support is provided.
These issues are all very important, but the immediate priority must be the rescue and response effort to make sure that we protect lives and families. It is such a terrible time of year, just before Christmas, for people to be out of their homes. Our absolute priority as a Government is making sure that we restore power supplies to homes, restore transport systems and protect lives.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Parts of my constituency have been affected by the floods that have wrought so much damage throughout the north-west. May I reinforce the point about insurance claims? They should be met speedily, not in six or nine months’ time. People’s needs are now, not in six or nine months. Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear to insurance companies that they will be looked at very carefully if they start to withdraw cover from people who have been affected by these floods? Withdrawing cover blights people’s homes, following the devastation that they have just suffered.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We will work with insurance companies to make sure that people receive prompt payments and that we can get people back into their homes as soon as possible.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement this afternoon and, with my colleagues on the Scottish National party Benches, send our condolences to families that have been affected over the weekend. Normally my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) would speak on behalf of the SNP, but he is in his constituency assisting with the work there.
We feel for the devastation across the north of England and for the clear-up that is under way across the borders in Scotland as well, after some of the worst flooding that the region has seen. At its height about 700 people were evacuated from their homes. Hundreds of houses and business premises have been flood-damaged. There was extensive flood damage across other parts of Scotland, including the most significant flooding on the River Tay in 12 years. Today flood alerts have been issued for Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish borders again.
I note that David Shukman, the respected BBC science editor, wrote:
“Scientists always shy away from blaming any particular weather event on climate change. But they also point to a basic physical property of the atmosphere: that warmer air can hold more moisture. That means that rising temperatures are likely to lead to storms that may drop more rain—and in more intense bursts.”
In 2009 the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed world-leading climate change legislation. Using 1990 as a baseline, it committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. In Scotland, we are doing what we can to foster renewable energy. It is a pity that this Government are removing support for onshore wind. Will the Secretary of State liaise with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to revisit this? We need to do more to protect our environment.
There is potential for extreme weather systems to continue to plague the UK. We are lucky in the UK that we have the resources to help as much as we can in preparing for them and helping communities in the aftermath, and I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s comments on that. However, across the world, smaller and poorer countries are going to be far worse hit by the effects of climate change. Today the Scottish Government announced that they will double their climate justice fund by pledging a further £12 million for developing countries to lessen the impact of climate change. What are the UK Government doing to help in poorer countries?
Elizabeth Truss
I express my sympathy for the people affected in Scotland. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government on our response.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is currently in Paris working to secure a good international deal so that we can deal with climate change on an international level. Of course, we have a very clear carbon budget system in place in the UK.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I pay tribute to my local Environment Agency team in Lancashire and Cumbria, who worked all weekend keeping me up to date. My residents in Banks and Rufford are very concerned that in less than two years the flooding pumps at Alt Crossens are going to move away from the Environment Agency to another, as yet unnamed, body. Most of this water gives on to farmland. What is the Department doing to protect farmland?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with my hon. Friend’s tribute to the fantastic emergency service and Environment Agency staff who have been working round the clock to support people in the area. Our six-year programme will mean that an additional 420,000 acres of farmland will be protected. In the specific case of the flooding in the north over the weekend, we will look at what more can be done to help farmers.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Over the weekend and this morning I have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who remains in her constituency, and she has given me some thoughts on the situation in that part of Cumbria. She is extremely grateful, as are her constituents, for the response of the emergency services. There is concern that an unintended consequence of reductions in front-line services, as well as cuts to local authorities and the Environment Agency, is that those emergency responses may not be possible in future. Will the Government give some thought to whether cutting local authority and Environment Agency budgets might damage the ability to respond to these events in future?
Elizabeth Truss
The response efforts over the weekend and the preparations put in place by the Environment Agency, the emergency services and Army personnel have been fantastic. They have been working their socks off on the ground to protect people, and we are all very grateful for what they have done. My role is to make sure that we are co-ordinating those efforts and giving the local teams all the support they need. On Saturday and Sunday I spoke to the gold command to ask whether they needed any additional support and resources, and whether all those resources have been made available. Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that the resources are available on the ground.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
May I put on record my thanks to the emergency services and to officials at DEFRA and the Department of Transport for the work they have put in over the weekend? Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will continue to work with farmers in my constituency to ensure that the devastation that some of them have suffered over recent days will be looked at with sympathy?
Elizabeth Truss
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As well as making sure that farmland is protected as part of our six-year flood defence programme, we will look at the specific impacts on farmers. The farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will do more work on that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I met businesses in York who are over 4 metres under water. This is the second flooding they have had within a month. Will the Secretary of State ensure that basics like sandbags and pumps are available free for businesses, because they pay a heavy price when flooding occurs?
Elizabeth Truss
We are monitoring the situation in York very closely. There are defences in place in York, and the Environment Agency makes sure that that the relevant equipment, such as sandbags and pumps, are moved to the area in question.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
My North Yorkshire constituency has also been affected this weekend, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s earlier comments and pay tribute to those working hard in my area. My thoughts are with those affected elsewhere. I recently visited the village of Brompton, where the community has come together to create a set of natural flood defences, including a leaky dam and a series of holding ponds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such schemes have a role to play in preventing floods, and will she urge the drainage boards and the Environment Agency to support them where appropriate?
Elizabeth Truss
I have great sympathy for those constituents of my hon. Friend who have been affected. I completely agree that natural defence schemes can play a very strong part in flood prevention. Indeed, I recently visited the Slow the Flow project in Pickering in Yorkshire, which is doing just that. Not only does it help to reduce flooding; it also contributes to the natural environment and biodiversity.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is at times like these that we begin to worry about the cuts that local government and the fire service have suffered for the last five years. Is there any opportunity for the Secretary of State to say from the Dispatch Box today that she will ensure that the fire service will have those cuts reversed and that it will be able to carry on without losing men and machinery from this day forward?
Elizabeth Truss
We have seen fantastic support from the fire service and other emergency services, and the co-ordination on the ground has been superb. We have kept in regular touch with the gold command in those local areas. On flood protection, I have confirmed today that we are seeing an increase in real terms in capital spending over this Parliament, and we are also seeing a protection in real terms of our flood maintenance budget. That is really important in preventing and reducing the impact of flooding.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
In the light of the floods in Cumbria and elsewhere, I am pleased to say that flood defences provided security and protection, as they were supposed to, in north Northumberland. Will the Secretary of State consider, as a matter of urgency, increasing the number of trees we plan to plant during this Parliament from 11 million, which equates to only one tree for every five people, to some 200 million, which equates to five trees for every person? They would cover some 50,000 hectares, much of which could be in the upland areas of river basins, to help nature to hold water and to reduce the risk of flooding in the long term.
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the number of houses that were protected. Although my thoughts are with those who were flooded, 8,000 houses in the north of England were protected by our flood defences. I completely agree with her about looking at the environment on a catchment level and making sure that we put in place tree-planting programmes that can both reduce flood risk and improve the environment at the same time.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
May I put on the record my heartfelt sympathies for the people of Cumbria and elsewhere, and for the friends and families of all those who died as a result of the weekend’s events? My constituency was badly flooded in 2007, and one has to live through such an event to be able to understand the devastation it visits on communities and families alike. The Secretary of State has made a great deal of play of the real terms increase in flood maintenance spending, but can she reassure the House that the flood maintenance budget has adequate funding to start with and that the Environment Agency is adequately funded to discharge its role in relation to flood prevention and flood response?
Elizabeth Truss
I know the hon. Lady has a lot of experience in this area. I have had such a discussion with the Environment Agency, and the budget is effective for the level of our plans at the moment. As I have mentioned, we saw an extreme weather event with the incidents in Cumbria, so although the flood defences in Cumbria delayed the impact, giving the emergency services an opportunity to operate and to evacuate people, and also reduced the impact, we clearly need to look at that area.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
With uncanny timeliness, a publication entitled “Responding to Major Floods” arrived in my postbox today from the Association of British Insurers. It is a useful guide to help those affected by flooding. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the ABI and ensure that copies of the booklet are distributed to everyone affected by this weekend’s flooding?
Elizabeth Truss
In fact, I met the ABI a couple of weeks ago and saw the document. It is indeed a good document, which I encourage Members of Parliament across the House to use in helping their constituents.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is doubling up as a helpful public information system, on top of all the other useful contributions—
Mr Speaker
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is always willing to help. We are grateful to him.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Like everybody in the House, I pay tribute to all our emergency services for the magnificent work they have done and continue to do. At present, however, there is no formal expectation that fire and rescue services will actually attend floods in England and Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree that, to ensure an effective, safe and robust response to flooding, we should follow the example of Scotland and Northern Ireland and make it a statutory duty for firefighters in England and Wales to respond to flooding?
Elizabeth Truss
My view is that our procedures are working, with the gathering of Departments on Saturday to make sure that we had the right preparations in place for the emergency services, the Environment Agency and the Army. The Cobra system that we have to co-ordinate them when we have an emergency, as we have had for the past few days, has worked very effectively, and we have been able to mobilise people on the ground. I am interested in what works, in what is effective and in how we protect the maximum number of people and the maximum number of homes from this extreme event.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the emergency services. As an officer of the all-party groups on mountain rescue and on mountaineering, I pay particular tribute to the mountain rescue workers who have put in a huge amount of work to support the communities affected.
Given that tourism is such a vital part of the local economy, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every effort will be made to support local businesses and communities in the run-up to Christmas and during the Christmas season in these very difficult circumstances?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Mountain Rescue has been a fantastic support, particularly in some of the remoter villagers across the north of England, especially in Cumbria. I pay tribute to it for its round-the-clock work. It has been absolutely fantastic.
I agree with my hon. Friend about rural tourism, which is already worth £10 billion to the economy. It is really important to get things up and running again, which is why I am working with my colleagues the Transport Secretary and the Energy Secretary to make sure we get transport and power up and running, not only so that residents can enjoy the area, but so that people can visit it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I echo both the condolences expressed by the Secretary of State and her commendations of the emergency services and the volunteers for the invaluable work they are doing. Thousands of people across the north of England and Wales have been affected, including the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He has suffered the relatively minor inconvenience, compared with what other people have experienced, of having his car written off as a result of the floods. He cannot be in the Chamber today.
The Secretary of State is clearly focusing on the emergency. After the emergency, however, does she intend to apply to the EU solidarity fund to help rebuild the communities devastated by floods once the immediate emergency has been dealt with?
Elizabeth Truss
My understanding is that there is quite a high threshold to obtain that funding, but we will of course look at all potential sources of funding. As I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will open the Bellwin fund, and we are also looking at specific schemes.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Floods, as we have seen, can have a devastating impact on businesses, homes and individuals. Our thoughts are with those who have been affected. My right hon. Friend’s Department has had a clear commitment to date to investing in flood prevention schemes. Will she reaffirm her continued commitment to investing in such schemes and to continuing the vital work that she has begun, which has spared many people from the plight of flooding—although, sadly, by no means all—and which has the potential to protect many more?
Elizabeth Truss
It is an absolute priority for my Department to improve our flood defences as much as possible, to reduce the flood risk and to make sure that we are constantly prepared for these extreme situations. That is why we acted early on Saturday by bringing the Departments together to prepare the response and why we held a Cobra meeting on Sunday to make sure that the Army was deployed to deal with the situation and protect as many lives and homes as possible.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Much of my immediate family, including my parents, live in the Carlisle area. Thankfully, they are safe, but my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who has been affected by this dreadful situation. Obviously, I thank the emergency services and the community volunteers.
Just six years after unprecedented flooding, Cumbria has once again been hit by unprecedented rainfall. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unfortunately, such extreme weather events are increasingly a feature of the British weather and that Government policy has to adapt accordingly?
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Lady’s family are safe and well. The events in Carlisle were not just extreme weather events, but were significantly worse than those on the previous occasion. There was an additional half metre of water, which has had a huge impact on local communities. Of course, as with all major incidents, we will look at this one and see what lessons can be learned for the future.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I pass on my sympathy to all those who have been affected and my commendation to all those in the emergency services who, as always, have done a fantastic job? Given the pressure on housing, will my right hon. Friend ensure that she and the Government note the new levels of water that are arising around the country and ensure that no new housing is built in those locations?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Like other hon. Members, my prayers and thoughts are with all those who have been impacted by these appalling scenes. The word “unprecedented” has been used time and again today, and we seem to be coming back to the House again and again to discuss these issues. Is it not time that we sat down as a nation and looked at all the infrastructure, at where the substations, roads and bridges are, and at the drainage systems—looked at everything—and involved the public in a national consultation, so that we can have a proper plan for how these so-called unprecedented events, which I am sure will become more and more frequent, can be dealt with once and for all?
Elizabeth Truss
We do have very clear national resilience plans to ensure that our key assets are protected. Of course, after every major incident, we review them to see what could be improved. We constantly review the modelling on our flood defences to make sure that it is as good as possible. Each time something different happens, we need to be able to adjust it. Our models are open and transparent. The public can look at the methodology the Environment Agency uses. We use sophisticated data from the Met Office. Of course, we will look at this issue and see what more can be done.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I send my sympathies to everybody who has been affected by the flooding. Cumbria is in the recovery phase. Will the Secretary of State review the flood defence modelling for the lower Thames region, in which many of my residents have no confidence? In particular, will she consider Thames barrier 2, which civil engineers were calling for even before the high floods in 2013-14?
Elizabeth Truss
I would be very happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend and to meet the people who are working on the proposed scheme. It is helpful to have an open and transparent discussion about why decisions on flood investment are made. I would be happy to share the data and the modelling with her.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The people of Hull, who know only too well the devastation flooding causes, extend their sympathies to all those affected by flooding this weekend. We pay tribute to the emergency services and to local BBC radio, which has an important role to play when we face such situations. Has the Secretary of State given any consideration to increasing support to the National Flood Forum, which does so much, through practical support and good advice, to help families and households affected by flooding? Additional resources would really help at this time.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the National Flood Forum and local radio: we were able to ensure that people were evacuated from their homes and given adequate warning to keep them safe. It is also worth mentioning that the Environment Agency website has been a very useful resource. It has gone from having 400 hits on an average day to 650,000 hits on one day alone, so the public are able to access information. We have also been communicating on social media, enabling early evacuation to keep people safe.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
According to the Association of British Insurers, my constituency is the most likely to flood in the entirety of the UK. The tidal surge of 2013 flooded hundreds of homes and my constituents are still living with the consequences. Will the Secretary of State go back and double-check that the coming Boston barrier is not only up to the job but will provide the much needed economic benefits of flood defences after devastating floods, such as those that we are seeing in Cumbria and saw in Boston?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Boston barrier is an extremely important scheme not just for local businesses in Boston but for farmers in the surrounding area. I met a group of local internal drainage boards to discuss what more can be done in Lincolnshire. I am very happy to update him on the modelling we have done and the forecasts we have made.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State and hon. Members in sending condolences to the families affected and in paying tribute to the extraordinary response of the emergency services. What message are the Government sending to the fire and rescue service personnel who are giving their all right now, and to the people so badly affected right now, when 40 firefighters face job losses and five stations face closure in Cumbria alone under the latest round of emergency service cuts? How will this affect the Government’s ability to respond to future extreme weather conditions that the Secretary of State said we must expect?
Elizabeth Truss
My message to the firefighters of Cumbria is to thank them for all the fantastic work they have done, alongside the police, the Army, other emergency services and the Environment Agency, to help local people.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Apart from the national interest in ensuring that Cumbria receives the support it needs, my researcher Nicholas Altham lives at Yanwath near Penrith and raised with me the collapse of nearby Pooley bridge. Will the Secretary of State look at having a commitment not just to rapid repair but to the provision of transport infrastructure in this area in future?
Elizabeth Truss
Pooley bridge was discussed at this morning’s Cobra meeting, as part of our programme to ensure that bridges are restored as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be working on that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talked about assisting local authorities through the recovery phase with 100% of eligible costs. Will she outline to the House what she considers to be the recovery stage? Is it just the clean-up and recovery, or is it the future-proofing of the reconstruction and investment in new infrastructure? What does she consider to be an eligible cost for local authorities?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be laying out more details of the scheme later this week, but the Bellwin scheme operates under well-established terms.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
On behalf of the people of Somerset, who know what flooding is like, may I extend my condolences and sympathies to all those affected in the north-west and say how pleased I am to hear that expertise from Somerset is being used up there?
In Somerset, local authorities and national Government have come together with residents to fund the Somerset Rivers Authority to ensure adequate and ongoing funding and oversight for flood defences. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is very welcome and that its decision to dredge this year is correct, despite the opposition of South Somerset’s local Liberal Democrats?
Elizabeth Truss
It is fantastic that volunteers from Somerset are helping out in Cumbria, and I am delighted we have been able to establish the Somerset Rivers Authority to give local people control over local decisions such as on dredging. It is absolutely right that people who know the ground and understand the area are making those crucial decisions.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I speak for many in west Kent—I see the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), on the Front Bench—when I ask the Secretary of State, when she looks at the floods in Cumbria, to remember that we in west Kent not only feel huge sympathy for our compatriots in Cumbria but are keen to ensure that the defences required on the Medway and the Beult are put in place. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who is not here, would be urging me and others to say on her behalf that towns such as Yalding, Wateringbury, Tonbridge and Edenbridge absolutely need the defences planned only a few years ago when we suffered ourselves. I urge the Secretary of State not to forget the rest of the country.
Elizabeth Truss
Over this Parliament, we will be investing an additional £2.3 billion of capital expenditure on flood defences in real terms. I am committed to ensuring that this money is distributed and spent in a clear and transparent way so that people fully understand how it is being used.
Point of Order
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Work and Pensions questions earlier, I asked about the Access to Work programme, which helps disabled people to attain and retain work. In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), stated that Access to Work use was at record levels. According to DWP figures published in October, in 2014-15 there were 36,760 users, but in 2009-10 there were 37,270. Mr Speaker, will you encourage the Minister either to correct the record or provide the House with information on the statistics he was referring to, or encourage him to make a broader statement that might actually answer the original question?
Mr Speaker
A better recourse is for the hon. Gentleman to make the short journey to the Table Office and pose further questions. I do not know which baseline year the Minister had in mind when making his comparison, and nor—I gently add—is it my responsibility to know. The hon. Gentleman is an adroit and ingenious contributor to our proceedings, and his head will almost certainly now be filled with a series of follow-up questions that encapsulate his dissatisfaction with what he has heard so far. He should make full use of the questioning system, whether the Minister likes it or not, and I have a hunch that that is precisely what he will now do.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 187 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 289 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 51.
James Wharton
First, I should put on the record my gratitude and that of my colleagues for the representations made by hon. Members who were keen to see the new clause included in the Bill, and to support and empower their local national parks authorities to do the best job they can and to continue to contribute to the communities they represent. In particular, I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) and for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). I would like to add Councillor Gareth Dadd of North Yorkshire County Council, who made strenuous efforts to convince us of the merits of these changes and kindly arranged for me to meet representatives of the North Yorkshire national park authority and National Parks England.
In the light of this weekend’s flooding, I think it important to reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the statement that we have just heard, and I offer my sympathy to the people of Cumbria and other affected areas in recognition of the significant impact of what has happened there as a result of the unprecedented weather events.
Before speaking expressly to the content of the new clause and amendment, I would like to say a few words about the role of the national park authorities in water management in the context of what has happened this weekend, and about how the changes might assist them in further performing that role. Although national park authorities do not have responsibility for emergency planning, the planning decisions they make and the development control conditions they enforce can make a big difference to the demands placed on those who do have to respond during an emergency.
National parks have an important role to play in managing the water environment and helping with restoration work. For example, the floods of November 2009 caused severe damage to the rights-of-way network in Cumbria and the Lake District national park. Over 250 bridges were damaged or destroyed and 85 paths needed repair. The function-specific general power of competence that we are discussing with these amendments could be used to enhance the national park authorities’ ability to respond to flood emergencies by enabling them to enter into partnerships, to develop skills and capacity within small rural communities and businesses to assist with the responses needed, to develop specific skills to combat future flood management, and to adapt the network to improve flood resilience.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given that national parks might cover one or more metro mayor areas—for example, the Peak District national park is partly in Greater Manchester and partly in South Yorkshire, two areas that might well have metro mayors quite soon—is there not a case for having some co-ordination for emergency planning to make sure that there is the same resilience and the same emergency planning in the different parts of the national park?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We want to see co-ordination, and there are already structures in place to deliver it and to ensure that different bodies work together to respond as efficiently and effectively as possible. From what I have seen happening in Cumbria and other areas over the weekend, a number of those bodies are working very hard to deliver for local communities. The hon. Gentleman puts an important point on the record. We absolutely want to see as much co-operation as possible, and we want to empower these public bodies to carry it out wherever possible. That underlies in many ways the purpose of devolution, so it is an apt time for the hon. Gentleman to put his comments on the record.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
In the east midlands, there is the D2N2—Derby Derbyshire-Nottingham Nottinghamshire—which may or may not have a directly elected mayor. There is also the Sheffield city authority, which includes Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and various other district councils in North Yorkshire and indeed in North Derbyshire. In the middle of all that, there is Hardwick Hall and various other major buildings. What I want to know, now that the Minister has said that there should be the greatest co-operation, is how that can happen between the Sheffield people who are anxious to take over large areas of North Derbyshire and D2N2, which is also part and parcel of the same area? My guess is that there will be many more situations like that in Tory shires. What is the Government’s policy?
James Wharton
Devolution is a bottom-up process; it is done by consensus. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have a significant opportunity further to discuss some of the relevant provisions today, but where we see bodies that have the capacity to co-operate, we want to empower them to do so. We want to give them the levers they need to deliver such things as better public services and economic development. The first step towards that is to confer the powers that the bodies will need to achieve it. What the amendments do is to start the process of empowering our national parks authorities so that they can not only contribute on flooding and resilience, but better the offer that they can make to the public to improve the work they already do so well.
New clause 7 confers new general powers on national park authorities in England, along similar lines to those conferred on, among others, fire and rescue authorities and integrated transport authorities in chapters 2 and 3 of part 1 of the Localism Act 2011. I should make it clear to Opposition Front Benchers that those general powers are intended to enable a national park to do more and to do it better; they are not a back door to fracking or shale gas development, and will not affect the approach that we intend to take in that regard.
In England, our nine national parks include some of the country’s finest landscapes, beautiful vistas and exciting wildlife. They are part of our national identity. National parks protect those landscapes for future generations so that we can all enjoy them. They are the cornerstone of many rural businesses. The new powers for national park authorities will allow an authority to act as an individual could—with certain limitations—in relation to its functions. For example, a functionally specific power of competence will allow a national park authority to act through a company, and will allow authorities to trade in a broader way than they currently can.
National park authorities have themselves asked for that power, because they consider that it will enable them to act in a more entrepreneurial and innovative way. For example, they consider that they will be in a better position to enter into partnerships to support growth across our rural economy. Jim Bailey, the chair of National Parks England, has said:
“We are pleased to see the Government introduce this amendment. This will help National Park authorities to maximise opportunities to fulfil our statutory purposes”.
The measure will allow national park authorities to participate fully in devolution deals—an example is Northumberland national park authority's request as part of the north-east devolution deal—and to seek additional sources of funding to assist further their work in supporting rural economies.
It is important to note that a power of competence does not override existing legislation. National park authorities will therefore be bound by their statutory purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of an area, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area. It is also important to note that the power will not be used by national park authorities as an opportunity to start charging for entry. As all but a very small percentage of land in national parks is owned privately rather than by the national park authorities, they could have no legal basis for charging.
Let me also make it clear that the new powers will not be used to encourage or permit too much, or inappropriate, development. National parks are designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 for their natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation. Under the Act, they have the two statutory purposes to which I have just referred. The statutory framework of protection and consents will remain unchanged, and, in using their new powers, the park authorities will not be able to promote or permit activities that are incompatible with those statutory purposes.
The powers given to the Secretary of State, by regulation, to restrict the use of powers by national park authorities in a particular way relate solely to the new clause, and not to their existing powers. Other than those concerning the furtherance of national park purposes, which are retained, the new powers replace the existing general powers of national park authorities under the Environment Act 1995. The new powers are considered more extensive, but the old ones are being repealed to avoid overlap.
Amendment 51 is a minor and technical amendment to schedule 5. It contains consequential amendments to section 65 of the Environment Act.
We are making these changes in response to effective representations that we have received from a number of Members, and from National Parks England and national park authorities. I hope that they will be broadly supported by Members on both sides of the House.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Our national parks are precious national assets. Millions of people use and enjoy them every year. They are areas of protected countryside that everyone can visit, and where people live, work, and shape the landscape. We have 15 national parks: 10 in England, three in Wales and two in Scotland.
In his autumn statement, the Chancellor included devolution to national park authorities in England, allowing them to lend, invest, trade, and set up co-operatives with businesses. That is legally known as the general power of competence. However, we know what is driving this change: cuts made by this Government. Since 2010, national park authorities in England have suffered cuts of up to 40% in their Government funding. Indeed, Northumberland national park is already renting out its spare office space—vacated by staff who have lost their jobs—where an enterprise hub has been set up.
New clause 7 would amend the Environment Act 1995 to provide English national park authorities with general powers to do anything they consider appropriate in carrying out their functional purposes. The new general powers in proposed new section 65A are similar to those conferred on other authorities by chapter 1 of part 1 of the Localism Act 2011. The new clause only applies to English national park authorities.
Proposed new section 65B limits the scope of the general power of competence in several respects. It does not allow English national parks to borrow money or charge a person for anything they do other than for a commercial purpose. That immediately raises concerns. The coalition Government’s attempt to privatise our forests was met with a public outcry. That plan was rightly defeated. This Government have attempted to open up our national parks to fracking, again causing a great deal of concern among the public, who value our precious national assets and have no wish to see them opened up to commercial ventures in that manner. We need strong assurances that the character of our national parks will be protected and that such important national institutions are maintained for the benefit of the public. We need a cast-iron assurance from the Government that fracking is not going to be allowed in our national parks.
We need more details on Government funding of national parks. We need more details on what the national parks are actually planning to do with the new powers. We cannot allow the commercialisation of our national parks by the back door. The future governance and accountability of our English national parks is an absolutely massive issue, which deserves proper debate. It does not belong here, in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, inserted at the eleventh hour with no time for the weighty issues raised to have a proper discussion.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Given that national parks are local authorities for these purposes, will the hon. Lady reflect upon the complete and deeply misleading red herring that she raises? After all, the fracking matter has nothing to do with the role of local authorities of any kind—national parks or otherwise —in relation to a general power of competence. Should she not welcome the ability of national parks to enter into joint agreements, for example with their district and county councils, which is precisely what this provision is aimed at? She is actually setting up a complete Aunt Sally in this matter.
Liz McInnes
Red herrings, Aunt Sallies: I am merely expressing the unsuitability of the new clause in application to this Bill. It has been brought in at the eleventh hour with the minimum of notice. It raises huge issues. I do not think the general public would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the worry about fracking in our national parks is a red herring. I certainly got a lot of correspondence about it when the Government were talking about it a few weeks ago, and I think we need a proper debate.
James Wharton
I do not know whether I could be clearer on this: the debate around fracking is perhaps for another day, but let me be absolutely clear that these clauses will not be a back door to fracking. They do not affect the issue of fracking with regard to national parks. I would also add very clearly that this is something that has been asked for by national parks. I would be interested if the hon. Lady could tell the House how many national park authorities she has spoken to before coming to oppose the new clause and amendment.
Liz McInnes
The Minister makes an important point. The Government have not given us time to respond correctly. I have not spoken to any national park authorities because the Government have not given us time to consult properly on this matter. No reference had been made to the new clause before now. Today the Bill’s Third Reading debate will take place, and the new clause has been slipped in at the eleventh hour. The Minister is being disingenuous if he seriously expects us to have been able to do a thorough consultation with all the national park authorities in England. If that is his approach, he is trying to set us up to fail. We value our national parks, and we want to ensure that we have a proper debate on their future. That is what we are asking for here.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
As the MP for the Northumberland national park, may I say to the hon. Lady that this issue has been ongoing for many months? The powers of competence that are dealt with more widely elsewhere in the Bill have been the cause of enormous concern to the national parks as they have tried to get themselves into the arena of discussion. It is a huge credit to the Minister that he has come up to the north-east and spoken to those in North Yorkshire and to some of my colleagues at the national park in Northumberland to ascertain just how important the new clause—which is just an extension of those general powers of competence—will be. I hope that the hon. Lady will talk to the national parks, because they are absolutely passionate about having this freedom to get on and expand what they do.
Liz McInnes
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady does not agree with the cuts that have been made to the Northumberland national park authority. I am sure, too, that she would rather we had a proper debate on this matter instead of discussing a new clause that has been snuck in at the eleventh hour.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I understand that the hon. Lady has not spoken to the national park authorities, but that is not necessarily a reason to oppose the proposal. I have spoken to members of the board of the South Downs national park authority—Margaret Paren, who leads it, and Councillor Barry Lipscomb, who is a Winchester City councillor—and they very much welcome it. They think that this general power of competence will allow them to be full players at the table in the devolution bids that are so important in my area. I do not know what “Aunt Sally” means, although I remember her on the television, but this is nonsense. It is opposition for opposition’s sake. The Government should get with the plan here. Just because the Opposition have not talked to the national park authorities does not mean that they should vote against the proposal. I have spoken to the national parks, and they want this.
Liz McInnes
I am sure the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government should get with the plan. However, we are the Opposition. I am not opposing the proposal for opposition’s sake; I am opposing it because I think we need a proper debate on it. It could have a far-reaching effect on our national parks, which are loved and valued by the general public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz McInnes
I will not take any more interventions. I have already given way to hon. Members.
The national park authorities are one part of the equation, and, as I have already said, we have not had time to consult them properly because this proposal was brought in at the eleventh hour. Surely any reasonable person would want—[Interruption.] Conservative Members had prior knowledge of it. I am sure that every reasonable person would agree that we need a proper debate on such an important issue. The national park authorities are not the only stakeholders involved. The public are the real stakeholders. Millions of people use and enjoy our national parks every year, and they should have their say. They would not thank us if we allowed this measure in through the back door.
Neither I nor any of my team are opposing the new clause for opposition’s sake; we are opposing it because we have serious concerns about the way in which it has been introduced. We will not agree to such a huge change in the governance and accountability of our national parks at only a few days’ notice and without a proper debate. If the Minister thinks that we are going to let this go through without a proper discussion, he is very much mistaken.
It is totally inappropriate that the new clause, which could bring about major and irreversible changes to our national parks, should be slipped into the Bill in this manner. The national park authorities are there to protect the environment for the good of the nation and its people. I call on the Secretary of State to withdraw the new clause. It does not belong in the Bill. If a discussion is needed about the future funding of our national park authorities, so be it, but let us have a proper debate. Let us give our stakeholders, the people, a chance to have their say, and let us not try to introduce damaging changes to our national parks by the back door.
Robert Neill
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That was without any doubt the least-informed speech I have heard from a Front Bencher in the whole of my career in the House of Commons. I am sorry to say that to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), but she has simply not read the new clause and understood what it is about. It extends the power of general competence that applies to local authorities, which her party supported as a welcome thing when I introduced it as a Minister, along with my colleagues, to local national parks authorities; it does not affect planning in any way whatever. I am horrified that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not understand the difference between the role of a national parks authority qua local authority and its role as a planning authority, which is not changed in the slightest by any of this. The Opposition’s approach is therefore worrying.
Steve Brine
As the shadow Minister would not give way to me for a second time, I wish to put on the record the fact, which my hon. Friend will confirm, that we did have advance notice of the new clause. I met the South Downs national park authority on 13 November, when it made clear its support for the provision. It, like me, has had that much time to look at it. The Opposition may have been distracted by other matters, but that is a whole other matter—and, for the record, Aunt Sally was in “Worzel Gummidge”.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The troubling thing is this: applications for fracking, licensing matters and all that regime are not governed by a power of general competence in the slightest. The new clause has no effect on fracking of any kind whatever, and I regret to have to say to the hon. Lady that to suggest otherwise is either wilful ignorance or a serious piece of misleading the public.
The new clause gives local authorities that are national parks the same powers to deal with things as their district councils and county councils have. The point has also been well made that it enables them to enter into devolution deals, which again I believe the Opposition supported. So far, they are against a power of general competence, which they supported when we brought it in, they are against devolution deals in national parks, which they have supported, and they have set up an Aunt Sally that has nothing to do with the case.
I appreciate that the Opposition Front Benchers have been shuffled so many times that they probably do not have time to read an Order Paper nowadays, but the most cursory reading of the amendment might have given them some idea that their approach is totally off the case, it is against the views expressed by the Select Committee rightly and properly and it is against devolution. I am sorry to say that we heard a bizarre speech from the Opposition and they are taking a bizarre approach. If they divide the House on this, they are simply—
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that quite a campaign has been whipped up across the country about the possibility of fracking springing up in national parks as part of some dastardly plot by the Conservative Government to introduce fracking wherever they can find a national park? Does he think that perhaps the response from the Opposition is influenced in some way by that campaign?
Robert Neill
I have always taken the view in politics that the further left you go, the greater the conspiracy theories get; I suspect that may have happened, perhaps with one or two honourable exceptions, to the Opposition Front-Bench team. But that has nothing whatever to do with what we are about. It has nothing to do with their ludicrous scare campaign. A simple amendment, whose principle was not objected to when the Localism Bill was brought through, is suddenly being seized upon for the most bizarre bit of political grandstanding by a bankrupt Opposition. The best thing they can do is find something to agree upon. Their approach would prevent a national park authority from entering into a joint venture with its district and county councils, although that is a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do. Anyone who speaks to people who have represented areas in national parks will know that one of their concerns was the inability to join up the service delivery between the national parks authority, the district council and the county council. That sort of thing was a regular issue upon the desk of any Minister.
The new clause enables that to be done through a simple, legal structure. It has nothing whatever to do with applications for planning permission for fracking and with the licensing regime for fracking. It is a sad and sorry day when an important and useful technical amendment is hijacked by one of the more bizarre bits of political boulevardiering that I have ever seen in my time in the Commons.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party group on national parks, I do have some interest in this matter. Additionally, a third of Sheffield—the local authority in which my constituency is—is in the Peak District national park. The name “Sheffield” may conjure up past visions of lots of cutlery being produced, but much of it is very rural, very open and very beautiful.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench about new clause 7, which is of some length and has been parachuted into the Bill right at the last minute. The Government had many opportunities to introduce it earlier, and to talk informally to my hon. Friends, which might have allayed some of their fears. In the end, though, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and probably to be very suspicious of a Government who claim they have nothing but good intentions in proposing a four-page amendment.
Of course there is some suspicion, but let us look at what the national parks have been doing. They have told us at meetings that they would welcome the extension of the general power of competence to them—perhaps it was an oversight that it was not done in the first place. As I understand it, the new clause proposes that where national parks exercise functions in a national park area that are similar in nature to those exercised by a local authority in other places the local authority has the general power of competence, but a national park does not.
Everyone gets suspicious about fracking. Many people do not trust the Government on the issue. They think that, as the Government want to go fracking all over the place and national parks do not, the Government are probably happy to do it and have rather brought those suspicions on themselves. Perhaps the Government could make an absolutely clear statement that there is no way in which this proposed new clause gives any extension of planning powers or anything else that could possibly affect fracking in national parks.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I can assure the House that we had no idea that this new clause was coming. It is almost five pages long. The nub of our argument is this: the national parks should be single-mindedly protecting our environment, but this power of general competence allows them to engage in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap that the Chancellor has left them with. Does my hon. Friend not worry that that single-minded concentration on protecting the environment might be lost in the search for additional revenue as a result of the commercial powers that are being conferred on the national parks?
Mr Betts
I see my hon. Friend’s concerns in that regard, but the reality is probably that many national parks do look at ways to raise revenue to help support their budgets. I share his views that national parks are subject to cuts and that they are finding it more difficult to do the job that we expect them to do with their much reduced resources. I think that they will look at other ways to raise funds. That happens anyway. I am not sure whether this new clause widens that possibility greatly. I understand that it simply puts the national parks in the same position as a local authority to try to fulfil their functions.
James Wharton
I wish to clarify that this proposed new clause has no impact on planning as it would affect national parks. It has nothing to do with shale gas extraction, or fracking. I hope that is clear enough for the hon. Gentleman, and that it will give him some reassurance about our intention, which is to deliver on a request from the national parks.
Mr Betts
I am aware that the national parks have been asking for it, and I accept the Minister’s statement. Will he think about the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on fundraising and the extent to which the powers of general competence could be used by national parks in any way that undermined their primary purpose, which is to look after the national parks, their beauty and the environment while ensuring they are a place where people can live and work? That is an important function of national parks authorities.
James Wharton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way again, and I can offer that reassurance. The primary purpose remains, as I said in my speech, that anything that a national park does must be in line with its statutory obligations. There is no legal basis for charging, and we are not looking to allow it. I hope that we might move to a position of greater consensus on the new clause, which I felt would be uncontroversial. I recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members and I thank the hon. Gentleman for accepting my interventions and giving me the chance to put some of these matters to bed.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has for some minutes now been poised rather like a sprinter, but he suffers from one disadvantage relative to the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), whose constituency houses Exmoor, namely that the right hon. Gentleman beetled into the Chamber a little after the hon. Gentleman. We will reserve the right hon. Gentleman as a specialist delicacy and reach him in due course.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I have never felt disadvantaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
As you correctly point out, Mr Speaker, one third of Exmoor national park is in North Devon, and a beautiful part of the world it is. Before I go on with my prepared remarks, which I admit are pretty much a verbal tourist brochure, let me say that I do not recognise a lot of what was said from the Opposition Front Bench about the new clause, particularly the comments about its being slipped in and about insufficient time being given to speak to national park authorities. I, in common with all my hon. Friends, I am sure, had no notice at all. I was first alerted to the wording of the new clause on Thursday afternoon, and since then I have had time to have a detailed email correspondence with the chairman of Exmoor national park, Councillor Andrea Davis, my office has spoken at great length to managers at National Parks UK and two hours ago I came off the phone from a lengthy conversation with the chief executive of Exmoor national park, Dr Nigel Stone. If I can do that, I am sure that with all the voluminous resources available to them, those on the Opposition Front Bench should surely have been able to make some cursory inquiries about what the new clause is all about. It appears that they failed to do so.
Having spoken to those people, I can say that it is the national park authorities and managers who want this to happen. Opposition Members do those national park managers a great disservice by alleging some of the things that they are. They imply that in asking for the new clause those managers will in some way use the powers for nefarious purposes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opposition Members need to be careful about what they are alleging because in my experience national park managers have nothing but the best intentions for managing our national parks, particularly in Exmoor.
That leads me on to extolling the virtues of Exmoor and why new clause 7, in particular, will be so valuable. One third of the national park is in my constituency and it includes the beautiful, rugged coastline that not only provides opportunities for many leisure activities but is very important for our environment and ecosystem. In the conversations I have had with them, the chairman and chief executive of Exmoor national park have been absolutely adamant that Exmoor in particular would benefit from the measures included in the new clause. Let me give some specific examples of why they believe that it would be beneficial and why they welcome it.
First, there is great pressure on the provision of housing for local communities in Exmoor and other areas of North Devon. Until now, national park authority managers have been hamstrung in the conversations they have been able to have with developers to ensure arrangements for local, affordable housing. Nevertheless, the new clause is not a carte blanche to say that all development will be allowed, and, as the Minister rightly said, nothing in it will allow that to happen.
Dr Julian Lewis
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for drawing such attention to the fact that I “beetled” into the Chamber, as you put it, rather late, and I apologise for that. I also apologise for the fact that unfortunately I am going to beetle out of it again rather early, for the same reason that I was late, namely Defence Committee business. I am delighted to have the opportunity of this small window to try to reassure those on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that they will take my reassurances seriously, as I was one of only three Conservative Members to vote against the scheme for privatising the forest estate, which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred to in her remarks. I am not one to accept on trust everything about forests that the Government put forward.
Having said that, the Government deserve a big pat on the back for this measure. It is often said that the Government do not listen, but this is a classic case of their having listened. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Opposition Front Bench also listened for a moment, because I am directing my speech at them in an attempt to be helpful.
The chair of the New Forest national park authority, Mr Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, is a former official verderer of the New Forest and very highly thought of by all those who live and work in the forest and are concerned with its management and protection. He contacted me some time ago to ask if it would be possible to persuade the Government to include such a provision in the Bill in Committee. Sadly, that stage had just concluded, so it shows extraordinary flexibility and willingness to listen by the Government in general—and by the Under-Secretary in particular—to manage to include the provision.
I fully sympathise with the Opposition spokesmen, because new clause 7 is a lengthy provision, and it is their job to scrutinise measures, whether they are long or short, but particularly if they are long. I should therefore like to try to reassure them about new clause 7 by reading two brief extracts from a document supplied by National Parks England specifically for use in our debate. It says:
“National Parks England (the umbrella body for the NPAs) warmly welcomes the tabling of New Clause 7 by Ministers and hopes that you”—
meaning me—
“will be able to speak in support of it at the Report Stage debate of the Bill on Monday 07 December 2015.”
It then gives a long list of the reasons why it supports the extension of powers, which are similar, it points out, to powers given to many comparable bodies. It ends by referring specifically to the new clause:
“New Clause 7 follows the legislative format established for other public bodies. National Parks England supports this amendment and would encourage MPs to speak in support during the Report Stage debate on the Bill.”
I understand the difficulty in which Opposition spokesmen find themselves, given that a clause of such complexity has been tabled at short notice. I hope that I have been able to reassure them that national parks themselves warmly welcome the clause. I do not think that it is a conspiracy. I have had occasion in the past to point out conspiracies when they crop up, but I do not think that this is an occasion for concern about conspiracies—on the contrary, it is an opportunity to congratulate Ministers, including the Under-Secretary, on listening, being flexible and making a change at, indeed, the eleventh hour. That change deserves to be made if we are to show our trust in the judgment of the national park authorities themselves.
James Wharton
I do not intend to speak for long. I merely wish to record my thanks to hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. We began in a contentious place, but we have, I hope, moved towards consensus. I acknowledge the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has been vociferous in making the case and with whom I have exchanged a significant quantity of correspondence, for bringing this to the Government’s attention and suggesting that it be included in the Bill. The measure is welcomed by national parks and by many hon. and right hon. Members. I hope that it will be welcomed, too, by shadow Ministers and that we can move forward in a more consensual way in the rest of today’s debates. Regardless, I commend the changes to the House. They are welcome and they are important.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Local Government Constitutional Convention: terms of reference—
“The convention must consider the following terms of reference—
(a) the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom;
(b) the reform of the electoral system for local government;
(c) constitutional matters relating to local government to be considered in further conventions; and
(d) procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms in relation to local government.”
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution, local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 3—Local Government Constitutional Convention: recommendations—
“(1) The Local Government Constitutional Convention must publish recommendations within the period of one year beginning with the day appointed under section (Local Government Constitutional Convention).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay responses to each of the recommendations before each House of Parliament within six months beginning with the day on which the recommendations are published.”
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution, local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 4—Local Government Constitutional Convention: composition—
“(1) The Local Government Constitutional Convention must be composed of representatives of the following—
(a) registered political parties within the United Kingdom,
(b) local authorities, and
(c) the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
(2) At least 50% of the members of the convention must not be employed in a role which can reasonably be considered to be political.”
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution, local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 5—Commission on devolution of fiscal powers and taxation—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a commission on devolution of fiscal powers and taxation to local authorities.
(2) The Commission shall consider the following issues—
(a) the desirability, impact and process necessary to implement an Income Tax rate of 10p in the pound on English tax payers;
(b) the desirability, impact and process necessary to give English Councils the same fiscal and taxation powers as those devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the 2012 Scotland Act, and
(c) any other issues that the Commission considers relevant.
(3) The Commission shall produce a report covering the issues listed in subsection (2) no later than 31 December 2017, and shall make such recommendations to the Secretary of State as it deems necessary.”
This new Clause would establish a Commission to consider the possibility of England local authorities being granted the same fiscal and taxation powers already devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Act 2012.
New clause 8—Combined authority functions: cool off period—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall amend any order made under a provision of this Act which transfers a power to exercise of a function from a constituent part of a combined authority to a combined authority, to devolve responsibility for that function back to a constituent part of that authority, if the following conditions are met—
(a) A constituent part of a combined authority requests that the Secretary of State amend an order to return responsibility for the exercise of a function to the constituent part of the combined authority from the combined authority, and
(b) Such a request is made within one year of the first local government election held in the constituent part of the combined authority since the original order was made.”
The intention of this amendment is to create a cooling off period for the transfer of any power to the level of a combined authority. If a constituent part of a combined authority requests that a power is returned to it within one year of next elections held in the constituent part, then the Secretary of State must amend the relevant order to return power to the constituent part.
New clause 10—Governance arrangements for local government: entitlement to vote—
“In section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local government electors), in subsection (1)(d) for “18” substitute “16””
This Clause would re-instate the provision in the Bill, as brought from the Lords, allowing votes for 16- and 17-year olds in local government elections.
New clause 11—Review of fire and rescue services in combined authorities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 15 months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the fire and rescue services affected by the provisions of this Act.
(2) The review must make an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act affecting fire and rescue services have worked safely and efficiently for the protection of the public over the first 12 months from this Act being passed.”
This Clause would require a review, after 12 months of the Bill being passed, of the fire and rescue services to make sure the new system is working safely and efficiently for the protection of the public.
New clause 13—Fiscal and financial powers—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish plans for further devolution of fiscal powers to local authorities in England, including—
(a) an equalisation model related to the retention of business rates, to ensure local authorities with lower business rate income are not negatively impacted;
(b) greater local authority control over local tax rates and discounts;
(c) provision for combined authorities to set multi-year finance settlements.”
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to ensure devolution continues beyond current devolution deals by setting out plans for further fiscal devolution and greater local freedom and stability in relation to budgets and tax rates. The clause also ensures a model is put in place to ensure authorities with lower business rate income do not lose out from the phasing out of central government grants.
New clause 14—Cooperation with peripheral authorities—
“No later than three months after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish guidance to be considered by combined authorities while exercising a devolved function, in order to—
(a) have regard for any significant direct impact of decisions taken by the combined authority on neighbouring authority populations;
(b) encourage cooperation between combined authorities and their neighbouring authorities so as to encourage local growth;
(c) enable greater economic cooperation between combined authorities and their neighbours within a travel-to-work area.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to publish guidance to ensure neighbouring authorities are considered when devolved functions are exercised, and encourage economic cooperation between authorities within a regional economy or travel-to-work area.
Government amendments 4 to 6.
Amendment 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) The transfer of local or public authority functions to combined authorities shall not be dependent on an order being made under subsection (1).”
This amendment makes clear that devolution deals must not be dependent on a combined authority having a mayor.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless the proposition that the combined authority have a mayor is approved by a referendum of the electorate of that combined authority.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, establish the procedures to be followed in conducting a referendum under subsection 2A.
(2C) Before making a regulation under subsection 2B, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission.”
The intention of this amendment is that elected mayors will be introduced only if that proposal has been approved by a referendum of the residents of the combined authority. The rule for the conduct for such a referendum shall be made by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Electoral Commission.
Amendment 57, page 2, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—
“(7) An order under this section providing for there to be a mayor for the area of a combined authority may be revoked or amended by making a further order under this section; this does not prevent the making of an order under section 107 abolishing the authority (together with the office of mayor) or providing for a constituent part of the combined authority to leave the combined authority and to resume its existence as a separate local authority.
(7A) An order under this section providing for a constituent part of the combined authority to leave the combined authority and to resume its existence as a separate local authority must make fair provision for a reasonable and proportionate division of resources between the former combined authority and the seceding local authority.
(7B) Where a combined authority has entered into a contractual arrangement with a third party and an order under this section is made to enable a constituent part of a combined authority to resume its existence as a separate local authority, that separate local authority shall be deemed to be a contracting party to that agreement unless an alternative agreement is reached with the third party.”
The intention of this amendment is allow for a constituent part of a combined authority to leave a combined authority without the combined authority being dissolved, with provision for “fair terms” for the leaving party (i.e. their resource is calculated on a per capita basis, or similar.) and the impact this may have on contractual arrangement with third parties.
Government amendments 7 to 25.
Amendment 59, in clause 10, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the performance of the Localism Act 2011 and a review of the general power of competence provision in relation to its use by combined authorities.”
This amendment introduces a review of the use of the general power of competence by combined authorities.
Government amendments 26 to 29.
Amendment 1, in clause 15, page 17, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) all local authorities in a mayoral combined authority commencing a community governance review of their whole local authority area within two years of this Act coming into force.”
This amendment introduces further measures to support the creation of new local councils with mayoral and combined authorities required to conduct a community governance review within two years of the Act coming into force.
Amendment 56, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this section, so far as including structural or boundary provision in relation to a non-unitary district council area, may be made if at least one relevant local authority consents.
(4B) Local authority in this case is defined as—
(a) a non-unitary district council whose area is, or forms part of, the non-unitary district council area;
(b) a county council whose area includes the whole or part of the non-unitary district council area.
(4C) Relating to 4a and 4b
(a) “non-unitary district council area” means the area or areas of one or more non-unitary district councils;
(b) “non-unitary district council” means a district council for an area for which there is also a county council;
(c) “structural or boundary provision” means provision about the structural or boundary arrangements of local authorities in regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(c).”
The intention of this amendment is to allow the government to make changes to boundaries of local authorities if it has the consent of at least one relevant local authority.
Government manuscript amendment (a) to amendment 56, after subsection (4C), insert—
“(4D) Subsections (4A) to (4C) expire at the end of 31 March 2019 (but without affecting any regulations already made under this section by virtue of subsection (4A)).”
This amendment provides for the provisions in subsections (4A) to (4C) of clause 15, allowing structural and boundary provision in relation to a non-unitary district council area if at least one relevant local authority consents, to expire at the end of 31 March 2019.
Government amendments 30 to 33 and 36.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 37, line 3, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5 and insert—
“4 (1) The mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.”
This amendment would require the mayors of combined authorities to be elected using the simple majority system, also known as “first past the post”.
Government amendments 37 to 45, 50 and 52 to 55.
Mr Allen
One of the difficulties involved in the debates we have had on this so-called constitutional Bill is that they have taken place on the Floor of the House. If we were upstairs in Committee and having detailed debates about particular places and particular boundary issues, the Minister could say, “The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. I will take it away, talk to one or two authority leaders and issue a few words of reassurance.” On the Floor of the House, however, given the rather clunky weapons at our disposal—such as a Division of the House—they become much bigger issues. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on bringing the devolution process to the House, but rather than it being seen as the first step of many, it is lapsing into the good old confrontational stuff that we seem to enjoy so much on the Floor of the House.
Even under that structure, however, we can do a number of things in the Chamber this evening. We need to seek a more consensual way forward and understand that devolution is an organic process and that it will evolve. Once the deals in England have been concluded, they will make progress and other demands will be made. People will see that they can do things that they could not do before. They will look at neighbours who have concluded deals and say, “I’d like to try a little bit of that. I think I’ll talk to the Secretary of State.” The Secretary of State may well suggest to some places, “Things have been done by another place that you could also do.” To other areas, the Secretary of State and/or councils may say, “Perhaps we bit off a little more than we could chew. Let’s take half a pace back, let this settle and then come forward with other proposals in the future.” That process is not very amenable to debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. Almost by definition, it is better done, first, in Committee, and secondly, by the key players—council leaders and Ministers—talking openly and transparently to take forward the process.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech. Does he not agree that the fact that devolution is being driven at pace by the Scottish agenda means that there is no time to have such a convention on the big devolution to Scotland, and is it not time for England to have matching devolution if Scotland is going to get so much?
Mr Allen
The right hon. Gentleman talks about moving at pace and then immediately suggests that England should have what Scotland has. I would go with the latter of his contradictory points: in such devolution Bills, England should have everything that has been obtained by the Scottish people. To round out the package, England should in particular have not just the powers but the financial capability to make the powers real.
I will talk later about new clause 5, which says that we can have income tax assignment to England, in just the way it pertains to Scotland, without civilisation as we know it falling apart. I would add that that would renew and strengthen the Union, which will need to happen in future decades, as a federal entity in which the nations of the Union work together very closely as a family, but all retain a degree of income tax in their areas to make their own country work effectively.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about financial powers going alongside the responsibility for providing services, but does he not agree that there is a case for devolving responsibility for income tax to below the England level? Most local services in Sweden, for example, are run through tax raised locally, rather than at national level.
Mr Allen
I am delighted to hear the Liberal Democrats proposing something in opposition that, sadly, they did not propose when they were a key member of the coalition Government during the past five years. Before Labour colleagues smile too much, however, the previous, Labour Government also did very little on this matter. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) says that they did. Obviously, I would never be so disloyal as to underline such remarks by repeating them on the Floor of the House, but—
Mr Speaker
Order. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman would certainly not have done so in those almost forgotten days when he was a Whip.
Mr Allen
Indeed, Mr Speaker. We all have scars and sins that are best left unrevealed; otherwise that can turn into rather a destructive process. If we look at the constructive process initiated by the Secretary of State, there is a way forward. To finish my answer to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), double devolution has repeatedly been raised by colleagues from all parts of the House in different ways. Let me restate that it would be ludicrous for England to go the way of Scotland, where there is devolution down to Holyrood, but we can hear the sucking sound—Ross Perot used to hear a “sucking sound” in the United States from Mexico—of powers being sucked up from the localities in Scotland into Holyrood. We do not wish that to be repeated in England, which means, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there must be a proper localisation of power if the devolution bandwagon and evolution are to continue.
James Wharton
I intend to speak at greater length on this issue, but as the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to do so I would like to make it clear that the amendment gives any council, including districts, the permission to request to be removed from or added to a combined authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will review the case put forward by a council and make a decision on whether the request can proceed, but I can reassure the House that any such decision would, where possible, be made only following consultation and negotiation with relevant parties. In all cases, we would endeavour to seek and secure the consensus that I think has characterised many of the discussions we have had in a range of places so far, and which is so important in underpinning the Government’s approach to devolution more generally.
Mr Allen
I am sure that those words will have been heard throughout the Chamber and, more importantly perhaps, by all those who care about, or are in positions of authority in, local government. I very much hope that they take the message that the Government and the House are keen for there to be progress on devolution, and that it should occur on the basis of consensus, interaction and negotiation facilitated by the Secretary of State and the Government.
The people who have interacted with the Secretary of State and the Minister will make their own judgment on whether the Secretary of State can be trusted on these matters. As far as I am concerned, however, the Secretary of State has got us to this position on devolution, which, as I mentioned earlier, was not possible under the previous coalition Government or the previous Labour Government. Is it perfection? No. Is it genuine progress? I hope the answer to that is most definitely yes.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
All this consensus can sometimes feel a little bit disconcerting, but I think it is a good thing. The fact that the Minister has underlined and put it on the record, in respect of Government amendment 27, that consensus would have to be achieved—this is not about particular councils having vetoes or unilateral capability, but a negotiated process—is a very important step.
Mr Allen
I can barely believe that my hon. Friend would be anything other than consensual. In recent weeks he has perhaps been known as being on the provisional wing of the Labour party, but his innate character is that of seeking consensus. I agree very strongly, as I always do, with my constituency neighbour. I hope colleagues throughout the UK adopt a similar view and take us forward on this issue.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend concerned that there are absent voices from the consensus thus far, in the shape of the public, who are not always involved or even aware that these kinds of deals are going ahead? I realise it is difficult, but do their voices not need to be captured somehow, too?
Mr Allen
To an extent, their voices have to be captured by those who seek elected office, whether in this House or in the locality. Devolution is just one part of a broader democratic settlement. It is essential that it is not just the great and the good who are involved. As I outline in new clauses 1 to 4, there has to be the most tremendous unprecedented outreach. A citizens convention must go way beyond even what we saw in Scotland, either in the referendum campaign or in its own citizens convention, and use all the modern techniques of social media, technology and electronic polling, so that people can feel ownership. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that unless we build that in, and unless people feel that a proper debate has been had, the process could be stressed and fractured when people feel that the right thing has not been done. I would argue, therefore, as with new clauses 1 to 4, that we will need a broad-based exercise involving an unprecedented level of public participation in order to settle our democracy not just for the next four years but so that it holds for 100 years after that. That cannot be done on the back of us alone making these decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice on a matter of order, although I do not know if I am entitled to do so in the middle of a speech. There are amendments on health. Should we talk about those matters now or wait for a natural break?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question, and, just for once, it is a question that the Chair can answer. The answer is no. The matters relating to health are in the next group, of which the lead amendment is new clause 9. We should discuss health at that point.
Mr Allen
That is very helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, I will limit my final remarks to a brief consideration of manuscript amendment (a) to amendment 56, which bears my name. Amendment 56, which I wish well, seeks to provide some welcome flexibility to allow for the organic growth and development of our devolution proposals. The Secretary of State, who needs to be reassured that the process will not drag on forever, has proposed a manuscript amendment that puts an end date on discussion. Colleagues and local authorities will have an opportunity, a gateway, a window—whatever metaphor we wish to use—in which to make representations. That process will not drag on forever, but there will be a lot of time to make those representations, which seems very appropriate. On that basis, I am pleased to have added my name to amendment 56.
This large group of amendments covers many other areas, including issues on which I could speak at some length, such as votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and a governance review. The latter will be very important. I believe that there are now 34 or so devolution deals. As we develop those, there will be much best practice, which, by definition, we cannot learn from mid-process, around what has been devolved and how, and around how local authorities can use their powers. It will all be at different levels and different speeds—because, again, devolution means people doing their own thing, not taking a one-size-fits-all approach—but there will be a place for a gathering and sharing of best practice by local government so that the next set of deals, building on the pre-existing deals, can be done in the best way.
We do not currently have an institution that can do that. Despite the excellence of the officials in the Department, we do not have what local government might regard as an independent institution to take that forward. It makes a lot of sense, therefore, to have a review at an appropriate time. It might not look that way to the Secretary of State, who is battling through a set of deals with lots of interested individuals—and that can only be his main priority—but, when the dust settles, it will make sense to have an adjunct to the Local Government Association, or whatever local and central Government come up with, to make sure that all the learning from the first set of proposals is carried over to the next set.
With that, I shall draw my remarks to a close. We now have a set of devolution deals, and the boulder is rolling forward. We need to keep the momentum going, so I hope that everyone will wish the Bill well.
James Wharton
I begin with new clauses 1 to 4, which propose the establishment of a local government constitutional convention. We had the opportunity to discuss these provisions on our first day in Committee, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said then, they include the nuts and bolts of this body, as proposed by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which the hon. Gentleman chaired in the previous Parliament. He now draws on the wealth of the knowledge that he acquired from his chairmanship during that time. His intention has been, in part at least, to ensure that some of his observations and experience could be read by anyone who feels that the concept of a constitutional convention is something that could be recommended to the House. I hope he feels that he has been successful in that aim. I have certainly enjoyed the debates we have had on the issue, and I recognise his tenacity and consistency in putting his case before us.
I do not consider it necessary to go through in detail every stage of the possible effects that new clause 1 could have, but it is important to recognise that the hon. Member for Nottingham North has made a number of points that draw on his experience and that inform the debate on devolution. However, as has been the case in previous debates and in Committee, I am not yet persuaded to go as far as to include new clause 1 in the Bill at this time.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that as the talks on Scotland’s money versus that of the rest of the United Kingdom make rapid progress, it will be the Government’s aim to ensure that England has a block grant that it may choose how to spend?
James Wharton
My right hon. Friend tempts me to go further than I can in the specific context of the Bill, but I think he has been above averagely consistent on that point and very clear about his position. He has put it clearly on the record today, as he has before, and the fact that he has done so is welcome.
I look to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for advice on whether you would like me to comment on the other amendments in the group, which I would be happy to do, although I have not yet heard the comments of hon. Members on them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
If the Minister would like to wait until the end of the debate, I shall, with the leave of the House, call him again.
James Wharton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we have had such a productive and healthy debate so far, it would be appropriate for me to respond later to the specific points that hon. Members raise. I therefore look forward to the opportunity to speak again as we progress through this stage of consideration.
Mr Betts
I shall speak specifically to Government amendment 27. The proposals for combined authorities are welcome. They are essentially about local authorities coming together where they wish to combine their approach, their workings and their functions to deliver better services and, hopefully, greater economic growth for the residents in their areas. The idea was pioneered in Manchester. The one fundamental difference between Manchester and some of the other areas that we are considering is that Manchester has had a number of authorities that have worked together over a period of time and these happen to be the authorities that were part of the old Greater Manchester metropolitan area. There were 10 districts that formed that old Greater Manchester metropolitan county, so they have always had a sense of being together and working together over a number of years. They are also unitary authorities that all have the ability to make their own decisions about whether they come together, how they do so and what they do to form the combined authority. It is a relatively simple and easy arrangement in constitutional terms.
The difficulty for some other areas is that the constitutional arrangements are slightly different. Obviously, I am now going to refer to my own area. Sheffield contains the four districts which used to form the old South Yorkshire metropolitan county, and which have worked together to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of success, since the counties were abolished. They came together to form what is now the Sheffield combined authority.
To an extent, the same applies to Leeds, which contains five districts that used to be the West Yorkshire metropolitan county, and which have been working together as a combined authority. There are, however, some differences, which have been recognised at various times by parties on both sides of the House. Sheffield contains not merely the four districts of south Yorkshire, but five other districts which form part of either Derbyshire county or Nottinghamshire county: Derbyshire Dales, Chesterfield, North East Derbyshire, Bolsover and Bassetlaw. They are not part of the old South Yorkshire county, but they are very much part of the local economy of the Sheffield city region—the travel-to-work area.
That has been recognised in a number of ways, and I remember when it was first recognised. I went to the first meeting between the leaders of those nine councils, which took place at Meadowhall shopping centre, and which had been called by David Miliband when he was number two in his Department. I am not sure which Department it was, but it was probably the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I expected a reaction from the districts outside south Yorkshire—I expected them to think that Sheffield Big Brother was going to take them over—but the leader of Bolsover district council said, “Actually, it is quite good that we are involved in this.” He said, “I know that not everyone who lives in Bolsover will have a job in Bolsover, and that many people have to travel to work in Sheffield. What happens in Sheffield matters to us, and how people transport themselves from Bolsover to Sheffield matters to us. It is right that we are sitting round the table having discussions and being involved in the decision-making process.” Those were wise words, which have stood the test of time.
The coalition Government adopted a similar approach. When they formed the local enterprise partnerships, they recognised that the historical regional boundaries were not always appropriate. I know that the previous Secretary of State had a thing about regions: people almost had to cross themselves, or put money in the Department’s swear box, if they mentioned them. He was not always right in damning the regional spatial strategies and blaming them for every evil on the planet, but I think he had a point nevertheless, in that the old regions did not necessarily represent local economies and the way in which areas worked in day-to-day life.
The districts of south Yorkshire were in the Yorkshire and Humber region, but the districts in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were in the old East Midlands region, and that often did not work because the two regional development authorities did not always speak to each other. That was a fundamental problem for the Sheffield regional economy, which the last Government recognised when it created the LEPs and allowed them to create themselves across the old regional boundaries to reflect the travel-to-work areas and the local sub-regional city region economies.
We now face a challenge. So far, the districts in that position in North Nottinghamshire and North Derbyshire have, to an extent, been able to have it both ways. They can continue as districts, as part of the two counties, but they can also be non-constituent parts of the combined authority in Sheffield. Ultimately, however, the districts will have to make some sort of choice.
We are to have an elected mayor in the Sheffield city region. We have had discussions and arguments about that, but it is going to happen. Should the people of Chesterfield, Worksop or any other parts of those districts be able to vote for the mayor in Sheffield, who will be in charge of transport in that area, or should they not be able to vote for the mayor, who will then cover only part of the travel-to-work area with his or her transport responsibilities? That strikes me as illogical, because it will not bring about a combined authority that really covers the city region and the travel-to-work area.
Is it possible that the people of Chesterfield will not have a vote for the mayor because Chesterfield will not become part of the Sheffield city region combined authority—although, under the proposals, the mayor will be involved in discussions and decision making about economic development matters that affect Chesterfield, even if it is only a non-constituent part of the combined authority? I do not think it reasonable for an individual who has not been not elected by the people of Chesterfield to have a say in what happens there.
What the amendment does is ensure that the districts of North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire will be able to make their own decision about the long-term position—about where they think they fit and where their future lies—without the county councils’ having a veto. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I hope that that will done by means of consensus and discussion. No one wants Chesterfield to feel that it is no longer part of Derbyshire county or Bassetlaw to feel that it is not part of Nottinghamshire county, for many other purposes.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is advancing a powerful argument. He is absolutely right about consensus. He is also right about the fact that businesses do not recognise local authority boundaries. Surely, when we talk about devolution, we must talk about it on the basis of economic rather than political areas, but there is a danger of our being sucked into those political areas.
Mr Betts
I entirely agree. In the end, of course, a district council as a whole will have to go to an area, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, the focus should be on what works for the economy in terms of job creation, growth and the development of skills, and on ensuring that the necessary transport links exist.
I hope that the Minister will clarify one important point. There may ultimately be a decision for the Secretary of State or the Minister to make on these matters. The districts in North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire, or some of them, may well decide to become part of the Sheffield city region—I hope that they will, because I think that it makes economic sense—but it is nevertheless possible that Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire will form another combined authority, an N2D2, and that there will then be a conflict between the two decisions.
I understand from the amendment that it will be up to the Secretary of State to decide which combined authority the districts should join, because they cannot join two; the people in those areas cannot have a vote for two elected mayors in different combined authorities. I hope when he decides that he will indicate that his key criterion will be what is right for the local economy—that point was made by the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy)—and right for developing skills, for economic growth, and for the development of a proper transport strategy for those areas.
James Wharton
I absolutely hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We must do what is right. If devolution is to be successful, it must recognise the boundaries that are, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer pointed out, more than political: the economic boundaries and the community boundaries. We must take account of what local people want. I am sure that, in exercising whatever powers he has when discussions on the Bill have concluded, the Secretary of State will first seek to build that consensus, as he has throughout the devolution discussions, but will then seek to ensure that the deals that are done will stand the test of time.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I think I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we might well grant the elected mayors powers to replace the police and crime commissioners, and if, for example, Chesterfield chose to join Sheffield rather than Derbyshire, the people would presumably lose the right to vote for the person who holds their police force to account. I am not sure that, in those circumstances, the Secretary of State could make his decision solely on the basis of economic powers.
Mr Betts
That is an added complication. At present, three separate police and crime commissioners cover the Sheffield city region: one for south Yorkshire, one for Derbyshire and one for Nottinghamshire. Those issues might be considered at some point way down the line, but the leaders of the Sheffield combined authority have— sensibly, in my view—decided not to incorporate the police and crime commissioners’ powers in their devolution deal, probably because that would lead to exactly the sort of further complications to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. They have confined their deal to economic, transport, skills and growth issues, which are precisely the issues to which the Secretary of State will have to give particular consideration if there is a decision to be made about which combined authority the districts are to go into.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that we live in an extremely complicated country both culturally and economically, and one of the things that has bedevilled attempts to devolve powers to local authorities has been searching for the perfect boundaries. The perfect boundaries do not exist. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to devolve than to spend for ever looking for those perfect boundaries?
Mr Betts
Absolutely, and therefore I support the principles of the Bill, but having said that, and while agreeing with my hon. Friend, if we can do something to improve the devolution process, which this amendment does, we should be looking to do that as well. I want devolution to happen, but I want it to work. There is a danger in the Sheffield city region proposals that, without those North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire districts, and without a true reflection of the whole travel-to-work area, the devolution will not be as economically successful.
I accept in the end that it is a matter of consensus, however. This amendment allows those districts to express their own view about where they think their economic future lies without pulling out of the county for all other services. It allows devolution to go forward without a veto from the county over the particular issues of economic devolution and transport powers. It makes a lot more sense for the Sheffield city region. It also offers the same opportunities for the same way forward for the West Yorkshire combined authority and probably for the west midlands as well.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I shall be brief. I am pleased to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, not least because I thought one of his closing lines summed up our objective here this afternoon: we want devolution to happen, but we want it to work. I want to speak to new clause 8 and amendment 57 in my name and also touch on amendment 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), all of which share exactly that objective.
Dealing with the question of consent and the referendum contained in amendment 2, it seems to me that if this process is to work it is essential that it should have the consent of the people who are going to be governed under these new structures. If the argument can be made for the new structures and new form of governance, the Government ought to have the self-confidence to give people a direct say on the changes that are about to be introduced. From a Greater Manchester perspective, I think it is entirely possible that the Government could put a case that would persuade people that the new arrangements should be approved in a referendum, but the very act of withholding that opportunity for them to express their will and to show real consent for what is being done in itself sows the seeds of difficulty and discord and makes it less likely that the new arrangements will work.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
In his speech on 14 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“I will not impose this model on anyone.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to demonstrate that local people want the new system would be to hold a referendum?
Mr Brady
I agree wholeheartedly. I devoutly hope that Ministers even at this late hour will recognise that it is very much in their own interests and those of the Government, and entirely in the interests of the people of the combined authority areas which may face these new arrangements of governance, to accept the point. I am especially hopeful given the sterling work my hon. Friend the Minister did in the last Parliament trying to ensure that people had the opportunity to give consent on the arrangements surrounding our membership of the European Union. I know he will recognise that, given his deep commitment to democracy, it would be entirely consistent for him to recognise the wisdom of the proposal.
New clause 8 is in tune with the essence of the Bill and the essence of the Government’s intentions. There are very few of us on either side of the House who would argue with the proposition that it is generally better for power and decisions to be exercised as close to the people as possible. It is almost invariably better for decisions, including spending decisions, to be taken more locally, and new clause 8 seeks to place an extra protection in the Bill: a safeguard seeking to limit the occasions on which the legislation could be used to permit devolution in the wrong direction. That is not really devolution at all, of course. Rather, it is the opposite of devolution: it is the capacity that exists in the Bill as it currently stands for powers to be moved up, away from the people and away from local authorities which currently exercise powers, to the combined authority or to mayoral authority level. It is a very modest measure—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) endorses that view, and I was surprised at just how modest my aspiration had become during the course of this process, perhaps due to the endless courtesy and charm of the Secretary and State and the Minister.
All new clause 8 seeks to do is ensure that, if a local authority decides to transfer a power to the mayoral level, there would be a cooling-off period before it became permanent, and crucially that a local election must be held before such time that that transfer of power away from the people in the wrong direction—this anti-devolution—can become permanent. That is a modest but important safeguard, and I hope Ministers will accept it would be in their interests and the interests of good governance to incorporate it.
Perhaps the most important measure in this group is amendment 57, which sits, almost naturally, as a part of a couplet with the proposition for a referendum. In a way, if we do not have one of them, it becomes even more important that we have the other. If the Government are not going to consult the people directly on the new governance arrangements that will apply to them by allowing a referendum, it is even more important that the arrangements set out in amendment 57 should be incorporated, which would allow a local authority, in the event that the new arrangements do not work in the interests of that local authority area, to seek at a future date to leave, with a fair distribution of both the liabilities and assets of the combined authority.
I have sought to ensure proper fairness and a reasonable arrangement in the unlikely eventuality that a local authority would reach the point where it was convinced that the new arrangements were not in its best interests. That would provide the necessary reassurance to people that this is not an irrevocable step, and that if it does not work, there is a way out of it. Perhaps most importantly, it would also place a real discipline on an elected mayor and ensure that the holder of that office would at all times seek to behave reasonably and reflect the interests not just of the majority of the area of the mayoral authority, but of the whole of it. The risk that an elected mayor may at some point in the future seek to govern in a way that is clearly contrary to the interests of any one part of a conurbation would be massively greater if the Bill were to proceed unamended. Again, I very much hope Ministers will recognise that the Bill would be strengthened and improved by amendment 57.
Norman Lamb
I want to speak in support of new clause 10 and to make a brief comment on amendment 7. The new clause seeks to reinstate in the Bill, as brought from the Lords, the provision to allow votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local government elections. As a matter of principle, I support the idea of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, whether in national elections, local government elections or referendums. I supported the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum. I have also argued the case, along with many others, for them to be able to vote in the European Union referendum, because it is their future that we will be debating.
In the context of the Bill, I strongly support the case for 16 and 17-year-olds having a say, for goodness’ sake, in the election of their local councillor. I find it extraordinary that the Government oppose the proposal so strongly. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has indicated that there is a debate to be had on the subject, and that we might explore it more fully on other occasions, but how long does this have to take? Those 16 and 17-year-olds can join our armed forces to defend the country, they can marry and they can pay taxes on their income if they are in work, yet they cannot have a say on how those taxes might be raised, on the extent of them or on how they might be applied. As citizens they ought to have the same rights as the rest of us enjoy, and I urge the Government to think further on this.
We often make points about the low turnout among those young people who are entitled to vote, and about the low engagement in the political process. I made the point in our previous debate on the issue that young people are very interested in a range of political issues, but there is no doubt that in many cases many of them are disengaged from the political process. If we are to seek to change that, surely giving these young people the right to a say in the political process would help. The turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum, at about 75%, is indicative of a level of interest in the issues, which the Government ought to recognise.
David Willetts, the well respected former Minister in the coalition Government, has made a point about the breaking of the generational contract. This is a serious concern. Political parties tend to focus a lot of their attention on the interests of older people, who of course tend to vote. I would argue that there is a lack of attention being paid to the interests of young people, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, who have no vote at all.
Mr Nuttall
I am getting confused. A few seconds ago, the right hon. Gentleman was trying to convince the House that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote because such an enormous number of them had turned out to vote in the Scottish independence referendum. Now we are told that we are ignoring them because they do not turn out to vote. Will he just clarify which of those two arguments he would like us to accept?
Norman Lamb
We saw in the Scottish referendum that, if you seek to engage with young people, they will respond. They turned out in record numbers. I understand from the study that took place following the referendum that the turnout was 75% among that age group. I also made the point, however, that there is a lack of engagement with the political process as a whole among young people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on that. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to change that by getting young people to feel part of the process and to participate in it. If we give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, it sharpens their minds and focuses their interest because they have an opportunity to participate in the political process.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making his arguments very well and I do not want to take him to task over them, but I want to ask him a question. Presumably the Bill will again end up in the House of Lords, as the European Union Referendum Bill has done. Does he think it is the place of unelected people in the House of Lords to make a decision on this question, or should it be reserved to the House of Commons?
Norman Lamb
I continue to argue strongly that we should have a democratically elected second Chamber, and we sought to achieve that during the coalition Government. Sadly, Conservative Members managed to block that long-overdue reform. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is agreeing with me from a sedentary position. But we are where we are, and because Conservative Members ensured during the last Parliament that we still have to put up with an unelected second Chamber, it will just have to do the job as best it can. It is a revising Chamber and I hope that it will again make the argument that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote. I hope that I have responded adequately to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).
David Willetts made the case strongly that there had been a break in the generational contract. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to address that serious issue and to ensure that all political parties start to show a real interest in the interests of young people. If 16 and 17-year-olds had a vote at local and national levels, there is no doubt that the parties would focus more attention on their interests.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman said that the interests of young people are not properly reflected, partly because they do not vote, but he then said that giving the vote to even younger people who were even less likely to vote would somehow change the way in which the Government operated. I just do not understand the logic of that. Will he also tell us what is so special about 16? Why not choose 15? Is this about paying tax? We have to draw the line somewhere. What is the principle on which he is basing his argument?
Norman Lamb
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I of course accept that this is an arbitrary line. The current age at which people can start to vote is also arbitrary. We have chosen to make it 18. My argument is that we can reduce it because people aged 16 and 17 have rights and play a significant part in society. For example, they can join the armed forces, they can work and pay taxes on their income and they can marry. Those are all significant rights and responsibilities, and if they have such rights and responsibilities they ought surely to have a say in the election of our national Government and in the election of local authorities as well.
Graham Stuart
If the right hon. Gentleman were charged with a serious offence, would he really want 16 and 17-year-olds serving on the jury and deciding on his guilt or innocence? I certainly would not. We are talking about a certain level of maturity, and the line we have drawn is an appropriate one. If we would not want a 16-year-old sitting on a jury deciding whether or not we went to jail for 10 years, I suggest that we would not want to let them play a part in the election of the Government of the country.
Norman Lamb
With all due respect, I think that that is a distraction from the issue we are debating today. I repeat my argument that if 16 and 17-year-olds are able to join the armed forces, pay taxes on their income and marry, which are big responsibilities and rights, they ought to have a say in the election of their Government, either at national level or locally.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some of the Conservative Members’ arguments do not quite stack up? Maturity is not necessarily to do with age, after all. People of any age can be deemed to be immature, yet they can still serve on a jury and vote in elections.
Norman Lamb
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about that. The argument made by Conservative Members could be used, by logical extension, to deny democracy entirely or to deny trial by jury. I seek to oppose both those logical extensions and to make the case again for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the right to vote. In this Bill, we are talking about their having a say in the election of their local councillors, for goodness’ sake. If the Conservatives seek to deny 16 and 17-year-olds such a basic right, in their own local community, I strongly oppose them on that. The Government say this issue deserves further discussion, and I welcome that, but why can they not just get on with it, accept the principle and legislate for it today?
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 2, which stands in my name and those of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends. As a former councillor in Stockport, I draw people’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The purpose of the amendment is clear: to ensure that a referendum is held in a combined authority area before any mayoral model of governance is adopted. I am pleased that a number of colleagues have felt able to support it by putting their names to it, and I know that a number of others have some sympathy with it. I thank the Secretary of State for his courteous understanding of my concerns. Such a generous and fair approach is, as colleagues from across the House will attest, typical of the thoughtful and decent man he is.
I extend a similar tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who has handled my reservations with good humour and more than a degree of tenacity, and I thank him sincerely for that.
My motivations for tabling the amendment are several. First, this is very much a local issue of concern, given that my constituency is part of the Greater Manchester area, which has been earmarked for an elected mayor in 2017. I can discern no real demand for this innovation among my constituents—indeed, there is a certain degree of reservation. However, despite their and my scepticism, I am prepared, as I argued on Second Reading, to accept that perhaps there is some demand and so I am perfectly willing to let the people have their say at a referendum, in order to allow them to express their view emphatically. Of course, the outcome either way would be something I would respect entirely.
Although not wishing to prejudge the outcome of such a referendum, I remind the House that directly elected mayors were in recent memory rejected by a number of constituent boroughs of Greater Manchester—Bury and Manchester itself—and subject to widespread rejection across the country in 2012. I thought the Conservative party’s policy at the time was absolutely right: mayors in metropolitan areas should be introduced only if there was a referendum and assent was given. The policy of holding a referendum was correct three years ago and I contend that the opportunity to have a democratic decision at a referendum remains equally valid today.
My overriding concern is, I expect, understandable to many colleagues with shared experience in local government: when new models of local government are seen to be imposed on areas, even if more carrot than stick is used, there the danger lurks. Some will still see the Local Government Act 1972 as an act of municipal desecration, with the break-up of centuries’ old counties and the formation of false constructs, but, aside from mocking the quaint fustiness of those dinosaurs—I do not refer to anybody in this House—we should take a valuable lesson from it: people should feel a sense of belonging to the area in which they live. Furthermore, as this amendment proposes, they should feel a sense of ownership over the formation of entities that govern them.
Mr Betts
I am trying to work out what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve by this amendment. Is he just probing the Government? They have made it clear that devolution deals, as negotiated, will go ahead only with an elected mayor. Is he working on the assumption that if the population turn down an elected mayor in a referendum, the whole devolution deal for that area will fall?
William Wragg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My amendment seeks not to ensure that such devolution deals fail, but that the mayor is not a prerequisite of such a deal. I am at variance with the Government on this issue and I would like my amendment to be included in the Bill.
Alison Thewliss
I wish briefly to go through some of the new clauses and amendments. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) makes points in new clauses that have been made before in previous debates. His new clauses 1, 2, 4 and 6 include Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom. As local government is entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the UK Parliament has no scope in that matter, he has perhaps made an oversight in his proposals. In new clause 6, he wishes to make local councils in England equivalent to the Scottish Parliament, which also is not quite appropriate—after all, they are not the same things. The Scottish Parliament is a Parliament, rather than a local authority, and they are very different items.
Mr Graham Allen
The hon. Lady is misunderstanding me and I need to clarify my remarks. I am not at all equating a local authority with the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the Scottish Parliament, which is one of the Labour party’s greatest achievements. Donald Dewar and all those people who were in the citizens convention have created, often without the co-operation of the Scottish National party, a magnificent institution. I just have a degree of jealousy that the powers that have rightly gone to Scotland are not coming fast enough to England and to those of us in the rest of the Union. If we are Unionists, we think that the good things that can happen in one country can happen in all countries of the Union.
Alison Thewliss
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman includes me in the statement that we are Unionists, because I am not necessarily—
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 5 refers to
“the desirability, impact and process necessary to give English Councils the same fiscal and taxation powers as those devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the 2012 Scotland Act”.
That seems to me as though he is drawing a comparison between the two, and I am not convinced that is entirely appropriate.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) eloquently put the case for new clause 10, and I, too, absolutely support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is a shame that the Government are not taking the opportunity at least to trial it in local government, as it would be a worthwhile trial. If they are not prepared to bring forward comprehensive legislation to change the franchise for all elections, it would be nice if they were willing on this occasion at least to try it in this way, because it is very much worthy of examination. It has worked well in Scotland; the 16 and 17-year-olds who were given the vote on the referendum were very engaged and have remained engaged. Those who were younger were not able to participate but they still had greater interest in the democratic process as a result—they paid attention. A lot of them felt very aggrieved that they were not able to participate, but, as was said earlier, the bar has to be set somewhere and 16 is a reasonable place to put it. That has worked well in Scotland and I very much encourage it here.
On new clause 12, it seems reasonable to review how the NHS is treated in the devolution deals. It seems reasonable to see how that is working, and perhaps more powers need to go across if things could work better.
On amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), and amendment 58, I have lot of sympathy for his comments about the imposition of mayors on local authorities. Some of the evidence that we heard in Committee on this issue suggested that it is perhaps not being fair to local government to say, “You must take a mayor in exchange for these powers.” I have a lot of sympathy for the points he makes. As I said earlier in this process, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city region deal did not require a mayor in Scotland, so it is not a blanket policy of the Government to apply this provision in every circumstance. I believe that the Duchy of Cornwall has not had a mayor imposed upon it at this stage. Evidence was given in that respect in Committee.
On amendment 3 and the supplementary vote system, I am not sure that that system is necessarily the best one for electing anybody. I have been elected under the single transferable vote in Scotland and under first past the post here, and I believe that the first- past-the-post system is far from ideal in terms of democracy. I cannot understand why anyone would want to put first past the post back into an electoral system—perhaps there will be more explanation of that later—when the majority of research suggests it is the least fair way of electing people to any system of government.
I thank you for your time, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is all I have to say today.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I shall speak to amendment 56 and the Government manuscript amendment to it. Although I added my name to the amendment, the original proposal came from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who apologises for not being present in the Chamber today. As the House will appreciate, his constituency has been very badly affected by the weekend floods.
I wish to make a few points on my hon. Friend’s behalf. Amendment 56 provides for a very modest change that would give greater flexibility both to the Government and to local communities. Where there is a clear wish for change, a county could achieve it in a much more efficient manner and without too much delay. The amendment seeks to build on existing legislation in relation to changes to boundaries. I am talking about not radical change, but easier changes that both Government and local people support.
My hon. Friend hopes that these changes can be applied to his own county of Cumbria, where they are badly needed and widely supported, as they would improve local government and lead to cost savings. I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke in favour of this amendment. I hope that that sentiment will also be expressed by the Opposition Front Bench and that we can proceed on this matter with consensus. With that, I hope that the House will support this amendment.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I wish to support some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and to try to give more information to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to explain why I am in favour of first past the post.
Briefly, let me talk about referendums and why I have attached my name to amendment 2. It seems that there is a slowly developing theory of referendums in this country that fits in with a parliamentary democracy. It is that those of us who sit in this House, who admire this House and who approve of how our constitution works, have a great affection for the understanding that we are representatives and not delegates, and that we are here to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people for a five-year period before returning it to them in toto at the end of that period. That is the well-established constitutional position. Against that, and in sympathy with that, there is a developing view of where referendums are useful, and moving from useful to becoming essential; and that is to do with the structures of government. The reason for that is that there is a permanency in the structures of government that outweighs the normal level of legislation with which we deal.
It is quite right that Scotland had referendums on its decisions on independence and on establishing a Parliament in the first place, because those are effectively permanent decisions, irreversible and unchangeable without the consent of the Scottish people. Likewise in Wales, the Welsh have had referendums on their Assembly, as has Northern Ireland, too. With regard to local councils and changes, if the structures are to work they need to go with the grain of popular consent. Authority, when it is used, needs to have a legitimacy that is based in democratic consent. When that consent was not given in the Local Government Act 1972, there was a great deal of hostility to what was done because it did not meet the requirements of local people. Against that evolving doctrine of referendums there is, inevitably, the Government’s view of referendums, which I characterise, perhaps unfairly, as being, “We will have referendums when we think we will win them, but if we think we won’t win them, it is a bit too dangerous, so we won’t take the risk.” It is a pity that the Government have not taken the risk with these new structures. Let us take the Mayor of London as an example. The Mayor of London has enormous popular consent, even when it was Ken Livingstone, let alone now that it is the great man, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).
William Wragg
The London example is a case in point. That system of mayoralty was assented to by the population at a referendum.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is exactly the point I am making. That is why there has been affection for the Mayors, even from people who do not share their political sympathies. It is felt that they have a legitimacy to do what they have done. I voted against having a mayor for London, because I thought that another tier of government was quite unnecessary; we already have far too many. However, because London had a referendum and the referendum was won, there is a legitimacy. The great city that I neighbour, the city of Bristol, elected a mayor, having decided to do so through a referendum. Therefore, the people of Bristol have invested in that office and given legitimacy to it. I cannot think of anything worse than having an elected mayor covering Somerset, and I would oppose it tooth and nail. The watchwords will be, “Somerset will fight, and Somerset will be right.”
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
May I suggest something that might be even worse to my hon. Friend? It is that the outcome of the amendment might be that there is no mayor, but a new combined authority with devolved powers being run by a politburo of leaders of other councils, the policies of which people will have no direct say in.
Mr Rees-Mogg
If Madam Deputy Speaker will indulge me, I compare that with the Council of Ministers in the context of the European Union. It has democratic legitimacy derived from its constituent parts, whereas a mayor imposed, without a referendum, lacks that fundamental legitimacy. It is more like the President of the European Commission. To have a system that has an imposed mayor is to move away from legitimacy.
Nigel Mills
Just to continue that thought, will my hon. Friend not join me in having some concern that the people who will be taking the decisions, spending the money and exercising the power will not have been elected for that purpose, but for some very different position on a very different authority that could be on a much smaller scale?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not accept that. I am not a big-is-good advocate. I think that small can well be beautiful. The individual leaders of councils are the doughty defenders of the interests of the population that has chosen them, and they are in their way like Members of Parliament in that they represent a specific area and a specific interest, and they can combine with others to see how decisions can be made. I see no lack of democracy in a group of people coming together, each one of whom has an individual mandate. Indeed that can be a better democratic mandate than having a highfalutin mayor.
Mr Graham Brady
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech very much and following it closely. He may be interested to know—he may already be aware of this—that in Greater Manchester, which is really the point of origin of many of the things that we are discussing today, the combined authority has worked extraordinarily well, and that those elected council leaders have worked very well together. It seems odd to many of us that we should move from a structure that is working well, and to which nobody has any objections, to the imposition of a completely different structure without popular consent.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with my hon. Friend. Imposing structures does not give them legitimacy. What gives them legitimacy is that they should be built from the ground upwards. Fundamentally, that is a Conservative view of how Governments are constructed. I am talking about the little battalions coming together to do big things jointly, rather than a hierarchical system that says, “We know what’s best for you.” That is the approach of those on the Opposition Benches. The socialist approach, as it is now, once again, a Socialist party, is about telling people what to do and giving them the figures who do it. The Conservative evolutionary approach is to allow people to come together, each one of whom individually has legitimacy to do things. I absolutely accept his point that combined authorities have worked by consent and that they do not necessarily need super-mayors or metro mayors put on top of them. If that is done without referendums, we will be back here in 20 years’ time—[Interruption.] I very much hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is still here in 20 years’ time so that we can discuss these important matters.
Mr Skinner
I have got a better chance of surviving a long number of years if we keep the NHS out of the hon. Gentleman’s and Tory hands. Keep the NHS public, and I have a chance—I am taking a gamble here—of making it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not think the Prime Minister had any intention of making me the Secretary of State for Health, but now that he has heard from the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will not.
We will return to the legitimacy of these changes if there are no referendums. Although the Government might well push the provisions through and order these mayors to be appointed, if there is not that validation through referendums the component parts of the super-areas will chafe. They will say, “We are paying taxes to pay for the centre of a city to which we have no real link. We would rather be run from Whitehall than by these funny people in a town hall with whom we have no real link.” The referendum lock follows the grain of the developing referendum theory of government in this country and will ensure that the process is more successful in the long run. In opposing the amendment, the Government are probably being short-termist.
I promised the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that I would come on to the amendment about first past the post and why I have put my name to it. I am very grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove proposed it, and had he not done so I would have tabled my own amendment. I believe in first past the post as the fairest electoral system. I think that people get what they vote for rather than what they do not vote for. They get what they most like, not what they least dislike. The fundamental problem with proportional systems is that nobody gets what they want. Everybody gets something else, because the votes go off in all sorts of different directions.
Mr Graham Allen
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the 50% of people in Scotland who voted for non-separatist parties got what they thought they were getting when they received only three Members of Parliament to represent them whereas the other 50% got 56?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. They got exactly what they wanted. They got a referendum that decided that they would remain part of the United Kingdom and then they voted for champions to come to this place and represent them constituency by constituency. That is how first past the post works. I wish that they had all voted Conservative; it is a great shame that they did not. The system worked effectively to represent what most people in Scotland wanted. Sadly, most people in Scotland did not want the Conservatives to have 56 MPs. How that aberration could have come about, I do not know, and I am sure that in time it will change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It was indeed worse in 1997.
However, the majority in each constituency, or at least a plurality in each constituency, got exactly what they voted for and not one of the three Unionist parties in those constituencies was able to compete. That seems perfectly fair.
Alison Thewliss
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only reason why the Scottish Conservative party is present in the Scottish Parliament is proportional representation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was going to say that it was because of my efforts in Glenrothes in 1997, but I think that that would be untrue. I would be accused of misleading the House. I think it is to do with the fact that we have a fantastic leader of the Conservatives in Scotland and an inspired Secretary of State. The two combine to make Conservatism in Scotland the coming force. However, that strays from the main topic of why first past the post is a preferable system. It is important to have a victory for the most popular rather than the least unpopular. It encourages the most charismatic figures and people who have a strong party affiliation to stand. That is important.
I am not a great believer in having huge numbers of independents running our great cities. There is a danger that if we take people outside the party system they do not have a particular badge to stand under and it is not clear at the outset what they represent, other than independence. They have no fall-back as regards having someone senior in the political system to get in touch with to guide them.
Norman Lamb
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I totally disagree with everything that he is saying. Does he not think that there is a risk that with first past the post in local government one can end up with a complete one-party state, as has happened in some Liberal Democrat councils, some Conservative councils and, indeed, some Labour councils? The net result is a sort of rotten borough with poor local government and no accountability.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Having one party in office forever can create its own difficulties, but I think that that is less likely to happen with a mayor than with a local council with individual councillors. A mayor stands both as a party figure and as an independent figure. That is undoubtedly the case with the mayoralty for London, and the Conservative and Labour figures who have fought successfully have done so by being semi-detached from their parties and building up their personal following. That would happen in other places, but it clarifies the issue and is more straightforward if we have first past the post and whoever is most popular wins.
To go back to the developing theory of referendums, I also think that first past the post is what the British people voted for. We had a great referendum under the coalition Government of which the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was a very distinguished part, and in that referendum the electorate blew a very large raspberry at electoral reform. They said that they did not want the alternative vote system but wanted to stick to first past the post.
For a Government who have an opportunity to correct what was previously put in place and to go for what the electorate not only want but have voted for is fundamentally democratic and proper, and ties in with my original theory of referendums. It is the right of the people to decide who governs them as well as the structures of government and how they relate to them. The individual Members, mayors and councillors are then entitled to operate those levers between elections. How people vote, for whom they vote and the regions for which they vote ought to be determined by referendums. We have had one in support of first past the post, and we have had one supporting a mayor for London and a mayor for Bristol. It is a mistake to ignore the very first of those votes and an error not to give people the right to vote on their own structures in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I gently remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that although I did not want to interrupt him when he was in such rhetorical form in his intervention, matters concerning the health service are in the next group of amendments. The House so much looks forward to hearing what he has to say then, but that will be after we have finished debating this group of amendments, having heard Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is of course a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), with whom I normally agree. I quite understand his enthusiasm for referendums, which in one sense surprises me, because a traditionalist like him would normally have opposed the concept of referendums. He would have opposed them in the past because it was felt—this point has been made many times in the House of Commons—that they were a fundamentally unparliamentary device that has often been used by Governments who are dictatorships to impose extreme changes on society.
I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, however, because in recent years referendums have been seen as a fundamentally conservative force. Generally, the people vote against change. I understand his arguments and I understand why the Government are wary of accepting any amendment promoting a referendum, because they have looked at what has happened in the past, particularly in the north-east, where people voted against change. The Government are determined to drive change forward and fear that if there is a proposal for a referendum, people will usually vote no. This is a very interesting argument.
I want to dwell on amendment 56, which was tabled by my hon. Friend—and indeed real friend—the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Normally I agree with him about most things, but on this occasion his amendment concerns me, and I want to make a few points about the situation in Lincolnshire and give the Minister the opportunity to reply.
My hon. Friend represents north-east Lincolnshire, and I represent Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is a very conservative county. It is so conservative that the Gainsborough constituency—which I am proud to represent—has had only three MPs in 90 years, and all three have been Conservative. People do not like change in Lincolnshire, and they are wary of any device such as that in amendment 56. The Government appear to have accepted the amendment, albeit with a sunset clause, and it is quite unusual for a Back Bencher to table an amendment that the Government then accept.
People in Lincolnshire—and, I suspect, other rural counties—want to proceed by consent, which seems an admirably conservative point of view. Normally, proceeding by consent means dealing with the tried and tested, and taking things forward together. Many people are scarred—this has already been referred to—by the events of the 1970s, when ancient counties were swept away. There were different enthusiasms then. They may not have been in favour of elected mayors, referendums or unitary authorities, but everything was done on the basis of Heath-ite efficiency. We now know that that drive towards Heath-ite efficiency was fundamentally wrong and unpopular, and it imposed Whitehall centrist ideas on what local people wanted. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is here. As a result of 1974, we created the ludicrous county of Humberside, destroying Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire—what madness. We know that is not the right approach.
Speaking as a Conservative—not just as a party politician, but as someone who tries to understand Conservative values—I appeal to the Minister to proceed with great caution and to take people with him on this matter. Now, elected mayors are all the rage, but a few years ago so were police and crime commissioners. We had a mixed history with that—low turnouts, lack of interest, and not necessarily democratic accountability.
Lincolnshire County Council is generally well run, popular, and has been in place for 130 years. The district councils have been in place for more than 40 years. It is not for me to speak for local councillors in Lincolnshire, but since they cannot speak in this place and have only me to say these things, I hope nobody minds if I say that we do not want a solution imposed on us. What worries me about the amendment—and the Government’s ready acceptance of it—is that, as the county council and district councils recognise, in terms of unitary authorities, elected mayors and devolution, we do not want a bruising battle over many years between district and county councils about which should be abolished.
We want to proceed by consent and to get together. We are happy with the idea of central Government devolving more powers to a county such as Lincolnshire, but we recognise that we are not Manchester, Birmingham or London. We are a large, quite poor county with a low rate base and a scattered population. There is no question that we could run the NHS or anything like that; we are not in the business of devo-max. We want to leave the present structure in place with district councils and county councils, and perhaps form a new body on which those will be represented. We would then accept new powers for that body. That is how we want to proceed by consent. Given many of our discussions so far, I am worried that in our rush for change and innovation, we may ride roughshod over what local people and councillors want. Being sensible people and knowing their area, they generally want to proceed slowly, cautiously, and by consent. With that, I feel that I have made my arguments and I will let others speak. I am sure they will be far more interesting than me.
Nigel Mills
I am in the unfortunate position of not only having to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but disagreeing with them both. I always thought that if I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I should sit down and think again. In this case, however, I disagree with his arguments, because I think that when electing an individual who will have significant powers, we should try to ensure that they are elected with a larger proportion of the vote than is required by first past the post.
I suspect that no one would want some kind of extremist to win a powerful mayoralty in a fluke election where there were 14 candidates and the winner ended up with 16% of the vote. I accept that that is unlikely, but it would be a horrible situation. I am sure that the people of France, having seen their election results over the weekend, are glad that they will have a run-off in their presidential election. If the Front National were to win the first round, people will get a chance to elect a non-extreme president. I disagree with my hon. Friend, because when electing an individual who will have power, I am not sure that first past the post is the right answer. We should have the system currently used for the London Mayor and police commissioners, where there is a run-off after the original vote to ensure that the person who wins commands 50% of the vote.
I also disagree with my hon. Friend that not having an elected mayor is the least worst thing. If we are to devolve significant amounts of money and power to a new body, that body must be accountable directly to the people. We need people standing and being elected on the basis of how they will use that power and money.
When people elect a leader of a district council that has a small £10 million budget and mainly does planning and refuse collection, I am not convinced that they will be thinking, “The party I am voting for will choose the leader of the council and will effectively have a veto over the new super body that covers at least two counties in my area.” That is not accountable to the people, and I think it is bad for democracy. We risk recreating the police authority model that we did not think worked, but on a much larger scale and with more powers. That would be a retrograde step for our constituents’ democratic accountability over key public services, and that is why I do not support the amendment.
On amendment 56, I am a supporter of devolution to English regions. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made the right arguments, because areas such as Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire do not have a long-standing, coherent geography that makes people think, “That’s a natural body of government I identify with.” We must proceed carefully, and ensure that we produce Government bodies that people identify with and say, “Yes, I see a coherent natural fit. That is where I look to for decisions to be taken.”
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that some parts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire might feel better suited to the Sheffield region than to Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I am pretty certain that Amber Valley, which runs along the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and has the strapline “The Heart of Derbyshire” sees itself firmly in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area, rather than somewhere else, but it is right for individual local districts to have the democratic right to say, “We represent our people, and we think that that region is the right place for us to be.” If people vote for that, that is what should happen, and there should not be a veto from a higher authority that covers a different area.
In exercising that right and making that decision, the Secretary of State should try to achieve consensus, consider the broader picture, and ensure that we do not achieve some strange, farcical democratic situation where, if the people of Bolsover choose to go with Sheffield, they suddenly have no say in holding their own police force to account because that is handled by the elected mayor for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. We must proceed with caution regarding what powers go to the mayors. If they are mainly economic powers and interests, and perhaps transport, perhaps elected mayors should not replace the police commissioners if we are to vary the geography, as that could be a dangerous step.
I know that people in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are keen to replace their police and crime commissioners, but I am not sure how one person can hold to account two different police forces. That seems a little strange, because someone could be using one mandate to hold to account two forces with very different policies. We must think carefully about such functions. We ought to think properly about the geography, not just rely on some historical, centuries-old set of local government boundaries that may not make sense in the modern world. We should step back and think about what a good system of local government would look like if we added that extra tier. I am not sure that our constituents would thank us if we had four different tiers of local government.
My constituents in Heanor or Ripley elect 21 town councillors and 45 borough councillors. They elect two councillors to the county council, which has more than 60 councillors. I am not sure that they will fancy electing a new mayor and another tier of government, and paying for all that as well. I am not sure that many of them understand exactly what functions those three council tiers have, and what a fourth one on top would do. They would probably think that all four had some role in economic development and regeneration, largely because that features significantly in most of the election literature that we see.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am concerned about amendment 56 and the Government’s acceptance of it, albeit subject to the proposal in amendment (a).
The reasons for my concern go back some time. Twenty years ago, before I was privileged to be a Member of Parliament, I served on the Local Government Commission, which looked at structures of local government in England, including at whether councils should switch from a two-tier structure to a unitary one. The method we adopted in those days was to invite local people and councils to submit evidence, and to hold public inquiries and hearings on the evidence. It was very much a bottom-up process. That was decided by consensus in the commission. In due course, it made recommendations to the Government, which were adopted by Parliament if changes were involved.
In Dorset, which I have the privilege of representing in Parliament, there was a lively debate about whether Poole and Bournemouth should become unitary authorities, with Dorset County Council remaining a county council and a two-tier system operating in the rest of the county. In the end, it was agreed that Poole would become a separate unitary authority, as would Bournemouth, but the remainder of the county council area would be two-tier, with Dorset County Council dealing with the main services such as education and social services, and the borough or district councils dealing with the services closest to the people.
Nothing that has happened in the 20 years since leads me to believe that people in Christchurch, East Dorset or Dorset are anything other than content with the current arrangements. When there was all this talk about the possibility of change being forced through by the Government, I was assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that nothing would happen to change things in Dorset unless it had the wholehearted consent of the councils concerned. On that basis, a half-baked proposal introduced by Poole, with support from Bournemouth, to try to set up a new unitary authority incorporating Christchurch and East Dorset, could not work. Dorset County Council understandably said that it would mean that part of its area, which enables it to provide good services and make economies of scale, would be taken away and no longer be included in Dorset county. The line, which the Secretary of State articulated to me very persuasively, was that there was no need to worry, because nothing would be imposed from the centre. It was something that would only come from the bottom up.
That is where we were until today and the inclusion of amendment 56 on the amendment paper. I assumed that the amendment did not have Government support, and I had not applied my mind to the question of opposing it. I assumed, on the basis of what I had been told, that it would be opposed by the Government. Much to my amazement, I found that a manuscript amendment had been tabled, suggesting that the Government were going to accept amendment 56, albeit on the basis that it would only be in operation until 31 March 2019, which coincides with the end of the current period for district councils. The terms of office for all the district councils that were elected last May expire at the end of March 2019.
That is the effect of the Government amendment, and they have not provided any detail about the criteria that they will use to exercise their significant power to intervene against the wishes of one or more local councils in, to take my county example, Dorset.
Sir Edward Leigh
I hope that the Minister is listening, because it is open to him to intervene on my hon. Friend, to make it clear that in areas such as Lincolnshire and Dorset we should only proceed towards a unitary authority by consent.
James Wharton
May I take the opportunity, as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention to build that consensus? We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it. However, we have been persuaded, that, as proposed in amendment (a), areas should not at the same time be prevented from being part of devolution deals. We are seeking to build consensus, not impose change on areas, but we should have the flexibility to ensure that we can deliver the deals that local people want.
Mr Chope
I am grateful for that, so far as it goes, but will the Minister explain how he will deal with the situation in, for example, Dorset? The county council wishes to retain control over the area that it currently governs. If one or more district councils in that county council area wish to enter into a unitary arrangement with, for example, Poole and Bournemouth, who will prevail? Is it going to be the will of the county council or is it going to be the will of, for example, Christchurch Borough Council? In my constituency, a number of councillors serve on the borough council and on the county council. To which group will the Government pay heed, or will they say, “Because there is no agreement, there can’t be any progress”, which I understood was the Government’s policy?
James Wharton
Of course we want to find consensus. Tempted as I am to go down the route of discussing individual proposals in too much detail, there is no intention to set out here or at any other time some sort of rule that would allow districts always to determine what happens, or counties always to determine what happens. We want to talk with local areas, take representations from those local authorities and local people, from local enterprise partnerships and, of course, from hon. Members representing those areas to build a consensus as to how best we should go forward with this process. The Secretary of State will apply a statutory test, which I will talk about later, but I hope I can at least give my hon. Friend that reassurance.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, so far as it goes, but basically he is saying that the Government will now decide. A few months ago the process was to be bottom-up, driven by the local councils: if they wanted change, they would be able to introduce change. Now we are told that nobody will be able to dictate, neither a borough council nor the county council, but ultimately the Government will decide. This is a significant change of Government policy, announced in the form of a manuscript amendment to amendment 56.
Sir Edward Leigh
This is an interesting triangular discussion and it is terribly important. What I think my hon. Friend is looking for, and what I am looking for—again, the Minister can intervene on my hon. Friend—is an assurance that if either Dorset County Council or one of the district councils does not want change, that would effectively be a veto, and the same would apply to Lincolnshire and other rural areas. In other words, change would proceed only by consensus. The Minister says he wants to proceed by consensus, as I understand it, and that is extremely important. Again, he can intervene on my hon. Friend.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his suggestion that we might be able to find a modus operandi between the two of us, who are very concerned about this, and the Minister, who I know is doing his best to give us assurances which will enable us to support amendment 56, as amended by the Government, rather than dividing the House on it. I am happy to give way once more to the Minister if he is able to give the sort of undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was suggesting he might like to give.
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I will talk more about this issue when I speak to the new clause and amendment later. It is important to be clear that this is not about allowing areas to veto. We want to allow flexibility to build that consensus. The Government’s intention is to work with local areas to deliver economically sensible areas of devolution, with structures that sit beneath them that allow those things to be delivered and that potential to be realised. So it is not about giving one area or another a veto or taking a particular mandated approach; it is about having the flexibility to deliver what different areas need. That is what the amendment allows, which is why we are looking at it so closely and are keen to see it discussed further and delivered as part of the Bill.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid that what he said goes against the position that we have already established, which was explained to me by the Secretary of State—namely, that the Government were not pushing any of this agenda, but that this agenda could be promoted by individual councils if they wished and if they had the agreement of their neighbouring councils. Now we are told that it no longer depends on their having the agreement of their neighbouring councils, but that the Government will intervene if they think the consent of a neighbouring council is, for example, being unreasonably withheld. That has not been spelled out yet in the legislation, but it is implicit in what the Minister says—a completely different proposition from what we had before.
This is a sensational change in the Bill, because up until now we had been told that the Government were neutral and that they were enabling councils to do what they want. If this measure goes through as the Government obviously want it to do, one of the consequences is that between now and 2019, in counties such as Dorset, instead of getting on and running local services for local people, the councillors and their officers will be preoccupied with arguing the toss about new structures—structures which, as I have already said, were established 20 years ago and have not been criticised at all. Small councils such as Christchurch Borough Council—the ancient borough—are threatened with losing their independence. Likewise, East Dorset District Council is threatened with losing its independence, ultimately at the whim of the Government.
This is all done, supposedly, in the name of devolution, but a district council is a highly devolved body because it is close to the local people. It decides those all-important planning applications in accordance with the wishes of the local people. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) in his place. He will know that one of the reasons that Bournemouth has great tower blocks on its clifftop is that for many years it has had a different planning policy from that of Christchurch, which has an equally delightful clifftop but has not wrecked it by allowing enormous tower blocks on it. That is why Highcliffe is still an attractive place in which to take a holiday, like Friars cliff and other places in Christchurch, which are gems on the south coast.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically robust speech. I am slightly concerned that he does not seem to be taking account of the fact that there is a very good photograph of the four leaders of the four local authorities that he refers to, shaking hands about wanting to explore coming together in a new formation. Surely localism is exactly what the Government are doing—providing them with the opportunity to do that. True localism would be for us to let them get on with it.
Mr Chope
It is interesting that the opposition leader on Poole unitary authority said he thought it was important that this issue should be dealt with by the people of Poole and that there should be a local referendum. That was pooh-poohed by the leaders of Poole and Bournemouth. My hon. Friend refers to leaders, but we must ensure that the leaders accurately reflect the wishes of local people. At present they have no plans properly to consult the people of Christchurch, East Dorset, Bournemouth or Poole. They are just rushing into some discussions. If those discussions are given the extra momentum that the Minister wants to give them by accepting amendment 56, they will create enormous anxiety among the people in my area.
Christchurch and East Dorset have recently had a local plan inquiry. They now have a new local plan, under which they are able to preserve most of the green belt in their area. My constituents are very jealous of the green belt. Why is it that Poole and Bournemouth want to get their hands on the land in East Dorset and in Christchurch? It is so that they can impose their planning policies on the green belt and expand outwards into our area. That is the perception of my constituents and that is why they are so concerned about it. Up until today, I have been able to say, “Don’t worry. That is never going to make any progress,” because I know for a fact that Dorset county council regards as anathema the idea that it should have two boroughs within its two-tier system taken away from it, because that would make Dorset county council less viable. I had assumed up until now that that would give Dorset county council a veto and therefore that none of these half-baked ideas would make any progress.
Mr Skinner
The situation is very difficult, and it is pretty clear that the Government are making decisions on the hoof. It is almost a fag packet job. I live in and represent an area that is involved in two of these structures. One of them is dominated by Sheffield and the four adjoining council areas of Barnsley, Rotherham and so on. That is now attracting the attention of at least three, maybe four, councils in north Derbyshire—Bolsover, Chesterfield, North East Derbyshire and possibly Derbyshire Dales. On top of that, there is the D2N2 power structure which covers Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It is time that the Minister got to his feet and explained precisely what will happen if Sheffield demands the powers that currently reside with Derbyshire County Council around transport and takes them away from the county. We have got two power structures both vying for the same thing. Although Dorset is complicated, this is even worse.
Mr Chope
I instinctively think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I say that not only because I have on my wall at home a picture of his constituency that was presented to me by his council when I was a junior local government Minister—a picture that I chose—but because I think that his experience means that he understands the complexity of these issues and their potential impact on ordinary people.
The Government can sometimes give the impression that they get rather intolerant of those us who want to raise issues such as this.
Graham Stuart
I have tried to follow this closely but I may not have understood amendment 56, which I am trying to square with the assurances from the Minister. If his assurances are right, why would the Government support amendment 56, which will allow the imposition of this if only one affected local authority says so?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and perhaps the Minister will reply to it. If we are talking about genuine consensus—in other words, agreement between local authorities—then we do not need amendment 56, which is designed to enable the Government to intervene when some local authorities do not do as the Government think they should be doing. That is essentially what this is about. We might as well face up to the reality that this is a very centralising part of the Bill because it brings power back to the Government to enable them to change the structures of local government boundaries in areas such as Dorset.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), if amendment 56 is accepted, could it not, despite the promises from the Minister, be used as a lever against a recalcitrant council to say, “You’d better fall into line or amendment 56 will be brought into play”?
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend knows all about levers, having been a deputy Chief Whip. That is exactly how I envisage this power being used. I am sure that that is why there was an attempt to smuggle it through at the last minute. Now we are, I hope, exposing it for what it is, which is a power grabbed by the Government to try to ensure that they can have the final word and beat their stick against a council that is not doing as they wish it to do.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am making the assumption that my hon. Friend would support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) to have a referendum.
Mr Chope
Absolutely. I am very supportive of that amendment, but I have not yet had a chance to talk about it because I am so concerned about amendment 56 and amendment (a). I am not going to restate the case about the referendum, but I think it is a necessary safeguard.
If we look at the history books we see the unintended consequences that can flow from local government reorganisation. It was only because Wandsworth council started a campaign to abolish the Inner London Education Authority that education was given back to the inner-London boroughs, which were then able to gain economic growth as a result of having good-quality education within their boundaries. The same thing happened with the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council was interfering in the lives of the boroughs in inner London and outer London, so those in charge of the boroughs at the time persuaded the Conservative Government to abolish it. As a result, parks such as Battersea park are run by the local authority—Wandsworth council—rather than by a remote authority for Greater London.
If we are not going to put proposals like this to the electorate, we must have the necessary safeguards. None of this stuff was in our manifesto. There was no suggestion that a Conservative Government were going to restructure local authorities so as to try to squeeze out small councils that are closest to the people. If we are not going to test this in a general election and amendment 56 is going to be on the statute book until the end of March 2019, it is all the more important that we should be able to have the safeguard of a referendum—the very safeguard that the Poole People party and the Liberal Democrats have sought, in vain, from the leaders of Poole, Bournemouth, East Dorset and Christchurch Borough Councils.
We are on the threshold of a big spat at local government level between different councils at different tiers and different councillors with different personalities and political parties. This threatens completely to preoccupy local government for the next three or four years. We will look back and say that this all started with the Government wanting to interfere in areas where they should not be interfering at all. They should be trusting local councillors and local people to decide what is best for them. They should not be taking away from Dorset County Council or East Dorset District Council, for example, the power to veto any proposals to change the boundaries in which they operate.
I very much hope that the House will not accept amendment 56 as proposed to be amended by the Government but will push them back to their previous position, which was that this is genuinely for local councils and local people to decide, and the Government are not going to interfere.
Graham Stuart
I will try to keep my comments brief, because contrasts are always a pleasant thing. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who spoke powerfully about this issue.
Graham Stuart
And at length, it has to be said.
I want to tell the House about something that happened in the East Riding of Yorkshire. For many years, people who think about these things have looked at the boundary of the city of Hull and thought it is too constrained and has too little of the hinterland within it. A lot of people thought that it would make sense for it to be expanded, but East Riding of Yorkshire Council is a very successful council and the residents are relatively happy with it. The city of Hull announced that it would set up a commission to look at the boundaries—in effect, at the possibility of Hull expanding outwards. It did so with little or no involvement from East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The response of the council was to call a referendum for the surrounding communities of Hull to see what they thought. This was a one-off referendum: nothing else was going on at the same time. One might think that the arcane issue of boundaries could occasionally capture the public imagination, but generally people would just accept a sensible top-down solution given to them by leaders and Governments and so on.
We need to be careful. I do not have the figures to hand, but, off the top of my head, there was a 75% turnout and a Ceau?escu-esque election result—96% said that they did not want the expansion to go ahead. I mention that in the context of amendment 56 and the argument that, because not all councils are quite in line, perhaps all they need is a little push to get a sensible result. We should be remarkably sensitive to how strongly the population can feel about such things.
Sir Greg Knight
Does the experience of the East Riding and Hull referendum lead my hon. Friend to be in sympathy with amendment 56 or against it?
Graham Stuart
It leaves me in a position of having profound doubts about amendment 56. I really appreciated the Minister’s interventions setting out what the Government want to do. The police reorganisation under the previous Labour Government was top down and people did not like it. It is not that we are neutral—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was wrong to say that the Government have always said they would be neutral. The Government have a position and a vision, but I think it is much smarter to offer reassurances and tell people that, whatever we think, we are not going to push it on them, because we have seen that that does not work. People have to consent to it. There will be difficult council leaders who we will think are being a pain because of their own individual interests, but we should bind our hands and restrain ourselves from just pushing them aside. We need to listen and say to everybody, “Unless you can bang heads together yourselves and get a consensus, we’re not going to come piling in, because we’ve seen where that ends up.”
It might be a Labour Government’s instinct to think that they know better than the people, but it should be a Conservative Government’s instinct to recognise that they do not know better and that even if, in their opinion, the people are wrong—and history might show that they were wrong—it is the people who get to decide, and if they feel strongly about something that should be respected.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend has had a fair crack and I am going to sit down.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
This group includes a number of new clauses and amendments, so I want to focus primarily on those in my name and those of my hon. Friends, although I will also touch on some of the others as I go along. I do not want to detain the House for too long and there is quite a lot of ground to cover, so I shall try to romp through it at a reasonable pace.
New clause 10 proposes votes at 16. The Government seem to be a little confused on this issue: the Secretary of State has said that there is a debate to be had; the Minister for the northern powerhouse says there is not; and the Prime Minister is against it altogether. Yet we know that the Government are considering it for the European Union referendum and that they supported it for the Scottish referendum.
There are more than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK. They can get a job or an apprenticeship, get married, pay taxes and join the armed forces, but apparently they are not responsible enough to be able to vote for their local councillor to take decisions about the local services in the area where they may well have bought a home and live with their family. The Bill is the ideal place to bring about change. Incremental change is how the British constitution develops, and allowing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local elections seems to me to be a good place to start.
The Electoral Reform Society argues that lowering the voting age will improve registration rates. Nearly 90% of eligible 16 and 17-year-olds registered for the Scottish independence referendum, and a high proportion of them took part in it. Research in other countries suggests that the turnout rate for 16 and 17-year-olds is higher than that for 18 to 34-year-olds. Establishing the habit of getting involved and voting in elections at an early age makes a lot of sense if we want people to continue voting throughout the rest of their adult lives. The Scottish referendum set the precedent. It is unreasonable to extend the vote in one part of the Union and not in another. Local elections suffer from low turnout, so that is a good place to start, but if the Minister thinks that this is not the time to introduce the change, perhaps he can answer the question: if not now, when?
On new clause 11, the Government have been very unclear about plans to devolve fire and rescue to mayors or police and crime commissioners, but we know that the Home Office is pushing for it and it is included in the Greater Manchester devolution deal. Our new clause calls on the Secretary of State to publish a review of how the Bill affects fire and rescue services. As we have seen over the weekend, and as we heard in the flooding statement earlier, the fire and rescue service is doing an incredible job, despite extremely severe cuts that have limited its capacity and reduced the number of jobs by almost a third. The cross-party Local Government Association believes there is “no pressing need” for police and fire services to merge. Any changes of the kind being considered will heighten public concerns about safety. The new clause would simply add a level of scrutiny and oversight to the provisions, so I hope that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister will welcome and support the proposal.
Since 2010, local government has faced cuts of 40%, and last month’s spending review imposed a further 56% reduction in central support to councils. We know there will be changes to business rates once they are localised, and we were promised details in the autumn statement about how an equalisation mechanism would work, but no such details were given. Councils have simply been left to plan their future budgets in the dark, despite cuts on a scale that they have never been asked to deal with before. The LGA has warned that local authorities are struggling, and that is even before the spending review hits them. Lord Porter, the Conservative chair of the LGA, says:
“We know we’ve got probably 12 or 14 councils that are very close to the edge now.”
They need to know what is going to happen to them in future if they are going to be able to avoid falling off the edge of that particular financial cliff.
The funding settlement is deeply unfair. The 10 most deprived communities have suffered cuts that are 18 times higher than those made to the least deprived communities. Councils with the highest rates of children in care have suffered cuts that are three times higher than those made to councils with the lowest number of children in care. Although Labour councils are disproportionately hit by the cuts, they are also the ones that are protecting front-line services. Tory councils have shut half their youth services since 2010.
The unfair funding settlements are made worse by England’s local government finance arrangements, which are among the most centralised anywhere in the industrialised world. Councils lack the freedom to innovate so that they can spend on local priorities. Even London, which currently is more devolved than anywhere else in the country, is reliant on central Government funding for three quarters of its revenue. That is far higher than 30% in New York and just 25% in Berlin. London is the world’s greatest city, and yet this Government insist on keeping it on far too tight a financial leash. The Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that local authorities in England
“have limited control over local taxation and, as a consequence, rely…disproportionately on central Government funding.”
Our new clause 13 does not prescribe a particular settlement, but calls on the Secretary of State to publish plans for a package of fiscal and financial devolution that addresses three areas. First, on business rate retention, councils need an equalisation mechanism to ensure that those communities with the least capacity for economic growth are not left to sink. Labour supports the localisation of business rates, but it has to be done in a way that incentivises areas to grow, without penalising areas that have less capacity to do so at the time or in the future.
Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box that details of the equalisation mechanism would be made available during the autumn statement, but that did not happen. It still has not happened and we have not been given a date by when it will happen. We simply cannot allow rich communities to get even richer while everywhere else struggles to provide basic services. The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to introduce an equalisation mechanism to ensure that the least well-off are not hammered by the change.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman, as an expert in this area, will be aware that people in rural areas are on average poorer than people in urban areas. He will also be aware that his Government—the Government of his predecessors—left a system in which there was 50% more support per resident in urban areas, which are wealthier than rural areas, than in rural areas, and that it is more expensive to deliver services in rural areas. It is no surprise that we are not seeing the same reductions in services in rural areas as in cities, because such services do not exist in the first place. His party left it that way. Are Labour Members now committed to a fairer system?
Mr Reed
The hon. Gentleman seems to support my case for a fair equalisation mechanism, which I am pleased to hear.
Secondly, on greater local control over tax rates and discounts, England has one of the most centralised funding arrangements anywhere in the world. Whitehall takes the key decisions on council tax, which means that it is barely local at all. The previous Secretary of State capped rises, while the Chancellor is now encouraging councils to push up council tax to make up for his cuts. Labour wants the Government to publish plans to introduce greater local freedom over tax rates, banding, valuation and discounts.
Thirdly, on multi-year finance settlements, every successful organisation needs to be able to plan for the future, and local authorities cannot plan complex services without knowing what level of funding is available to pay for them. As powers are devolved from Westminster, local authorities need to know that they have the resources to exercise those powers properly. Local enterprise partnerships could operate more effectively if they had longer-term funding streams. Indeed, the regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, could make single, three-year funding agreements, while LEPs have access to a smaller budget, with too many small funding pots and with constraints on their use. We want to make sure that combined authorities do not suffer from the same problem. Our new clause 13 calls on the Secretary of State to publish plans to allow for multi-year funding agreements, which would give combined authorities the resources and time to ensure financial stability, and allow them to make better long-term decisions about local services.
On new clause 14, we welcomed in Committee the proposal that new sub-national transport bodies must consult adjoining authorities before taking decisions. On transport, the Government have recognised that the devolution of powers to combined authorities concerns neighbouring authorities that do not wish to, or cannot, join a combined authority. That is an important principle, but it extends to areas beyond transport, and the Minister’s response to our amendment in Committee was disappointing. The Minister said it was not “necessary or appropriate”, so perhaps he will reconsider and support this new clause. For example, local authorities on the periphery of the Greater Manchester combined authority have concerns about health service decisions that will affect them, but which they are unable to influence. We want to give them the right simply to be consulted. If the Government are prepared to concede that such authorities should be consulted on transport, then why not on health or other key services?
Whatever the Government say, they are imposing mayors by making them a non-negotiable condition of devolution for metropolitan areas. We believe that the spirit of devolution demands that local areas should choose their own model of governance instead of having it imposed from the centre. If areas want a mayor, that is fine, but it should also be fine if they do not want a mayor. Government amendment 7 and related amendments are disappointing. They will allow the Secretary of State to impose a mayor on a combined authority even if one or more constituent councils do not want one. It is no surprise that the Local Government Chronicle wrote about amendment 7 under the headline, “Boost to government powers to impose elected mayors”. The Government are acting in opposition to their own claims to support local decision making in that respect.
If the powers are agreed to this evening, they must be used with extreme caution. Where a potential combined authority is divided on the details of a deal, which it may well be, local co-operation must be the preferred way forward. I would welcome a statement by the Minister or the Secretary of State to that effect. Our amendment 58 would reintroduce the change made in the Lords, stipulating that devolution deals cannot be made dependent on having a mayor. That view has support from Members on both sides of the House, as we have heard again this evening.
On amendment 59, we discussed the general power of competence earlier. The Localism Act 2011 introduced the general power of competence, which was intended to give local authorities more power and freedom to innovate. That is a good idea, but LGA research shows that the power is
“limited by significant constraints set by central government”,
and that local government needs far more independence from interference by central Government. The constraints the LGA identifies are financial, structural and regulatory. Our amendment encourages the Secretary of State simply to review the power of general competence to learn how to make it more effective and to encourage greater take-up than the disappointing level so far.
James Wharton
The watchword throughout the debate in Committee and, indeed, today has been “consensus”, but I never thought that it would be consensus between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). That goes further than I anticipated we could achieve.
James Wharton
I will give way when I touch on some of the points discussed earlier if the hon. Gentleman wants to comment at that stage.
As I have already spoken about new clause 1, I want to talk about new clause 5. It proposes that a commission be set up to consider devolving tax and fiscal powers to local level. I well know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is an advocate of devolving power from central Government, so he will be familiar with the successive inquiries that have covered similar ground to what he proposes. I therefore do not think that a further inquiry into tax power devolution to local government would serve a particularly useful purpose at this time, although I recognise, as always, his consistency and eloquence in bringing such matters before the House. I hope that he will not press his new clause 5 when we reach the end of this group of amendments.
Mr Graham Allen
Given that there is now no need for an inquiry, since there is a precedent in Scotland—I congratulate Scotland on being able to retain an element of income tax—there is nothing in the water in England to stop us having income tax assignment as well. On the basis that there is now something stronger than an inquiry in the form of a precedent, approved by the Treasury and by this House in the Scotland Act 2012, I gladly agree not to press new clause 5.
James Wharton
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I recognise what he says. There are complexities in devolving such matters to local government, but I am sure he will continue to argue, as such matters are discussed, that he wants those complexities dealt with in reality, rather than just in theory.
New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), would provide a cooling-off or probationary period for the conferral of functions from a local authority to a combined authority. I know that my hon. Friend has raised that matter in discussions during previous stages of the Bill, and that it is of great interest to him.
I can see the attraction that the flexibility to reverse a conferral of powers might have for an individual local authority, but there are considerable downsides. The very fact that the combined authority might be responsible for those powers for only a year or so might be conducive to little action being taken under what would perhaps be perceived as a temporary conferred function. The combined authority would almost certainly be reluctant to base any investment or other major activity on a function that it could lose in a few years’ time. Moreover, partners, whether businesses or other public bodies, would almost certainly be reluctant to enter into arrangements that could so quickly be reversed. We consider, therefore, that it would be very doubtful that activity within that probationary or cooling-off period of any such conferral of powers would give a realistic picture of how a combined authority might operate in the future or of the full range of improvements that might be achieved.
We consider that a better alternative, if local authorities are not sure whether they wish to confer a specific power, would be for them to trial such joint working across the area of a combined authority through informal arrangements, such as a shadow combined authority or joint committee. Those models are available to local authorities and combined authorities without the need for secondary legislation to be made. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West not to press new clause 8 to a Division of the House.
New clause 10 seeks to reinsert the clause that was inserted in the other place to amend section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to lower the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. We debated that provision at length when we last met in Committee, after which we agreed to remove the clause by a significant majority of 95. The message was clear then and it remains clear now.
We have discussed quite widely the age of majority and the things that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to do or are prevented from doing by law. It has been suggested that because young people are politically engaged, and quite rightly so, they should be given the vote. That is a conclusion with which I do not agree. The debate has exposed the wider truth that there is a range of views, many of which are enshrined in legislation, that can best be described as encompassing the transition from childhood to adulthood. There is probably no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but it is at 18, not 16, that society normally draws the line.
Any change to the entitlement to vote must be considered properly. We should not make piecemeal changes to the franchise. We cannot make changes and simply assume that there will be no implications for other areas where our laws and our society treat 16 and 17-year-olds differently. The voting age for UK parliamentary and local elections is set at 18. The age that is used in most democracies is 18. The Government have no plans to change it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reminded the House last time we debated this matter that we have no manifesto mandate to do so. Recognising that the shadow Minister says that he intends to test the will of the House on this issue, I encourage all hon. Members to support the Government and oppose the reinsertion of this clause.
New clause 11 requires that the Secretary of State must, within 15 months of the Bill being passed, publish a review of the fire and rescue services affected by the provisions of the Bill. The new clause is not necessary. Devolution is about enabling local areas to determine how best their services are delivered. It is therefore only right that fire and rescue authorities, in agreement with local partners, should decide how and when to review and assess how the provisions of the Bill may affect fire and rescue services. I remind hon. Members that the requirements of the fire and rescue national framework will continue to apply. With those explanations, I hope the Opposition will not press the new clause.
Turning to new clause 13, we are already taking major steps to devolve local taxes and have only just set out plans for a radical devolution of fiscal powers. By the end of the Parliament, the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. For the first time in decades, local areas will see the full direct benefit of business rate growth in their local area. We will also grant new powers to directly elected mayors and to authorities. We will give all local authorities the power to reduce business tax rates to support businesses in their areas. As was confirmed in the spending review, we will set out detailed proposals in due course. In the light of that, I hope the House will agree that this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers, is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the shadow Minister will agree not to press it.
New clause 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to combined authorities on co-operation with peripheral authorities. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate. Before making orders establishing a combined authority and orders devolving new functions to such an authority, the Secretary of State must consider that to do so is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions in the area or areas to which they relate. Additionally, Parliament must approve such orders.
The new clause seeks to provide a further requirement about how, once established, a combined authority should go about the exercise of functions devolved to it. As with local authorities, combined authorities must have regard to all relevant considerations in taking their decisions. Just as local authorities cannot be blind to the impact of their decisions beyond their boundaries, nor can combined authorities. Neither local authorities nor combined authorities can be ignorant of what happens beyond their borders. We do not have these provisions for local authorities and it is the position of the Government that we should not impose them on combined authorities. Therefore, the new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate. I hope that the House will agree.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 were tabled in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West. The first of those amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State’s annual report on devolution to Parliament includes information on the extent to which powers that have been devolved to a mayor remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. Amendment 5 is a consequential amendment to amendment 4, while amendment 6 defines the phrases “combined authority” and “Minister of the Crown”. Although it is the Government’s intention that functions should be devolved as widely as possible, there may be circumstances in which they should be exercised either jointly or concurrently. With those explanations, I hope that hon. Members will accept amendments 4, 5 and 6.
If amendment 58 were accepted, it would mean that any transfer of functions to a combined authority must not be dependent on the combined authority having a mayor. In its intent, it is similar to the provisions of the old clause 3, which the Committee voted to remove from the Bill by a majority of 81. That provision imposed a specific requirement that a mayor could not be a precondition for transferring functions to a combined authority. As I told the Committee, that provision was at odds with our manifesto commitment, and amendment 58 is too.
In our manifesto, we committed to
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”
We are not forcing this on anyone or on any place. Whether an area has a mayor is a matter of local choice. However, if an area wants to have a devolution deal of the scale and ambition of Greater Manchester’s, we do expect a mayor to be part of the deal. The effect of amendment 58 would be to stop our pursuing that manifesto policy. It would potentially put the whole future of devolution at risk of challenge. It is an amendment to which we are wholly opposed and that we hope will not be successful should the House choose to divide on it.
Amendment 2 provides that a combined authority mayor can be established only after a referendum. I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was, as ever, persuasive and eloquent, but on this occasion, I am afraid to say, he was not quite persuasive enough. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of such referendums and to consult the Electoral Commission before doing so. We had an interesting debate on the first day of Committee about this very matter. I recognise that I was repeatedly challenged by Members from both sides of the House about the degree of choice for local areas.
While I do not seek to reopen that debate, I must make it clear again that the Bill does not give the Government the power to impose devolution or a model of devolution in any area. The decision to approach the Government with a proposal for the devolution of powers and the decision on the degree of devolution required are entirely local ones. By the same token, we have always been clear that where areas make that approach to negotiate the significant transfer of powers, like the powers agreed with Greater Manchester, we would expect a mayor to form part of the mix, as that provides the levels of leadership and accountability that are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of such a deal.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Will the Minister clarify what he has said about nobody being forced to go down this route? Does that mean that, under amendment 7, an objecting constituent council would not be part of the mayoralty?
James Wharton
To clarify for my hon. Friend, areas will not be forced to be part of a devolution deal. If a mayor is part of a devolution deal and a local council does not want to be part of it, the council will not be forced by anything that the Government intend to do or can do to be part of that combined authority or devolution area. It is a matter of building local consensus and giving local people the choice.
Mr Rees-Mogg
So if a council is part of a combined authority and it objects to there being a mayor, but the majority of members of the combined authority vote for a mayor, the council will leave the combined authority and will not be any part of any combined authority or of the mayoralty.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is correct. Where an existing combined authority and a number of the local authorities within it want to make a deal but one or more do not, we want flexibility so they are not forced in any way to enter into a deal with which they do not agree, but are instead able to leave and not be part of that devolution deal.
Holding a referendum on the narrow question of whether there should be a mayor risks not fully recognising the choice that is to be made. It also fails to recognise the role of those who have been elected by people of their area to represent them, and to make the necessary decisions to safeguard their wellbeing and the prosperity of the area. Of course, those democratically elected locally will want to have regard to the views of communities and businesses in their area, and of the voluntary sector and those who live and work there, but we should have the confidence in those who are elected in those areas to grasp the opportunities that the Bill makes possible, to consider the degree of devolved power that is appropriate and deliverable in each of their areas, to enter into negotiations with Government and, in what is a fast-moving environment, to take the decisions that will best deliver the economic growth and development they have already been mandated to deliver.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am very concerned that the Isle of Wight and Hampshire may or may not be subject to the rule about a mayor. What are the Minister’s proposals on that?
James Wharton
It is entirely a matter for the Isle of Wight whether it would like to be part of any devolution deal. That would not be imposed on any area. Which areas we would want to see a mayor in as part of a deal, would depend on the deal and what was being asked for in the discussions that took place. There is no single fixed model that we would look to apply, cookie cutter-like, to different communities, but I assure my hon. Friend that if the Isle of Wight did not want to be part of something and felt it would not serve its interests, there is nothing in the Bill that would allow us to compel it to do so.
Amendment 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, would enable a local authority to leave a mayoral combined authority, and, should that happen, provide for a fair division of resources. The existing combined authorities legislation, section 106 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and the Bill already enable an order to be made to remove a local authority from a combined authority with consent from the area, agreement from the Secretary of State and approval from Parliament.
There would, of course, be a number of practical issues to deal with before making such an order: for example, setting up alternative operational arrangements, working out how to divide budgets and any contractual arrangements. However, the 2009 Act and the Bill provide for that. If an order is made to remove a local authority from a combined authority, it must specify an authority to become the local transport authority. The Bill provides further powers to enable such an order to transfer combined authority functions to another public authority or to be ceased.
We consider that the provisions provide all the powers and flexibility necessary to enable a local authority to leave a combined authority, where that is wanted locally; where the Secretary of State considers that to do so is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions, and has regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government; and where Parliament approves the making of such an order. With those assurances, I look to my hon. Friend not to press the amendment.
I now turn to amendments 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 54. The Bill already enables one local authority to be removed from a combined authority if it does not wish to agree to the combined authority’s proposal to adopt a position of mayor. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, who I know from his earlier comments has a particular interest in this matter. The amendments extend the provisions and would mean that, if one or more councils within a combined authority do not wish to adopt particular aspects of a devolution deal, but the combined authority and other councils within it do, then the area of the combined authority is changed to remove the council or councils that do not wish to participate.
Norman Lamb
I would like the Minister to reassure the House that the emphasis will be—I think the shadow Minister made the point in his contribution—on consensus and that we should only get to the point of imposing this if all else fails. Will the Government issue guidance to ensure that the emphasis is on local agreement?
James Wharton
The emphasis is absolutely on local agreement and consensus. There is no power to impose devolution structures on areas that do not want to be part of devolution. Indeed, the amendments will ensure that areas that do not want to be part of a deal are able to leave that combined authority should they wish to do so. The amendments give greater flexibility to existing combined authorities to implement devolution deals, and to build further on the flexibility of the enabling approach in the Bill.
On amendment 9 and amendments 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 50, they are designed to simplify and harmonise the Bill’s provisions relating to the consents needed locally before powers can be conferred or exercised. We have tabled them in response to issues raised during earlier stages of consideration of the Bill in the House. They will standardise the provisions, so that the default position would require the constituent authorities and the combined authority to consent before secondary legislation is made. An exception is that for the dissolution of a combined authority, the consent of a majority of the constituent local authorities is required before such an order can be made. This simply retains the status quo.
I will now speak to amendments 27, 32, 33, 52 and 53, which further increase flexibility within the Bill’s provisions to enable combined authorities to be established and functions conferred. We are bringing them forward in response to our discussions in Committee, where some hon. Members outlined particular challenges in their areas. As is clear, the amendments do not in themselves change any combined authority in any place, but provide the flexibility to allow agreements to be made and delivered.
Mr Skinner
The Minister will know I have already referred to the fact that there are two different contending authorities or joint authorities in our area. One is Derbyshire and Nottingham, D2N2, and the other is Sheffield and Barnsley. There are several unitary district councils associated with that bid. Sheffield may want to take highways and transport from Derbyshire County Council. The unitary authorities of Bolsover, North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales and Chesterfield are all involved with that county council in relation to social services and various other matters. We therefore need an assurance from the Minister—I know he has just been talking to the Secretary of State—that makes it clear that for Derbyshire County Council the circumstances, in electoral processes or in any other way, will not change. Is it yes or no?
James Wharton
I think the assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that what is done will proceed by consensus. We will look to talk to local areas about the different deals they want. The temptation in debates on Bills such as this is to look at the individual deals in individual areas. The Bill will enable us to have maximum flexibility to respond to local demand and local desire for devolution to deliver deals that will stand the test of time. I am unable to talk in detail in this particular forum, given the amendments and new clauses we are discussing, on what is proposed specifically in individual areas or the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I would be very happy to meet him to discuss any particular issues he wants to raise. I can assure him that the intention is to find consensus and build on it to deliver the devolution agenda.
Julian Sturdy
We need to ensure we get the safeguards and assurances on amendment 27, so that however well-meaning it is—I do not doubt what the Minister is trying to achieve—it will not have knock-on consequences for county councils in areas where we are trying to deliver devolution deals based on economic, rather than political, grounds.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend has discussed with me outside this Chamber some of the issues of interest to him in his area, for which he is an effective advocate. I can absolutely assure him that the intention is to find consensus and the right solutions for each area. We need flexibility in the Bill to deliver that. Where there are real concerns, far from being ignored they will very much be heard and acted on. I know some of the issues he raises in relation to his area. I am happy, as always, to meet him and his colleagues to discuss them as things progress, but there is no desire to do anything to areas—indeed, quite the opposite. This is about areas asking for things that we can then deliver. The Bill will give us the flexibility to deliver them.
James Wharton
I need to make progress as I am very conscious of the time.
I thank hon. Members for tabling amendment 59 relating to the Localism Act 2011. The amendment would not only impose a requirement to publish a report on the performance of the Act but require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the general power of competence in relation to its use by combined authorities. The amendment is not necessary.
Jon Trickett
I am grateful to the Minister, who is making an articulate exposition of his position, for giving way. Were some districts in a county area to attach themselves to a great city, would he envisage the possibility of the county taking a different shape—in other words, Derbyshire or any other county in the same category ceasing to represent all the areas they currently do?
James Wharton
The intention is to deliver what local areas want, and therefore the Bill gives us the flexibility to ensure that the county would not need to be reshaped, but equally, where that was wanted, it would give us the flexibility to deliver it. That is the point of the Bill, as an enabling Bill. We want to proceed by consensus, because that is how devolution will last.
Amendment 1 would enable the Secretary of State to make provision in secondary legislation to require all local authorities in the area of a mayoral combined authority to undertake a community governance review within two years of the Act coming into force. Whatever the merits of “parishing” an area, I do not believe the amendment is necessary or appropriate. I recognise the desire for further devolution and for the devolution debate to continue, including on the role of more local decision making and parishes, but this is not the time or place to go down the route set out in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree not to press it.
James Wharton
We will be talking about that with the LGA and other interested parties, but we are still in the process of delivering those deals and it would be against the spirit of devolution were we to announce the format for such a forum. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s comments, however, and the value that such a forum could bring. I am happy to put that on the record. It is our intention to have those discussions and to develop something that has broad agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who cannot be with us today because of the terrible flooding that has afflicted his constituency, has tabled amendment 56, which would enable the Secretary of State to use a fast-track process for unitarisation or boundary changes in a particular area. I suspect I am going to take a few interventions on this amendment, but I wish to highlight this point: it enables a fast-track process and streamlines the use of existing powers; it does not bring in powers that do not already exist. He tabled a similar amendment on the first day of the Committee of the whole House, with a view to ensuring that no one council could effectively veto such a change, however sensible and supported such a proposal might be.
My hon. Friend wished to see a way of preventing one council from denying change that might be in the best interests of the wider area. We have heard further arguments today about the proposition, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). When we debated this last time, I made clear our approach: if such a governance change were to be made, there needed to be a level of consensus across the area and that we are not in the business of imposing change on any one. That remains our starting point and our intention.
Sir Edward Leigh
I know the Minister does not want to comment in detail, but, moving from the general to the particular, what would happen if Lincolnshire County Council, for example, wanted to use amendment 56 to fast-track the procedure, but one or more districts objected to a unitary authority? Do I take it that nothing in amendment 56 would make it easier for the district councils to be overridden by the county council?
James Wharton
The powers already exist for the Secretary of State to review and change local authority boundaries and create unitary authorities—to do many of those things that hon. Members have talked about with concern. This is a streamlining amendment that makes it more straightforward to deliver things where there is the desire; where it is important, as part of a deal; where there is consensus; and where the Secretary of State, having applied the statutory tests, is satisfied it is the right thing to do in the interests of that area. It is a welcome amendment, therefore, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
Graham Stuart
I am struggling to square the amendment with what the Minister has just said. There is no talk about streamlining or tests. The amendment simply states that if one council is in favour, all the others can be pushed aside. That is what the amendment says. Our job is not just to listen to reassurances from Ministers, however brilliant, but to look at the words of the Bill, and the Bill appears to give great power to the Secretary of State. If he has that power already, I do not see why we need it in an amendment; if he does not have it already, I am a little reluctant to give it to him.
James Wharton
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it remains the case that a council or group of councils can now, regardless of the Bill, ask the Secretary of State to implement a proposal for structural change through the traditional processes of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, even where not all councils agree or where there are competing proposals for different councils. He has those powers, but only as part of a convoluted and lengthy process. This is not about forcing unwanted change on areas just because we have the power to do so; it is about enabling the flexibility to deliver the right devolution deals for areas and in a timely and flexible way. I know that hon. Members have raised concerns, but there are none the less statutory tests that have to be satisfied in doing that. This place would need to approve any change, but the fast-track process, with its significant safeguards, is a welcome one.
The new process would still require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the fast-track process, including on matters he has taken into account when deciding to use it, and I reiterate that it could not be used without Parliament’s approval. Having carefully considered and weighed the arguments; having listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and others; and having considered the need to ensure flexibility if we are to make devolution last, we have decided to support the amendment. We have tabled a manuscript amendment so that it is for a trial period and not something that would necessarily last in perpetuity; none the less we welcome the flexibility in the amendment.
Mr Chope
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State would not, under any circumstances, force change on a local authority against its will, and is really only interested in encouraging local authorities to talk to each other? He said, at the beginning of his remarks, that the starting point remains that change will not be forced on any one but suggested that ultimately the Government wished to have the power to force it.
James Wharton
I remind my hon. Friend of my earlier comments: those powers already exist. The Government’s intention is to find consensus, to build on the local desire for devolution and to deliver lasting devolution to areas that will benefit from it. Those powers are already there. This is about ensuring we can deliver, in a timely way, the devolution that local areas want, but I can absolutely reconfirm the Government’s commitment to seeking and building on consensus. That is how devolution will stand the test of time.
Amendments 16, 30 and 55 ensure that criminal liabilities of a public authority can be transferred to either a local government or combined authority on the same basis as other liabilities when public authority functions are conferred. Amendments 17 and 31 amend clauses 7 and 16 respectively and allow references in a transfer order or regulations to be made to a formal document, such as guidance, which can be amended from time to time.
Amendment 36 is a technical amendment substituting the original word “jointly” with the new word “concurrently”. The change is necessary to ensure that certain transport functions being carried out by strategic transport bodies and local authorities can be undertaken concurrently rather than jointly. Amendment 3 would change how mayors for combined authorities should be elected. We have debated this matter at length. We believe that, where we are electing an individual to exercise significant executive power, the voting system for which we have made provision is the right one, and that therefore the amendment should be rejected. Finally, amendments 10, 37 to 43, 45 and 44 are necessary to bring the Bill into line with the arrangement in London. They provide clarity and consistency in respect of mayoral deputies with police and crime commissioner functions.
I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government amendments and reject Opposition amendments and that the House will continue broadly to support the delivery of devolution, on which there is so much consensus and support.
Mr Allen
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Consultation on changes to healthcare provision
‘(1) Part 4 of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 is amended as follows—
“(1) In section 20 (Interpretation) insert after “for which there is a country council (a);”—
“(c) combined authorities and each constituent part of a combined authority””—(Mr Graham Brady.)
This amendment requires that constituent parts of combined authority are consulted on any major healthcare reorganisation in their area in addition to the combined authority being consulted. It also allows constituent parts of a combined authority to refer any such reorganisation to the Secretary of State for Health without such a referral having to be made by the combined authority to which they are part.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Review of devolution of health services—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 15 months of this Act being passed, publish a review of health services devolved under the provisions of this Act.
(2) The review must make an assessment of the extent to which the health services devolved under any of the provisions of this Act have maintained standards and, in particular, of the quality of services and outcomes achieved by those devolved health services over the first 12 months from this Act being passed.”
This Clause would require a review, after 12 months of the Bill being passed, of the impact of devolving health services in order to make sure that standards and the quality of services and outcomes have not declined.
Government amendment 34
Amendment 60, in clause 17, page 19, line 30, at end insert—
‘(2C) The Secretary of State may revoke health functions from the relevant local authority under subsection (2A) only following advice from an independent panel, whose membership must include representation from local government and the NHS and which is to be convened as and when necessary.”
This amendment would safeguard the devolution of health functions by ensuring that any revocation of these functions is done under the advice of an independent panel, whose membership includes representatives from local government and the NHS.
Government amendments 35 and 46 to 49.
Mr Brady
It might help if I indicate now that at the appropriate time I shall seek the leave of the House not to press new clause 8 and amendment 57. Ministers should not take that as indicating that I am entirely satisfied with the responses I have received, but I may be able to find other ways of expressing that dissatisfaction.
The immediate reason for tabling new clause 9 and why I am so concerned about this aspect of the Bill is that we already have a live example in Greater Manchester. I shall not go into huge detail, but because of the difficulties relating to the Healthier Together proposals for the reorganisation of hospital services, the matter will be decided by judicial review this week.
The new clause was tabled in the hope that we can frame the legislation in such a way that proper protection can be given to local authorities and local communities to ensure that this sort of development is not necessary in future. Should, furthermore, the judicial review overturn the existing proposals, it is important to ensure that they cannot simply be imposed in a different way.
The crucial problem is that the existing combined authority arrangements have combined the overview and scrutiny functions of individual local authorities. With the potential downgrading of the University hospital of South Manchester, for example, the usual route of going through Trafford’s or Manchester’s overview and scrutiny committee and referring the matter to the Secretary of State, asking for it to be put to an independent reconfiguration panel, was not available because the overview and scrutiny function was exercised not at the individual local authority level but at the combined authority level.
The Minister for Community and Social Care looks confused, but I assure him that when I had discussions with the Secretary of State he advised me that this was the route to be taken. I then took it to Trafford council, which said that it did not have the overview and scrutiny function and that it was exercised at the combined level. That is the nub of the problem. Significant parts of a conurbation such as Greater Manchester, which may in due course become a mayoral authority, might have no recourse, should a significant reorganisation of health services be proposed that was evidently not in the interest of the local community.
It is a simple proposition that I make in new clause 9. The Minister and I have had some extremely constructive conversations prior to this point, and I hope that he will reassure me that some measure will be introduced—if not today, via a Government amendment in the House of Lords—given that changes to these aspects of the Bill might be made through Government amendment 34. There is, I understand, a peg on which to hang that provision. All I am looking for is the simple reassurance that the Government will ensure that there will always be a route for an individual local authority to make the kind of reference that would have saved enormous cost, uncertainty and trouble in Greater Manchester had it been in place as of today. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and any reassurance that he might give.
Mr Graham Allen
I would like to comment on this group, which includes my own amendment 60. It is relevant to what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has talked about in moving his new clause 9. My anxiety is that the welcome devolution that is taking place—the precedent of devolving health powers to localities is particularly welcome—suggests something of “the Empire striking back”, with the Whitehall Leviathan seeking to place a caveat on the devolution of health powers. What is being set up is the ability of the Secretary of State to revoke health functions from the relevant local authority.
I fear that somebody in the Department of Health might not approve of a devolution proposal within a given area. Let us say that the cities of Nottingham or Manchester—or indeed anywhere represented by hon. Members in their places for this evening’s debate—wished to do something innovative and interesting on public health because it matched the demography in the area. What it might not match, however, is the view of people in the Department of Health. Such people might have a one-size-fits-all masterplan that they would like to impose on everybody.
My difficulty is that if we allow the Secretary of State to pull back to the centre any of these powers, there will be no safeguard in law to prevent that from happening. The Secretary of State could attempt to launch an effort at devolution, but we see again and again what can happen when the dead hand of Whitehall lies upon local government and the charitable and voluntary sectors. A year could be granted to get on with it, with a local authority either allowed to raise its own money or be given some money. If, however, the Department does not like it, it could be pulled up by the roots.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
I should not be, but I am tempted to respond. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s concern, why should the Secretary of State sign the order agreeing the devolution in the first place if it does not fit in with his masterplan? If he is going to take back the powers in due course, why would he give them away in the first place?
Mr Allen
The Secretary of State does have the power to pull back those experiments and those efforts at devolution. That is why I am bringing forward my proposal. If the Secretary of State is not concerned, he would have no worry about the ability of an independent panel to say, “Hang on—give these guys the amount of time they need to experiment” rather than have to deliver to a Whitehall timetable. That amounts to a contradiction in terms: devolution on the one hand, with the Secretary of State pulling things back into the centre on the other hand. My proposal—which I am sure the Minister can understand—is for the establishment of an independent panel, which would not consist of the Secretary of State and his advisers, but would include representatives of local government where the devolution was taking place and representatives of the national health service. That would enable the medical side to be looked at effectively, and separately from the Secretary of State. It would end the constant process that has driven devolution: the interference of Whitehall, often in the very short term, because someone somewhere in the Department of Health—some unknown person—does not like what is being done in the locality.
Mr Graham Brady
Is not the fundamental point that the Bill that we are about to pass may remain on the statute book for many years? The current Secretary of State may be fully committed to devolving these powers, but a future Secretary of State might wish to suck all of them back to Whitehall.
Mr Allen
That is always a problem, but in that eventuality, if the amendment were passed, an independent panel would keep an eye on it to ensure that, if the Minister were not the one who is in the Chamber now but someone more malign than he, it would be possible for the independent panel to blow the whistle and say, “You have not given people in this particular area”—whether it was Enfield, Stoke or anywhere else in the country—“a chance to prove that this part of the devolution of the health service is working effectively. You have a particular view”—perhaps in connection with the need to react to a scandal or a financial problem—“and you are not acting on the basis of the good of the people in the area, but retrieving from them their ability to devolve effectively and use health powers effectively.”
Alistair Burt
I am happy to respond to this short debate dealing with new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), amendment 60—to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has just spoken—new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), and the Government’s three technical amendments.
New clause 9 would amend secondary legislation to require that each constituent part of a combined authority should be consulted on any major healthcare reorganisation in its area, as well as the combined authority’s being consulted. Each constituent local authority would be able to refer any such reorganisation to the Secretary of State, without such a referral having to be made by the combined authority.
As my hon. Friend knows, proposals for reconfiguration must currently meet the Government's four tests for service change: support from local GP commissioners, clarity on the clinical evidence base, robust patient and public engagement, and support for patient choice. At present, any local authority has the right and, indeed, the responsibility to raise issues about a reconfiguration. My understanding is that that right remains. I take my hon. Friend’s point about its having been given to the combined authority, but, because I do not know about the relationships between the local authorities in question, I do not know whether the combined authority would at any stage reserve the right back to itself if it wished to do so. In the meantime, however, I have one safeguard, and perhaps another, to mention to him. This also applies to the hon. Member for Nottingham North, because it is part of the same thing.
The Secretary of State is only going to accept a recommendation for devolution if it is in the best interests of health in the area and if it will improve health outcomes. He must do so by order. There is nothing in the Bill that requires an authority to take on a national health service function. Authorities can do so if they so wish, but the Secretary of State must be able to see a clear outcome, and he retains his duties and responsibilities for ensuring that the NHS mandate is maintained and that all his statutory duties and responsibilities are observed. The Secretary of State is not going to sign an order, therefore, if he does not think that the health outcomes for the area will be improved. The Secretary of State is entitled to put in the order what he wishes. That order is then debated in the House and has to be passed as an order.
It would be possible for the Secretary of State to include in the order the fact that the individual authorities that make up a combined authority have the right to make representations to him about any reconfiguration. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West that assurance, and if we find that the legislation is not as I believe it to be, which is that it has retained that right for the local authority, an order in relation to his local authority will contain that safeguard.
I also offer this to my hon. Friend: if he will consider withdrawing the new clause, we will check, before the matter goes before the House of Lords again, to see whether the legislation is as I believe it is, because if it is, the new clause will not be necessary; but if it is not as I believe it to be, the safeguard—the double assurance—will be included in the order and the present Secretary of State would intend to deliver on it.
Mr Brady
My right hon. Friend is seeking to be very helpful. The difficulty that exists is that the safeguards he proposes apply at the moment of devolution. My concern is that a reconfiguration might happen when a power has been devolved, which might not be in the interests of one of the constituent parts of a conurbation. What can be done at that point is what is crucial.
Alistair Burt
At that point, the order that the Secretary of State has signed to allow the devolution in the first place will allow the authority to make a representation to that effect. The order does not just apply to the moment of devolution; it applies to the substance of the devolution, which is the exercise of the health powers the combined authority will have taken on. In respect of a reconfiguration that takes place under the combined authority, the order will safeguard the right of the local authority individually to make representations to the Secretary of State. It is guaranteed not just at the point of devolution, but in the exercise of powers under devolution.
Mr Brady
Might I press my right hon. Friend a little further? I am avoiding being too specific about the Healthier Together proposals for obvious reasons, but in the event that those proposals were to be set aside this week and new reorganisation proposals were to be brought forward, can he give me an absolute assurance that, either under the existing legislation or measures he would introduce in the House of Lords, the individual local authority would retain the freedom to refer any reorganisation to the Secretary of State? If he can do that, I would be satisfied.
Alistair Burt
I believe that that assurance is present in existing legislation. If it is not, we will make sure in the House of Lords that it is. I would also query why my hon. Friend’s local authority has given up this right in the first place to the combined authority, because it if wants to retain that right, perhaps it might want to take it back from the combined authority.
Mr Brady
The Minister has to understand that this is endemic in the nature of the process. It will become more and more commonplace as we see more powers being transferred from the local authorities to combined authority level, and the new arrangements will become entrenched. That is why it is so important that we ensure that the safeguards are in place at this point—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Unfortunately it is me that makes the decisions—we could do this over two days—but I would have thought the Minister had at least some indication.
Alistair Burt
I rest my case with my hon. Friend: I believe that legislation currently provides the reassurance that he seeks. However, I undertake that, before the matter is concluded in the House of Lords, we will ensure that that assurance is there so that he is covered. He is absolutely right to make sure that his local authority has the opportunity to make representations when it needs to. I am sure that the legislation does that, but we will make doubly certain that it does.
Mr Graham Allen
It may well be that the current legislation covers this eventuality, but the Government’s amendment 34 makes it very clear that local government will not be consulted. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) would like quickly to peruse that amendment, he will see that local authorities will have no say whatever if devolved powers are taken back to the Department.
Alistair Burt
I will happily cover amendment 34 in a moment. Indeed, perhaps I should speak to that amendment before I turn to amendment 60, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), just to make it clear what amendment 34 is about.
Amendment 34 mirrors part of amendment 19 and amends clause 17 to provide that the requirements for combined authority and local authority consent do not apply to regulations revoking previous transfers of health service functions under clause 16. Proposed new subsections 1E and 1F, which amendment 19 would add to section 105A to be inserted by clause 7 into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, also have the same effect in relation to health functions transfers under section 105A which are revoked.
This means that in the event that it becomes appropriate to restore NHS functions in a local area to NHS bodies, this can be achieved without the need for consent of the combined authority and local authorities concerned. This reflects the fundamental principles for health devolution, as reflected in clause 18, which builds on an amendment moved by Lord Warner in the other place, that the key responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health and the NHS remain unchanged in any devolution arrangements. We envisage using the powers to revoke only in those circumstances where it was clear that duties and standards such as those referenced in clause 18 were not being met and that revoking the transfer was the best option to achieve the necessary improvement in performance.
The Secretary of State’s ability to use this power supports the key principle, which this House has already agreed and which the House of Lords was also insistent on, that nothing about devolution settlements will impinge on his duties in respect of the national health service, including the duty to promote a comprehensive health service, to exercise his functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services and to have regard to the NHS constitution. The other procedural requirements and preliminary conditions will continue to apply, such as the requirement that the Minister making the regulations must consider that the instrument is likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the functions concerned, and that Parliament must approve the secondary legislation.
Let me explain in straightforward terms what this is about. The House has already agreed that it wants to retain the national health service, even if NHS functions are devolved to local authorities. That means that the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS remain absolute. As I said earlier, if the Secretary of State is to sign off these powers to commission services to a local authority, he has to be sure that doing so is in the best interests of healthcare and that the quality of healthcare will be improved. Otherwise, he just will not do it. There will not be any consent involved, or anything else; he just will not do it. However, if he signs it off, it means that he is satisfied that there will be an improvement in the quality of healthcare. Should that fail—should the NHS functions transferred to a new authority fail—it is the Secretary of State’s duty to take those powers back, because he is responsible for the delivery of NHS standards. If he cannot be satisfied, he is going to have to take these powers back. In the circumstances, it is possible that local authorities might disagree and want to challenge that, but his duties are absolute. That is why the requirement for consent is coming out. We are talking about a circumstance that nobody expects to happen. The Secretary of State is not going to devolve unless he is certain, but if he needs to take powers back to maintain his duties, he must have the power to do so. Even if he has to do so, the matter goes before the House, which makes up its mind on it. That is the basis of Government amendment 34 and the answer to amendment 60.
Mr Allen
That is exactly the difference between decentralisation and devolution. This proposal is the Secretary of State pushing some power to the locality, purely on the basis that he can suck it back; it is not giving power and, as of right, allowing the local authority to exercise that. There is no way in which the local authority can intervene in this process. It is a bystander, as an agent of central Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The interventions must be shorter, as I still have to get the Front Bencher in.
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is coming at this from the wrong point of view. He is coming at it from the point of view that the Secretary of State is deliberately pushing something towards an authority, but he is not—the authorities are asking him for something. He would not be doing that unless authorities came to him and said, “We want to do this.” The Secretary of State would not agree unless he thought it was in the best interests of healthcare, because it is not his personal judgment but his duty. If those functions are not performed properly, his ultimate duty, which the House has already agreed, must be to take the powers back. The hon. Gentleman is approaching it from the point of view that there is something malevolent about the Secretary of State which means he wants to challenge the authority. The duties he has, which are contained in statute and which the House says he must retain when NHS powers are devolved, are what impels the amendment, nothing else.
Alistair Burt
I will give way one last time, but then I must finish dealing with the rest of the clauses.
Mr Allen
The Secretary of State may be doing the right thing—I am sure he would be, just as I am sure the local authority would think it was doing the right thing—but my amendment 60 and our new clause would allow there to be a local government representative and a medical NHS representative judging who is right in the decision about central power and local power. They, too, would make the right decision.
Alistair Burt
Let me turn to the independent panel idea in amendment 60, which the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The Bill provides an effective framework to support a more devolved, place-based approach to health and social care, while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in respect of the NHS and a clear line of accountability back to the Health Secretary. Our objectives for health devolution must be to improve the health and care outcomes for people residing in a particular local area. Clause 18 requires that where health functions are conferred by an order or regulations on a combined authority, provision must be made about standards and duties to be placed on that authority, including standards in the NHS constitution.
The Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that revoking the transfer would lead to an improvement of statutory functions in that local area. He is under the same duties if he revokes as he is when he grants the powers in the first place. The revocation would need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and the Secretary of State would be required to make available to Parliament a report concerning his decision, including what representations had been made to him in the process. That demonstrates that the decision to revoke transfer regulations would be taken only as a consequence of in-depth consideration, as well as engagement with local organisations, and with the support of Parliament. For that reason, I resist the requirement to convene a panel to review the decision, which would not only be unnecessary, but could be burdensome and costly, and could lead to delays just at the time when swift action was required to address fundamental performance issues.
The amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State, in the exercise of his powers, already has to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but the need to move sometimes at speed means he needs to retain the powers; this is therefore covered, there is accountability to Parliament and the Secretary of State has to say exactly why he is doing it. It is straightforward: either he has the power to deliver his duties, or he does not, and he can do it without convening an independent panel to second-guess him. It is his responsibility, and if he exercises those powers unreasonably, there is judicial review, which means that a local authority is doubly protected.
Mr Allen
If a local authority, which understands its own demography—it knows its people and its inner-city and rural areas—makes a decision on a public health matter, such as fluoridation or free dental checks for three-year-olds, and the centre does not like it, the Minister can pull back that power, which has been given in what is meant to be a devolution Bill.
Alistair Burt
It is not about the centre not liking the decision. The Secretary of State has statutory duties that Parliament has given him. He has to exercise his power both to grant and revoke power based on those duties, not because he likes or does not like a decision. It is that statutory duty for which he is responsible that is so important. The House of Lords pressed that matter, but the House of Commons has accepted it. It is the maintenance of those duties that is so important. Liking or disliking a decision does not come into it.
Let me make further progress on the other amendments that the Government wish to push through. Amendment 35 is a further amendment to clause 18, which applies valuable safeguards to local devolution of health functions, including where certain functions and duties should continue to be held nationally. The clause was inserted in the Bill by an amendment tabled by Lord Warner in the other place and was amended in Committee in the Commons to give further definition and clarity to support its valuable principles. Clause 18 provides that regulatory functions of national bodies held in respect of health services will not be available for transfer to a combined or local authority.
Amendment 35 makes it clear that, in addition to NHS England’s responsibilities for assurance and review of clinical commissioning groups, all its supervisory and oversight functions set out in chapter A2 of part 2 of the National Health Service Act 2006 are out of scope of a transfer order. These include functions relating to CCGs’ institutional and constitutional arrangements, including their establishment.
Briefly, amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49 amend schedule 4, which makes amendments to the 2006 Act to provide a wider menu of flexible, voluntary options for local bodies, including combined authorities, to work with each other and with NHS England in respect of health functions.
One of the amendments introduced by schedule 4 includes provision under proposed new section 13ZA of the 2006 Act for new “devolved arrangements”, whereby NHS England is able to delegate its functions to a group of local commissioners exercising them together, or to make arrangements to exercise its functions jointly with that group. The group of local partners must consist of at least one clinical commissioning group and at least one combined authority or local authority, and the delegates or partners must exercise the function jointly.
Amendments 46, 47 and 48 are minor and technical amendments, which make it clear that “devolved arrangements” may relate to one or more of NHS England’s functions.
New clause 12, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, says:
“The Secretary of State must, within 15 months of this Act being passed, publish a review of health services devolved under the provisions of this Act.”
The review must include an assessment of how standards have been maintained, particularly of the quality and outcomes delivered by the devolved health service.
Maintaining the integrity of the NHS standards and ensuring that there is clear accountability for quality of outcomes is a key objective, as reflected by a number of vital safeguards provided for by the Bill. An order to confer health functions on a combined authority can only be made if a proposal to do so satisfies the Secretary of State that such a transfer will lead to the improvement of statutory functions.
As the House has debated a number of times, the requirements to monitor and regulate the functions that have been devolved remain exactly the same as if they had been with the NHS. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that the quality of services devolved is of NHS quality. For that reason, a full formal review is not necessary. There will be constant review of the quality of work done locally, and putting a formal review in the legislation is therefore not necessary. It is inconceivable that the authority delivering the functions on behalf of the NHS would not keep up a full review and the quality of regulatory work and monitoring work ensures that a full review is carried out in any case.
I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed to a vote and that I have been able to satisfy the House about the functions that need to be retained by the Secretary of State. I hope that the technical amendments will also be agreed to.
Liz McInnes
I want to support new clause 12, although the Minister has made his case for turning it down. I think it is important that we build a review stage into the devolution of health simply because the implications of the Bill for the English NHS and social care system are not clear. The Bill regulates for important new powers to remove functions from NHS hospitals, commissioners and other bodies and to transfer them to the local regional authority. Depending on the implementation, interpretation and limits of the powers, such transfers might fundamentally reshape the health service in the years to come. We must ensure that the national health service stays national. We do not want a postcode lottery for healthcare.
Accountability and scrutiny remain crucial for a well-run national health service, delivering the best care it can for everyone no matter where they live. The Bill’s light-touch nature and the pace with which the agenda is moving leave a number of crucial and unresolved questions, some of which I would now like to ask. Will central and regional government argue over the responsibility for meeting population needs and making difficult decisions, such as those on whether to close hospitals or prop up overspending healthcare providers? What will happen to neighbouring areas?
Deals permissible under the Bill create the possibility of NHS funding melting into wider regional authority budgets, making ring-fencing or protecting impossible. Given the importance of healthcare spending as an issue, it needs clarity and scrutiny. Devolution to combined authorities under the Bill might actually have a centralising effect for many health and social care functions, taking power away from councils that represent smaller communities and the clinical commissioning groups that represent clinicians. Although that might be desirable in some cases, it is also important to consider how the positive developments brought to health and social care by these bodies can be preserved.
Clauses 7, 16 and 17 allowed the piecemeal transfer of health care commissioning responsibilities from clinical commissioning groups and NHS England to local government. I am concerned about the impact that will have on the NHS, especially as regards local variation in service levels, further allocation of resources and the cross-border impact of decisions. The Opposition believe that there should be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Health to secure and provide universal health care and that core national NHS standards should remain in place.
Liz McInnes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
Although I see a range of possible potential benefits arising from the devolution agenda, particularly the opportunity for greater integration of services between health and social care and bringing public health and other areas under local government control, a number of outstanding questions will need to be resolved, largely focused on resolving the tension between local and national arrangements and the extent to which the “national” in the national health service will be preserved. What we are witnessing is not devolution. The models adopted in the deal so far appear to be closer to delegation than the formal devolution outlined in the Bill.
As the Opposition understand it, there are no plans to use the order-making power created through the Bill to transfer additional health functions to local authorities. Any health-related orders will be used only to enable combined authorities to share the health duty that already sits with local authorities. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the devolution of health service will be reviewed in a year to ensure that standards and quality of services and outcomes have not declined. That is what new clause 12 outlines—it seems an eminently reasonable request given an issue as important as our nation’s health.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to thank—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The Secretary of State is moving the Third Reading.
Greg Clark
I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have contributed to the development of the Bill, particularly those who participated in the extensive scrutiny on the Floor of the House both in Committee and on Report. The House will observe that we have followed the principle of listening to the views of Members, both in Committee and on Report. We made several improvements to the Bill after having heard serious representations from those across the House. I want to put on the record my thanks to my officials and to the Clerks, who have guided us adroitly through every clause.
I also want to thank councillors of every party and business leaders from across the country who have helped to give this Bill the momentum it deserves by embracing the localism agenda that began in the last Parliament. Important though the Bill is, it is worth noting that it is not the only means by which devolution is being advanced. For example, the Chancellor’s announcement that 100% of business rates would be retained by local government, rather than sent to the Treasury, is a significant step forward for the greater independence of local government.
I want the Bill to commence several things. I want it to allow the often latent potential for economic growth across all parts of the country to be better unleashed. The Bill and the process that we have introduced have brought businesses right across the country into close collaboration with their local authority leaders. The degree of enthusiasm for this has been gratifying.
The Bill allows reform where civic leaders and councillors desire it. It is a Bill that proceeds from the bottom up, rather than the top down. That makes it a novel Bill in the history of legislation concerning local government that this House has considered. It is a Bill that does something that previous Governments have baulked at, which is to transfer deliberately powers that Ministers and Governments have held and exercised in Westminster and Whitehall to authorities across the land. The insight of the Bill is that those objectives can be achieved together if local people are given their voice and allowed to set their arrangements in their own way.
The breakthrough is the recognition that not all places need to be the same. One of the glories of this House is that we know that each of our constituencies is very different from the others. No two places are the same. A world in which policy is identical in every part of the country is a world in which policy is not well set for particular parts of the country. Each place has a different history, different strengths and different capacities.
In the past, proceeding at the speed of the slowest has hampered efforts to devolve. Therefore, the approach that we have taken has been to invite every part of the country to make its proposals to the Government from the bottom up and to encourage those with the most ambitious proposals to advance them, while encouraging other places to find their feet and take the powers that they want for themselves and their people.
Greg Clark
I will indeed. My hon. Friend raises an important point. The whole process by which we have operated and negotiated with places has recognised that the best ideas come from local places themselves. Previous local government Bills have attempted, with unhappy consequences, to impose a Government view of how local government should be organised on reluctant local authorities. This Bill does not do that and the amendment that he mentions will not be used for that purpose either. Rather, it will bring local communities and local authorities into a discussion about what is best for their area.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Secretary of State, as usual, is handling difficult issues in a consensual and careful way. As I understand it, he wants to use amendment 56 to encourage a discussion. Discussions are fine, but, for the want of argument, if a county council wanted to use amendment 56 to drive for a unitary authority against the wishes of one or more district council, I take it that the county council could not use it to override the district councils.
Greg Clark
All of our negotiations have achieved consensus locally. That is my approach. Amendment 56 allows us to require that those conversations take place. No authority can reasonably refuse even to discuss the potential for reform. That is right. It is reasonable for neighbouring authorities to have conversations about what is the best way to proceed. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the powers are already there.
In responding to the case that was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and that was made again on Report, we thought that it was worth having in the Bill, as a pilot, the ability to, as it were, encourage authorities to have the conversation. Anything that is agreed needs to be agreed by the Secretary of State and by this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) can be absolutely sure that, in exercising my authority in this area, I propose to maintain the preference for consensus that I have shown so far.
It is worth reflecting that, in the few years since we started negotiating, first with cities and then with local authorities and their businesses through the growth deals, there has been tremendous enthusiasm across the country. Members have spoken at various points during the debate about how the degree of collaboration and involvement of businesses and local authorities has been very much greater than that experienced in the past. That is absolutely the case. If we are to prosper and succeed as a nation, every part of the nation has to fire on all cylinders. This important Bill will help to drive that forward.
During the debate, many amendments have been made, resulting in the Bill’s improvement. We have accepted a need for various reports on the progress of devolution to come to this House, so they can be debated. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) in particular, as he made a very strong case that Members should be involved in the ongoing scrutiny of agreed deals. I am only too willing to have my feet held to the fire. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has observed a number of times during these proceedings, in my earlier incarnation in the Department I published a progress report of all Government Departments on whether we were living up to our commitments on devolution. I fully expect that the scrutiny of the House will be equally exacting when it comes to the receipt of the reports.
It is important that we have devolution right across the country. We started with cities, but the enthusiasm in counties and districts right across the country has been very palpable. When we issued an invitation for places to come forward, 38 places, covering almost all the country, submitted proposals. The Bill enacts some of our manifesto commitments to create a metro mayor for Greater Manchester and to create mayoral authorities for the great cities that have concluded deals with the Government.
In response to proposals, again from the bottom up and starting with Greater Manchester, we have been able to enter into discussions about the devolution of health matters, so that the two sides of the same coin that are health and social care can be better administered locally, jointly between the NHS and local government. I am pleased we have been able to make amendments on those matters.
I am pleased that we have ended the Bill’s proceedings with a degree of consensus between all parties. That was very much our intention from the outset. We started with a degree of discord on Second Reading, but I had high hopes that we would be able to persuade those on the Opposition Front Bench to move away from that. As we have scrutinised the Bill and accepted amendments from all sides of the House, including from the Back Benches, I think we have strengthened the Bill. I am grateful to those on the Opposition Front Bench for having, I think, modified their view. I hope we might even hear a degree of enthusiasm—I will be careful on that; I had better not count my chickens—from them.
This is an important moment. The Bill was in the first Queen’s Speech and one of the first to be introduced in this Session of Parliament. On Second Reading, I said it was an historic Bill that would do something our predecessors have not done and that our successors will look back on. They will see this as a piece of legislation that changed the direction of policy and built up our cities, towns and counties across the country, so that their discretion, power and ability to set their own future becomes much greater than it has been in the past.
Julian Sturdy
Like many on the Government Benches, I praise my right hon. Friend for all his work bringing the Bill to the House, but does he accept that some areas might need more time to come to the right devolution deal, rather than rushing a bad deal? Will he assure those areas that they will not be penalised for taking their time over what might be, for certain areas, quite a difficult decision to get the right conclusion?
Greg Clark
I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend, who has played an active role in talking to his local authorities and businesses to build a consensus. It is clear that different places will proceed at different paces, as they have done already, but I and my hon. Friends are completely committed to inviting every part of the country to put forward and negotiate a deal that is right for them. We invite all parts of the country to propose that which would make the biggest difference to local areas. To paraphrase Disraeli, the Bill exists to show areas their riches to themselves. We can, with the Bill, unleash the growth, the jobs, the homes and the futures that everyone across the country has a right to hope for, and because of that, I commend it to the House.
Jon Trickett
The Bill is clearly a milestone in the direction of devolution, and we welcome the spirit in which the House has debated it—it was good to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. We also thank the civil servants, the staff of the House, the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, who presided over our hearings, and the councillors and Members who participated in our debates.
It is true that Ministers have sought to be consensual—mainly with their own Back Benchers, rather than with us, but we will draw a veil over that—and we have tried to be positive, but, despite the Bill being a milestone, we feel it has been scarred by timidity, and we are frustrated by the lack of ambition. It appears that much of the Bill was shaped by No. 11, rather than being created in the great cities, counties and villages of England, and it simply does not match up to our devolution achievements in Scotland, Wales and London.
I am sure we all agree that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world: 72% of all public expenditure is controlled directly by the Prime Minister and his Ministers, whereas Chancellor Merkel controls less than one fifth of Germany’s total budget. There is a long way to go, yet the Bill does little to challenge this major problem, which we are all trying to grapple with. I think the Minister knows that. Does anyone really think that the Government’s cuts to flood defences would have happened had the budget and decision-making powers for flood control been devolved locally? Of course not. The case for a proper, far-reaching political settlement for the devolution of power is overwhelming. It is a case based on economic and social justice as well as the more equitable distribution of political power. The case against over-centralisation is not made by the Bill, but none the less it remains a milestone in the direction we want to travel.
We have sought to engage with the Government and to improve the Bill by tabling amendments. Our amendments—for example, those decoupling a mayor from the ability to secure devolution, as well as those on finance offering stability to local councils, on multi-year funding and on the provision of greater fiscal autonomy—would have helped make local government more autonomous, more powerful and more relevant to local communities. We pressed the Government more than once on extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—no doubt, we will return to that in future years—and on Report we sought a debate on the general power of competence. After all, if local government is to govern, it has to have the competence to take action in any area relevant to its community.
We supported the Government on the amendment that gave local district councils the right to become associated with metro mayors in adjacent metropolitan areas. The truth is, however, that every single one of our amendments, which were designed to extend powers to local communities, was rejected by the Government. Not one was accepted—and that is the truth of it.
May I gently inquire—I do not suppose I will get an answer—whatever happened to the Chancellor’s plans to scrap the national Sunday trading laws? They seem to have disappeared. Will we get some kind of assurance that that is the end of it for this Parliament? It is looking that way; there is simply not a majority for such a proposal in the House.
Looking forward, as the Bill becomes an Act after consideration in the other place, it poses a dilemma for councillors and councils across the land. Should they sign up to devolution deals with the Chancellor? Should they seek the limited new powers on offer while being simultaneously aware that part of what is on offer is in effect the delegation of cuts rather than the devolution of real fiscal independence?
The Opposition will not second-guess councillors’ decisions. We will support them as they struggle to preserve vital public services at the same time as regenerating their local economies. The Bill represents one limited, top-down model of devolution because it insists on imposing a form of governance, metro mayors, on cities, even where the electorates have so recently rejected them. The fiscal/economic model on offer—the Bill seeks to encourage it—is one of cash-strapped local authorities competing with adjacent cash-strapped local authorities, probably by reducing business rates to try to attract investment. It allows for only a limited vision. In its place we would like to see a well-resourced, innovative, dynamic local state, working in partnership with business, civil society and all its citizens for the betterment of all. The Bill is silent on what has been described as double devolution, which involves empowering individuals in their often unequal struggle with state bureaucracy.
We are supporting and will support the Bill because it offers a faltering step forward, but I do not think the Chancellor’s model of devolution as outlined in it will endure in the end. Indeed, I predict it will not long outlast the right hon. Gentleman’s limited leadership ambitions. This is a view we have taken from the beginning and it was reflected in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
If this Parliament is serious about tackling inequality and creating a more balanced economy and society, I believe it should propose a radically different distribution of power and authority in our country, perhaps even moving towards a federal settlement. The very future of our Union may depend on such a proposal, so we will now begin our conversation with the British people about the right way forward. We will be immensely strengthened in this task by the arrival on these Benches of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). His common sense and practical socialism in action, rooted in his own community and in the best that local government has to offer, points the way forward for Britain. I very much hope that before too much time elapses, the Labour party will be in a position to legislate for real and substantial devolution in England, just as it once did for London, Scotland and Wales.
Mr Betts
I said on Second Reading that I supported the general principles of the Bill and its underlying intentions—and I still do. I have reservations about the pace and the extent of the change—I would like to go faster and further—and about certain details such as elected mayors and their imposition. I think imposition is the right word, despite Ministers’ denials. Nevertheless, the Bill is important for its symbolism and its direction of travel. On that direction, when I was first elected in 1992 I never thought I would see this happening in this House of Commons. What we have here is a revelation by comparison with where thinking was in those days.
I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for the way in which they have dealt with the debate in Committee and on Report. They have listened to the constructive comments made on both sides. Equally, I would like to place on record my thanks to local government leaders, particularly those on the Labour side who control most of the major cities. The reality is, as I am sure Ministers recognise, that while those leaders’ budgets are being cut to shreds by the Government, they are still prepared to sit down and work pragmatically with the very same Ministers to negotiate deals on devolution that will be to the benefit of the communities they represent. That says an awful lot for council leaders, and the way in which they have approached the offer that the Government have made to them.
I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for recognising the concerns that I raised and tabling amendment 27. I shall not go into the details of the Sheffield city region again, but I think that the amendment demonstrates Ministers’ understanding of a wider issue. If more growth, better economic performance and new jobs are to result from these deals, the bodies that we are creating must reflect the real economies of their areas rather than having regard to the old administrative boundaries of regions that existed for many years but did not necessarily reflect those local economies. The fact that Ministers were prepared to recognise that, and to help with the construction of bodies that will indeed reflect the economies of their areas, demonstrates a very important principle.
I think that, at some point, we shall have to return to the House and discuss what we have achieved with devolution, and I think that we shall have to discuss three issues. First, we shall have to discuss the deals that have been agreed, how successful they have been, and what lessons can be learned. Deals in one area can throw up either problems or successes from which other areas will want to learn. We shall need to subject the deals to scrutiny, on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee, to establish how well they have worked in practice, whether they have achieved the success that we wanted them to achieve, and whether such success can be extended to other areas.
Secondly, I think that the House will want to examine the performance of different Departments—and I noted the Secretary of State’s reference to his previous reports on performance. I suspect that there is still more enthusiasm in some parts of the Government than in others for the whole devolution idea. I am sure that the Secretary of State could not possibly say anything, but he knows exactly what the realities are from his experience of negotiating with his colleagues.
Finally, I think that after, say, two years of the workings of what are rightly disparate deals that reflect the particular needs of particular areas—for that is what the construction of these deals is all about—we shall want to examine the overall constitutional position of central and local government. We shall want to think about what the next stage should be, and about whether general principles that we have learnt from the deals need to be applied more widely. I am thinking particularly of fiscal devolution. If Members look at any of the local government systems in western Europe, they will find that those local authorities have the power not just to spend money that central Governments give them, but much greater power to raise their own revenues. I recognise that the Government have taken an initial step forward with the full localisation of business rates. We shall obviously want to scrutinise the way in which that is done, but I hope that it is merely the first stage of fiscal devolution, as well as the spending devolution with which this Bill is mainly concerned.
Mr Chope
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in which he responded to the concerns that were expressed about amendment 56. I think that what he said will be very helpful in ensuring that the Bill is not just about devolution but evolution, and that changes happen gradually and work with the grain of what the people want locally, rather than being imposed top-down and from the centre.
What concerns people about local government—apart from the level of local taxes—is their wish to have some control over the way in which their own communities develop, and to control planning in particular rather than its being controlled by much more remote communities. For a short time I was a member of the Inner London Education Authority, which purported to make decisions on education matters throughout the inner-London boroughs. Most of its members had never ventured outside their own local authority areas, let alone visited all the other parts of London that were covered by ILEA. The danger with very large authorities is that they can lose touch with the sensitive issues that cause the greatest concern to our constituents and to local residents. I hope that as we evolve different administrative and representational models for local government we will bear in mind the need to retain the very powerful local involvement in planning. I speak on behalf of the people of Christchurch, an ancient borough with a priory church that goes back over 900 years where people enjoy the opportunity to elect their own local mayor. One of the downsides of some of the proposals is that they could result in people losing the power to be able to elect their own local mayor for their council—the person who could speak on behalf of the town. Councillor Spreadbury, who, sadly, died about a year ago, had the privilege of being the mayor of Christchurch in five successive decades, having welcomed Her Majesty in 1966 and then had four successive terms. He was typical of a local person brought up in the area and truly representing what the community felt.
Why not retain the distinctions between the different parts of our country? Why try and merge and homogenise the New Forest with Christchurch or Christchurch with East Dorset? A lot of change could be achieved by allowing back office services to be worked out together and by having single chief executives instead of multiple chief executives, but we must not lose sight of the fact that ultimately local government is for most people the body to which they look to take decisions in the best interests of the local citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
House of Commons Members’ Fund
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
This gives us an opportunity to ask the Leader of the House: whither the House of Commons Members’ Fund and the trustees whom we are appointing this evening? A number of us feel the members’ fund and the statute that set it up has slightly lost touch with today’s reality. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say, in a very brief response to this debate, that he is minded to have a look at the future constitution of the members’ fund and whether it might evolve into a House of Commons benevolent fund to look after the dependants of former Members of this House. At the moment, the benevolent fund aspect of the members’ fund plays too small a part and I think there is something to be said for establishing a proper benevolent fund that could then take over some of the responsibilities of the current members’ fund.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and this issue is currently being pursued by our hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). We do have to bear it in mind that one of the reasons this support has existed over the years is that for those unfortunate enough to lose their seats in this place at a general election, there can often be an immensely difficult transition. Often it is not as easy as some outside might think for them to move into employment, and of course they may run into difficulties later on in their careers.
This place has had a long and right tradition of paying due attention to, and looking after, those who have served this country and this House but who have ultimately found themselves in need. My hon. Friend’s point about the need for this to be a benevolent fund in the future is well worth serious consideration. I understand the point he is making. We have three excellent appointments in the new trustees who are joining the fund, and they could play an active role in that.
I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who has done first-class work in this role and has now moved on, thanks to his recent appointment as the Minister with responsibility for Syrian refugees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has made an important point, and I will make sure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the trustees. I encourage him to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, but I will also ensure that the matter is put on to the agenda of the House of Commons Commission, to be discussed at a meeting in the near future. This is an area in which the House has always done the right thing in the past, and there is good reason for us to carry on doing so in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
European Union Documents
Domestic Oil Purchasing Syndicates
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of domestic oil purchasing syndicates in my own constituency and in many rural communities throughout the United Kingdom. This is apparently not the most scintillating of titles for a debate, but I believe that the subject is of significance, certainly for my constituents.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
indicated assent.
Mr Williams
I am pleased to see that the Minister acknowledges that.
The development of domestic oil purchasing syndicates is an important and growing trend in many areas of the UK. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to his place; I was wondering where he was. Those syndicates are helping many communities to save substantial amounts of money by buying their off-grid fuel collectively. This is also helping to tackle the serious issue of fuel poverty in many parts of the country. That issue is not unique to rural areas, but I want to concentrate on those areas this evening.
When communities organise to combine their orders, whether they are communities of single numbers or hundreds, they can negotiate discounts with suppliers by decreasing the number of vehicles that the supplier needs to send to an area, and guarantee the purchase of all the fuel delivered. So there is a gain not only for our constituents but for the suppliers. These arrangements can help substantially to decrease the cost to each member of the syndicate or club, and help to tackle some of the most pressing problems associated with the cost of fuel. Fuel prices represent a serious problem for many rural communities, including not only the scattered hamlets but the bigger towns of my constituency.
In Wales as a whole, 20% of all households still have no access to gas from the grid and are reliant on more expensive forms of fuel, such as oil and coal, as their main source of heating. I have the privilege of representing Ceredigion, a vast tract of rural west Wales with 700 farms and 147 communities. That gives hon. Members an idea of the kind of rurality I am talking about. In my constituency, a majority of households—69%—do not have access to mains gas, and many people are therefore reliant on the more expensive means of heating their homes. This issue is not limited to Wales. Sizeable areas of the United Kingdom, from the west country to the highlands of Scotland—and, I dare say, Northern Ireland as well—have a substantial number of households that cannot access mains gas. The choices available to those households are therefore limited.
The higher cost of off-grid fuel is compounded by other factors such as the age of the housing stock and poor energy efficiency—something that is especially problematic in rural communities with large numbers of solid-wall detached houses. Beyond the image of the beautiful countryside with its thatched cottages and clotted cream, there lies a deeper problem relating to heating houses and keeping our residents warm. There is an attractiveness to many of those isolated rural homes during the summer months, but it belies the reality of living in such old housing stock during the winter. Finding ways to ensure that families and vulnerable people living in rural areas are able to keep warm during the winter months is a major challenge that we must tackle on a cross-party basis.
The huge potential of oil syndicates in tackling fuel poverty was first brought to my attention by the late Jane Wakeham, a constituent of mine from the famous, or infamous, village of Llanddewi Brefi. I should declare an interest, as my home on the clifftops of west Wales is oil supplied and my wife, who manages these things on behalf of our household, actively seeks out syndicates wherever they are.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is an important subject, and it is always nice to speak about these matters in Adjournment debates. In my area, if a group of elderly people or syndicates come together, they can buy together, get the delivery at the same time and save up to 8p a litre. Does the hon. Gentleman feel—perhaps the Minister will also reply to this—that we should put more focus and emphasis on the elderly, because people are living longer?
Mr Williams
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. He would also recognise that elderly people and less advantaged groups in our society are looking for the lead that somebody in a syndicate can give them so that they can get the benefits and reductions in their fuel bills to which he alludes.
Jane Wakeham got in touch with me some years ago as she was seeking my support in applying for funding from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to help set up a fuel club. Under the previous Administration and our coalition Government, there was a time when a small pot of money was available that people could apply for—it was described as a competition—so that best practice was encouraged around the country, and I will ask the Minister a little about that later. Were Jane still with us, I know that she would be greatly impressed by the work of Clwb Clyd—or Club Cosy—in my constituency. That project was funded over an 18-month period by the Welsh Government and run by Ymlaen Ceredigion—I commend the work of Rachel Lilley and her colleagues there—on behalf of Ceredigion County Council, which has brought together fuel clubs throughout the county.
It was through an attempt to tackle fuel poverty in the fuel poverty forum in my constituency that the Club Cosy project came about. With representatives from the county council, the local health board, local housing associations, the West Wales Credit Union, Age Cymru—this goes back to what the hon. Gentleman said about elderly people—Citizens Advice and others, the forum began to explore the work done by oil clubs in the county, and explore the benefits of bulk fuel purchasing and overcoming the problems of minimum purchase ordering. For people on a low income the issue of the minimum purchase order is very important, as it is very difficult for many people to purchase that minimum. There is a serious concern about the many reports of constituents filling their own containers at garages, and filling their own tanks in their yards or their gardens—we should be avoiding that at all costs.
Before the Club Cosy project, coverage in Ceredigion was patchy, the number of co-ordinators was small, and there was very little co-ordination between clubs covering different areas of the county to maximise and co-ordinate their purchasing power. Since the project started, the number of co-ordinators has increased, coverage has improved to cover the entire county, co-ordination has improved and the number of syndicate members has more than doubled. Crucially, awareness has been raised, so that people know that if there is a challenge to household budgets, and my goodness there is, there are alternatives that can be pursued. In addition, the project has included specific work with syndicate co-ordinators to target and identify the fuel poor. Co-ordinators are going out into the community, rather than waiting to be asked. We have had targeted roadshows with housing associations, energy advice being offered directly in the home, and work being done specifically with the most vulnerable households through joining a syndicate. The experience from the Club Cosy project has been used to develop a document, which I will send to the Minister, explaining how sustainable models for fuel syndicates can be established, which should be helpful to other parts of Wales and further afield.
There are thousands of fantastic schemes across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has told me about the Thinking Fuel project in his constituency, which provides similar help to local communities to improve co-ordination, lower costs and help decrease the number of people living in fuel poverty.
One syndicate in my constituency has recorded savings of anything from £26 to £76 for every 1,000 litres ordered. That is a 10% saving over an 18-month period, making a substantial difference to many households. In many cases, this has helped people on long-term agreements with fuel suppliers to revisit and review their current arrangements, often finding that they have been paying substantially more than they should have been.
There are also other benefits to forming syndicates. A syndicate of just five households in one hamlet can reduce the number of tankers travelling to deliver their fuel from five to one—an obvious, but useful statistic—which is a fact that is not lost on the companies themselves.
We can see benefits to the local economy through the uptake in bulk-buying clubs. In Llanddewi Brefi, orders are placed via the local shop and pub, enhancing their status as real community hubs. In Siop Cletwr, Tre’r Ddol, the syndicate has added value to other services in the community shop, again helping to sustain the local economy, while in Tregaron, £1 charged per order is ploughed back into the community hall fund.
The project funding for Club Cosy has now come to an end, but the legacy is firm and rooted, and I think it will continue to prosper in the future. The principle behind oil syndicates is something that we can all endorse. I am talking about collective action on behalf of customers to realise economies and bring substantial benefits to people through lower fuel bills. These community-spirited individuals often work in disparate and isolated communities, and in the case of Club Cosy, work closely with fuel distributors as well.
This is an issue that potentially affects huge numbers of people throughout our country. Unashamedly, I want to use this opportunity to celebrate this great scheme in my constituency in the expectation that others will look closely at what has been done, and follow in its footsteps.
As I mentioned earlier, work was undertaken under the coalition Government to push oil clubs on to the agenda, and some minimal funding was made available. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that that work is continuing, because it is important. The support needs to continue because there are still some big unanswered questions. Connecting communities to the gas network may well negate the need for oil clubs, but fracking may assist in some areas.
The gas network as we know it simply does not allow for the distribution of piped gas in many rural areas. The choice available is an issue. Quite rightly, the Government talk about switching within specific forms of energy, but we do not have the choice in many rural areas. That presents a problem to Governments both at a Westminster and a Welsh level, and to the communities that are struggling to cope with bills.
I must commend the work of third-sector organisations, which are well equipped—they are not well resourced—to advance the cause of switching. The citizens advice bureau in Ceredigion and Age Cymru have made a real difference to helping people switch. That is important. Third-sector organisations need support in advancing that cause.
There are good and bad negotiators. Some of our fellow citizens, if they are provided with the right information, will be good at arguing their case for switching and for better tariffs. What better way of seeking a cheaper fuel tariff than having someone to take a lead in the negotiations? Again, that is one of the benefits of this scheme.
When I speak to syndicate co-coordinators, one issue keeps cropping up: funding. Funding is available through the Department of Energy and Climate Change for those attempting to save energy and keep their homes warm. Initiatives such as big energy saving week are laudable, but many syndicates find it difficult to access even the most basic core funding. The benefit of having a group of individuals taking the lead on this issue cannot be overstated and funding is therefore important. We need to continue to consider ways of disseminating best practice. Will the Minister look into this issue and ensure that oil syndicates can apply for that support and that those who choose which projects to fund, if funding is available, are particularly aware of the needs of rural communities?
Another important point, which again relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), concerns elderly people. Much of the switch agenda is advanced through the internet and through emails, and as I say in any debate that mentions Ceredigion, there are limitations in the broadband roll-out. There is also a demographic divide, as older people are less confident. Again, that points to the benefits of syndicates, as people do the work for their members. Will the Minister detail what action she can promise to help encourage and support the uptake of domestic oil purchasing syndicates more widely?
I am mindful of the time—we waited for this Adjournment debate—but I want to give just one example of a constituent of mine who has benefited from Clwb Clyd, or Club Cosy. The Club Cosy coach visited my constituent at her home on a social housing estate in Ceredigion, an area where there is a high risk of fuel poverty. She was living in a cold and draughty house and her boiler was using excess amounts of oil owing to a thermostat fault. With high bills, paying for oil was a real worry, eating up a huge amount of her limited budget. Tailored advice was given on draught proofing, joining a syndicate and applying for a credit union fuel account. Her response, besides gratitude, was to become so interested in the fuel syndicate idea that she started one on her own with her neighbours on the social housing estate. She was included in Club Cosy’s networking activities and events, and the club has gone from strength to strength. Many of her neighbours have benefited from her initiative. Yet again, that is a good example of an excellent community project making a difference for a lot of people in my constituency.
I hope that I have proved that what might have seemed at first to be a lofty subject for a debate—development of domestic oil purchasing syndicates—is an issue of great significance for a great number of people in my constituency and elsewhere. I commend the work to the Minister who, I know, is supportive. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). This is an important debate and I am interested to hear about Club Cosy and the initiatives in his constituency. As I am also off-grid, I, too, participate in an oil buying group, which has been of great personal benefit to me.
The debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss the importance of domestic oil purchasing syndicates. My priority is keeping all energy bills low for hard-working families and businesses, as well as keeping the lights on and moving towards a green energy future. Heating oil is a small but significant part of the energy sector. About 1.5 million households are dependent on heating oil to heat their homes and typically they are among the 4 million not connected to the gas grid in the UK. The Office of Fair Trading noted in its off-gas grid market study in 2011 a large variation between the four nations of the UK, with 80% of homes in Northern Ireland off the gas grid compared with 12% in England, 21% in Scotland and 19% in Wales. Proportionally, more off-gas grid households are single occupancy and/or house a person over the age of 60, so the hon. Gentleman is right to point out the effect on elderly people who are also among the fuel-poor.
Last year, nearly 4 billion litres of heating oil, which is primarily used for heating, was delivered into the UK market. As the hon. Gentleman said, heating oil is brought to consumers by a local distributor company from the refiners and importers. Some distributors have their own storage where they can keep a few days’ supply, while those that do not have storage collect oil from a wholesale terminal and deliver it directly to their customers. The price they charge is dependent on how much they had to pay for the oil, the volume required, and the cost of delivery. DECC analysis suggests that on average, at national level crude oil price changes are fully passed through into heating oil prices within a month. At times, the wholesale price for heating oil may also be influenced by local supply and demand issues.
The average cost of heating oil is currently 34.51 pence per litre, which is down 18p from its peak in September 2014. I have been clear to the oil companies that we expect them to continue passing on any future oil price falls, bringing benefits to consumers and the wider economy.
Jim Shannon
It is always a pleasure to hear the Minister reply to a debate. How will her Department focus attention on those in fuel poverty? Many of those people are not elderly, because some people are on benefits and have a low income. How does the Minister hope to focus on those people?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue in a number of debates, and I agree that fuel poverty is a key issue for our energy support. Everything that we do to support fuel, energy efficiency and warm homes will be directed at fuel poverty.
We are keen for people to join an oil-buying group because they can benefit from reduced prices and the ability to negotiate for large volumes, meaning cheaper oil for all those in the group. Action with Communities in Rural England, Citizens Advice, and the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers have produced guidance on best practice for forming and operating oil buying clubs. ACRE is made up of 38 rural community councils across England. Those are charitable local development agencies—generally based at county level—which have a strong history of leading, supporting, and enabling community initiatives to help communities to help themselves. That includes running oil buying clubs.
Citizens Advice has produced guidance for consumers who experience difficulties with their heating oil suppliers, and set out what to do if people are struggling with their bills. It also has a website search function to find oil clubs, although that is not necessarily a comprehensive list. The sector trade association, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers, has produced separate guidance on oil-buying groups and published a mandatory code of practice for its members, as well as a customer charter to engage with consumers on a fair and consistent basis and implement best practice to raise standards. The hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned work by the previous coalition Government, and the Cheaper Energy Together scheme through which the Government funded three oil buying clubs. A decent amount of lessons were learned, and informed guidance allowed new clubs to form and meet to the benefit of consumers.
Some suppliers offer a means of spreading the cost, such as the option of paying by monthly direct debit with a fixed-rate payment scheme. That allows customers to know how much they will be paying for oil over the coming year, and to budget accordingly. Some suppliers offer a top-up scheme where, either through telemetry or distributor knowledge, customers’ tanks are filled as required. Through the telemetry system, suppliers are automatically informed when a tank requires filling. As well as reducing the risk of customers running out of oil, that has the advantage of providing alerts for rapid drops in level, such as those that, sadly, are occasionally caused by theft or leakage. Most companies will inform customers of the price prior to filling their tank.
Although in their infancy, pay-as-you-go schemes linked with credit unions seem to have real potential for supporting vulnerable consumers. Such schemes provide flexibility of purchase, and ensure that when customers need fuel they are able to purchase it. As the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers advises, it is always wise for people to check their fuel price against other retailers on a regular basis, and to ask their suppliers to confirm the price prior to delivery.
The Government are fully committed to reducing energy bills, and energy efficiency is a key part of that. The spending review announced our intentions for a long-term, better focused successor to the energy company obligation from 2017-18 which will run until 2021-22, with a maximum envelope of £640 million per annum, rising with inflation. That will support the insulation of 1 million homes over the course of this Parliament. Officials have engaged with stakeholders to design a successor to ECO, and we will consult on our proposals next year.
We are also committed to helping people move away from dependence on fossil fuels. The renewable heat incentive is the world’s first long-term financial support programme for renewable heat. It provides financial incentives to instal renewable heating in place of fossil fuels. The scheme is designed to bridge the gap between the cost of fossil fuel heat sources and of renewable heat alternatives, with financial support for owners of participating installations. As of 31 October 2015, over 43,000 installations have been accredited on the scheme and over 481 GWh of heat has been generated and paid for.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a point about fuel poverty, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion that my priority is keeping bills low for families and businesses while meeting our climate and fuel poverty goals and continuing to keep the lights on. I should like to draw attention to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who used to chair the all-party group on off-gas grid, and continues to raise the issue in government. I urge Members who are interested in the subject to join that all-party group. I am always keen to hear new ideas on how we can better support those who are off-gas grid.
One way in which individuals can keep their energy bills low is by joining domestic oil syndicates and, as I have said, I have personal experience of how successful such initiatives can be. I urge consumers who belong to those initiatives to buy early, particularly as winter is approaching.
Mr Mark Williams
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and the enthusiasm that she is sharing with us, because this is an important issue. She alluded to something that happened under the coalition Administration. Without wanting to be too nostalgic for those days, may I ask her to reflect on that scheme and the funding for those syndicates? A lot of work to publicise syndicates relies on the third sector. It is something that could captivate people. A lead from Government, with a little money, would go a long way.
Andrea Leadsom
I will certainly take that away and look seriously at what the hon. Gentleman says. Only recently, we conducted a small campaign in social media and in the general media to try to encourage people who are part of oil buying syndicates, and people who are not, to buy early in preparation for the winter and to try to grab prices while they are relatively low.
I hope that this debate has been helpful to the hon. Gentleman—and to the hon. Member for Strangford—and I sincerely congratulate him on raising it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2015.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles to her place. This is the first chance that we have had to interact in a Committee, although I hope today’s will be of modest duration.
The Government recognise the valuable contribution that the UK’s 165,000 charities make to many aspects of our society. That is why we continue to help charities achieve their charitable objectives and incentivise their donors, including through tax reliefs that were worth more than £4.5 billion in 2014-15. It is also why the Government have announced an increase in the limit for the gift aid small donations scheme from £5,000 to £8,000 per charity per year. The order provides a further opportunity to enhance Government support for charities, and the communities that they serve, by allowing charities to claim an additional top-up from Government on the contributions that they receive from their donors.
Gift aid is a well established and significant revenue stream for charities. Since 1990-91, more than £13 billion of gift aid relief has been paid to charities. However, it is not always possible or practical for all charitable donations to be accompanied by a gift aid declaration—for example, when charities collect donations in high street collecting tins or when churches receive donations via the collection plate. In 2013, the Government therefore introduced the gift aid small donations scheme, which was designed to help charities receive a gift aid-style top-up payment—a 25% top-up from Government—on small cash donations. The scheme is not, and is not intended to be, a substitute for gift aid. If a donor makes a larger donation or the donor can reasonably complete a gift aid declaration form, gift aid should be claimed.
In the first year, 2013-14, 8,100 charities claimed a total of £6 million through the scheme. Take-up increased last year; in 2014-15, 19,300 charities claimed a total of £21 million. Our intention is to continue to raise awareness of the scheme and to ensure that it can support a greater number of charities and of donations. At the 2015 Budget, the Government announced an increase in the annual limit on donations on which a charity can claim through the gift aid small donations scheme, from £5,000 to £8,000. The purpose of today’s debate is to agree that change so that it can come into effect from April 2016. The change will enable charities to claim up to £2,000 of Government support on up to £8,000 of donations, compared with the maximum £1,250 that can be claimed under the current £5,000 donations limit.
The Government expect the increase in the limit particularly to benefit the 7,200 charities that currently claim on the full £5,000. For other charities, I hope that the prospect of greater financial support from Government will provide an increased incentive to sign up to the scheme.
For completeness, I should mention that at the autumn statement the Government announced that they would review the scheme. The review will begin with a call for evidence from charities and other interested parties, which will be published before Christmas.
The increase in the scheme limit will provide additional support for charities that receive small, often spontaneous donations. It is right that the Government enhance those donations through the gift aid small donations scheme, because they are vital to charities and embedded in our country’s culture of philanthropy. I look forward to dealing with any questions that members of the Committee may have.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and, as always, to debate with the Minister.
As we have heard, the order is designed simply to amend the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 to increase from £5,000 to £8,000 the amount on which charities can claim a gift aid-style top-up payment on small donations. The order will come into effect on 6 April 2016. Charitable giving is supported on both sides of the House, but I note the evidence that people on lower incomes donate a greater proportion to charity. It is important, therefore, that what is in effect taxpayer subsidy is not unfairly skewed to the largest donations made by the very rich. Ensuring that gift aid is extended to smaller donations is therefore an important point of principle. The increase proposed in the draft order will undoubtedly help smaller donors and smaller charities achieve that end. It also meets one of the recent recommendations made collectively by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Institute of Fundraising and the Charity Finance Group. On that basis, I do not intend to oppose the order, but I will take the opportunity to voice a number of related concerns and questions about the scheme that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
During the passage of the 2012 Act, the Opposition raised concerns that the scheme was quite complex and would potentially create barriers for small charities that could be eligible to claim the top-up payment. Although we appreciate that there is a fine balance between allowing charities to access the scheme and protecting it from fraud, we are aware that a number of charities and organisations have reported that the scheme is complicated, thus rendering it inaccessible for smaller organisations that may find the administrative burden difficult to navigate.
In particular, research from the NCVO, the Institute of Fundraising and the Charity Finance Group found that the smallest charities are having difficulty even finding out about the scheme and working out whether they qualify for it. Some 38% of the small charities surveyed reported that they found it either difficult or very difficult to find out about the scheme, and 66% of small and micro-organisations said that it was difficult to understand what types of donations they could make a claim on. A third of small charities found understand the claiming process difficult.
Welcome as the increased limit is, the chief executive of the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action has made the point that
“unless the barriers to claiming are removed, the higher limit seems meaningless.”
Similarly, although the director of public policy at the NCVO welcomed the increase, he said:
“Increasing the limit will not in itself mean that more charities will claim the money… it will mean that more money will go unclaimed.”
He expressed concern that because smaller organisations often employ few or no staff, trying to claim under the scheme is not worth the administrative costs and effort involved. For the benefit of any charities following our debate today, will the Minister update us on efforts that the Government are making to publicise the scheme, especially to the types of smaller charities that have so far been left out? For example, are any new promotional campaigns planned?
Another point made by the sector is that the scheme applies only to cash donations, thus excluding charities that largely take donations in kind, such as food banks. Although we understand the challenges that such donations pose, has there been any consideration of whether there is a way to address that issue, given the potential inherent unfairness?
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the Government’s assessment is of any abuse of the scheme for fraud or tax evasion to date. For example, how many instances of abuse have taken place so far? Are the safeguards that are already in place sufficient, or indeed excessive?
I turn to the amounts expected to be paid through the scheme. I recall that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally unveiled it, he told the House with his usual degree of excited modesty that these were among
“the most radical and most generous reforms to charitable giving for more than 20 years.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 962.]
It would be useful for my assessment of the scheme if the Minister could first set out his expectations of the amounts that will now be paid out through the scheme, and secondly update us on its impact to date, particularly its performance against the expectations first set out by the Chancellor. For example, the scheme was estimated to cost £50 million in its first year, yet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that the cost was only £6 million in 2013-14— an underestimate of nearly 91%—rising to only £21 million in 2014-15. The Chancellor also claimed that 100,000 charities would see their income boosted by the scheme, so will the Minister tell us how many charities have in fact benefited so far?
Finally, back in 2012, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) assured the House that a review of the efficacy of the scheme would be carried out. It is my understanding that, as the Minister outlined, that review is set to take place in 2016, with the call for evidence beginning this month. As he may be aware, the umbrella organisations that I have referred to today have called for the Government’s review to be brought forward and asked for steps to be taken specifically to make the scheme less complicated. With the sector’s views in mind, which I have outlined today, will the Minister now confirm the timetable for the review, and particularly when it will begin and end? Will it be in time for any improvements in the scheme to be implemented for the next tax year, when the order comes into force? Will he also confirm what the terms of reference will be and provide assurance that the concerns that I have expressed today will be examined carefully?
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is great to see the draft order, which is very much the big society in action. It is excellent. I have one question about the level of the claimable amount. The Minister said that 7,200 charities claim the full amount at the moment. What percentage of charities is that, and what percentage does he imagine will be covered by the £8,000 limit? Does he have a target in mind for that through promotion of the scheme?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The scheme that the Minister is expanding upon today is interesting and is well regarded by charities and the public. In Wakefield we have a number of small charities, as well as the national headquarters of the Penny Appeal—its name sounds like a small amount, but it is actually a large and fast-growing charity—and some local churches that collect for the Suzy Fund. A lot of people are interested in the scheme, although I am not clear whether some of the micro-charities in my constituency are aware of it, so I will write to them.
We politicians underestimate how difficult form filling and excessive bureaucracy—particularly HMRC bureaucracy —are for our constituents and people who run small charities. For example, they might be running food banks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said, brass bands or small football or rugby league teams, or even doing a small bake sale, such as the people who feed into the larger Comic Relief. There are all sorts of ways in which the scheme can be spread out. The example that springs to mind is the poppy appeal, although I am sure that the Royal British Legion has mechanisms in place to maximise the revenue from it. Will the Minister let us know what the legion’s approach is? The appeal involves a lot of very small cash donations, and it would be absurd to be filling in a gift aid form for £1 or however much people give.
I want to follow on from the question about the 7,200 charities that claim the full amount. The Minister said that 19,000 charities claim £21 million. According to his figures, therefore, 12,000 of the claiming charities are not claiming the full amount. That prompts the question, what is the median and the smallest amount claimed? Perhaps he will send me and other Committee members the figures for the average amount claimed, which would be interesting, and explain why the full amount is being increased. I am sure it is a good reason.
The suggestion about food bank donations was interesting. Although large retail companies do good work with food banks, I would be reluctant to see Tesco or Ocado—I must not forget Sainsbury’s or Asda—
Mary Creagh
Yes, all those large companies have done amazing work with food banks. I know that from my constituency and from my time on the Front Bench as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
For small charities, such as St Vincent de Paul in my local church and other Catholic churches, or for people donating to the Sainsbury’s appeal—a packet of cereal, a four-pack of beans or whatever it might be—there should be a mechanism to enable small donations to be match-funded or gift-aided. That would be interesting and innovative, given that so many people are now choosing to donate in kind rather than in cash. Will the Minister tell us how he plans to take things forward?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
May I build on the questions about donations in kind and food banks? When the 2012 Act was debated, I tormented the then Minister with questions about why we were restricting the measures to cash donations. As the world moves on, we will all start using contactless payment or Apple Pay, and there will be many more situations in which one can make a small donation to a charity by walking past and waving one’s card or phone. Yet although that is practically the same as cash for all intents and purposes, under the rules as currently drafted it is outside the scheme, and the charity would have to collect someone’s gift aid details through their mobile phone provider or bank. What people think they are doing in such situations is making a small donation in cash; they just happen to be using a more convenient technological process to do so.
There are many other examples. People can deposit their Oyster cards in a bin at the tube station, and Transport for London takes the balance and gives it to a charity. Again, people are not making a cash donation, but that is effectively what they think they are doing. Three years on, is the Minister more open-minded than his predecessor on revisiting whether we should allow small donations to be extended to cash equivalents in order to capture such situations?
Robert Flello
Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your charitable comments before the sitting kicked off. It is always a delight to see you in the Chair.
The proposals are welcome. I agree with some of the comments that have been made, so I will try not to dwell on mine for too long. These feel like “widow’s mite” proposals, designed to support donations from the people who might be least able to donate, whose donation is a large one to them but perhaps not to the charity concerned.
I have a couple of questions. First, where did the £8,000 figure come from? It seems a little random. Why not £7,500 or £10,000? What was the rationale, and is £8,000 a step towards £10,000? If so, the Minister’s comments would be welcome.
To echo what has been said about advertising the scheme to the smallest of charities and addressing its complexities, I know from a previous existence outside this place that the smallest charities often have staff and volunteers who perform many different roles and wear many different hats. If one of those many hats involves fathoming their way through HMRC forms—I have experience of working for the Inland Revenue, and I know how complicated it can be—the forms for this scheme may well end up in the drawer with all the other difficult-to-deal-with pieces of paper while they get on with doing what the charity was set up to do. Will the Minister comment, ideally here in the Committee but if not by letter to Committee members, on how that complexity can be addressed and how the Government will advertise to the smallest charities?
Finally, comments have been made about donations of Oyster cards and food that is donated to food banks. Given that we are now a few weeks from Christmas, and that because of the season people will be putting an extra tin or packet into their supermarket trolley, can the Minister announce something this side of Christmas, even though the legislation might have to play catch-up? That would prove welcome to the people who want to share what little or largesse they have at this season of good will and cheer to all.
Damian Hinds
The Government are heartened by the support shown throughout the Committee for the gift aid small donations scheme. Several questions have been asked about the scheme’s general performance and the statistics behind it. Last year, 19,300 charities claimed a total of £21 million. We would like that to increase, and that is the point of the changes that we are introducing and the review that I mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil asked where that number sits in the overall universe of charities, and I can tell him that here are a total of 165,000 charities. A question was asked about the median claim. I do not have that number to hand, but I will be happy to follow up on it in correspondence.
Our general objective is for the scheme to be as simple, straightforward and low-cost for charities as possible, consistent with having a scheme in which everybody can have confidence and in which reasonable steps are taken to act against any potential misuse. That is why various safeguards are in place. For instance, a charity has to have been in the gift aid scheme for at least two of the previous four years, and given that the small donations scheme is a cash scheme, what a charity claims cannot be more than 10 times what goes through its regular gift aid programme.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked the reasonable question of why the figure is £8,000, not £7,500 or £8,500. There is of course no precise answer to that question, but there has to be a number, and it is based on a judgment of what is consistent. The scheme is not about replacing gift aid. Unlike regular gift aid it is taxpayer support, not a tax relief. The £8,000 figure is appropriate and consistent with the scheme having reasonable safeguards in it and being as unsusceptible as possible to state aid action.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked the reasonable question of what the Government are doing to increase awareness. She also asked whether more charities should know about the scheme. There is always a certain degree of ramp-up in any new programme, and the Government have been trying to do more. We want to raise awareness of the scheme and have more charities and donors taking part in it. Through the HMRC outreach team, which was established in 2014, the Government have delivered face-to-face presentations to more than 650 charities to spread awareness, increase take-up and help charities receive support through the scheme and available tax reliefs. Furthermore, through the introduction of Charities Online in 2013, we have made it faster and simpler for charities to claim reliefs. Some 95% of charities submit claims online rather than through paper applications, and the majority of claims are processed within five working days, which is down from about 15 working days.
There have been number of suggestions, questions and comments on various aspects of the scheme, and they are all germane, but they are all also subject matter for the review of the scheme. I was asked about the timing of the review, and the call for evidence should come out before Christmas. It remains to be seen how many organisations and individuals respond to that call, but we hope to have very good material and a good opportunity for feedback, critique and suggestions on how to make the scheme even more successful. It was mentioned that these days, it is possible to make a digital payment almost as quickly as a physical one—through contactless payment, for example—yet the small donations scheme applies only to cash. The review will cover all aspects of the scheme, including questions about digital payments.
The Government are heartened to hear the support from members of the Committee today. As I said, the increase in the small donations scheme limit represents an additional way in which the Government are supporting the charity sector. It will enable a significant number of charities, especially the 7,200 that already claim their full top-up under the existing £5,000 limit, to access greater financial support from the Government. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsidiarity and Proportionality
(8 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, it might be helpful if I remind Members of the procedure in European Committees. Proceedings must conclude no later than two and a half hours after we start. First, I shall call a member of the European Scrutiny Committee—I understand that it will be Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg—to make a brief statement about why the Committee decided to refer the documents for debate. Secondly, I shall call the Minister to make a statement, followed by questions for up to an hour, although I have some discretion to extend that period if there is appetite for it. Thirdly, the Committee will debate the Government motion. I will put the question on the motion when the debate or the time available—whichever comes first—is exhausted. Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the documents to the Committee?
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main? Although these two Commission annual reports are essentially factual documents, they were recommended for debate on the Floor of the House as their subject matter goes to the heart of the European Union debate: the democratic deficit of the EU. In the words of the Prime Minister in his Bloomberg speech of January 2013:
“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”
It is notable that in the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November to the President of the European Council, he also stated that he is seeking a new arrangement—a red card—
“where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals”
from the EU, and that he wants
“to see the EU’s commitments to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that.”
The first report from the Commission sets out its assessment of how the EU institutions addressed compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, including the operation of the formal reasoned opinion procedure whereby national Parliaments can raise objections to an EU proposal for legislation on the ground that it does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity and, if enough do so, they can force a reconsideration. The Commission concludes that the smaller number of reasoned opinions raised by national Parliaments
“must however be seen in the light of the decrease in the number of legislative proposals issued by the Commission towards the end of its term of office and not as an indication of diminishing interest of national Parliaments in subsidiarity matters. This conclusion is confirmed by the ongoing debate among national Parliaments concerning the subsidiarity control mechanism.”
It is noticeable that during 2014, 15 national Parliaments or Chambers issued 21 reasoned opinions covering 15 proposals. The highest number for any one proposal was three—well short of the lowest threshold for forcing a reconsideration of the proposal. This House issued three, proposing new measures concerning the presumption of innocence, animal cloning and undeclared work.
The second report sets out the Commission’s assessment of its relations with national Parliaments, focusing on informal political dialogue, rather than the formal reasoned opinion procedure. This vehicle can be used when it is not possible, because of the tight deadline, to issue a formal reasoned opinion. The Commission’s report records a drop in those informal opinions. In the analysis of key topics of dialogue, it identifies the discontent expressed by 10 Parliaments or Chambers, including this House, on the Commission’s reaction to the formal reasoned opinions against the proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, in respect of which a yellow card was issued in 2013.
The report concludes by marking the commitment of the new Commission under President Juncker to forge a new partnership with national Parliaments, as evidenced by its early action in increasing visits and specifically inviting comments on its 2015 work programme. The European Scrutiny Committee originally called for the debate not just because of its analysis in these reports of relations between national Parliaments and the EU; as already indicated, they cover a subject that goes to the heart of the role of national Parliaments in the EU.
The European Scrutiny Committee’s report drew the House’s attention to the call, so far unanswered, of many national Parliaments and Chambers for the President of the EU Commission to set up a working group to look at the role of national Parliaments. It also welcomed the Commission’s efforts to improve its dialogue with national Parliaments, including its responses to reasoned opinions and the opportunity to improve parliamentary scrutiny arising from the early consultation promised by the Commission’s Better Regulation package.
Finally, the Committee’s report drew attention to the development of the informal green card procedure, whereby national Parliaments can suggest matters for which either new EU legislation should be brought forward, or existing legislation should be amended or even repealed.
The Chair
I call the Minister to make an opening statement. I remind the Committee that interventions are not allowed during the statement, although questions are allowed afterwards.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has said, today’s debate stems from two European Commission annual reports relating to 2014, the first on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the second on the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments.
Those questions of subsidiarity and proportionality go to the heart of the debate that we, and national Governments and Parliaments across Europe, are now having on reform of the European Union. Those principles are about determining whether it is appropriate for legislation to be introduced at the EU level and, if so, how and in what detail. The concept of subsidiarity, in particular, is at the core of the idea that the EU must respect the layers of government that are closest and most accountable to European citizens.
There is a balance to be achieved between taking action at EU level when it is clearly in the collective interests of member states so to do and recognising when it is better for decisions to be made at national, regional or local government level. The Government’s view is that too often the right balance has not been struck. The gap between the EU and its citizens is growing. While that is felt acutely in the United Kingdom, the concerns are not limited to us, as can be seen in polling from such organisations as the Pew Research Center and Eurobarometer.
More than a decade ago, at Laeken, European leaders pledged to reform the European Union so as to avoid
“a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union”,
but that ambition remains unfulfilled. That is why resolving the long-standing questions of sovereignty is an important pillar of the Government’s wider programme of EU reform, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his letter to President Tusk earlier this month.
Recent messages from the Commission suggest that it is taking subsidiarity and proportionality seriously and that it is alive and receptive to the UK’s reform agenda. That is encouraging. In particular, the Commission work programme for 2016 refers to a “renewed commitment” to dialogue with national Parliaments on draft proposals, and it commits the Commission to ensuring that national Parliaments have a strong voice in European policy making.
For his part, President Juncker has been clear about his personal commitment to strengthening the role of national Parliaments, which he believes will help to address the democratic deficit felt by so many EU citizens. In his 2015 state of the Union address to the European Parliament, he made a specific reference to the UK’s ambition in that area, an ambition that he said he shares and that wants to work with the Prime Minister to achieve.
Members of the Committee will appreciate that the Better Regulation agenda is closely linked to the debate on subsidiarity. It is positive to note that the Commission has taken a leading role in minimising unnecessary burdens in EU legislation. Last month 19 member states, including the United Kingdom, collectively called on the Commission to go even further by setting burden-reduction targets, and we reiterated our belief in the principle that the EU should not take action at all where better outcomes could be achieved at the national or sub-national level.
We understand, too, from working-level discussions that the Commission is looking at creating new ways for national Parliaments to feed their views into the legislative programming process. That is important, because the EU needs to focus on areas where it can genuinely add value. I believe that we and other national Parliaments need to capitalise on that positive momentum and ensure that we secure and implement real reforms.
Of course, it is incumbent on all participants in EU regulation and legislation to ensure respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, and to make full use of existing checks and balances. Impact assessments, for example, are already meant to assess subsidiarity and proportionality impacts. In addition to the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament are under an obligation to assess the impact of their changes to proposals. Member states, too, have a role to play in ensuring that they hold the Commission to account when proposals and amendments breach those fundamental principles.
The focus of the reports we are debating today is the mechanisms available to national Parliaments to uphold subsidiarity through the yellow and orange cards, and to influence Commission proposals through political dialogue. In 2014 national Parliaments submitted 21 reasoned opinions on subsidiarity to the Commission, covering 15 different proposals. That was 76% less than the 88 issued the previous year, and a significant reduction from what was already a fairly low baseline. It is true that the reduction should be seen in the context of the appointment of a new Commission and the European parliamentary elections in 2014, which meant that fewer legislative proposals were produced. However, it might also reflect a growing disengagement on the part of national Parliaments.
The tight time limit of only eight weeks from the transmission of a proposal to the deadline for a reasoned opinion is challenging for national Parliaments, particularly when a proposal is complex, or at certain times of the year—most obviously during parliamentary recesses. It does not allow much time for national Parliaments to share information with one another, which was crucial in the triggering of the first yellow card in 2012. The scope and threshold of reasoned opinions required to trigger a yellow card are also factors. Normally, a yellow card is triggered when reasoned opinions represent at least a third of national Parliaments—19 votes—and that threshold has only been reached on two occasions, with the second, as my hon. Friend said, being in 2013, on the European public prosecutor’s office.
The way in which the Commission responded to that second yellow card, which was to proceed with the original proposal without replying to the concerns expressed by national Parliaments or adding any evidence, highlights the shortcomings of the current system. It is no wonder that national Parliaments might feel disengaged from the current system. That demonstrates the urgent need for us to go faster and further in implementing reforms to the roles of national Parliaments in the European Union, and why the Government are asking for a new arrangement whereby groups of national Parliaments working together can stop unwanted legislation. Furthermore, we want the promise on subsidiarity made by all Heads of Government at Laeken to be fully implemented, and clear proposals to be in place to do that.
It has also been encouraging to see progress made on the so-called green cards, which would enable groups of national Parliaments to establish a more positive dialogue with the Commission, through which new legislation could be proposed or existing laws amended or repealed. I note that national Parliaments gave green cards a ringing endorsement at the COSAC plenary meeting in Luxembourg last week. I am supportive of that work and will continue to follow discussions on the subject with great interest.
I hope that the Committee is reassured that the Government are serious about reforms in this area and are determined to secure them. The Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk made that clear, and the subject of today’s debate is very much at the heart of our EU reform agenda.
The Chair
We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister on his statement. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions, but there is also an opportunity for these in the subsequent debate.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions about his statement. He referred to the letter that the Prime Minister sent, on 10 November, to the President of the European Council. It was a long letter, in which he said:
“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation.”
Will the Minister say a little more about what the Government are pressing for on that question of national Parliaments? The Government talk about the development of a red card—I apologise, Mrs Main, for the multi-coloured cards we always refer to in these discussions. What exactly would the powers of that card be and how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? I ask the same question with regard to the green card, which is designed to be a proactive rather than a reactive measure: how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? Furthermore, is the development of the green card as much a priority for our renegotiation as that of the red one?
Finally, to complete the colours, I will ask about the use of the yellow card, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset said had been wielded very little. When it was wielded over the European public prosecutor’s office, the proposal was not substantially amended or withdrawn. What proposals do the Government have to strengthen the use of yellow cards, given that this is an unwieldy process and that when Parliaments come together in this way they ought not to be ignored?
Mr Lidington
I will try to respond as fully as I can within the constraints of time to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East.
As the Prime Minister said in his letter, the level of a threshold to trigger a red card that would amount to a block on legislation would be a matter for the negotiation itself. I cannot pre-empt those detailed discussions, but we envisage that at a certain point what is currently a power for national Parliaments to require the Commission to review a particular initiative should become an outright bar to further progress.
As for the yellow card, to my mind a change that would be particularly welcome would be an extension of the timeframe allowed beyond the eight weeks permitted under current law. That would enable national Parliaments to consider proposals more closely and to co-ordinate with one another. I would also like to see such a change to the yellow card take into account the very creative proposal from the Dutch Parliament for what it termed a “late card”, so that in the event of a legislative measure changing significantly during its progress through the various institutions it would be possible for national Parliaments to come back and have another look at it, because at the moment that opportunity is forbidden to them regardless of how far-reaching any amendments might be.
Finally, the Government support the green card, but it is also an initiative that is actively being taken forward by national Parliaments at the moment. Yes, we support it, but if it can be achieved through Parliaments working together in COSAC, persuading the institutions to take that change on board, then we are happy simply to support the work that the Parliaments themselves have initiated.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I ask the Minister a bit more about the red card? Is it fair to assume that the number of countries that would be required to send in a red card would be lower than the number required to vote against it in the Council of Ministers to provide a blocking majority under qualified majority voting?
Mr Lidington
The difference between the two arrangements, as my hon. Friend knows, is that to assemble a blocking majority in the Council of Ministers one has to assemble that majority on the basis of weighted votes, with the most populous countries having greater weight, in the calculation of a majority or minority, than the smaller member states, whereas in the case of the yellow card system each parliamentary chamber in the EU has a single vote. I suppose that it operates a bit like the way that the US Senate operates, with no regard to the relative populations of the different countries.
The answer to that question would therefore depend very much on what the comparator was in terms of the blocking minority among member states. I certainly envisage that a red card would have to involve a higher threshold than a yellow card would, since it would be a more far-reaching measure.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. However, could the red card serve any useful purpose if it were harder to get than a qualified majority vote against a proposal coming from the Commission, because all Governments are responsible to their Parliaments, and therefore to make it a workable proposition, the assumption would have to be that a matter had a qualified majority in favour but the Parliaments sought to stop it?
Mr Lidington
Having served as a Minister both in the last Parliament and this one, I have to say that I do not think that Governments can automatically assume that they have the majority in Parliaments, particularly on European matters. So, while the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes would be unusual, it would nevertheless be worth while to have that democratic back stop. Also, a strongly expressed parliamentary view would perhaps, in the case of a number of member states, put greater backbone into a Government resisting a measure to which their Parliament had declared itself opposed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The very idea that Governments will have backbone in the face of Europe is a novel one, but I hope that we might see it one day.
Moving on to yellow cards, does my right hon. Friend think that part of the reason for the number of cards going down, apart from the lower number of proposals coming forward, is that once the decision was given about the EPP, Parliaments thought there was little point? The Commission did absolutely nothing regarding that important proposal. What is the purpose of this House or any other Chamber passing resolutions if they are just ignored?
Mr Lidington
As I said in my opening remarks, that might be part of the explanation. One would have to go back and talk to parliamentarians from the 27 other member states to have a clear analysis. I suspect that with some countries the lack of yellow cards might be down more to domestic political circumstances—perhaps a general election and a change of Government—than to anything happening at the EU level.
It is also fair, however, to take account of the changeover of the Commission. The Juncker Commission’s track record of launching many fewer new initiatives than the Barroso Commission, even in its first term, inevitably reduces the number of targets for national Parliaments. That too is part of the explanation. Frankly, if the Commission is going to stick to that approach and take account, in advance, of what national Parliaments and national Governments would regard as the right priorities, that is a change we should all welcome.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On that very point, the Commission has tended to respond even when a majority has not been reached, but it has often been pretty stubborn in pushing forward with its proposal anyway. Indeed, in one of the documents we can even see that it wanted to bring forward a more ambitious proposal rather than sticking with the one it already had. To date, therefore, the yellow card has not been hugely successful, as far as one can tell. Does the Minister accept that? Does he also accept that the time limit he mentioned, which it has been argued ought to be extended, can be extended only through treaty change? Is that part of the Government’s intended renegotiation?
Mr Lidington
I agree that although there is innovation in the Lisbon treaty—which was an advance, and better than not having any such process—it has not been particularly successful so far. It has certainly taken time for the culture of the Commission leadership to respond to what is necessary. The fact that someone such as First Vice-President Timmermans, who has been an elected politician in a country that has given a high priority to the opinions of its national Parliament, is now a key authority within the Commission has been an important contributing factor to the change we have seen on the part of the Commission in the past year and a bit.
Whether treaty change is needed is something that we are addressing in the course of the detailed negotiations. The technical talks that took place over the summer between UK officials and the secretariats and legal services of the institutions have, on that issue and on the others on which we seek reforms, fleshed out a menu of legal and procedural options for leaders to select from, depending on what deal leaders eventually succeed in negotiating. It would be wrong of me to go further than that, when those negotiations still lie ahead.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for that because footnote 16 on page 12 of the document gives the Commission’s view that the deadline is enshrined in the treaty and therefore would require treaty change, but the Commission can err, so I hope the Government are right.
Finally—although I may have two questions on this point, depending on the Minister’s answer—I want to ask about the green card issue. Are the Government supportive of a situation in which the Commission loses its exclusive right to propose legislation?
Mr Lidington
That is not part of our set of proposals and it would probably be very hard to negotiate that. My word of warning to my hon. Friend is that if that issue were opened up, we would probably see a lot of institutional pressure from the European Parliament to have a right to initiate legislation, and that there would be quite a lot of national Governments around Europe, particularly those of smaller member states, that would be quite attracted by that idea.
As for my hon. Friend’s earlier point—alas, I have lost my thread, so perhaps he could just remind me.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Prior to the green card issue, I asked about the treaty change and the Minister answered me.
Mr Lidington
That is right, and if I have not satisfied my hon. Friend, at least I have replied to him. I will rest it there, Mrs Main.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am a bit puzzled by the Minister’s last answer. I thought the whole point of the green card was to give a group of member states the ability to propose changes to, amend, alter or even repeal EU legislation. Now, if it is not giving them the right that is otherwise the exclusive right of the Commission, I do not see what it is doing and whether it serves any purpose.
Mr Lidington
The distinction is this: the green card proposal would permit the national Parliaments acting collegiately to propose changes and to seek reviews, but it would leave it then for the Commission, having reviewed the matter, to decide whether to bring forward particular amendments.
That is perhaps analogous—not exactly the same as, but analogous—to the European Parliament’s powers to propose an own-initiative report, which can put forward ideas either for new legislation or the amendment or repeal of existing legislation but which cannot bind the Commission to act in a particular way. What one has found in practice, however, is that the Commission has taken very seriously those reports and frequently acted upon them. I hope that if we got a green card accepted, we would find that the Commission responded in the same way to well-evidenced, well-argued proposals from national Parliaments.
I now recall the point on which I was going to respond to my hon. Friend earlier. He expressed doubt as to whether, in the absence of treaty change, having a red card would mean anything. Of course the Commission, while it has the sole right of initiative, can always choose whether to initiate or to persist with a particular piece of legislation, so it faces a certain political choice when it is in receipt of objections from national Parliaments.
Mr Rees-Mogg
You are being very generous today, Mrs Main; I promise that this is my last question. Is the Minister therefore saying that the democratic deficit will be addressed by the good will of the Commission when it feels like listening to national Parliaments?
Mr Lidington
What I am saying is that the democratic deficit needs to be addressed by a number of different and complementary reforms. Those will include some in the culture of the institutions, which we are starting to see, such as a focus on a rigorous selection of limited priorities where the European Union can genuinely provide value-added to all its members from European-level action, rather than leaving it to member states.
I believe that our proposals on national parliaments are not a panacea, which I have never claimed for them, but will help to reconnect electors with what the European Union is doing on their behalf. Obtaining some kind of mechanism for turning the Laeken commitment into institutional reality in the EU would be a further way in which to bridge the democratic deficit.
At the end of the day, bridging the democratic deficit will be about cultural change as much as about legislative and institutional change. It will be about the EU and its institutions demonstrating through their choice of actions that they are attuned to the policy priorities that matter to the people—the citizens whom they claim to represent.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 10651/15 and Addendum, a Commission Annual Report 2014: Subsidiarity and proportionality, and No. 10663/15 and Addendum, a Commission Annual Report 2014: relations with national parliaments; recognises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity and the value of stronger interaction between national parliaments and the EU institutions; welcomes the Government’s reform agenda and efforts to ensure that the Commission responds to future objections under the yellow card scheme by substantially amending or withdrawing the proposal that has been put forward; calls on the Commission to respond to the request of 29 national parliament chambers to establish a working group to consider reforms to strengthen their role; is encouraged by the Commission’s announcement of its intentions to forge a new partnership with national parliaments; and calls on the Commission to set out its plans to do this.(—Mr Lidington.)
Mr McFadden
I will make a couple of brief points. It is true that the issue of subsidiarity, proportionality and the power of national Parliaments is important, and that view is shared throughout the Chamber. I have already read out what the Prime Minister said in his letter to the President of the Council two weeks ago, so I do not need to repeat it. In our manifesto, Labour stated:
“We will work to strengthen the influence of national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a ‘red-card mechanism’ for member states, providing greater parliamentary scrutiny.”
Today, in response to the Prime Minister’s letter, President Donald Tusk said:
“There is also a largely shared view on the importance of the role of national parliaments within the Union as well as strong emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity.”
There will be different views in the House as to whether that constant re-emphasis of the commitment to subsidiarity shows up in the actions of the Commission and the EU institutions, but the question is whether a new spirit has emerged.
The Commission certainly says that there is a new spirit. Some months ago we debated on the Floor of the House the Commission’s work programme, to which many Members referred. Earlier this year in London I attended a speech made by Frans Timmermans, the Vice-President of the Commission—the Minister mentioned him—and he posed the question, why does the ratchet always have to turn in one direction? Why can the Commission and the institutions not look at the existing corpus of legislation and ask whether it is still fit for purpose and necessary, or whether it has had unintended consequences after being in effect for some time? Those seem to be perfectly legitimate questions for the EU institutions, just as they would be for any national Parliament.
Looking around Europe, I wonder whether we are discussing the right exam question overall. At the moment, the EU is coping with huge crises of refugees and of security, but if we constantly view it as an organisation that is determined to interfere in our very way of life, we might not be asking the right question. Perhaps the question is how Europe works more closely together to deal with common challenges instead of always seeing working together as some kind of threat, as we tend to do in this country. The issue of national Parliaments is a legitimate one, but looking at the problems Europe is coping with today, I am not sure that it is the most urgent one facing the EU.
I will not go through again all the different powers of the different card mechanisms that have been outlined. Suffice to say, we will watch with interest how matters are developed in the negotiation that the Prime Minister has set out. The Minister has given us some useful pointers to the Government’s position on the various green, yellow and red card proposals, but it looks as if matters will not be concluded at the December Council. We will hope for more concrete results from the February Council early next year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very sympathetic with the point that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East makes that this might be the wrong issue to discuss, and that the real issue is how the nations of Europe can co-operate together. My answer is that they should do so through the nation state, because the nation state has validity and the European Commission does not. What we discover in today’s debate is that it is actually all about the validity of the European Commission, and that national Parliaments will be given a bauble here and a bauble there. They will be given a red card, a yellow card and a green card—they will have a three-card trick. They will have a whole deck of cards, but they will not be able to do anything with it because everything goes off to the European Commission, which may—if it is feeling benign—condescend to listen to the national Parliaments.
The Commission may take the Parliaments into account, and it may make proposals. How enormously generous. How thoughtful of somebody unelected, who was appointed against the will of the British Government, who has no mandate and who represents one of the smallest countries in the European Union. It is going to be up to Mr Juncker whether he listens to the German Parliament, the British Parliament or the French Parliament, all of which were elected by millions of people across Europe. One grand panjandrum in Brussels will decide whether he will take any notice of those cards at all.
The Government are great in their way—they push back a bit and say, “Oh, well, we’ve got a backbone, so therefore we’ll be tough and stand up to this. We’re going to put Britain first, the United Kingdom first, and make sure that we have our way.”
Mr McFadden
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s strength of view, but he is in danger of forgetting the existence of the Council of Ministers, on which sit the elected representatives of all of us—the Prime Ministers and Presidents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The Council of Ministers used to operate by unanimity, so our interests could be protected. At the heart of this is the question of who has the right to initiate legislation, because that is where the real democratic deficit is located; it is not the Council of Ministers but the unelected Commission that does that. That is a most extraordinary power. When one considers the power of this House, one sees that our right to initiate money Bills dates to 1407, and the power of this House grew because of that right of initiation and that right to control finances, which leads to control of the legislative programme.
The Commission’s right of initiation is central to its authority, and how sensitive was the Minister on its behalf when I said that this green card might interfere with that noble right of the Commission to initiate legislation—“No, that could not happen at all. It would upset the Commission too greatly, and the European Parliament might be a bit jealous.” The European Parliament is a body that has modest democratic legitimacy. A few people occasionally vote, but no one feels that it is their Parliament. People occasionally turn out to vote when they have to vote for something else. Even a police commissioner is more exciting to vote for than the European Parliament—well, not by very much, although it is a little more exciting. The democratic deficit is addressed not by the European Parliament, but by national Parliaments that represent individual citizens.
To return to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent point about how Europe addresses such problems, it addresses such problems if it has validity, and it has validity if it is based on democracy. The European Union is facing problems at the moment because it has become so remote from that democracy. The President of Portugal is saying that a new Government cannot come in because that might upset the European Union, even when, in a coalition, the Portuguese Government have more support than any other nation. [Interruption.] We are saved by the bell.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We were not quite saved by the bell, as some had hoped. There is one final point that I want to make, which is that in the European Union Act 2011 the Government included a section clearly stating that sovereignty resides in this House and that we are only members of the EU because of that. It was a very good section that reminded us of what had been the perceived wisdom under the European Communities Act 1972: that the sovereignty of the British people is vested in this House and that only this House can use it in a fundamental way. If this House or this Parliament decides not to use it, we would be able to withdraw and restore all our democratic accountability. That underpins the importance of national Parliaments. Without their willingness or acceptance of a supranational body, and without the delegation of authority, there is no authority in the Commission. It does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a body created by God—the divine right of Commissioners—to rule over the whole EU; it is a body whose authority is drawn from us, but that is a drawing that can be withdrawn and perhaps may be.
Mr Lidington
I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for their contributions, and I will try to respond to their points. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for referring to President Tusk’s letter, which was published today and states a need to assert the importance of national Parliaments. It is an objective that President Tusk feels is shared by other Governments of member states.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the degree of support that we have among other member states for strengthening the role of national Parliaments. My truthful answer is that the greatest support comes from member states that have vigorous national parliamentary systems. Countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, whose Parliaments have come forward with ideas to strengthen the accountability of EU decisions to national Parliaments, are perhaps more naturally inclined to have regard to this question than other countries that historically have had weaker national parliamentary systems and have seen European institutions as the guarantors of liberties and the rule of law.
Clearly, different member states have different views that sometimes depend on whether they feel that their own scrutiny arrangements, which may reflect a mandate system rather than a system such as ours, would be affected by some of the changes that we would like to be made. As President Tusk’s letter makes clear, the ideas that we have put on the table have had a broadly positive response from our partners.
Let me turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I do not think that I have ever pretended in the five and three-quarter years that I have been doing this job that European institutions are perfect or that, were I to be asked to take a blank sheet of paper and draft a new scheme for European co-operation, I would commence with the treaty of Lisbon and the current institutional framework. However, the political reality that we, as parliamentarians, must all confront is that that is the system we have at the moment. It is the product of decisions taken by our predecessors over the years. The key principle that we need to bear in mind in debating the question before us this afternoon is, in the words of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands:
“European where necessary, national where possible.”
That is the principle that should animate our policy and that I would like to be read, learned, marked and inwardly digested by the institutions of the EU.
I am not someone who habitually goes around lauding the work of the European Commission—it is an imperfect body, like all human institutions—but I thought that my hon. Friend was a wee bit unfair to it, because it is the United Kingdom that has often looked to the European Commission to champion work on the single market and on free trade agreements between Europe and other countries, and it is the Commission that has used its powers to challenge protectionist interests in other member states—member states that would have blocked proposals that we and successive British Prime Ministers have judged to be in the best interests of our country. After all, that was why Margaret Thatcher, when Prime Minister, introduced the Single European Act. I think I am still correct to say that was the biggest move towards qualified majority voting in the history of the European Communities or the European Union.
There are flaws in the present arrangements and improvements that we should seek, but we should ponder carefully before throwing aside an institutional framework and a habit of countries working together that over the years have brought some significant benefits, both economic and political, to the people of the United Kingdom. The right way forward is to secure a set of ambitious reforms that change the working culture of the European Union to make it more competitive, more flexible and, yes, more democratic than it is today. The measures before us have enabled us to debate one particular aspect of that reform agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Parking restrictions in Scunthorpe
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neonicotinoids on Crops
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 104796 relating to the use of neonicotinoids on crops.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chairman, and may I wish you a very happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Whoever said I was a suck-up?
Neonicotinoids are more easily referred to as neonics. As a dyslexic, I will use that phrase for ease. Neonics are a class of pesticides used on crops to control pests such as aphids and grubs. The petition, which received more than 90,000 signatures, was prompted by the effect that neonics have on pollinators in the UK, specifically bees. The petition states:
“Neonicotinoids, especially seed treatments of imidacloprid and clothianidin on arable crops, have become of increasing concern to beekeepers and bee researchers in recent years with many of them suspecting that they may be connected to current bee declines. These concerns have led to partial bans on the use of some neonicotinoids for specific crops in several European countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. Bees are already facing sharp declines in their numbers and need help.”
The EU placed a ban on three types of neonics just over two years ago. However, attention was returned to the issue when the Government permitted limited use of the substances as an emergency measure.
I want to discuss the importance of bees before continuing to discuss neonics, the EU approach and the recent permission granted by the Government for some farmers in Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, on your birthday.
Given the level of interest in this subject—it is clear from this room and from my inbox that the residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole and people around the rest of the country are concerned—perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the revitalising of the all-party group to inform and discuss the issue further.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I welcome the creation of the all-party group by our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I believe the APPG is meeting on Wednesday and he would like as many Members as possible to attend.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on your birthday, Ms Vaz. I will continue the trend.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. There has been a significant amount of interest in my constituency of Torfaen over the weekend, and I echo the concern of all my constituents about the effect of neonicotinoids on the decline of bees. Does the hon. Gentleman agree about the potential effect on the decline of butterflies, which has been noted recently in research by the Universities of Stirling and Sussex?
Ben Howlett
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that not only bees, but a range of different insects are put at risk.
I must say that it was not me who secured the debate; it was the 90,000 people out there who signed the e-petition, which was taken forward by the Petitions Committee.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
May I also say it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on your birthday, Ms Vaz, and on my 30th wedding anniversary?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I wish to reflect the concern of people in Chesham and Amersham about the state of bees. The British Beekeepers Association’s annual honey survey has shown a 34% drop in the honey crop this year, partly due to poor weather and windy conditions, and also queen issues in the hives.
Ben Howlett
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; many a time I have ended up having to stand up and respond to queen issues. That is an in-joke. I am incredibly alarmed by the decline of the bee population in the UK. Climate change has had a serious impact.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ben Howlett
I want to make some progress, but I will bring in as many Members as possible during my speech.
On the importance of bees, apart from providing the summery buzzing sound that we hear, bees are crucial to our natural environment. They pollinate most of our crops and many wild flowers, as well as playing a crucial role in supporting wider biodiversity. However, this crucial part of our nation’s wildlife is in danger from a combination of factors that have led some species to become extinct. In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that England had seen the greatest decline in wild bee populations anywhere in Europe. That cannot be ignored.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 94,000 people, I think, who petitioned. Does he agree that this is an issue across the country? In my very urban constituency, I have had 430 emails so far on this matter. Does he think the Government need to be consistent in their ban on bee-harming pesticides? They seem to be flip-flopping at the moment, and pesticides are damaging many crops.
Ben Howlett
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I represent an urban constituency—we have two farms in Bath—but we have a lot of people who are beekeepers or members of the Beekeepers Association. This is a wider issue, but everyone in our country buys honey— or rather, most people buy it if they have a taste for it —and we need to ensure we give enough support to bees. I agree that the Government’s line needs to be consistent.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I was a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which strongly recommended a moratorium in the previous Parliament. Does he agree that the Government should look again at that EAC recommendation? Earlier this year, the single study used to justify the UK’s voting against current restrictions was widely discredited, and the key scientists behind it left to join the pesticides company Syngenta. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of that, we need to revisit the UK’s decision?
Ben Howlett
I agree there is a range of scientific evidence, which I have started to get my head round. I am looking at as much as possible, and I would like the Government to do something similar.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. On the island, Dave Cassell is chairman of the Isle of Wight Beekeepers Association. They would plead for farmers to be given more information from the Government about what the least damaging time of day to spray is. I am told that spraying in the evening is much less damaging than in the daytime.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I honestly do not know the answer, but I hope that I can pass the buck to the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ben Howlett
I want to make a little headway, but I will give way to hon. Members in a moment.
The decline in the British bee population is not solely caused by the use of neonics. A variety of factors combine to result in a severe decrease in the number of bees in the UK. Climate change is having an effect on the population, as is the loss of habitats, intensification on land use, the spread of pests and diseases, and the use of pesticides in farming. Those causes can be interlinked and all need to be addressed. However, today’s debate focuses on the use of neonics.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned earlier, the honey crop has fallen by about 30%. What does he think we can do generally about the situation? The problem does not apply only to Britain, but to other countries as well, and it has been going on for several years.
Ben Howlett
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This is an international problem and it needs to be looked into at a European Union level as well. I understand the Government are doing so.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The issue that worries me and many of my constituents—and, I suspect, others around the country—is the decline of the bee population. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has pointed out there is not a single cause for the decline. Does he agree that we need a varied response from the Government that covers a number of issues in order to crack the real problem?
Ben Howlett
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that a multifaceted approach and strategy must be considered. Hopefully my hon. Friend the Minister will set that out when he responds.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend will probably be aware that Robin Page of the Countryside Restoration Trust, who writes and speaks a lot of sense on these sorts of issues, has drawn attention to the parallel between the rise in the badger population and the decrease in the number of ground-nesting bees. Someone should do some extra research on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that whenever the Government and the EU apply science to these matters, science must always be front and centre when decisions are taken, but where there is uncertainty the precautionary principle should always come to the fore?
Ben Howlett
I agree that there should be more scientific research into this issue. I have not read the article to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am sure that he speaks with great eminence on the subject.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. It is very well attended, which shows how important it is. It is important that there is openness and transparency on the science and evidence. Such transparency might well help the Government. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, wrote to the Secretary of State on 1 September saying that she should publish all the evidence in a timely manner so that everyone can investigate. Things have moved on since then, but it would be good for all parties if, when decisions are made, the evidence is put out there so that everyone can interrogate it in a timely manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Ben Howlett
Yes. An open and transparent world would be an awful lot more useful for our constituents, who, to be frank, have struggled. I must admit that I, too, have struggled to find some of the information that is available.
Moving on, I am well aware that the farming community produces some good arguments for the necessity of pesticides and neonics, which in some instances are much more effective than other pesticides. Nevertheless, a balance needs to be struck. Crops are without doubt an essential part of our nation’s agricultural sector, but bees also play an essential role in our natural environment as pollinators and otherwise.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Like many other Members present, I have been contacted by lots of constituents, one of whom signed off with the line:
“If the bees go, we’re all in trouble.”
I think we would all agree.
Along with colleagues, I have just returned from the GLOBE International conference in Paris, which coincided with COP21. Environmental resilience was very much to the fore. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in a crucial week for climate change globally, this subject is part of a much bigger picture? We should take it very seriously.
Ben Howlett
I agree that we need to look at this issue much more strategically.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My hon. friend is making an excellent speech. The most important part of it for me is that he said that the decline in the bee population in this country is the biggest in western Europe. Rather than concentrating on why bees are declining generally, we should ask what it is about this country that means we are doing worse than anywhere else.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to admit that I am not an expert on this subject. Hopefully, the Minister will answer that question in due course.
Moving on to the rest of my speech, neonics are of great concern to many of our constituents because of how they operate. As I have said, I am not a scientist, but I understand that neonics are rapidly absorbed when sprayed on plants or, more commonly, used to treat seeds to protect plants throughout their lives. As well as disrupting the neurological function of the pests they are meant to target, neonics are also toxic to bees and other pollinators. In 2013, the EU introduced a ban on the use of three types of neonics on crops that are particularly attractive to bees—namely, spring-planted cereals and flowering crops.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
On the point about the three types of neonicotinoids that caused concern back in 2013, does my hon. Friend agree that the farming community and, indeed, retail can play a leadership role on this issue? The Leckford estate, which is owned by the John Lewis Partnership, is in my constituency. In response to the concerns in 2013, it stopped using neonics, and since then has done masses of work to increase the viability and sustainability of all pollinators on the estate.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that removing neonics from the chain of production has not caused some sort of massive collapse in the system. In many ways it has had a very limited effect. I agree that all producers have a responsibility.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way before he moves on. He is showing expertise minute by minute and so should not worry; we will get there. I have a farming background. My hon. Friend touched on how long neonics can remain and the studies of the chemicals’ long-term effects. There are conflicting conclusions. Many of those present, and many of the constituents who write to us, are confused by the science, the conclusions that are drawn and the warnings we are given, but we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that there can be alternatives. I do not believe that all the options are being explored.
Ben Howlett
Yes, there is a mix of evidence out there. We do not yet have a definitive answer, but hopefully we will hear one from the Minister. I empathise greatly with the view that much more evidence should be put out there, because it sometimes feels as if one is going through the process but the information is just not readily available.
Moving on quickly, there are still types of neonics whose usage is not controlled. The three banned types can still be used as a seed dressing on crops such as sugar beet and winter cereals. Earlier this year, the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority to collect information on the risks posed to bees by the three banned neonics. The authority is currently reviewing the data it collected and will soon provide conclusions as to the risks. It collected information from more than 370 contributors, which will increase our understanding of the effects of neonics, so I hope that the Government listen to the findings.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and also wish you, Ms Vaz, a happy birthday. Many of my constituents are very concerned about this issue, which is important to the whole of Somerset and the west country, and I share many of those concerns. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to understand the criteria on which the Government will make their decision, if they ever do?
Ben Howlett
I would not possibly speak on the Government’s behalf, but I hope the Minister will answer that question by explaining the criteria that will be under consideration.
The EU allows member states to authorise the usage of the banned neonics products to deal with emergency situations that are temporary, limited in scale and controlled, in order to address a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. The Government granted permission for their use on oilseed rape where the crops are in greatest risk of pest damage. The area that was granted permission, which extends across Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, represents just 5% of the UK oilseed rape crop area. The Government rejected two earlier applications that would have covered 79% of the crop area. I am pleased that the Government accepted the application only for a far smaller area, but I am still concerned about the potential impact of neonics on the bee population in that area.
Field studies have suggested that the levels of exposure experienced by bees in the wild are not sufficient to cause any negative consequences for the pollinators. The problem with relying on that assertion is that there have not been experiments of a significant scale to provide definitive evidence on which to base our approach to neonics. The usage currently authorised by the Government provides a good chance to ascertain on a bigger scale what their impact might be.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and join others in wishing you a happy birthday, Ms Vaz. Is my hon. Friend familiar with the study by the European Academies Science Advisory Council that shows that, even at sub-lethal doses, the impact of neonicotinoids on pollinators can be such that the reduced crop yields actually offset any benefits from using them as a pesticide in the first place?
Ben Howlett
Yes, I have seen that report, and I agree with my hon. Friend about its findings.
The Government have frequently and rightly stated that they will base their future policies on scientific evidence. They admirably said that decisions need to be ruled by science, but if they are committed to that, then proper data must be collected from the crop areas that have been granted permission to use neonics. Because neonics are absorbed so well by plants, residues are found on the pollen and nectar, which consequently affects pollinators. Evidence about the effect of such residues is crucial for future conservation work, so I encourage the Government to consider using approved plots to help to shape future decisions.
The high number of signatures on the petition shows how concerned the public are about the harm that neonics cause to bees and other pollinators. I urge the Government to gather more scientific evidence from the EU’s research and from sites that currently use the banned neonics. I also urge them to consider other types of neonics that are currently authorised but may have a detrimental effect. Since 1990, the UK has lost about 20 species of bees. We cannot afford to keep losing those crucial pollinators.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and the many petitioners on raising this important subject; I can report that many of my constituents are positively buzzing with excitement at the prospect of this debate.
We all agree that we need bees: they pollinate our food crops and wild flowers and play an essential role in supporting wider biodiversity. As we all know, however, their numbers have declined dramatically. DEFRA described the trend as “severe” and admitted that the sharp decline in England is greater than that experienced by any other country in Europe. We have lost more than 20 species of bees in just over a century, and 35 bee species are considered to be under threat of extinction. This is clearly a very serious issue.
The reasons for the problem are complex and many. They include habitat change, the spread of pests, diseases and invasive species, and climate change. The list goes on, and its breadth is intimidating to lay people. Those multiple pressures and stresses are sometimes linked and interrelated, so our responses must be sophisticated, but there is one contributory cause that could and should be tackled now: the use of pesticides, and in particular of neonicotinoid pesticides.
As we have heard, neonicotinoids have been used widely by farmers in the UK for pest control purposes on a range of agricultural and horticultural crops—in particular, as seed treatments on oilseed rape, cereals, sugar beet and maize. Neonicotinoids act on the brains and nervous systems of insects, including bees, and affect motor function, feeding, learning, homing, foraging and reproduction.
Two years ago, the European Union restricted the use of three types of neonicotinoid pesticide—a move supported by the majority of EU member states, but, ironically, not by the “greenest ever” coalition Government, who were one of just a handful of member states to oppose the measure. That decision flew in the face of hard, sound evidence. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that the three commonly used neonicotinoids posed an unacceptable danger and
“A high acute risk to honey bees”.
It recommended a full ban on all neonicotinoids.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As he said, it was disappointing that the UK opposed the ban. Does he agree that the scientific evidence gathered since then has strengthened the case in favour of a ban?
Daniel Zeichner
I very much agree. Those of us who have ploughed through the detailed report find it overwhelming. It was disappointing that, after opposing the earlier advice, the coalition Government published a 10-year national pollinator strategy for bees and other pollinators that did not go nearly far enough. Specifically, it ignored the challenge that neonicotinoid use poses to pollinators.
This autumn, the Government, despite the growing evidence demonstrating the adverse impact of neonicotinoids on pollinator numbers, granted an emergency authorisation for their use. In my county of Cambridgeshire, it allowed farmers to plant oilseed rape with neonicotinoid-treated seeds, which sparked many protests across my constituency and contributed to half a million people across the country signing petitions.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision was made a little too soon, as not enough research had been done?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Many people felt that at the time. We all agree that the challenge is how best to take a science-led approach to the use of pesticides. We must balance the need to support farmers and protect food security with the need to protect wildlife and reverse the decline of pollinators.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
As a former vice-chair of the all-party group on honey bees, I welcome this debate but I caution my hon. Friend that it is difficult for farmers and those of us who are not scientists. On 26 August, the European Food Safety Agency put out a press release stating that neonicotinoids should continue to be banned, even though it was still gathering evidence on a procedure that did not close until 30 September. It is now considering that evidence and looking at whether the ban should continue. That does not help, and makes the issue more confusing for people.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These issues are complex, and we are trying to balance the various risks. The Government said that they will listen to the scientific evidence to inform any changes to their position, but despite the strong evidence they still seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears. Since the EU restrictions were introduced two years ago, many peer-reviewed studies have been carried out in lab and real-world settings that underline how damaging such chemicals are for bees.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I just want to fly in on this debate with the observation that the Environmental Audit Committee published a powerful report in the previous Parliament on this very issue. The new Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee is here—or at least he was. That report is well worth reading.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Bees are the gift that keeps on giving to parliamentarians.
I understand farmers’ concerns. Local farmers have explained to me that they have lost crops when they have not been able to use such pesticides. But taking a wider view, there is no really compelling evidence showing widespread crop failure since restrictions on neonicotinoids were introduced. In fact, the 2014 DEFRA report found that in the immediate aftermath of the banning of neonicotinoid pesticides in 2013, the net yield for rapeseed actually increased by 16%. Furthermore, bees have a crucial role to play in improving crop yields and quality. A decline in pollinators as a consequence of neonicotinoids will paradoxically harm the very crops that farmers are trying to protect, and many farmers appreciate that fact.
Mrs Gillan
Would the hon. Gentleman welcome the countryside stewardship scheme that, ultimately, the Government announced earlier this year? I understand that the scheme, which will amount to £900 million, will be open to people competing for projects, with particular emphasis on bees and pollinators. Extra points will be given to agreements that work to support bees, pollinators and other farm wildlife. Surely that is a really good opportunity for people in the countryside—farmers and others— to bid for projects under the scheme and, hopefully, to produce the evidence we need to keep our bee population healthy.
Daniel Zeichner
Stewardship schemes have always been important in rural areas. I strongly support them and, as someone who believes in intervention, I will continue to do so.
New research suggests that neonicotinoids might be damaging food production. There is some evidence that apples pollinated by bumblebees exposed to neonics are of a lower quality to those pollinated by neonic-free bumblebees. Although I sympathise with and understand the concerns of farmers who argue that they need such chemicals to grow their crops, it is worth bearing in mind that, given the rate at which bee colonies are collapsing, before long many existing crops will be at risk unless farmers take the very expensive action of pollinating their crops themselves—a service currently provided free of charge by bees across the country.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree that the decline in the bee population in this country is higher than in any other country in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman is contending that the reason for that decline is the use of such pesticides. If that is not correct—I do not know whether it is or not —can he suggest a possible alternative reason, or does every route that he has used to explore this issue lead him to conclude that such pesticides are the cause of the decline in the bee population in this country?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman comes to the sensible conclusion—the one that I am coming to—that the use of neonicotinoids is the prime problem that we should be acting against. When all is said and done, pollination services are critical for both ecosystem function and crop production and are estimated to be worth between £430 million and £603 million a year to UK agriculture.
In conclusion, bees have been the unhappy victims of neonicotinoid use. Their decline is not only devastating for wildlife, but damaging to food production and our agricultural economy. It is time that the Government ended what some of us fear might be a slight case of knee-jerk anti-Europeanism, listened to the public pleas and scientific sense and ensured that our bees and farmers can flourish.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I thank you for calling me to speak and wish you a happy birthday, Ms Vaz. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and the 90,000 people who signed the petition for creating such a buzz around the subject, which affects us all indirectly. I had my usual Somerset honey for breakfast, but there is sadly a lot less of it right now.
I wanted to speak in this debate for a whole range of reasons. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have an interest in sustainably producing safe food for the nation for the long term and in support of the Government’s 25-year food and farming plan. DEFRA fully understands the need to produce more food at home, and I am delighted that the Department has highlighted its understanding of the significance of bees through the bee pollinator strategy mentioned earlier. I speak to represent the farmers in my constituency, with whom I have had many discussions about the issue and who are, after all, vital custodians of our countryside, which needs to be a functioning ecosystem, as the Environmental Audit Committee has highlighted. I also speak as a promise to the many hundreds of people who have contacted me about the issue. They are truly passionate about the plight of our bees and followed my campaign, during which I made the topic a major point.
Rebecca Pow
They made a beeline for me, yes. It is telling that I have had more emails about this subject than about the Syria debate, and I had an awful lot of those.
I am also speaking up for the bees today, as I am sure we all are, because we owe them a great debt, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, and we must not underestimate their value. What they do for us worldwide is in the region of £360 billion-worth of services, pollinating 90% of our crops. They are unbelievable unpaid workers. As a former environmental and gardening broadcaster and journalist, this subject is close to my heart. My key message to the Minister is a call for balance and for scientific evidence. Neonicotinoids and their effect on bees must be taken seriously in light of the aforementioned need to produce food more sustainably. This is about not taking risks and weighing up the benefits of pesticides against their collateral damage. In 2013, the EU suspended the use of three types of neonics due to concern about the impact on bees. It was a political decision and politicians can only make decisions based on the science available at the time.
The UK went along with the suspension, but was sceptical about the evidence. The Minister may expand on this later, but I think it was more about concerns regarding the alternative pesticides that might be used—the old ones—were people not able to use neonics. The UK has since lifted the suspension of two of the offending pesticides on 5% of England’s oilseed rape crop, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath referred. This December, however, the EU will be reviewing the neonic pesticide restrictions, which is what makes this debate so timely. Since 2013, much new evidence has come to light, which is why I am at pains to make it clear that the new evidence must be considered by the EU, the European Food Safety Authority and, in particular, by our Government.
Mrs Gillan
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is she aware that the matter is of great international concern? In the USA, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing neonics and the risk assessments associated with such pesticides. Would it not be good if our Government co-ordinated with the evidence base that the American review will produce?
Rebecca Pow
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. It is an international issue, but people on the doorstep are also concerned. We should all work together. I think something like 90% of some produce in the US comes from California and it would be devastating if bee pollination crashed so much that all those crops had to be pollinated by hand, as they now are in some parts of China.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. All of us here would agree that the issue is international. Given her extensive experience in this subject in this country, can she tell us why the bee population here is declining faster than anywhere else in western Europe?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend gives me more credit than I am due. I have read widely, but I am not an absolute expert. I cannot answer that question except by saying that that is why we need more research. People used to think that the damage caused by the varroa mite was the reason for population crashes, but the problem is clearly much bigger and must be related in some way to pesticides. The weather also comes into play, but many factors are involved.
I call on the Minister to ensure that everything is taken into account when decisions are made relating to the world’s most widely used insecticide on the world’s most widely managed pollinator and on Europe’s most widely grown mass flowering crop, namely oilseed rape. No one can argue that insecticides are not designed to kill insects. They are acute toxins. Bees and other important pollinators are bound to be killed by insecticides targeted at, for example, the flea beetle, which attacks oilseed rape and which farmers want to control. I will outline some of the concerning new evidence.
One study found that bee numbers have not actually been declining where neonics have been applied, but that clever bees are trying to compensate by reproducing more. More eggs were laid, but more worker bees were produced, not the drones that are necessary for breeding, so numbers gradually start to go down. Is the pesticide causing that effect? Is it working on the wild flowers in the hedgerows adjacent to fields? Are the bees being affected?
Simon Hoare
I think my hon. Friend attended with me a reception hosted by Friends of the Earth on this issue in the summer. I was struck by the clear lack of control regarding run-off and the build-up of residue in field margins, watercourses and field drains, which is beyond any form of measurement but allegedly has a negative impact on bee numbers and their health and environment. Should the Government and producers be doing more to try to arrest the situation?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many studies are now starting to look at the effects on field margins. During the first trials, quadrats were laid only in the fields where the spray had been applied, but it is now realised that we must look much wider and at what happens in the next year and the year after.
Rebecca Pow
We have all buzzed back from voting. I will try not to drone on for too much longer.
On a serious note, not so long ago everyone had dire memories of the pesticide DDT. The lesson to learn from that is that we must not take risks. In the 1980s I remember sitting in the Agriculture Select Committee’s inquiry into agricultural pesticides which looked in particular at the effects of sheep dip on human health, and this issue is as serious as that, as I think hon. Members would agree.
I want to refer to research on apple tree pollination, as did the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). We know how important bees are for pollinating the apple crop. Recent research at the University of Reading found that bumblebees who had been exposed to neonics visited fewer trees and collected less pollen than those who had not been exposed. When the researchers cut the apples open, they found a third less pips than would be expected. Pips are an important sign of good pollination, and good pollination and lots of pips means good quality fruit, which is not just good for us and our health, but valuable to the farmers.
Interestingly, it was discovered that bees exposed to neonics spent much longer foraging but were less effective than those who had not been exposed. That is odd, because that means that those bees were not looking for food, which is what bees should be doing.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
As a producer of cider, the health of apple trees is terribly important to me. What sort of research into neonics and its effect on bees does my hon. Friend think would be useful?
Rebecca Pow
Lots of research is still going on, which is why more and more evidence is coming forward, which is heartening. The chief scientific adviser has commissioned a lot of field trials, which I expect we will hear about later. However, research must cover the whole countryside including the hedgerows, ditches and streams and not just the specific areas where rapeseed and maize crops are grown.
Back to those bees who were exhibiting rather odd behaviour, that they were foraging away but not being effective suggests that their behaviour had been changed, possibly, it is alleged, by pesticides. It is worrying if that affects the bee’s memory and ability to learn about and do productive foraging.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that bees are particularly important to our ecosystems, and that nothing is more important than following a precautionary principle when we look at pesticides? Does she not also think that we can all play our part by trying to encourage growth in the bee population by planting wild flowers in our meadows and gardens? Will she congratulate two constituents of mine, the Cordwell family in East Coker, who every year run a wonderful community event?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend has obviously been looking over my shoulder at my script, because I am coming on to that point. I know of that field of wild flowers, which is truly a heaven for bees. Individually, we can all play our part to help the bees and I urge everyone, including all those who signed the petition, to do that in our green spaces and gardens. If we add all our gardens up, they come to 1 million hectares of land, which is a huge habitat.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating the local trust in Calderglen, in East Kilbride, which helps my constituents, including local children, to learn about beekeeping and the importance of bees’ contribution to our environment and the ecosystem?
Rebecca Pow
I will congratulate it. That is exactly the sort of work we should encourage. I think the new all-party group on bees—I hope I am not giving anything away—is going to try to set up a House of Commons apiary. How exciting would that be? That would be really good—we could all learn about beekeeping.
As I was saying, all our gardens together make up 1 million hectares of land, which would be a very valuable habitat if we all did things that helped bees and other insects. I do those kinds of things in my garden; indeed, before I came to this place, I gave talks about this subject and invited people to my garden to show them what I had done.
We do not need to use chemicals in our gardens. People should leave their borders long all winter—I do. People might think that that will look a mess, but solitary bees and other over-wintering insects can take shelter there in the winter and hibernate in all those lovely hollow stems. People should not cut their borders down until February.
People should also have lots of flowers from January to December. That is quite possible—I photographed all my flowers yesterday, and I am putting the pictures on my website. We should do that because some bees are still around. Those solitary bees have not gone to hibernate yet—they have not gone into those little stems yet. They still need some nectar, and if they wake up early, they will need some nectar. We can all do things to help.
In summary, I call on the EU and the Government, through the chief scientific adviser and DEFRA, to give all new evidence regarding the effects of neonics on bees the utmost attention.
Simon Hoare
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is summing up, but she has hit the nail on the head. Everybody is concerned. The farmers want to see the bees, and so does everybody else. However, the huge difficulty for all concerned is finding out which body, with which methodology for garnering research, they can have faith in. Some people will be suspicious of work supported, sponsored or commissioned by the pesticide manufacturers, while others will be concerned if it is sponsored or commissioned by environmental groups, which are believed to be unfriendly towards farmers. Can my hon. Friend indicate who might best commission such research?
Rebecca Pow
I am going to leave that to the Minister. There are many scientific bodies involved, and it would take a long time to answer that question. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the Environment Centre in York, Reading University and some Scottish universities are doing work on this. That work is invaluable, and we must look at the assessments that are made.
I ask the Minister please not to take unnecessary risks with the environment and with human health. Will he please invest in innovation and science so that we can find new, non-toxic ways of controlling pests and disease—ways that that will work and that will ensure that our precious farmers can produce our food in a healthy fashion, while our important bees can go about their daily work in a similarly healthy fashion?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I hope today is everything you wished for.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on his excellent series of sentences. I also congratulate the petitioners on securing the debate. I am here in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr)—indeed, I am something of a plan B—but I do have a personal interest in bees, in that I once had a hive in my bedroom. I did not want it there, but the bees had decided that my chimney was a great place to create a hive. That gave me an interest in bees, which I have kept to this day.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Would my hon. Friend agree with the interested residents of East Renfrewshire, many of whom have been in touch with me to raise their concerns? They believe it is vital that we take account of all available research into the decline of bee populations and into changes in bee behaviour, and that we take a precautionary approach.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We should take the most cautious approach we can in looking after not only bees, but other pollinators. The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that nearly 10% of bee species are under threat. The intensification of agriculture and seasonal crops have reduced food for bees, creating an ongoing problem.
Neonicotinoids are thought to transfer chemicals through crop growth to various pollinators. Protection for bees, and encouragement for a friendly environment, should be something we are all concerned about. However, the Government caused outrage in July, when they lifted the EU ban for 120 days. They now say they will follow the best advice. The background is that there are concerns about the efficiency of DEFRA-funded trials. That message is too weak to allay citizens’ concerns about bees.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that is why it is critical that we proceed with caution. On the use of neonics, the Scottish Government have taken a cautious, evidence-based approach, as they do on many issues. They take the view that if the science is not clear, there is a need for further research. Scotland’s current position complies with EU legislation, which does not allow the three neonics to be used on crops, especially ones with flowers that are attractive to bees.
Drew Hendry
I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Scottish Government view is that the EU does not allow the three neonicotinoids to be used on crops attractive to bees.
Bees and pollinating insects are vital to our health, wellbeing and future. The pesticides we are talking about are rightly banned in the EU while full scientific tests are carried out to see whether they are harmful. The decision by the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead, that they will not support any relaxation of restrictions unless there is clear evidence that neonicotinoids pose no threat to those species is the right way to proceed. I hope the Minister will come back with some strong measures to back up the Scottish Government’s approach.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am pleased to be speaking today. Like many here, I am a new boy when it comes to learning about bees. However, I followed a wild bee nest at home for about 20 years. Every year it was there; every year it was buzzing. Then, suddenly, it was gone—a badger had climbed up the tree and cleared it out. That is another risk. However, at least that taught me the importance of bees.
I wish you happy birthday, Ms Vaz; I hope you have a more exciting time this evening than you are perhaps having at the moment. I am pleased that those behind the petition have raised the issue before us.
Like everyone else, I want to call for a balanced approach. At home, many farmers come to me saying that the pesticides they use do not work, and that they cannot get the growth they need. On the other side, I have 25 beehives at home—they are not mine—and the man who looks after them is complaining about insecticides, but also about many other things. The neonics are not one of the things he has complained about, although he has complained about the varroa mite among many other issues. We need to concentrate on a whole approach.
I hope the Minister will find a way of balancing what the EU and all the groups here are doing. Equally, I hope he will look at the joint Irish approach being taken north and south of the border; in that way, we will be learning all the time. I am really looking for us to take a dynamic approach so that we are constantly looking at everything, learning all the time, making decisions and, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, taking no risks. We should make our decisions based on the knowledge we have—if we do not know enough, we should not make the decisions.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech. Does he agree that this is one area of public policy debate that unites urban and rural? In Stoke-on-Trent, I have a lot of correspondence, particularly from people with allotments. They live in a highly urban area, but they are just as passionately concerned about this issue as people in more rural communities.
Danny Kinahan
I certainly agree. I know that both a rural and urban approach are needed, and there are ways of doing that. If we consider what we know today, we can make decisions and move things forward.
I was keen, as a new boy in this place, to set up an all-party group on bees, so I am fascinated to hear that that has been done. I knew very little about the subject, so I started exploring it. When I went to one of its events in September, people from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said to me, “Please don’t just go on bees alone; go on all pollinators—the butterflies and everything else. Fine, call it the ‘all-party group on bees’, but we should be looking after all the different insects involved in pollination.”
I had never heard of the solitary bee; what intrigues me about it is that it apparently covers itself in an oil so that it can hide in damp ground. I come from Northern Ireland, where we have lots of damp ground, particularly at the moment, so I imagine we have plenty of solitary bees. The more I got involved in this issue, the more I realised there was to learn.
It has been mentioned today that we have lost 20 species of bee. Let us all learn from that. We need a system that teaches everybody, so that we are all learning about this—children in schools, parents and people in later life, in clubs and in community groups. Let us get everybody involved and learning. That might mean getting councils to use more of their land for beehives and planting the right plants, perhaps at roundabouts and in verges. There are plenty of places we can use.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key part of this debate is food security and food supply? In Scotland, crop pollination by bees and other insects is of particular importance for oilseed rape, tomatoes and strawberries, which we hold dear. On the matter of engagement and education, would he join me in congratulating organisations such as the West Lothian Beekeepers Association in my constituency, which does its best to support beekeeping at a grassroots level?
Danny Kinahan
I certainly congratulate the West Lothian Beekeepers Association. I know there are many such organisations. In Northern Ireland, we have a huge apple-growing, cider-making county in County Armagh, so we know the importance of pollinators.
The petition hardly touched Northern Ireland. I did not have more emails about bees than about Syria over the weekend, but it was pretty close. There is massive interest in the bees issue, but sadly not many people knew about the petition. All of us—including Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland—need to work together and learn from one another. There is an all-Ireland strategy; we need to learn from that, and I need to find out more about it.
We need to look at all the other things that affect bees, right the way through to the husbandry and how we all work. I would like to see the all-party group up and running, with us all being part of it, and the Minister using it as a way to sound people out and hear different concerns and ideas. That is the way forward. This is a wonderful thing to be part of. It is nice to have something from Northern Ireland that is not orange or green; if I can make a really bad joke, we did have B Specials, but they are extinct.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Happy birthday to you. I thank all the people who secured the debate by public petition; I believe their number sits at 90,000 at the moment—that is quite a lot of people who are interested in bees. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for bringing this debate forward. There have been a lot of good contributions. If you will indulge me, Ms Vaz, I will make some observations.
Although we are not in full possession of all the facts, we have to tread carefully. Mankind has a poor track record when it comes to environmental and ecological protection, and the loss of pollinators from the ecosystem and the knock-on effects of that on the food chain should cause serious alarm. That has serious implications. In a world with an ever-increasing population, we must forward-plan to ensure the challenges of tomorrow are not realised in hindsight. Significant changes must be made to how we live on the planet if we are not only to survive but thrive.
We need to recognise that we may not be fully aware of the effects of neonics on humans. Bread sold in the UK has been tested and shown to contain pesticide residues in 60% of cases—three out of every five loaves, which is utterly astonishing. The potential health impacts concern me greatly. The American National Institutes of Health finished a landmark 20-year study last year, which indicated that seven pesticides—some of which are very widely used—may be causing clinical depression in farmers. The study showed a significant correlation between depression and the pesticides studied.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
While the human population is increasing, the bee population is plummeting. Does the hon. Lady agree that the continued use of neonics will not allow the bee population to recover? My constituents in Neath—a beautiful rural area, made for bees—and the West Glamorgan Beekeepers Association are very concerned about that.
Margaret Ferrier
I concur with the hon. Lady and take her point on board.
We simply do not know the long-term effects of these toxins on our bodies. We must recognise the other measures that need to be taken in order to plan for the future. We have heard that bee numbers are rapidly dropping. We heard from the hon. Member for Bath that neonicotinoids have been banned in countries such as France, Germany and Slovenia, to name a few. We would be here until half-past 7 tomorrow evening if I went through all the excellent interventions there have been today. We heard about the 34% drop in the honey crop and about queen issues in the hives.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
My constituents have been writing to me about the worrying decline in the honeybee population. One thing they have raised is whether we should have more programmes explicitly designed to improve the situation. Two of the initiatives mentioned, which are bolder than the ones we have at the moment, are the healthy bees plan and the insect pollinators initiative. Both were agreed under the previous Labour Administration. Does the hon. Lady agree that such programmes need to be put in place, and that we should work in a cross-party way to urge the Government to do so?
Margaret Ferrier
I am sure the Minister will answer that question when he sums up. Today’s debate has proved that many Members are interested in bees, and we want to work in a cross-party way. I am glad to see that the APPG has been set up, and I will be joining it.
Like the hon. Member for Bath, I am not an expert on bees, but we all wish to learn about this issue. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) said, the issue is about education—educating ourselves and young people in schools. We have heard throughout the debate that the moratorium should stay in place. Farms and farmers need more information from Government. One question raised was about the best time to spray crops, which can perhaps be answered.
This is an international and European Union issue. We need a varied response from the UK Government. We need to look at the scientific research and do more research. We heard that we need an open, transparent, evidence-based approach and that we must interrogate the evidence in turn. It is clear that lots of MPs have attended this debate because of the amount of lobbying they have received.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made the point that this issue is not just rural but urban as well. We need to look at environmental resilience and climate change—the bigger picture—and at the length of time that pesticides are exposed in the air and around crops. There are alternatives, but the issue is all about evidence and building an evidence base. We heard that 20 species of bees have already been lost because of habitat change and climate change, so we need to look at that. As I mentioned, in Scotland we have a ban in place, and we have to keep that. It is too soon for a decision, but we need to take a science-based approach. The situation is still confusing and a few people are saying that the UK Government are still not listening on this complex issue.
One of the best interventions we heard was from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who said that bees were the gift that keeps on giving to parliamentarians. It is also important to keep the stewardship schemes in place in rural areas. We may need to pollinate crops if we lose bees.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said that we cannot take risks and looked back to the ’80s and the effects of sheep dip on human health. There are issues to do with people’s health, so we need to be very careful. We heard from her that bees spend longer foraging, but are not as effective, and how that has impacted on apple trees. Interestingly, she said that bees’ memories were being affected and asked whether neonicotinoids were why. Again, it all comes back to us wanting to produce food in a healthy fashion and to take an evidence-based approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned that he had had a hive in his bedroom, which was very interesting to hear. Perhaps he could get involved in the APPG in Parliament as well. The hon. Member for South Antrim mentioned that we need to look at the joint Irish approach. He said that we should not take risks and that we should take decisions once we know enough. He added that we should all learn together and work together to find out more.
I would like a couple of questions to be answered. Will the UK Government undertake to adopt the same sensible, cautious, evidence-based approach shown by the Scottish Government? Will the Minister also address some of the concerns raised, such as the suggested link between pesticides and depression? Everybody has contributed fully to the debate today. It has been great. All constituents and the people who have signed the petition will see that we are taking their concerns forward.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the Petitions Committee, the thousands of petitioners and the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for introducing the debate this evening. I also thank the many colleagues who have intervened and made contributions. Let me also say that it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Many happy returns of the day to you.
This debate is timely. The public are very engaged on this issue; I have received more correspondence on this than on many other parliamentary matters in recent years. We are all in no doubt about the importance of pollinators to our food supply, biodiversity and our economy, but they are in very serious decline. In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that England had seen the greatest decline in the diversity of wild bees of anywhere in Europe. It stated:
“Since 1900, the UK has lost 20 species of bees…A further 35 bee species…are considered to be under threat of extinction.”
This debate is a chance for the Government to reassure the public that those concerns are being taken seriously, as they review the evidence underpinning the 2013 EU ban over the next year. I am pleased that the Government now seem to have an open mind to considering the best available scientific information, given their previous opposition to the ban.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wish you a very happy birthday, Ms Vaz. Was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when the Government did a U-turn on their implementation of the 2013 EC regulations in full? I had a letter on 17 July saying that the regulations would be implemented in full and then, two days later, they decided to approve the usage of two neonics on 5% of the national winter oilseed rape crop area.
Nick Smith
Yes I was, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
The Government still have not clarified what their current assessment of the latest evidence is and whether they consider it sufficient to support the EU ban. Since the ban, more scientific evidence has appeared emphasising the risk to bees. Examples include a link between the use of neonics and the decline of UK butterfly species, an impact on the pollination that bees provide, resulting in lower-quality apples, as others have mentioned, and emerging evidence that neonics could also affect the soil in which seeds are planted and the wild flowers that grow in it.
The more conservative analysis provided by Professor Charles Godfray and Angela McLean to the Government found a strong scientific consensus that bees exposed to these pesticides in fields suffer harm. However, it could not yet assess whether that harm ultimately leads to falls in overall bee populations. Professor Godfray’s paper highlighted one “gold standard” field study from Sweden, showing significant damage to the bumblebee populations. There was no effect on honeybees, but it is worth noting that honeybees pollinate only 5% to 15% of insect-pollinated crops. I would argue that the lack of a conclusive link with population decline should not, however, be used as a reason for ending EU restrictions. Where are the Government in their judgment of that evidence? Can the Minister give us an insight into how evidence-based policy will be applied?
Everyone here will have sympathy with farmers who are facing considerable difficulties establishing oilseed rape crops in areas under high pressure from cabbage stem flea beetle. In April, it was estimated that 5% of the winter oilseed rape crop had been lost to CSFB.
I appreciate the understandable desire to have every tool available in the toolbox to respond to CSFB, but although 70% of the oilseed rape crop was previously treated with neonics, this is the first harvest without neonics and DEFRA’s statistics for this year’s harvest have shown no change in oilseed rape yield. Waitrose has reported that, since it stopped using the pesticide on oilseed rape in 2012, it has not picked up any differences in yield, other than those attributed to seasonal, field and soil differences. Declines in yields in the eastern region, which have suffered the most from CSFB, have mirrored drops in other areas where that pest is not a problem. It would be good if the Minister said what assessment the Department had made of the effect of restrictions on yield. What amount of loss is considered an emergency warrant authorisation for the use of these pesticides?
There are concerns that farmers are having to resort to pyrethroid, an older pesticide, which is worse for pollinators and honeybees in particular. However, research seems to show that there has not been an increase in the use of that pesticide in the spring, which is the time of the highest risk to bees. The farming press have been publicising guidance from the Rothamsted institute on using sprays only when absolutely necessary, alongside other measures for avoiding flea beetle damage, including reducing cultivations and delaying drilling. Farmers Weekly has even advised farmers that spraying pyrethroid for flea beetles is a “waste of time” and could kill beneficial insects that prey on the pests, as well as fuelling insecticide resistance.
It seems that the farming community has responded to those calls. A Newcastle University study found that 19% of farmers had changed their practices to take account of the non-availability of neonics. New technologies and redesigning crop rotations have been shown to reduce reliance on pesticides by 50%. There has also been valuable work in promoting beneficial insects, some of which are predators for the pests. I hope the Minister will outline what assessment his Department has made of the impact of using alternatives to neonics, which is one of its reasons for opposing the EU ban. What work is the Minister doing with the farming industry to ensure that independent advice is provided to farmers on sustainable pest management approaches?
Although today’s debate has focused on neonics, there are, of course, many reasons for the decline of pollinators, including habitat loss, climate change and pests and diseases. There are many positives about the national pollinator strategy in addressing those causes, most critically the way in which it provides a call to action for many amazing local projects across the country to increase food, shelter and nesting sites. This has rightly tapped into what the Environmental Audit Committee describes as
“an invaluable and committed resource”,
but is this enough? I agree with the Buglife assessment that the national pollinator strategy is more of a framework than a programme. I would like to see more effort from the Government in creating better farm habitats. With three quarters of our land used for agriculture, our agri-environment policy is the best tool we have for effecting large-scale change.
There are concerns about the way in which the new greening requirements of the basic payment scheme are being implemented and there is no guarantee that it will deliver improvements for pollinators and other wildlife in the farmed landscape. What assessment has the Department made of implementation of the greening requirements of the basic payment scheme, particularly its effectiveness in delivering improvements for pollinators in the farmed landscape?
The new countryside stewardship scheme has targeted support for pollinators, but it has been a real worry that while 11,000 farmers have come out of entry-level stewardship agreements, only just over 2,300 applications were made by the deadline for the mid-tier stewardship scheme that replaced them. Will the Government agree to the NFU’s request for an urgent review of the Government’s implementation of the countryside stewardship scheme?
[Phil Wilson in the Chair]
Ms Vaz—[Interruption.] The Chair has changed. Mr Wilson, in 2013, the last Government were found to be failing in the majority of their environmental commitments, with 30% of UK ecosystem services, such as pollination, found to be in decline. They comprehensively failed to deliver on their biodiversity strategy and their promise at the beginning of that Government to leave the environment in a better condition than they found it. Over the next five years, with their 25-year plan to restore the UK’s biodiversity, they have an opportunity to start to put that right.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Wilson—and also for your stealth entrance, which went unnoticed by some Members in the Chamber.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on leading this debate. The scale of the petition on this issue shows just how much people care about it. Many hon. Members have received many emails about it. When I was about to make the decision early in the summer, I received some 50,000 emails and regret that it was impossible to reply to all of them. However, I understand that there is a lot of public concern about the matter.
I commend my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way to so many hon. Members who wanted to speak. I did not anticipate the luxury of having time at the end of this debate, given the numbers present at the beginning; nevertheless, those numbers show just how important this issue is. I have been passionate about it throughout my time as an MP. I worked in the farming industry—we were fruit farmers and we had beehives on the farm—and three years ago I attended an event at which Friends of the Earth launched its “Bees Needs” campaign. It was a great campaign aimed at encouraging schools and people in towns and across the country to invest and help habitats for bees. I may have differences with Friends for the Earth about elements of the neonicotinoid debate, not least the emergency authorisations that I approved earlier this year—I will return to that—but I commend its work to raise awareness of the plight of our bees.
A number of hon. Members have talked about the reasons for the decline. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) suggested that the evidence was absolutely clear that the decline in the bee population could be linked directly to neonicotinoids, and neonicotinoids alone. That is an over-simplification. The reality is that we have seen declining bee populations since the mid-1950s. The reasons for the decline in our bee populations are many, varied and complex. We believe that a large element is loss of habitat, particularly the loss of wild, traditional flowering meadows. We have lost hedgerows, which are an important habitat for bees, particularly bumblebees.
We have also seen problems with disease, and sometimes stress makes bees more susceptible to disease. We have had varroa and hive mites, and a linked problem is that many of our honeybees are imported from countries such as Italy. Those bees are not genetically disposed to survive winters here in the UK so we often have winter losses. Indeed, in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is nodding—there is a project to reintroduce the native black bee. It is more resilient and produces less sugar, but keeps more of it for itself during the winter months so that it can survive.
Neonicotinoids are a relatively recent group of chemicals so we cannot directly attribute the decline in the bee population just to them. If hon. Members are serious about wanting to help bees, as I am, we must look at the wider picture, which is exactly what we have sought to do with our pollinator strategy. Just a few weeks ago, I launched the implementation plan to start moving that strategy forward. It includes a range of issues, such as commissioning new evidence so that we can better understand the pressures on our bees, and looking at integrated pest management.
Some hon. Members have suggested a different approach that does not rely on pesticides. I absolutely agree. In the decades ahead we are likely to see reduced reliance on chemical pesticides, probably the use of genetic technologies so that we can breed disease resistance directly into crops, and an alternative approach to husbandry, sometimes going back to the skills of rotation, which to some extent have been lost in modern farming, to reduce the build-up of pests, disease and weeds in the first place. We call that integrated pest management, and DEFRA hosts the voluntary initiative organisation, whose primary focus is encouraging the development of integrated management so that over time we will be able to reduce our reliance on chemical pesticides.
On neonicotinoids and authorisation of pesticides more generally, it is important to recognise that pesticides are tightly regulated. Active substances are approved at EU level only if they meet safety requirements. The UK is responsible for authorising products containing approved active substances and we carry out thorough assessment of the scientific evidence, drawing on advice from the UK’s independent expert scientists on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which I will return to later. The risks to species such as bees form a key part of the assessment before products are authorised, and the regulatory regime also provides for regular reviews to take account of the latest information and scientific knowledge.
On the specifics of neonicotinoids, the EU introduced restrictions from late 2013 on the use of three neonicotinoids —clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. This debate is nothing if not challenging on diction. The restrictions apply to a wide range of crops that are attractive to bees and cover amateur use—for example, in gardens. Other uses, such as seed treatment for autumn-sown cereals and sugar beet, remain approved. The restrictions are not time limited and remain in place unless the European Commission decides to change them. The Government have implemented the restrictions in full. When imposing them, the Commission acknowledged that the evidence is incomplete and promised to review the science relating to neonicotinoids and bees. That review is now under way and provides an important opportunity to produce an up-to-date assessment of all the scientific evidence. The European Food Safety Authority is carrying out the review and we anticipate that it will conclude its work next summer. The UK will contribute fully to the review as it progresses. We have said throughout that we want it to be firmly grounded on a strengthened scientific evidence base.
The shadow Minister mentioned the very good paper by Professor Charles Godfray and others, which was published in September and was a restatement of all the recent evidence on neonicotinoid insecticides and their effect on pollinators. I commend that report to any hon. Member interested in this issue. It is a very thorough examination of all the research that has been done—laboratory research that looks at the impact on bees of acute poisoning through very high levels of neonicotinoids, but also the beginnings of some of the field trials that have been taking place. There was an interesting field trial in Sweden, for instance. The people involved believed that there could be an impact on bumblebee populations, but not necessarily on honeybee populations.
The paper concludes that this is a very complex issue. Some of the work in Canada, for instance, concludes that there is no big impact on bee populations. However, the big conclusion from the paper is that we need more field-scale trials. That is why the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is at the moment in the UK doing a very large, comprehensive trial, the results of which we should have next spring, and those results will feed into the review currently being carried out by EFSA. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is also doing work in other European countries, so that we can better understand this disease.
Our position is that we will not remove the existing restrictions if the evidence points to the fact that those restrictions should remain. A number of hon. Members have talked about the precautionary principle. We are adopting a precautionary, evidence-based principle. We are very clear, though, that it should be a precautionary principle based on an assessment of risk, not theoretical hazard. That is where sometimes we have a difference of opinion with other European countries, because some of them look just at theoretical hazard rather than a true assessment of risk.
I want to turn now to the emergency authorisations that we made earlier this year, because this is a crucial point. If we want to make a precautionary restriction work, it is essential that we allow there to be some use in extreme cases—some use of emergency authorisations. That is now an established approach that we have. If we want a precautionary approach, over time fewer pesticides will be available on general licence, but as pesticides are removed as a precaution, it is important that we make available the opportunity to grant emergency authorisations. Otherwise we have all sorts of unintended consequences. We force farmers to start to use other chemicals that perhaps have escaped the attention of the scientific community, but are even more damaging. For instance, when the ban first came in, there was some evidence of a shift to using another chemical, called Mesurol, which was dangerous to birds. We then moved to ban that chemical, so we have to consider unintended consequences. We also have to consider the problem of resistance building up to other vital insecticides. For instance, there was growing resistance to overuse of pyrethroids. That is an issue to which we have to be sensitive.
To assess applications for emergency authorisations, we have a group of experts called the Expert Committee on Pesticides. That is a group of 15 academics. They are entomologists, toxicologists, professors and doctors, with unrivalled expertise in pesticides, toxicology and the environment. They give us advice on the applications that we receive for emergency authorisations.
It might be worth my pointing out that the use of emergency authorisations has grown in line with the withdrawal of pesticides for use on a general licence. In 2012, member states of the European Union granted a total of 193 emergency authorisations. Just 14 were from the UK in that year, making 7% of the total. In 2015, the number of emergency authorisations in the EU grew to 414, but only 11 emergency authorisations were granted in the UK, representing just 3% of all emergency authorisations made in the European Union. I therefore put it to hon. Members that far from being cavalier about this, the UK has a proven track record of showing more caution and being more thorough in the way it assesses those applications. The growth in applications is no surprise, because if products are withdrawn from the market, there will be an increase in the number of emergency authorisations.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend the Minister any idea, in forecast terms, when we might know definitively what is killing off our bee population?
George Eustice
My general experience of these things is that the more science we have, the more evidence gaps get identified, so we never actually have a perfect picture and all we can ever do is make the best judgment we can with the science that we have. However, I do believe that much of the work that is being done—for instance, by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—will mean a big increase and big improvement in our understanding of neonicotinoids in the future. Some of the work that we are commissioning as part of our national pollinator strategy will also assist in that process.
I want to turn now to the specific emergency authorisations in relation to the three neonicotinoids. We had two applications: one for Cruiser and one for Modesto; they were the products in question. The first application from the National Farmers Union asked for an authorisation covering 79% of the area of England. The conclusion, which was published, of the Expert Committee on Pesticides was that although it acknowledged that there was a problem with cabbage stem flea beetle in particular that could not be controlled by other means, it believed that an authorisation covering 79% of the country did not satisfy the requirement of its being strictly confined and restricted. For that reason, it recommended refusal of the first application. I accepted that: I refused the first application.
There was subsequently a second application from the NFU, bringing much more detailed evidence from agronomists of the impact on the ground of cabbage stem flea beetle in particular, county by county. On the basis of that, it put in an application for use over 5% of the English area, which roughly represented the area of Suffolk, which had suffered particularly badly. The Expert Committee on Pesticides assessed that second application and concluded that it satisfied all the requirements, so it recommended that we approve that emergency authorisation and that is what we did.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain whether we are doing impact assessments that will directly look, in terms of an evidence base, at whether the four counties that have been given an exemption have in fact suffered greater degradation of their bee population, because that gives us a perfect example to look at? From talking to beekeepers, it appears that they have not experienced that, so are we looking at the results before last year and after these past 120 days in 2015?
George Eustice
One point that I will make to my hon. Friend is this. We have granted an authorisation for 5% of the area; it is predominantly in Suffolk, but also in the surrounding counties. I was going to come on to this point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bath also raised it. It is actually quite difficult to get a scientifically robust evidence base when one has a mixture of fields around. Far more important is the work being done by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. That is scientifically robust; the right controls are in place; and we will get a much clearer picture.
I want to move on to some of the points made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who was here earlier, made a point about the benefits of spraying in the evening. He is absolutely right. When I worked in the industry as a farmer, it was always good practice to ensure that one sprayed at night, for two reasons. There tends to be a slightly more still environment—less wind and less drift—but also, crucially, bees do eventually go to bed. If people spray in the evening, most of them will have returned to their hives, so that is good advice, and advice that is pushed strongly by the voluntary initiative that I mentioned.
The chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raised the issue of the publication of minutes. I know that it was a criticism made of us that we were trying to hide something. Let me be clear: we were hiding nothing. The summary of the minutes of the 20 May meeting, which was the first one—the one at which the first application was discussed—was actually published on 7 July, and the detailed record of the 7 July meeting, the second meeting, was actually published on 24 September. There is no conspiracy reason for the delay in that publication; it is simply that the subsequent meeting where the minutes were agreed by the ECP took place on 22 September. They had their minutes, they agreed the minutes and they published them thereafter. There is no attempt on the part of the Government to hide anything; the reasons for the authorisations are there and clear for all to see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) asked whether chemicals might come off seed treatments and end up in hedges. She is right; concern has been expressed in some of the science that there may be leaching, which may affect wildflowers in hedges. I am sure that that is something that the European Food Safety Authority will look at as part of its evidence.
I was also pleased to hear mention of the fact that the APPG on bees will have its own apiary. In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have our own hive on the roof of Nobel House, and we harvested our first honey this year.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does not what the Minister has said about beekeeping in DEFRA underscore the fact that this is not just a rural issue, but an urban and suburban one? It affects my constituents in Kingston and Surbiton just as much as it does his constituents who live in rural areas. Our pollinator strategy needs to deal with the countryside, towns, cities and suburbs.
George Eustice
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I heard one of the most distressing anecdotes I have ever heard on the matter when I attended a Friends of the Earth event three years ago. Somebody at the event talked about an old brick wall adjacent to a garage in an urban area, which was—excuse the pun— a hive of activity, from which, at a particular time of year, all the solitary bumblebees who made their home in it would emerge. The local wildlife trust told people in its newsletter that if they went to the wall at the beginning of the summer, they would see all those bees emerging, which would be a sight to behold. When everyone went there, however, they found that the owners of the garage, completely oblivious to the sanctuary that it offered to the bumblebees, had knocked the wall down to rebuild the garage. Raising awareness of the fact that even things such as stone walls are important habitats is absolutely crucial.
I want to move on to a few of the other things that have been mentioned. Several hon. Members have asked why we are doing worse than other countries, and I think a lot of that might be down to the intensification of our farming during the second part of the 20th century. In addition, we cannot dictate how many people will be willing to become beekeepers. Several hon. Members mentioned the fact that oilseed rape yields increased in 2014 by 16%, but the point is that during 2014, seeds that had been treated with neonicotinoids were still being used. It is too early to predict the impact of the loss of those chemicals on yields. The situation is complex, because when people suffer severe crop damage as a result of cabbage stem flea beetle, they often go on, effectively, to replant the crop.
The British Beekeepers Association has suggested that the 30% drop in honey yields has been predominantly down to poor weather. I want to say a little bit about the study that revealed that if bumblebees were exposed to neonicotinoids, there would be fewer seeds in apples. Although we think that that is useful evidence, we do not think it necessarily proves a direct correlation between the loss of those seeds and the use of neonicotinoids.
Finally, I want to move on to some of the key points made by the shadow Minister. I believe I have covered many of the points he made, but I want to mention our countryside stewardship scheme. We have had strong uptake of the pollinator package, which we made clear would be a key part of that scheme. The number of applications this year was slightly below what we expected—that is not surprising, given the difficulties we had with the computer—but not that far below; we expected around 3,000 applications, and we had around 2,500. We will work to see whether we can improve uptake next year by getting a simpler application process online so that farmers can be guided to the right measures and put together agreements more easily. If we can get agreement from the European Union to simplify some of the over-burdensome regulation and reporting requirements that it insists on, I hope we will also be able to remove some of the bureaucracy from the schemes. They have been very successful and they have got a strong track record, and we would like to see more of them taken up.
Ben Howlett
First, I thank Elizabeth St.Clair, who tabled the petition on the petitions section of the Parliament website, and the 90,000-plus people who signed it. It says a great deal for democracy in this country that people’s views are heard, listened to and responded to by the Government. I also say a massive “thank you” to the Minister for his comprehensive answer to an awful lot of questions and speeches. I also thank all the Members who put forward their views and intervened, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith).
One thing is absolutely clear: we cannot allow the number of bees in our country to keep falling. We have heard about the range of measures that the Government are looking at to stop that trend, but we need more information and much more research. I hope that the Government will come before the House again after the publication in the summer of the European journal and the research, so that we can find out the reasons for the decline in the bee population. Neonics are a part of that, but it is a wider problem. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all hon. Members for turning up and I thank the 90,000 people who signed the petition. I hope that more people will bring forward petitions in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 104796 relating to the use of neonicotinoids on crops.
Written Statements
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
A meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council was held in Brussels on 24 November. Fiona Hyslop, Scottish Government Minister for Culture, Europe, and External Affairs, represented the UK for the cultural and audio-visual section of the Council and Shan Morgan, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative, represented the UK for the sport section of the Council.
Culture and audiovisual
The overarching theme of this ministerial Council was the relationship between culture and foreign policy, within the context of the destruction of cultural heritage in Syria by ISIS, and the recent attacks in Paris.
The Council adopted Conclusions on culture in the EU’s external relations, with a specific focus on development co-operation: as well as conclusions amending the EU work plan for culture 2015-18 to add a new priority of intercultural dialogue, so as to address the current migration crisis.
Ministers debated how best to act together against the destruction and illicit trafficking of cultural heritage in conflict areas, with the focus on the international community, and the need to mitigate the effects of the fragmentation of competences and legislation in this area.
The UK confirmed its determination to play a full part in the protection of cultural heritage, and highlighted its work on the establishment of a cultural protection fund. It also drew attention to the significant experience that has been built up in digital documentation and visualisation of the historic environment through the Scottish Ten programme.
Overall the UK policy in this area is to preserve, to prevent, and to protect, and we underlined the importance of targeted EU interventions or actions that played to its area of competence and avoided duplication with other international bodies.
During the course of the ensuing discussion on culture and digitisation the UK noted the importance of digitisation as a powerful tool which can help deliver many cultural, social, and educational initiatives.
On the specific issue of the Europeana digital cultural portal, we noted the need to develop a sustainable funding model which did not exclude the participation of private-sector organisations, including those which were in a position to either contribute content, or to introduce Europeana to a wider audience.
Under other business, the European Commission updated on the current situation concerning the regulatory fitness and performance (REFIT) exercise in the audio-visual sector, and other relevant initiatives of the Digital Single Market Strategy.
Its public consultation on the audio-visual media services directive had revealed a very strong majority in support of maintaining the country of origin principle for regulating broadcast media, as well as for extending the scope of the instrument to include new types of services.
There was divergence on how to enhance protection of minors, commercial works and communications. The Commission confirmed that the first of the copyright regime proposals, on portability and unjustified geoblocking, would be published in the first half of 2016.
Finally, under this part of the agenda, the Council took note from the Netherlands delegation of its main priorities in the field of culture when it takes over the presidency for the period January - June 2016. These will include the importance of digitisation for the preservation and dissemination of culture, and the need to establish a sustainable funding model for the Europeana digital culture portal.
Sport
The Council adopted conclusions on EU representation in the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA): and also on the promotion of motor skills, physical and sport activities for children.
These were followed by a policy debate on the educational potential of sports: in helping disadvantaged youth find their place in society. The debate was introduced by two external speakers, of which Olympic champion Ed Moses described the struggle to build an evidence base for convincing media and Government that the sports sector was credible in playing a role, and appealed to Governments to think longer-term and fund research. He was followed by the Premier League, which introduced a video of its Crystal Palace FC project, from which two participants had since built careers in Premier League clubs.
The UK described several of its projects in this area, such as Get on Track, and was the only member state to emphasise the importance of including young people with disabilities.
Under other business: The Council was subsequently briefed by the presidency on the state of play regarding the European Union’s signing of the Council of Europe Convention on the manipulation of sports competitions.
The Council was also briefed by the EU representatives on the outcome of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meeting which took place in Colorado Springs on 17 - 18 November 2015. The UK’s Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, has been named as the newly elected EU representative on the WADA Foundation Board for the UK-Estonia-Bulgaria presidency trio, and will take up her post in 2016. Two of the three EU member states that were not yet fully code-compliant, Greece and Spain, (the third being the Czech Republic) intervened to stress they were preparing the required amendments to national legislation.
This was followed by information on the informal meeting of Ministers for Sport, held in Luxembourg from 06 - 07 July 2015: and guidelines presented by the European Commission on next year’s European week of sport.
Finally, under other business the Council took note of information from the Netherlands delegation of its main priorities in the field of sport when it takes over the presidency for the period January - June 2016. These will include the promotion of good governance and education in and through sport, with specific attention paid to international major sports events, sport diplomacy and voluntary activities.
[HCWS363]
Education and Adoption Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
We have today announced that we will table a substantive Government amendment to the Education and Adoption Bill.
The Bill fulfils the Government’s manifesto commitment to raise standards across the country by speeding up the process by which failing maintained schools become sponsored academies, as well as introducing new measures to allow us properly to tackle coasting schools for the first time. The Bill seeks to improve the life chances of every child and ensure that all children have the same opportunities to fulfil their potential, wherever they live. These principles are at the heart of the Government’s education agenda.
As currently drafted, the Bill focuses on ensuring Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs)—acting on my behalf—have the powers they need to tackle failing and coasting maintained schools. The Bill does not apply to academies and free schools as they are governed by a different legal framework—they are held to account through a legally binding contract known as a funding agreement.
The vast majority of academies are performing well and the academy programme is central to our commitment to extending opportunity through delivering educational excellence in every part of the country. I am clear, however, that underperformance is unacceptable wherever it occurs—whether that is in a maintained school or an academy. We have already shown that we are tough on underperforming academies and that RSCs take robust action where needed—we have issued 122 formal notices to underperforming academies and free schools and moved to change the sponsor in 118 cases of particular concern. Our formal powers in relation to underperforming academies can, however, vary depending on the terms of an academy’s funding agreement. In a minority of cases, this can hinder our ability to intervene as swiftly as we would like. This is unacceptable and at the heart of this Bill lies our belief that a single day spent by a child in an underperforming schools is a day too many. We have also taken the views of some of our leading sponsors, who tell us they are frustrated that not being able to act swiftly in a few cases of high-profile failure creates a misleading picture of the work that is being done by academies across England to raise standards and transform young lives.
I am responding with an amendment to the Bill designed to ensure that RSCs always have the power to act whenever or wherever they encounter underperformance in our schools. I propose to amend the Bill so that when an academy or free school’s performance meets one of two triggers in legislation—an inadequate Ofsted judgement or performance that falls within the coasting definition—then their funding agreement will be read as having the latest provisions around failing and coasting schools. The amendment will not impinge on academy freedoms; on the contrary, it reinforces the central principle of the academy programme—trusting heads to run their schools through freedom and autonomy, but at the same time holding them to account for the results their pupils achieve. This amendment will not lead to any interference from central Government in the academies and free schools that are performing well.
In practice, the amendment will ensure that we can move any failing academy swiftly to a new sponsor. The amendment will also subject academies to the same coasting definition as maintained schools and where a coasting academy does not have a credible plan, further action will be taken by RSCs. This could ultimately include terminating the funding agreement and bringing in a new sponsor if necessary.
The amendment will create a more consistent framework for tackling underperformance across all types of schools and stands as another example of our determination to create a world class education system. The amendment will be tabled this week and first debated when the Bill returns to the House of Lords for Report Stage (currently scheduled to take place on 16 December 2015).
[HCWS362]
NHS: Charging Overseas Visitors and Migrants
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The visitor and migrant National Health Service cost recovery programme was established in July 2014 to design and implement improvements in the systems for charging patients who are not resident of the United Kingdom. The programme has focused so far on improving identification and cost recovery from chargeable patients in hospitals.
I am pleased to announce the Department of Health will now be seeking the public’s views on extending charging of overseas visitors and migrants who use the National Health Service. We have proposed a number of changes to enable overseas visitors and migrants to be charged for NHS healthcare they receive, in addition to the existing system for cost recovery for hospital treatment. The proposed extension of charging will not affect free healthcare at the point of use for permanent residents of the UK.
The consultation seeks opinions on proposals affecting:
Primary Medical Care
NHS Prescriptions
Primary NHS Dental Care
Primary NHS Ophthalmic Services (Eye Care)
Accident and Emergency (A&E)
Ambulance Services
Assisted Reproduction
Non-NHS providers of NHS Care and Out-of-Hospital Care
NHS Continuing Healthcare
EEA National’s residency definition
Overseas visitors working on UK-registered ships
The consultation also seeks views on any further areas that could be considered for charging.
The proposals explored within the consultation aim to support the principle of fairness by ensuring those not resident in the United Kingdom who can pay for National Health Service care do so. The proposals we are consulting on do not intend to restrict access, but aim to ensure everyone makes a fair contribution for the care they receive.
We propose that the most vulnerable people, including refugees, remain exempt from charging. Furthermore, the National Health Service will not deny urgent and immediately necessary healthcare to those in need, regardless of residency. We also propose that exemptions from charging will also remain in place for illnesses that pose a risk to public health.
The potential income generated through the extension of charging will contribute towards the Department of Health’s aim of recovering up to £500 million per year from overseas migrants and visitors by the middle of this Parliament (2017/18). The recovery of up to £500 million per year will contribute to the £22 billion savings required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the National Health Service.
Attachments can be view online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS360]
Stalking Protection Order: Consultation
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On Saturday 5 December, I launched a public consultation on introducing a new stalking protection order. Stalking is an insidious crime which traumatises its victims and, at its most extreme, can lead to the loss of innocent lives. We are addressing stalking as part of our wider work to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG) and the work we are driving in this area will be captured in our refreshed VAWG strategy to be published in due course.
We introduced new legislation in 2012 to fill a gap in the law to tackle stalking and have driven a programme of training for police and prosecutors to ensure that stalking is recognised and dealt with effectively. Prosecutions are rising which is encouraging. However, I want to be absolutely sure that we are doing all we can to protect victims from this frightening act, which can cause considerable distress and alarm.
The nature of stalking can be delusional and obsessive and while the actions of a stalker can seem innocuous on the surface, there is a risk that the developing fixation may be missed. Early identification of stalking behaviour is crucial and I am determined that this Government will do everything possible to protect victims and deter perpetrators, even before the stage is reached to commence prosecution.
We know that stalking can take place in the context of an ongoing pattern of domestic violence and abuse and we have introduced a range of measures to protect victims in these circumstances, including the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and the domestic violence protection order. Our stalking legislation, along with the new offence of coercive or controlling behaviour, is already helping to protect victims from this abuse.
However, in around half of cases, stalking occurs where only a very casual acquaintanceship exists between the perpetrator and their victim. While existing injunctions or orders may place restrictions on a stalker, this alone will often not deter them from their behaviour. Stalking needs to be recognised for what it is to ensure interventions are effective and meaningful.
A new stalking protection order could ensure that pre-charge options are available to the police to protect these victims of ‘stranger stalking’ to the same level that victims of domestic violence and abuse can be protected. The consultation will explore whether ‘positive requirements’ can be placed on perpetrators at this early stage to help stop their behaviour in its tracks.
I launched the consultation on 5 December during the 16 days of actions following the international day for the elimination of violence against women on 25 November. The consultation can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-a-stalking-protection-order.
A copy will also be placed in the House Library.
[HCWS361]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, beginning in 2013-14, this Government and their predecessors have brought major reform to the way local authorities can support local growth. The previous system meant that councils saw no benefit from additional business rates income in their area, even when they introduced policies to support businesses and encourage new investment. To correct this, from 1 April 2013, we acted to allow local government to retain 50% of its business rates. This means that those authorities which see it as their role to support business are rewarded with a share of the additional business rates income that growth creates.
Despite being only two years into our reforms, their success is already apparent. The latest statistics on business rates show that 63% of authorities have seen additional business rates income as a result of the local retention scheme in 2014-15 and, based on their own estimates, this figure is set to rise to over 90% in 2015-16. Furthermore, the scheme is benefiting a wide range of authorities with different service pressures, including those with high levels of deprivation, and both rural and coastal authorities.
Earlier in the year, the Chancellor announced measures to strengthen the incentive in Manchester and Cambridge by allowing those councils to retain 100% of the growth in business rates in their area, and by the end of this Parliament local government will retain 100% of its local taxes, including all £26 billion of its business rates.
The levy and safety net regulations contained in the statutory instrument include some technical amendments to the operation of the current rates retention scheme. They ensure that the payments made between local government, central government and precepting authorities are all correct and can be reconciled accurately. The safety net is designed to protect those authorities that have seen their rates income drop by more than 7.5% below their baseline funding level. It is funded by a levy on other authorities that have seen business rates growth in that year.
However, the calculation is not straightforward. It needs to include a series of adjustments to ensure that authorities are not compensated twice for giving particular reliefs—once through the compensation grants to which they are entitled outside the rates retention scheme, and then again through safety net payments inside the scheme.
Technically, these regulations do this by ensuring that authorities are required to add back the cost of the doubling of small business rates relief. This means that half the cost of the relief granted to ratepayers in 2015-16 will not be included in the calculation of their safety net. Nor will adjustments to certain reliefs made in 2015-16 that are in respect of previous years dating back to the introduction of the scheme. In both cases, authorities will be fully compensated for the relief they have given outside the rates retention scheme through compensation grants, so that they will financially be no worse off.
These are, by necessity, complex technical amendments, but they avoid double counting certain reliefs and ensure that authorities cannot be compensated twice. I can assure the Committee that all these technical changes have been agreed with local government officers on a working group set up to advise on the detailed implementation of the scheme, as well as with the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I commend these regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I have memories— I cannot necessarily describe them as fond—of dealing with business rates during my period as leader of Newcastle City Council, which ran to some 17 years, five years of which saw me as chairman of the finance committee. It is revisiting old, if somewhat modified territory for me to speak to these regulations.
It is perfectly right that, as the Minister said, the scheme has incentivised business development, although perhaps in a somewhat uneven fashion. The redistribution elements of the scheme have, to a degree, helped to modify this and, indeed, in the ward I represent—and to which the Minister today paid a visit—there is evidence of that early collaboration. To the south of the housing development there is a building that now houses a large engineering company. It formerly housed British Airways and, before that, Vickers. With the Urban Development Corporation in the 1980s, the local authority and the Government were, working together, able to contribute significantly to the development of that employment.
There are, however, some questions I would like to ask, which perhaps go slightly beyond the remit of the regulations. The first relates to outstanding rating appeals. The noble Baroness will not, I suspect, be in a position to update me on this issue today but perhaps she could do so in the future because this has been a considerable problem for local authorities up and down the country. The Government, having collected all the money from business ratepayers, do not expect, in the event of successful appeals, to refund it all. That is something which ought to be addressed. Equally—although I am not up to date with the position—it is said that the time for these appeals is being reduced, but in many cases they still go back some years, which is a considerable worry for local authorities and has an impact of what they can do.
The Minister said that there has been consultation and I assume that there were no reservations on the part of those consulted; perhaps she would confirm that. However, the landscape is changing in a very material respect in many parts of the country, including the parts from which the Minister and I hail. Under the devolution programme, we will have a different structure with economic and related functions carried out by a new authority, which, if the Government have their way, will be headed by an elected mayor. In any event, the new authority will, by definition, extend across a much wider area than any individual local authority. I wonder what the impact of the current scheme will be in those circumstances, even as modified.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the position of precepting authorities. It is unclear whether, in the new structure, what I will call a “combined authority”—with or without an elected mayor—is to be regarded as a precepting authority. Of course, if a single body is not levying the business rate, there will be differential collections, relative to population, between the constituent authorities within the new devolved structure. Obviously my thoughts have been anticipated; I congratulate the Minister on her advisory team. The question then arises of who is to determine the business rate. Will that still be at the level of the individual local authority or will it be at the higher level? If it is at the higher level, what is to prevent there being a differential application of the business rate across the constituent authorities? We might be entering an area of some complexity here. I do not blame the noble Baroness if she cannot deal with that today, but perhaps I could hear from her in due course.
The other issue I would like to ask about is the enterprise zones because presently these are in some but not all the authorities in a combined authority area. Again, the question arises of whether, for the Government’s purposes, the proceeds of business rates from this category of property are to be regarded as belonging to the individual authority or, in the event of there being a combined authority or under the new devolution proposals, it is to be regarded as belonging to the whole authority. In any event, how long is it anticipated that the enterprise zone relief, if I might call it that, will continue? Is it indefinite or is there a timescale for that?
My only other reservation is the provision in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument because it amends an existing local tax regime. Publication of a full impact assessment is not necessary for such legislation”.
I do not think that is a very good procedure. If there is to be a change, there should be an impact assessment, whether or not one is formally, legally required, particularly given the changing landscape to which I have referred. This might have pre-empted some of the questions I feel obliged to raise today. I hope, in future, that an existing regime being amended will not be justification for not providing an impact assessment, given the variation of circumstances between individual authorities.
Having said that, I am not minded to resist the regulations. I look forward to hearing further from the Minister in due course. In the event that she should revisit Newcastle, I would be very glad to show her round my ward and, indeed, the city.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I look forward to being shown round his ward, perhaps when phases 2, 3 or even 4 of The Rise are completed.
The noble Lord first asked whether there were any reservations during the consultation process. There were none that I know of. If I am wrong, I will correct that statement but, as far as I know, there were none.
The noble Lord also asked whether the reforms would increase the level of risk in terms of appeals for local authorities. We are looking at the level of risk and reward in the new system and will work with the sector over the coming months in developing the design of the new system. As for the appeals system, I think there is an acceptance that the current system is not working for businesses, hence the point he made. Too many appeals are held up for far too long in the system, creating cost and uncertainty for businesses. Change is definitely what is needed and that is what we are attempting to do. We need a much more structured, rigorous and transparent system. Ratepayers will set out their issues fully and clearly early in the process, so that they can be responded to quickly and cases can be resolved far more quickly than at present.
The noble Lord also made the point about changes in local authorities’ needs. Again, the department will be consulting widely and openly to design a system that provides local authorities with the funding they need to deliver local services and nobody should lose out under the new scheme.
Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord about impact. Yes, the Explanatory Memorandum says that there was no legal requirement. Perhaps I could expand on that point. I will look into it.
The noble Lord asked about enterprise zones. Currently, the income from enterprise zones is guaranteed for 25 years. We will need to consider how enterprise zones fit into the system, as he pointed out. Once we move to 100% business rates retention, we will consult with businesses and local government on the other aspects. I think I have answered everything he asked.
Equipment Interference (Code of Practice) Order 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Equipment Interference (Code of Practice) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee I will also speak to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2015.
Members will know that on 4 November 2015 the Government published draft legislation relating to the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ use of investigatory powers for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament. The intention is for the Bill to be introduced early in 2016 and enacted before the sunset provision in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 takes effect on 31 December 2016. In the mean time, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the codes of practice made under it provide the legal basis for the essential investigatory techniques necessary to acquire the communications of those who mean us harm. Today we debate two codes of practice made under the existing legislation: an update of the existing code of practice on the interception of communications and a new code on equipment interference.
Interception is a vital tool that helps law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent and detect serious or organised crime and protect national security. It is also among the most intrusive powers available to law enforcement and the security agencies. For that reason, it is subject to strict safeguards in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the code made under it. Interception warrants are issued and renewed by the Secretary of State for a small number of agencies and for a strictly limited range of purposes. RIPA also provides for independent oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner and an impartial route of redress through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
The interception of communications code of practice first came into force in 2002 and needs updating. There is now far more that can be said about the safeguards that apply to security and law enforcement agencies’ exercise of interception powers and the revised version of the code includes that extra detail. On what is new in the code of practice, the safeguards described in these codes are not new in themselves. In respect of the interception code, the law enforcement and intelligence agencies have always had robust internal arrangements, overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The draft code provides more detail about those arrangements.
First, it provides additional information on the safeguards that exist for the interception and handling of external communications under Section 8(4) of RIPA—that is, the ability to undertake bulk interception. Secondly, it sets out further information on the protections afforded to legally privileged material and other confidential material. To give an example, the code requires the Secretary of State personally to consider the likelihood that privileged material will be intercepted when determining whether it is necessary and proportionate to grant a warrant. It also requires additional internal safeguards to be applied in cases where legally privileged material is intercepted, including that where such material is retained it must be reported to the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner. Thirdly, it includes minor changes to reflect developments in law and practice since the code first came into force in 2002. For example, it reflects regulations introduced in 2011 which amended RIPA to create the power for the interception commissioner to impose a fine for certain kinds of unlawful interception. Much of the new material on the safeguards that apply to the exercise of interception powers reflects information disclosed during legal proceedings in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and it is right that this information is included in codes of practice so that it easy for members of the public to access it.
The equipment interference code of practice is new. Equipment interference is a set of techniques used to obtain a variety of data from equipment. This includes traditional computers or computer-like devices such as tablets, smartphones, cables, wires and static storage devices. Equipment interference can be carried out either remotely or by physically interacting with equipment. It allows the security and intelligence agencies in particular to keep pace with terrorists and serious criminals, who increasingly use sophisticated techniques to communicate covertly and evade detection. Equipment interference has been instrumental in disrupting credible threats to life, including those against UK citizens. MI5 has relied on this capability in the overwhelming majority of high-priority investigations it has undertaken over the past 12 months.
The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide the legislative basis for the security and intelligence agencies to interfere with computers and communications devices. Warrants may be issued by the Secretary of State only when he or she considers the activities to be authorised are necessary and proportionate. The use of the powers is subject to independent oversight by the Intelligence Services Commissioner. Prior to the draft code, which we are debating today, equipment interference powers have not had their own bespoke code of practice.
The code does not confer new powers, but simply makes public the robust internal safeguards that the intelligence agencies already apply. It brings greater transparency to the robust processes that the agencies adhere to when interfering with computer equipment to prevent terrorism, disrupt serious crime and identify and stop others who seek to harm us and our country. For the first time, this code of practice publicly sets out the stringent safeguards that the intelligence agencies apply to their use of equipment interference. This includes strict rules on how data acquired through equipment interference must be handled, how they must be securely and safely stored, and how they must be destroyed when it is no longer necessary or proportionate to hold them. The code also explains the consideration of necessity and proportionality that the Secretary of State must take before authorising any use of equipment interference. That ensures that this vital capability may be used only when the scope of the interference has been carefully considered and compared to the potential benefits of the operation. Furthermore, the code explains that equipment interference should not be considered a proportionate power if other less intrusive methods of acquiring the same data are possible.
Akin to the interception code of practice, this document also provides reassurance that the acquisition of legally privileged and confidential information is subject to even greater oversight and safeguards. The code sets out a series of tests that must be applied before any authorisation is granted and then the subsequent handling arrangements, should confidential material be acquired.
Finally, the code also provides information regarding the use of equipment interference targeted at equipment outside the British Isles. This section ensures that the public have a comprehensive guide to the use of equipment interference powers by the intelligence agencies and the range of safeguards and oversight that applies to such important activity.
The codes of practice contain no new powers; instead, they reflect the current safeguards applied by the relevant agencies. The purpose of the codes is to make more information publicly available about the stringent safeguards that the agencies apply in their use of investigatory powers. They ensure that the powers can be used only when it is necessary and proportionate and when it will help keep us safe from harm. I commend the orders to the House.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I must first say that I am not an expert in this area. Our expert on this matter is on the Joint scrutiny Committee, which is about to sit. That is why he is not here. For this to come up when the people considering the draft investigatory powers Bill are elsewhere and engaged in that business is rather an unfortunate clash of tabling.
We are very concerned about interception, but that is and has been a widely known and accepted practice over the years, although the nature of that interception has obviously changed as means of communication have changed. It tends to be specific and targeted at particular individuals who, as the Minister said, intend to cause us harm or who are involved in serious crime. The code of practice on interception, which, as the Minister said, is an updated code of practice rather than a completely new one, is not the major area of concern for us.
We are very concerned about the use of equipment interference and the fact that very little—if any—debate has taken place, in Parliament or outside, about the use of these powers. While the Minister points to legislation that the security services rely on to carry out equipment interference, explicitly setting out what that means was not part of the discussion when those pieces of legislation were presented to Parliament. While what interception of communications involves is reasonably straightforward, equipment interference potentially means gaining complete access to a computer, for example. Speaking for myself, my life is on my computer. Therefore, if there were intrusion through equipment interference on to my computer, practically everything about me would be learnt by the security services, including websites I had visited and passwords that would give access to, for example, online banking. It is a much more intrusive power for the police and the security services than interception.
Hacking into computers and mobile phones was made an offence in the Computer Misuse Act 1990. My understanding is that a clause introduced in the then Serious Crime Bill 2015 exempted the police and the security services from that provision. Does the Minister accept that engagement in equipment interference by the police and the security services between 1990 and 2015 must therefore have been illegal because it was an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the exemption not coming in until 2015?
As far as I can see, the equipment interference code of practice relates only to the security services. There is no mention of equipment interference being used by the police. Again, I am not an expert on this, but it would appear that the police have to rely on legislation that allows them to interfere with property. That was intended for planting bugs in homes or offices—that sort of thing—rather than interfering with computers. Will the Minister say what the code of practice is for police use of equipment interference, as opposed to that of the security services?
There is also serious concern about general warrants being issued for equipment interference, rather than for named individuals. Indeed, the Intelligence Services Commissioner’s latest report expressed concern that GCHQ was using thematic warrants for equipment interference. How many thematic warrants have been issued?
I have another question for the Minister: why are the Government bringing forward these orders now, when the primary legislation on which they are based is currently being completely reviewed? As he said, the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill is currently looking at the primary legislation, so why now?
Among other things, the Government have produced HM Government Transparency Report 2015: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. I cannot find any reference in it to equipment interference. As the Government are being transparent about these things, can the Minister assist me with where we can learn how much equipment interference has been going on?
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I support the proposals, which were conscientiously and effectively explained by the Minister. I recollect him in another guise in another place, where he practised, to a degree, the black arts and would have been pleased by a depleted Committee on a Monday when many Members are travelling.
I rise to support the measures and to emphasise a truth with regard to measures such as these. The existence of secret services in a parliamentary democracy always requires debate and scrutiny, which is why we are in Committee this afternoon. We debate and argue, at length, sometimes, as is our duty. We need our secret services. It was possible for our sovereign to attend the 2012 Olympic Games in total safety because of the successful, thorough and patriotic work of our secret services and the allied services alongside them. They always aim to prevent terrorism and to fight it by all means. Praise should go to the then director of MI5, Jonathan Evans—now the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale—and the many people in other services alongside him in that successful approach to the 2012 Olympic Games.
To give noble Lords a little history, I had the honour of chairing the Standing Committee in another place that gave legitimacy and birth to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is referred to in the measures before us. It was necessary to bring the security services into the public domain because of a hearing in the Strasbourg court. My constituent, when I was in another place, required the legislation. That case brought forward the legislation that brought into being the IS Committee. Later, having taken the chair for that legislation, the late John Smith nominated me to join the Intelligence and Security Committee as a founder member. For something like 10 years I found myself travelling to Washington, Ottawa and European capitals as a member of that committee. As a result of those experiences, I see the relevance of what the Minister has put to this Committee, and I offer it my modest support.
Noble Lords may know that the witnesses at that IS Committee were former Prime Ministers, former Foreign Secretaries, even the onetime archivist of the KGB, many Permanent Secretaries and directors of the secret services. The committee I served on was very ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord King, who in another place was Tom King MP. Bringing these matters up to date, I note that there was a previous Joint Committee of both Houses that considered legislation not dissimilar from some of the measures referred to by the Minister. I served on that Joint Committee and I noted the evidence given, firmly but politely, by the Home Secretary.
I emphasise that the orders before us are very necessary but they will need to be stringently and carefully examined and debated from time to time, and that is the process in which we are engaged today. I heard the Minister talking about stringent conditions. With regard to the investigatory powers, members of the Joint Committee were able to meet the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the then assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick, and the considerable, able and conscientious team working under their leadership at the offices on the other side of the Thames. I have no doubt whatever that the conditions are stringent and it was right that the Minister made that point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, the orders before us today are important. They are tools to obtain evidence of suspected wrongdoing. I can tell the noble Lord that the Opposition support both orders, although we have some concerns. There has to be a balance between the scope of the powers exercised by the state and the rights of individuals who are subject to the exercise of those powers.
The noble Lord will, I am sure, be aware of the concerns raised by the Bar Council in relation to legal privilege. It would be helpful if he could say something about the safeguards against interference with privileged communications and, in particular, how the equipment interference order could result in the acquisition of matters subject to legal privilege, as well as what steps are being taken to mitigate such a risk. What I am looking for today from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, is more reassurance that the balance has been properly fixed. Clearly, technology is moving very fast and I am supportive of the Government ensuring, on the one hand, that the powers are appropriate and up to date and, on the other, that the procedures are properly codified and people’s rights are respected. I also understand that the orders are likely to be in force for only a short time, as of course we will be having the new Bill, which has to be on the statute book by the end of next year.
It would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain to the Committee a bit more about the safeguards that are in place, particularly in relation to the interception of communications code. Can he also say a bit more about the equipment interference code? As he said, it confers no new powers but simply sets out those powers and the safeguards that are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests that new powers are being conferred, so the comments of the two noble Lords contrast somewhat. Therefore, we need to be clear about whether there are new powers in this code. If the noble Lord says that there are not, can he set out for the Committee why he believes that he is correct and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is wrong in that respect? Having said that, the Opposition support the orders.
Lord Bates
First, scheduling business is a matter entirely in the inscrutable hands of the Whips’ Office and usual channels. The Home Office has no influence on that. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, who plays a very important role in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the investigatory powers Bill at present. Of course, we appreciate his expertise in this area. I am sure he will bring that fully to bear when the Bill comes before your Lordships’ House later. Let me try to deal with some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised.
One was: why choose to do this now when we have legislation going through? I alluded to part of the reason in my opening speech, relating to current or recent cases that have gone through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal service. There is always a balance to be struck there. The legislation proposed is just that: it is proposed—it is not on the statute book. We need to make sure that the powers are in place appropriately and that the code is kept up to date for the purposes of activities that happen in the interim.
That is an important element as well, which I would convey through the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, back to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. Given the noble Lord’s strong interest in these areas, I assume he would welcome these codes of practice being kept up to date in the light of case law going through the tribunal and, in particular, in relation to equipment interference. Effectively, there are now 18 pages of guidance that were previously not in the public domain. Those can now be scrutinised and reviewed. They are there to be reviewed by the committee currently sitting, should it so wish. All the way through this process with investigatory powers legislation, we are trying to make sure, at the same time, that the security services have the tools they need to do their job and that we keep the public on our side in feeling that the powers exercised—which are intrusive in certain cases—are necessary and proportionate.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on the Intelligence and Security Committee in the other place. He knows all too well about the work going on. In that context, he will be aware that the powers we are talking about are not notional or academic. Elements of investigatory powers are deployed in response to the majority of serious and organised crime, such as the seven terrorist acts over the past year prevented by the security services. I certainly join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the work those services do to keep us safe.
I shall deal with some of the other issues raised. I will come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that in a sense our argument is that there is nothing new here and, at the same time, we are introducing some new measures. I will be able to tell him what is new in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked if, before now, it was an offence under the Computer Misuse Act to interfere with equipment. The answer is no. The powers to undertake equipment interference are contained in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997, so we do not believe that at any point the police or security services have operated outside their powers. The noble Lord asked about the number of thematic equipment interference warrants that have been requested. That information is not collected centrally at present. Of course, we also have as part of the investigatory powers a quite sophisticated system of commissioners who oversee these processes, to whom those who feel that their rights have been trespassed on wrongly can go to seek redress—either directly through the commissioner or through the tribunal. Of course, that happens.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code E) Order 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code E) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument brings into effect a revised Code of Practice E, issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or PACE. It is laid under Section 67(7) of PACE and governs the procedures for recording interviews under caution of individuals suspected of committing an indictable offence.
Police work is a difficult balancing act. Its main purpose is to prevent, detect and investigate crime; however, the powers needed for this—for example, to stop and search and arrest—require appropriate safeguards to protect the citizen. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes of practice are designed to strike this difficult balance between the need for police to have powers to tackle crime on the one hand with the need for safeguards for suspects and members of the public on the other. It is to maintain this balance that these changes are being proposed.
Code E has been revised explicitly to exempt the audio recording of voluntary interviews under caution that are conducted outside a custody suite, referred to as “on the street” interviews, for four specific offence types: possession for personal use of cannabis or khat, low-level theft, and low-level criminal damage. These revisions support the Government’s commitment to put in place necessary protections for members of the public while ensuring that the police have flexibility to deal with low-level offending proportionately on the spot by way of an out-of-court disposal, rather than in a police station in the police custody context. I make it clear to noble Lords that the Government intend to maintain the critical safeguard of a written record and the revised code strictly prescribes the circumstances in which this exemption applies.
PACE Code E was previously revised in October 2013. Those revisions substantially extended the requirement on the police to audio record interviews for indictable offences so that it also applied to suspects who attended the interview voluntarily, as opposed to being under arrest, and to interviews that took place outside a police station. Prior to 2013, the requirement to audio record interviews under caution was confined only to interviews for indictable offences where the suspect had been arrested and which took place at police stations.
The 2013 extension of Code E was done to complement and support substantial revisions in 2012 to other PACE codes, namely Code C, which concerns the detention of individuals in police custody, and Code G, which concerns arrest. Combined, the purpose of these revisions was to promote the wider use of voluntary interviews, particularly for less serious offences, but to ensure that the same safeguards, including the right to free legal advice, applied. However, as a result of the 2013 revisions to Code E, whereby all interviews under caution taking place at a location can be audio recorded, the Government were made aware of situations where the use of out-of-court disposals to dispose of low-level offending swiftly was being undermined. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are certain types of low-level offending that are entirely appropriate to deal with outside of the police station and in the context of an out-of-court disposal.
I will focus on voluntary interviews for four particular offence types: possession of cannabis or khat for personal use; low-level theft; and low-level criminal damage. Given that these are regarded as high-volume, low-level offences, it is right that the police have the ability to deal with them swiftly and the Government do what they can to maintain this. However, the requirement to audio record these voluntary interviews impeded that ability. Combined, there were almost 130,000 of these four offences disposed of by the police by way of an out-of-court disposal between April 2014 and March 2015. The 2013 change of Code E meant that the police had to record on-the-street interviews in every instance. Given the lack of portable audio recording equipment, the recording requirement meant that forces often had to bring suspects into the police stations to comply with this requirement.
These offences are less serious in nature and are common in the sense that the police deal with many of them on a daily basis. While there has been an indictable offence committed under criminal law, the police do not necessarily need to detain the suspect and bring them to the police station. Instead, they can and should deal with these offences quickly and non-bureaucratically on the spot when appropriate to do so.
The offences of drug possession for personal use are dealt with by a cannabis or khat warning for first-time possession offences only. Those of low-value retail theft and criminal damage can be dealt with by a community resolution. These are usually used in instances where the victim does not want the police to take more formal action. They are also often used in cases of young offenders to help them face up to the impact of their behaviour. The Government believe that it is entirely appropriate for such offences to be dealt with in this way, which is the reason for the proposed revision before the Committee. In seeking to exempt voluntary interviews for the offences I have outlined, the Government seek to address an unforeseen consequence of the changes made in 2013.
I point out to the Committee that the police, in their response to the statutory consultation on these revisions, requested a broader exemption that removed the requirement for audio recording of voluntary interviews elsewhere than at a police station for a much wider range of offences. However, in the absence of a firm evidence base, the Government have made it clear that this request would not be supported.
As I have already said, safeguards are central to PACE. It is for this reason that the revision to PACE Code E relates to voluntary interviews for a limited and specified range of offences. Furthermore, the revised code makes it clear that officers are required to make a written record of the interview and to ask the person whether they want to exercise their right to free legal advice before they are questioned. Given the nature of the offences, this approach is considered proportionate and appropriate. Additionally, the circumstances in which the exemption can be used will be limited. For example, where the individual involved is vulnerable and in need of an appropriate adult, the exemption will not apply.
Committee members should be aware that the Government are currently working with the police to identify whether there are other low-level, high-volume indictable offences that it would be appropriate to dispose of on the street and which would thereby require a further exemption to the audio recording requirement. Furthermore, the Government are working with the College of Policing and police forces to examine the possibility of using portable audio recording technology for evidence-gathering, which would include the recording of interviews on the street. This may mean that the need for a written record of an interview under caution can be removed in all cases where offences are disposed of on the street.
For now, the proposed revisions are the right way to strike a balance between the need to safeguard the rights of suspects while supporting the operational flexibility of the police to deal with low-level offending proportionately and swiftly, away from the custody setting. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the revision to PACE Code E and commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, having been a police officer for more than 30 years, I feel qualified to speak on this subject. This is a welcome approach that will cut down on unnecessary bureaucracy. It seems counterproductive that we allow police to dispose of minor offences on the street but PACE, in its previous incarnation, required an audio recording of the interview, which is clearly not practical in many cases—although, with the increasing use of body-worn cameras by police officers, this may become less of a problem.
As for possession of cannabis, having been instrumental in the move towards street disposal of that offence, I cannot help but be supportive. My only concern is about theft offences. This offence involves dishonesty and, therefore, there are implications for the future of the individual. Because the individual is perhaps dealt with informally—it will be a formal disposal but on the street—additional safeguards may be necessary. But again, on low-level criminal damage, I do not have too many concerns. I also appreciate that there are safeguards, for example, in the case of vulnerable people, where an appropriate adult would need to be present and these changes would not apply. Generally, we support these changes.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, first, would I be right in thinking that the only way one can check the records for a first-time offence is via the police radio? Secondly, on cannabis, how will the police establish whether it is first-time use? Otherwise, I support this order.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this order, which the Opposition support, makes important changes by excluding four offences from the code, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in his opening remarks. It will allow officers to deal with the offence at the scene of the crime rather than by bringing people to the station, if the officer deems that to be the correct course of action. Will the noble Lord confirm whether this has been piloted? If so, why have we not waited until we have the results of those pilots? I would be interested to find out about that.
Will the Minister tell us a bit more about why these four offences were selected and which offences were not selected? I know the Minister said there was a review, but it would be interesting to know the thinking on that.
Finally, will the Minister comment on the pilot scheme on body-worn cameras which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick? In future, concerns about the lack of a definitive record may be resolved by the record on camera at the scene of the offence. However, we fully support the order.
Lord Bates
On the previous orders we considered in Grand Committee today there was some question about whether the person with the relevant expertise was present, but the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is here and, with 30 years’ service under his belt, his expertise is beyond doubt. As he was talking, I could see the smile on his face. I recall our exchanges on the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I know that in London he pioneered a low-level police response to low-level crime. However, there were high volumes.
The pilot to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred was in relation to body-worn cameras. It is still taking place. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, that important pilot could revolutionise a lot of community policing. We are talking about 113,000 offences. When I have been out on patrol with the police, situations where there is a need to intervene but where there is no recording equipment require the police officer and others to go back to the custody suite for that process to be undertaken, so there will be a significant saving of police time to focus on serious crimes while not letting up on these points.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, went to the heart of it with two succinct questions, to which I shall try to respond. As a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, he will have spotted that I am taking a little extra time to make sure that we have the responses, and inspiration has now arrived. The police background check is recorded on the police national computer. If an individual has offended before, there will not be an on-street disclosure. The short answer is that the police national computer will be accessed in the location of the individual who is stopped and that would show whether the individual had been stopped before and whether it was a first offence. If either of those circumstances was not the case, further action of a more formal nature would need to be taken.
On theft and dishonesty, it is important to note that legal advice remains for someone who is accused of theft. Accordingly, a person can obtain advice from a lawyer regarding further information. Some people would regard drug offences as equally serious but both offences are deemed low-level.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked why there are only four offences. These four offences cover the highest volume of indictable offences disposed of on the street. Other offences were low-level violence and arson, and we believe they should be dealt with in the custody suite.
The revision of the code was the subject of a formal consultation, as your Lordships would expect, and we got quite a lot of feedback. Quite a vigorous discussion took place. Although the revised code that was produced does not accede to all the representations that were made by the police, as I alluded to, it reaches a point where both parties recognise that this is a significant step forward while we wait and see what happens with further trials that are taking place, particularly with body- worn cameras.
With those answers and reassurances, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, my department has laid a single instrument for the Committee’s consideration today. These regulations are required as part of a package of measures to implement a new service complaints process and a Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces.
The new legislation is designed to provide a streamlined and more effective internal redress system for our Armed Forces, and new, strengthened external oversight through an ombudsman. It will come into being on 1 January 2016. The new system is provided for in new Section 365B and Part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, as inserted by Sections 1 to 3 of, and the schedule to, the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015.
This instrument is intended to promote fairness in the new system by preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring that complaints are dealt with by those who have the right experience and knowledge to properly assist the complainant. It also covers procedural matters that provide essential safeguards and aspects of independence for our Armed Forces personnel.
The regulations include four important things, which I shall deal with in turn. First, as for the existing system, we have made rules on who cannot be appointed to deal with a service complaint; for example, because they are implicated in the matters complained about. The second important aspect of the regulations is that we have set out those matters that cannot be raised as a service complaint. This is not a new aspect to the complaints process. These are provided for in the regulations that cover the current system, and have been updated in this instrument to take account of the new process and of experience.
We are excluding for the first time challenges to decisions made in the internal redress system because under the new legislation the ombudsman will be able to review or investigate them. Similarly, the regulations exclude complaints about decisions made by the ombudsman. It is the ombudsman who provides external oversight of the complaints system so it would be contradictory for the complaints system to be able to overturn decisions of the ombudsman. Challenges to the decisions of an external ombudsman are best made in the courts.
A newly excluded matter, which I should mention in particular, is that we have decided to exclude complaints alleging clinical negligence or personal injury against the Ministry of Defence, so these have been added to the list of excluded matters. The redress system is not appropriate for deciding the complex, specialised medical and legal issues that can arise in clinical negligence and personal injury cases. It will remain possible, however, to make a service complaint if a person believes that we have not provided medical care when it was our responsibility to do so. As under the existing system, the regulations also exclude matters for which there are more appropriate alternative remedies. For example, challenges to decisions made at court martial are best decided through the appeals system.
The third important effect of these regulations is to set out when at least one independent person must be appointed for deciding a service complaint. The main circumstance is where a complainant alleges bullying or similar misconduct. This is the same as under the current system and it is there to provide an extra safeguard for fairness in such sensitive cases, and to give a measure of external oversight as part of the internal system.
The fourth main effect of the regulations is the setting out of the matters that must be reported to the Service Complaints Ombudsman when an allegation of a wrong suffered by a service person has been referred by the ombudsman to the chain of command. As with the Service Complaints Commissioner now, the ombudsman will be able to receive allegations of wrongs done to service personnel. For example, a family member of a service person will be able to approach the ombudsman with their concerns. The ombudsman will be able to refer those cases to the chain of command and to track what happens. The regulations will ensure that the ombudsman is kept updated on progress and is able to respond to queries, if raised, without compromising her investigative role.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised this draft instrument and, in doing so, has brought to our attention three drafting points, which we will seek to correct at the earliest available opportunity. However, we do not expect that these points will affect the practical working of the regulations.
On the first point that has been raised with us, we accept that the definition of the expression “in writing” has been included unnecessarily in Regulation 2(1).
On the second point that the committee has brought to our attention, we will seek to provide further clarity at Regulation 6. This regulation provides for the start of the three-week period within which the ombudsman is to be notified of certain events in connection with the progress of a matter that has been referred by the ombudsman as a potential service complaint. It also provides that the ombudsman is to be notified of each event that is listed in the regulation. We will seek to clarify the exact moment of the day from which the three-week period applies and to clarify that the period applies separately to each event that appears in the list.
The third of the JCSI’s points relates to a provision in the schedule to these regulations that excludes a right to make a complaint where there is a right of review as to certain service police or prosecution matters. The committee has said that the regulations refer incorrectly to those rights of review being “under” the code in which they appear, rather than being mentioned “in” that code. Again, we will look to make the correction at the earliest available opportunity.
I hope noble Lords will support these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument, which effectively—with, I believe, four other negative instruments—gives effect to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, established by the 2015 Act, which some of us were privileged to flog through a few months ago.
The concern goes back to the tragic deaths at Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 and the subsequent inquiry. The outcome of that inquiry was the creation of the Service Complaints Commissioner. That role was taken up by a splendid lady, Dr Susan Atkins, who, having taken up the role, declared it not effective, efficient or fair. I commend the Government for reacting to her criticism. My party has long been calling for the introduction of an Armed Forces ombudsman, so we welcome the Act and the instruments designed to put it into effect. Labour is determined that all members of the Armed Forces who serve this country with such professionalism and distinction should be saved from bullying, harassment and other inappropriate or illegal behaviour. Ensuring that this is achieved forms a core component of the Armed Forces covenant. Hence, we support not only this affirmative SI but the negative SIs that go with it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for setting out his concerns so clearly. I am the first to agree that he has raised a very important issue in relation to Regulation 3(2) and the need for clarity for service personnel. Clearly, there must be a fair system for checking whether a decision that a complaint is inadmissible has been properly taken. I agree that the effect of the regulations may not be self-evident to the casual reader. In my experience, that is not unusual, but it is certainly a real issue.
The regulations exclude a complaint being made about a decision by the relevant officer, usually the commanding officer, that a complaint was inadmissible because, for example, it was excluded under these regulations or it was made too late. However, such complaints are excluded only because the main regulations which set out the procedures for making and handling a service complaint provide instead for the complainant to go straight to the ombudsman, who can review any decision made by the officer to rule a complaint inadmissible.
There is a duty to make regulations to provide for this under new Section 340B(4)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which the noble Lord rightly mentioned. The provision is in the Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015, but these are part of a suite of regulations subject to the negative procedure so they are not being debated today. The noble Lord was absolutely right to draw attention to those regulations and to say that they should be read with the regulations we are now considering.
It is fully recognised that it would be difficult and unacceptable for service personnel to have to navigate the different sets of regulations in order to find out what they were entitled to do. To make things clear, there will be a joint service publication explaining the entire process, including how to make a service complaint and the right to go to the ombudsman. The aim in that regard has been to make the language as straightforward and accessible as possible. I can tell the noble Lord that the ombudsman will indeed be consulted and will provide advice. Moreover, I can reassure him that the current commissioner, who will in turn become the new ombudsman, has been closely involved in considering all the regulations and the joint service publication to ensure that the details of the system will be clear and will meet expectations. So I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that his point is well made and well received.
The noble Lord asked whether the ombudsman will be sufficiently resourced for implementation in January. The commissioner has assessed the likely volume of cases that will come her way in the first quarter of 2016 and has structured her new team to meet that expected demand. This year she has recruited an additional 15 staff, of whom 11 are investigators. The commissioner is pleased to acknowledge that the MoD has met her requests this year for additional resource to carry out the new role. The ombudsman is responsible for determining her own staffing needs. Having said that, her office will be keeping the staffing numbers under review as they gain experience of carrying out the new role. However, we believe that the ombudsman-to-be is satisfied that all is in place to handle the likely volume of cases that she will be required to consider.
I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions satisfactorily and that he will be sufficiently reassured to be able to give these regulations his approval. I am grateful to him for his general welcome of the instrument.
Disclosure of Exporter Information Regulations 2015
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Disclosure of Exporter Information Regulations 2015.
Relevant document 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before both Houses of Parliament on 17 November this year, seek to allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to disclose a limited set of information relating to individual UK exporters and the goods they export. The following information will, I hope, help noble Lords to place this in context.
This legislation promotes the Government’s growth agenda and their efforts to support both UK exporters and small businesses in the UK. It is also in line with the Government’s open data strategy. This seeks to place as much relevant data into the public domain as is reasonable and to reuse collected data for more than one purpose where it is efficient to do so.
By bringing accurate, reliable information about exporters and their products into a single, easily accessible place, the regulations will enable those who provide export services to identify their customers and make it easier for foreign buyers to identify UK suppliers and buy their products. It will also help to increase the export potential of small businesses.
The information to be disclosed will be limited to the following items: business name and address; a code to identify the types of goods exported, known as the “commodity code”; a description of the goods covered by the commodity code in question; and the month and year of export. Similar information in relation to importers has been available to the public for many years, and this measure seeks to bring exporter information into line with that.
The information originates from customs declarations made to HMRC at the time the goods are exported and will be made available via a unique HMRC website called uktradeinfo.com. There will be no charge for accessing it. The same legal disclosure standards relating to importer information will be applied and the same website will be used to disclose the information. Commercial confidentiality will be protected to avoid disclosure when fewer than three exporters export goods under the same commodity code in the same month. Again, this mirrors the arrangement in place for importers. Information relating to the export of sensitive or strategic goods will similarly be protected from disclosure. Again, this mirrors what is already in place for importers. At present, importers may write to HMRC to request removal or opt-out from the disclosure of importers details. HMRC plans to match this opt-out facility for exporters. The opt-out will not be granted automatically. Consideration will be given when the exporter feels disclosure may compromise them or their business interests. This measure was subject to a formal consultation; out of a total of 15 responses, five respondents expressed concerns over disclosure of their information. The measures that I have set out will provide adequate safeguards against such unwanted disclosure. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this order so thoroughly and informatively. The draft Disclosure of Exporter Information Regulations permit the sharing of certain information on exports for use by both the public and private sectors. We will not oppose these regulations today as we want a more productive and effective export system, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have a number of questions and points of clarification, which I hope he will be able to address in his closing remarks.
HMRC has previously not been allowed to share this information publicly. However, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 provided it with a power to make these regulations and it authorises the disclosure of specific data in relation to the export of goods. The categories of information are: a business’s name and address; commodity code; description of the commodity code covering the goods; and the month and year of export. Can the Minister explain the criteria for why these areas of information were chosen and what information was ruled out of being made available?
A separate but related point concerns the issue of confidentiality. What measures are in place to ensure that the confidentiality of data is maintained? We have seen in recent months that the UK is susceptible to online breaches, so I am sure that businesses would be grateful for any reassurances that the Government can give. Furthermore, do the Government have any means of putting at ease the concerns raised by one respondent that publishing details would lead to them receiving unwanted marketing mail?
Any measures that could help to improve Britain’s export market are welcome. The latest figures show that these efforts are sorely needed. Last year, the number of UK companies who sell their goods and services abroad fell. Yet in 2011, the Prime Minister said that he intended to increase the number of UK exports by the end of the decade. Are we on course to meet those targets? According to the British Chambers of Commerce, at the present rate of progress it will take until 2034 to double exports. Who does the Minister think is more accurate—the Prime Minister or the British Chambers of Commerce?
A clear area where improvement can be made—extremely apt since this past weekend was Small Business Saturday—is in supporting small businesses access the export market. While more than 40% of larger companies are exporters, only one in 10 small businesses sell their goods and services abroad. How will the regulations we are debating today assist, in particular, SMEs?
Turning to some of the specifics, it will be possible for exporters to opt out of the publication of this information by contacting HMRC. Have the Government an indication of how many businesses will opt out of the disclosure of information? Further, what criteria will the Government or HMRC use to judge whether an opt-out request is valid other than whether an exporter is moving goods of a nature which might give rise to security concerns?
There is no specific time or date at which the Government will review this policy. It seems that the first review should certainly be conducted swiftly to assess and evaluate the take-up. All this, of course, will mean more work for HMRC, at a time when its budget is being cut by 18%. It will make a hard job even harder.
Finally, I will briefly mention the consultation. I would like to put on record how grateful I am to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the additional information that it provided from HMRC about the Government’s consultation and for the more detailed analysis. The consultation ran from June to September last year and during this time the Government received 15 responses. Of those, only five were from businesses. Does the Minister really believe that this small number is enough to gauge public opinion? I look forward to his response.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his support and for his interesting questions. I will answer them as well as I can, perhaps with a little help from my friends, but I may need to write to him about some of them.
On the areas chosen for inclusion on the website, these were selected following discussion with the Cabinet Office and they mirror the information that is currently published in respect of importers. Any more than that would allow confidential details of values, markets and customers to be transparent and would put HMRC at odds with other legal obligations towards data protection.
The noble Lord asked about confidentiality and the measures in place to ensure it, which, of course, is extremely important. Again—this will be a recurring theme—the same safeguards are in place as for the website for importers, which have been in place for 25 years. A lot of these features are merely replicating—
Lord Tunnicliffe
The noble Lord will allow that in 25 years the cyberworld has changed a little.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I understand that and am not suggesting that it is as it was 25 years ago. I am merely saying that the importer system has been in place for 25 years and has been operating well, as I will show in a minute.
We will not publish things like national strategically sensitive data, such as data about armaments exporters and their products, or commercially sensitive data. For example, we will not publish data where there are only a small number of exporters of a given product and actual levels of trade could be identified or deduced. There is also the opt-out, which is possible for those exporters not covered by the exceptions I have mentioned. They will be able to ask HMRC to opt out in the same way that importers can. As far as online breaches are concerned, the idea of the website is to let people see this limited amount of information. We want them to see it.
The noble Lord mentioned unwanted marketing mail. We are not disclosing email addresses, although we will include a mail address. It is possible that some marketing mail will be received as a consequence of this development but, of course, part of the reason for introducing this measure is to help exporters market their goods to a wider audience.
The noble Lord talked about exports. The export target set by the Prime Minister for 2020 was ambitious and it remains so. We are one of the most open economies in the world so external weakness, particularly in our biggest export market, Europe, does reduce demand. The slowdown in world trade is expected to continue, resulting in the OBR forecasting a weaker outlook for UK export markets. We still think it is right to set a stretching ambition that will motivate us all to do everything possible. This is one small part of the strategy to help encourage exports.
Payment Accounts Regulations 2015
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce these draft regulations which aim to ensure the UK’s compliance with the EU payment accounts directive. The directive sets common standards across member states that payment service providers—in this context, principally banks and building societies—must meet. First, for the account that we use for day-to-day transactions—in most cases, a current account—the directive aims to make fees and charges clearer and more comparable. Secondly, it seeks to make it easier to switch to another provider of such an account in order to facilitate competition. Thirdly, the directive creates a right of access to a payment account with basic features for all consumers legally resident within the EU—these accounts are more commonly known as basic bank accounts in the UK.
The Government supported the directive and had already taken action in many of these areas. Agreements with industry already aim to improve the transparency of fees and charges. We have established the seven-day current account switch service and for more than 10 years our largest banks have offered basic bank accounts and have recently committed to improve that offer even further. The regulations that we discuss today comply with the directive where necessary, but minimise negative impacts on industry and consumers, and preserve structures that are already working well in the UK.
I shall start with a few words on the scope of the directive—namely, the definition of the term “payment account”. For the avoidance of doubt, where I refer to a payment account, I am doing so in line with the definition used in the draft regulations. The definition of this term in the directive could capture very simple types of payment account, well beyond the types of account used for day-to-day transactions that were discussed in negotiations. However, the recitals to the directive make it clear that savings accounts, credit card accounts where funds are usually paid in for the sole purpose of repaying a credit card debt, current account mortgages or e-money accounts should in principle be excluded. The exception to this is when such accounts are used for day-to-day payment transactions. Accordingly, the Government defined payment account in these draft regulations in a way that uses this language to describe and clarify the accounts that will be in scope. It is the Government’s view that this definition should be sufficient to limit the application of PAD to current accounts, or accounts that have functionalities directly comparable to those of current accounts, in the UK.
The Government have given as much clarification as the text of the directive allows. To go further, and entirely exclude some types of account, would be to risk a failure to comply with the directive. It will be for firms themselves to determine whether each of their products falls within the scope of the regulations, and whether the regulations therefore apply to them. The Financial Conduct Authority will supervise and enforce most of the requirements set out in the draft regulations.
When firms offer a payment account in line with the draft regulations, they will need to make new documents available to consumers: a fee information document, which sets out the fees that may be charged before the consumer decides to enter into a contract; an annual statement of fees, provided each year to explain the fees that have been charged; and a glossary to explain the main terms used in the documents, and their definitions. Some of the terminology used in these documents, and in related contractual, commercial and marketing information, will be standardised at European Union level. The process for carrying out this standardisation is rather involved, but is already under way.
As required by the directive, the Financial Conduct Authority established a provisional national list of the most representative services that are linked to current accounts in the UK and subject to a fee. Each member state submitted its list to the European Commission and the European Banking Authority, so that they can develop EU standardised terminology for the services that appear on a majority of member states’ national lists. After the European Commission adopts the EU standardised terminology, the FCA will integrate the standardised terminology into its provisional national list when necessary, and publish the final list for UK payment service providers to use. In addition, the Money Advice Service will operate a comparison website that allows consumers to compare at least the fees that appear on this final list.
The directive also requires action on packaged accounts—that is, payment accounts that offer an additional service or services, such as insurance or car breakdown cover. Consumers will now need to be informed whether the account is available without the additional services. If any of the additional services can be purchased separately from the same firm, the firm should tell the consumer how much each of those additional services would cost. Taken together, these measures should help consumers to understand and compare how much they are charged.
I shall move now to set out the approach to account switching. As I have mentioned, the UK already has a world-leading Current Account Switch Service, which has been recognised by the European Commission. It is managed and operated by BACS, a not-for-profit organisation. But not all member states are in this position, so the directive sets out some rules that all EU payment service providers must abide by when a customer wishes to switch to another payment account in their member state. When a UK payment service provider is not a member of the Current Account Switch Service, and it offers a current account-type product, it must at least follow these rules. However, for the vast majority of the current account market, the regulations allow our Current Account Switch Service to continue to work as it does today.
Compared to the switching rules set out in the directive, our Current Account Switch Service must meet three very simple criteria. It must continue to be in the interest of the consumer, present no additional burden to the consumer and be at least as fast. As the directive makes clear, we can maintain existing services where they meet these three criteria. There is no requirement to exactly mirror the switching rules set out in the directive.
The Government’s clear view is that the Current Account Switch Service that we have now exceeds the three criteria. However, the UK’s compliance with the directive has to be beyond question. That is why the independent Payment Systems Regulator will be responsible for confirming that the Current Account Switch Service meets, and continues to deliver against, the three criteria. We have agreed a proportionate set of powers for the PSR as a competent authority to use, should it ever become necessary, in this limited role. The PSR will provide further information on the designation and monitoring process in due course.
I move on to the provisions in the draft regulations on basic bank accounts. Basic bank accounts help to ensure that everyone is able to access essential banking services. They should be without fees and not offer an overdraft or cheque book. The draft regulations on basic bank accounts reflect the UK’s existing basic bank account policy, particularly where that is more advantageous to consumers, but they bring the UK into line with the requirements in the directive where necessary.
As noble Lords may recall, in December last year the Government reached a new agreement on basic bank accounts with the nine largest providers of current accounts. That agreement clarifies who should be eligible for a basic bank account and brings to an end the widespread practice of charging basic bank account customers for a failed payment, such as a failed direct debit or standing order.
We have taken action in these regulations to ensure that we do not move backwards as a result of implementing the directive. For example, the directive would allow us to establish arrangements that would be less advantageous to UK basic bank account customers by allowing banks to charge fees. However, the Government believe that a basic bank account and its standard services should continue to be provided free of charge provided that the services are provided in sterling. Nor should basic bank account customers be charged for failed payments or for overrunning, given that a key principle underpinning these accounts in the UK is that they should not be offered with an overdraft.
The directive would also allow us to restrict these accounts to only the “unbanked”. However, we are clear that basic bank accounts are also necessary for access to banking for those who may already be “banked” but are unable to use their existing account due to financial difficulty. That is why the eligibility criteria in the draft regulations establish that a consumer should be offered at least a basic bank account if they are unbanked or if they do not meet the bank’s stated eligibility criteria for a standard current account.
As I said, we do not want to move backwards but we also have to ensure that the UK can demonstrate its compliance with the directive. For example, we have had to legislate in order to establish a clear legal right of access to a basic bank account and a right to challenge banks’ decisions before a court. A voluntary agreement could not establish these rights with sufficient legal certainty.
We have also had to limit and make more specific the reasons why a bank may refuse an application for a basic bank account or close one. However—I recognise that there has been some concern from the industry on this point—no bank is required to open an account, or to continue to operate one, where it would otherwise be unlawful to do so.
I hope that I have assured the Committee that these regulations meet the UK’s obligations in implementing the directive in a sensible and pragmatic way, and that all noble Lords will therefore support the Motion. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the regulations before us today. I listened to his presentation with some care. Of course, realistically, I prepared my remarks in advance, so there may be a little overlap.
The theme that came through, which I found almost joyous, was the way in which the European regulations have been gold-plated. I personally have no objection to regulation; I am a great believer in regulation provided it is good regulation that does good things without disproportionate costs. I think I heard the Minister say, over and again, “We could have introduced a lower standard in this area, but we do not believe we should go back to that lower standard. We should retain and, in one or two cases, enhance the standards in the UK regulations because the EU regulations allow permissions in certain areas”. I would like the Minister, when he has contemplated this, to assure me that there has been a little bit of gold-plating, that it is very fine gold and that it meets the key test of regulation which is that it is good for consumers and for the markets they are in.
The EU payments account directive has three main principles: first, to improve the transparency of fees relating to accounts that are principally personal accounts; secondly, to make it easier for consumers to switch accounts; and, thirdly, to ensure that all EU consumers can access banking services by ensuring that a sufficient number of accounts with basic features are available.
I will start by picking up a point raised in the Explanatory Memorandum. The Government say that they are content with the definition of “payment service providers”, despite representations for further clarification of the scope of the term. The Government state that,
“the definition of the term ‘payment account’ that is used in this instrument gives as much clarification as the text of PAD allows, and that the term covers what are generally referred to as current accounts in the United Kingdom or accounts that have functionalities directly comparable to those of current accounts”.
I think the Minister went on to say that it is for individual firms to determine whether their products are covered, and that the FCA has the role of checking that they have made the right decisions. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that I understood that correctly. If the Treasury will not publish further information on the scope of the term, will the Minister at least say what bodies, aside from banks and building societies, the Government believe will be affected by these regulations?
Quite rightly, the Government emphasise the need for existing initiatives, such as the Current Account Switch Service and the new payment accounts directive, to accept that they may have to be adapted in order to achieve the best outcomes. I think the Government have tried to do that. Therefore, in the relevant sections the Government have said that a copy-out approach has not been taken. With this is mind, how do the Government anticipate that the Competition and Markets Authority’s report on the banking sector will be integrated into this framework? The issues being investigated in its review have a great deal of crossover with what is set out in these regulations. The integration of a further framework could prove challenging. Can the Minister say how each of the important pieces of the jigsaw will fit neatly together?
One particularly important aspect of the regulations relates to the transparency of fees. Research from TSB suggests that banks in the UK make between £7 billion and £8 billion a year from supposedly free current accounts. Any measures that could contribute to helping to make the customer more aware of these fees are important, and we welcome them. It is often in packaged bank account deals that hidden fees are found and under the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 providers of packaged bank accounts will be required to inform the consumer whether it is possible to purchase the payment account separately from the same provider. If so, customers will need to be provided with separate information regarding the costs and fees associated with each of the other products and services offered in the package that can be purchased separately from that provider.
In the consultation response the Government confirmed that:
“If the payment account is available separately, the payment service provider must provide separate information regarding the costs and fees associated with each of the other products and services offered in the package that can also be purchased separately … The government therefore does not consider that the assumption made by certain firms, i.e. that they will not be required to disclose the costs and fees of products and services available separately because they are not offered on identical terms and conditions, is correct”.
That is welcome news. However, the consultation made clear that a number of firms incorrectly considered themselves exempt from the draft regulations concerning packaged bank accounts. I know the Government made changes to the original wording of the regulations but how else do they intend to communicate these changes to banks to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities?
A broader concern for payment service providers and trade associations is the limited time available for implementing changes. Payment services providers will have more time to implement these changes as the Government extended the deadline to six months after the FCA publishes the linked service list. When do the Government anticipate that the linked service list will be published and what more can the Government do to assist PSPs in the interim?
On the issue of switching, research conducted for the Competition and Markets Authority found that 37% of people had been with their bank for more than 20 years and that a further 20% had had an account for between 10 and 20 years. Have the Government undertaken analysis into this? If so few people change banks, as has been suggested, then is failing to extend these regulations to cover existing customers undermining the effectiveness of these regulations?
The Money Advice Service will be required to operate a comparison website. Can the Minister go into more detail about the timescale? When does he expect this resource to be available to consumers?
Finally, during the consultation no information was received regarding the anticipated costs to non-Current Account Switch Service members as a result of the proposed approach on switching, nor did the responses address the costs or benefits to consumers as a result of the proposed measures. Will the Minister comment on these issues?
As I said at the beginning of this speech, we do not oppose these measures. Indeed, we feel they are good and that the enhancements and nuances included are to the benefit of consumers. Nevertheless, the UK does not have public confidence in the banking system, and that needs to be addressed urgently. We will support any measures that seek to do that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his support and in-depth scrutiny of these rather extensive regulations. I will try to answer as many of his questions as possible.
The noble Lord felt some joy over my remarks. I am always anxious to give noble Lords as much joy as I can—and hope I always do so. However, in this case I will disappoint the noble Lord a bit. We do not think that these regulations have been gold-plated, if by gold-plating we mean making the regulations more onerous than they need to be, either by commission or omission. We used the latitude available to the UK within the directive to maintain existing policies on financial inclusion, such as on fees. For example, the directive allows banks to charge reasonable fees for basic bank accounts but we are not doing that because the existing agreement does not do it and so it would be to consumers’ detriment. We are using the flexibility not to do that.
We could have required all banks to offer basic bank accounts, but we chose not to do that because we want to maintain access to basic bank accounts for UK customers without discouraging newer, smaller entrants. That point has been raised in other debates. We welcome competition in banking and want to help challenger banks. I am glad to say that at the moment 25 are applying for licences. We want to limit the impact on the industry wherever possible.
The noble Lord asked what types of firm, other than banks and building societies, might be within the scope of these regulations. We want to minimise any negative impact. The directive allows member states to exempt certain entities from the application of all or part of its provisions, so we have used that flexibility where organisations offer some form of payment service, such as for credit unions, municipal banks, National Savings and the Bank of England. Ultimately, it will be for firms themselves to determine whether each of the accounts they offer falls within the scope of the regulations and whether the regulations therefore apply to them. We have been as clear as we can within the directive to determine what payment accounts are covered, but we have used the recitals to explain some of the accounts that are excluded, and broadly, the Government’s view is that current accounts or any other account that is used for normal day-to-day payment purposes are covered.
Lord Tunnicliffe
What would be the process if a firm made a misdetermination of an account? In other words, if it took a view that a particular product was not covered by the regulations but the correct interpretation of the regulations would be that it should be, what process would come into play to require that firm to correct that decision?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The competent regulator is the Financial Conduct Authority. Ultimately, enforcement action could apply, but in the normal course of dealings, particularly with new regulations, I would expect a conversation to take place with the regulator if there was any doubt. For the vast majority of current accounts, it will be straightforward, but if there were a grey area around the edges, I would expect a sensible conversation to take place with the FCA. In the normal course of events, banks and other financial institutions are required to have an ongoing relationship with their regulator. I would expect that to apply unless something serious went wrong, in which case enforcement action could take place.
Action to comply with the payment accounts directive will certainly not prevent the UK pressing ahead with domestic initiatives to improve competition in banking, provided that the initiatives remain consistent with the regulations. The CMA’s provisional findings, which were published at the end of October, still need to be consulted on. It will issue its final report next spring, and the Government stand ready to take action as appropriate once we have those final recommendations.
I turn to packaged accounts, which also offer separate services such as car insurance, breakdown insurance or something like that. The consultation the Government produced set out the Government’s intended approach to packaged accounts in the draft regulations, which firms scrutinised and commented on. After these regulations have been made, if they are agreed to, the FCA will also consult in the usual manner on any changes to its handbook that it considers necessary to give effect to those regulations, including on packaged accounts.
In addition to its public consultation, the FCA will continue to engage with relevant industry stakeholders to discuss the implementation of the measures, including the extent to which services and their terms and conditions need to be identical to be caught.
The noble Lord referred to the Money Advice Service and asked when the comparison website that it has to set up will be ready. The comparison website will need to use, where applicable, the terms set out in the linked services list. We expect the final list to be published by the FCA during the first half of 2017, once the EU-wide standardised terms and definitions have been adopted by the European Commission. Although the Money Advice Service may choose to set up the website sooner, there is no obligation for it to do so until six months after the FCA publishes the final linked services list.
Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015
The Earl of Courtown
That the Grand Committee do consider the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on 26 May this year, the Government commenced the provision introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which renders unenforceable the use of exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts. As a result, individuals can now ignore any exclusivity term in their zero-hours contract. Once these regulations commence, any employer who treats someone on a zero-hours contract unfairly simply for taking a job elsewhere could face an employment tribunal and the possibility of paying compensation.
The use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts is wrong. No one on this type of contract should be prevented from boosting their income if they want to. While the Government anticipate that only a minority of employers are likely to ignore the ban, I am confident that we all agree that a route of redress is a welcome measure. The regulations before the Committee create a route of redress for an individual on a zero-hours contract who suffers a detriment or is unfairly dismissed as a result of doing work under another contract or arrangement. They allow that individual to make a complaint to an employment tribunal and be awarded compensation if their complaint is upheld.
These regulations have been drafted as a result of the Government’s consultation. A clear majority of 71% of respondents to last summer’s consultation supported redress via an employment tribunal. The regulations create a deterrent for employers, making them think twice about ignoring the law. In addition, we will be laying an order that will ensure that those individuals on zero-hours contracts wishing to make a complaint will benefit from the early conciliation regime. This is in line with other employment protections.
Zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market. For individuals who cannot commit to regular hours, they can provide a pathway into employment. That is why many people, young and old, choose to work in this way. These contracts provide choice and the ability to combine work and other commitments. But the use of exclusivity clauses in these contracts is wrong and that is why Government have banned them. These regulations strengthen that ban, adding another layer of protection for individuals and ensuring that employers cannot simply ignore the law. By creating a route of redress, individuals will have the right to make a complaint to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or treated unfairly as a result of their employer attempting to demand exclusivity. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. He was not, I think, involved in the previous Government’s detailed work on the Bill from which these regulations stem. In that sense perhaps he could be forgiven for not really getting to the heart of the issue before us. While I reluctantly agree that these regulations are a step in the right direction, I hope to persuade him that they are nothing like what was intended when the matter was debated in the Bill to which he referred. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act should have outlawed people being discriminated against for having more than one zero-hours contract. Instead, it offers a false choice for those who are affected to seek redress—at their cost, let us be clear—through the employment tribunal system.
The key issue I would like the Minister to focus on is that these regulations do not in fact ban exclusivity clauses. They will exist after these regulations go through and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. Individuals will not have many rights in terms of how they get redress against that, as I will explain. As I said, the regulations represent a small step in the right direction but they will not provide zero-hours workers with effective protection. The Government’s proposals really fail to address the main abuses expressed by those who have studied this issue—and, indeed, the points that were raised when the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill was discussed. They are little more than window dressing. The Minister said that the abuse of zero-hours contract workers seeking a second job was wrong but he has not taken the opportunity to outlaw it.
There are a number of points worth making. The regulations use a much narrower definition of zero-hours workers than is allowed for in the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the Act would permit the Government to extend the ban to individuals who are employed in freelance arrangements, for instance, but are economically dependent on a limited number of employers. The Government have decided not to act to protect this group—perhaps the Minister will explain why.
In March 2015, the coalition Government indicated that they were minded to extend the ban on exclusivity clauses to all workers, not just those on zero-hours contracts, who earn less than £20 an hour. The aim expressed then was to ensure that those employed in more insecure and lower-paid forms of work could not be forced to remain available for one employer but could seek employment from a range of employers. This is a very good idea and we welcomed it at the time. The Government seem to have backtracked on that approach. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind that decision?
The Government claim that providing a right for zero-hours contract workers to go to an employment tribunal and, after the next regulations come forward, a chance to go into conciliation services using a fast-track system, will actively deter employers from using exclusivity clauses. I think the Minister said that it would make employers “think twice” before acting. That seems a very weak form of protection. They should not be thinking about this at all. The idea that they should think twice about it is rather risible.
We are talking here about very poorly paid employees—who often are not paid at all because they do not get called in for work—and about those employed on zero-hours contracts in any way having to pay up to £1,200 for any claim for unfair dismissal. As well as being low-paid and not being offered the right possibility of a range of work, they will have to pay £1,200 upfront in order to take this forward. Obviously, if they want to do a detriment claim it is £390, but I think even that would be difficult.
The MoJ statistics reveal that only around two-fifths of individuals who have applied for a remission in employment tribunals have been successful. This low success rate is well understood to be due to the fact that remission claims have to be based on household income rather than the income of the individual concerned. The individual has a choice to make if he or she has a partner who is working because the cut-off point at which they will be able to do a remission may well have been breached by the partner’s earnings, and the cost of going themselves is £1,200. It is a rock and a hard place.
Finally on this catalogue of defects in the process, the regulations make it clear that any compensation awards will actually be very limited because they have to be linked to losses or expenses which the individual incurred as a result of the employer’s actions. A zero-hours contract worker is going to find it rather difficult to prove that they incurred any loss. Individuals such as hotel and bar staff, many of whom make up this group, are often working on a series of zero-hours contracts with different employers. Under these contracts, they have no legal rights to ongoing employment so it is very difficult for them to prove that if they had not remained available to work for employer A they would have been guaranteed a certain amount of pay from employer B. This test will also trip up a number of people.
A lot of rethinking is required in this area if we are going to make this stack up in any sense to the issues that were raised by the Minister. He thought that these regulations have resolved matters but I think they are actually making things worse. What is needed is a new think about redress in matters of this nature. What we really need is legislation that includes those on zero-hours contracts, as well as other people in casual employment, to make sure that they have the basic employment rights—including, for example, redundancy pay, the right to request flexible hours, and the right to return to work following maternity or paternity leave—which are often not available in these areas because of a misunderstanding of the law, although technically employees are entitled to them. That could be rolled back into an overarching arrangement around issues to do with exclusivity terms. As I said, these regulations are a step in the right direction but it is really a very small step.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for even reluctantly agreeing that this is a step in the right direction. He made a number of points, which I will deal with. If I do not deal with them, I will of course write to him. We agree that these regulations are a welcome step for those on zero-hours contracts. We must, however, send a message to the minority of employers who may attempt to ignore the exclusivity ban. As such, it is important that the Government create this additional layer of protection for individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that exclusivity still exists. No, an individual cannot be prevented from looking for work elsewhere and should simply ignore the exclusivity terms made by the employer. The individual has no obligation to inform the employer. We understand that employers could potentially offer no further work as a result of finding out that the individual has worked elsewhere, and that is why it is important that these redress regulations create a route of redress for individuals who suffer a detriment in such a case.
The noble Lord also asked why we have backtracked on the income threshold. This Government’s first priority was to introduce the ban on exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. As I said earlier, we did this on 26 May this year. Our next priority was to introduce a route of redress to ensure that individuals on zero-hours contracts with exclusivity clauses were protected from employers who dismissed them or subjected them to unfair treatment if they sought work elsewhere. We are introducing that route of redress now.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is the first time that I have taken part in a Grand Committee. He said that pressure is put on people to comply, and an ordinary worker may find the legal redress a little confusing. Do the regulations contain a provision to deal with situations where emotional pressure is put on an individual who may not have an official exclusivity contract but it is understood that if they contravene the contract and go to work elsewhere they will not be asked to work again?
The Earl of Courtown
I think that, in a nutshell, the noble Baroness is talking about protection for the vulnerable worker. I cannot give her an answer at this moment but I will write to her.
Concerning the income threshold, during the last Parliament the Government announced the idea of extending the ban on exclusivity clauses to contracts that did not guarantee a set income threshold. We will now look at this aspect further, considering any evidence of avoidance of the ban. To date, the Government have seen no evidence of employers finding ways to get round the ban on exclusivity clauses.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why the self-employed are not covered. The exclusivity ban protects all employees and workers who have exclusivity terms included as part of their zero-hours contract—that is, a contract which does not guarantee paid hours of work. These provisions do not cover those who are genuinely self-employed and undertake work on a zero-hours contract arrangement. For example, a self-employed contractor might take up work offered on a zero-hours basis from a number of regular clients but remain self-employed. This is because self-employed individuals will negotiate their own terms as part of their contractual arrangements with their clients.
The noble Lord also raised the important issue of employment tribunal fees and said that they represented a prohibitive cost for those on zero-hour contracts. As in the case of any other complaint submitted to an employment tribunal, anyone who feels that they cannot afford to pay the associated costs can make an application for a fee remission—that is, to have the fees waived or reduced. An individual can apply for remission of the fee-paying stage and so would not be out of pocket. Complainants who are in receipt of universal credit and have less than £3,000 in savings and gross annual earnings of less than £6,000 would automatically qualify for remission of fees. Complainants will qualify for full remission of their employment tribunal fees if they have savings of less than £3,000 and are in receipt of certain qualifying benefits, such as income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income support. They may also qualify for full or partial remission if their household savings and gross income fall below or within a specified threshold.
The noble Lord also mentioned compensation. We do not believe that the regulations should stipulate the level of compensation to be awarded. This is a matter that the court should decide, given the individual circumstances of each case.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also mentioned the rights of those on zero-hours contracts and on other casual contracts. There is a misconception that those on a zero-hour contract do not have employment rights or have fewer rights than those on other types of contract. Everyone, regardless of contract type, has employment rights. The employment status of an individual will determine whether they are an employee or a worker; employees and workers have different employment rights. However, let me be clear that people working under a zero-hours contract have the same day one rights as any other worker or employee. When there is a qualifying period for certain rights—for instance, entitlement to maternity pay—they must meet this condition, just as with any other worker or employee.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, to the Moses Room. She asked whether emotional pressure could be taken into account. It would be a matter for the court to consider what the detriment is in each case.
Finally, I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring that exploitative practices identified around zero-hours contracts are eradicated, so that those on this side of the contract have a fair deal. The regulations are supported by the majority who responded to a consultation period on this matter. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Legislative Reform (Further Renewal of Radio Licences) Order 2015
The Earl of Courtown
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Further Renewal of Radio Licences) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the effect of this order will be to allow the holders of certain types of analogue radio licences to renew those licences for a further five-year period. The changes cover the three national analogue radio licences—the national FM licence held currently by Classic FM, and the two AM national licences held by Bauer, for Absolute Radio, and UTV, for Talksport. All three licences were renewed in 2011 under Section 104A of the Broadcasting Act, and local licences were renewed under Section 103A of the Broadcasting Act; they include some names from the list. For stations that have not yet had their licences renewed under Section 103B or Section 104AA, the net effect is to substitute the seven-year licence renewal period introduced into the Broadcasting Act by the Digital Economy Act with a 12-year period.
The measure meets the tests set out in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and has been approved by the Lords committee and by the Regulatory Reform Committee in another place as being appropriate for a legislative reform order with the affirmative procedure.
In all, around 60 commercial analogue licences, including the three national licences, are due to expire between 2017 and 2021 and will benefit from this measure, though licences that expire after that date will also benefit from the change. This is a change that is strongly supported by Radiocentre, the Commercial Radio Companies Association, and most of the radio industry. Before I get into the detail of the measure, it is probably worth me taking noble Lords through the background to these proposed changes.
In 2009, the previous Labour Government set criteria for a future switchover of digital radio in their Digital Britain report. Their criteria were that DAB coverage should match the coverage of national and local services in analogue, as the case might be, and that digital listening should reach 50% of all radio listening. In July 2010, the coalition Government adopted these criteria.
To facilitate a future switchover, the Labour Government included in the Digital Economy Act 2010 various measures to facilitate a future switch-off of analogue radio services. They include providing Ofcom with the power to terminate analogue radio licences with a minimum of two years’ notice. A key measure in the migration to digital radio by encouraging commercial radio to continue to support the development of DAB was the new powers for Ofcom to grant licence renewals for FM and AM stations. The effect of these changes was that radio stations licenced on or after 8 April 2010, or which had already been renewed for 12 years under Section 104A or Section 103A of the Broadcasting Act 1990, were able to apply to Ofcom to renew their licence for one further period of seven years. To qualify for the renewal, licensees were required to simulcast—that is to broadcast on analogue as well as digital—the service on an appropriate DAB multiplex.
In July 2010, the coalition Government launched the digital radio action plan. The purpose was to bring together the various interested parties to help drive uptake in digital radio. Through this process, a number of key barriers to radio’s transition were dealt with. First, the issues surrounding limited DAB coverage have been tackled: the BBC, Government and commercial radio agreed to support investment collectively to extend local DAB coverage from 72% in 2013 to more than 91% by the end of 2016, so matching the existing coverage of local commercial FM services.
Secondly, through the digital radio action plan real progress was made on cars. In 2010 fewer than 5% of new cars had DAB installed as standard. Through the collective efforts of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the radio industry, almost 75% of new cars now have DAB radios fitted as standard—a figure we expect to increase to close to 100% in two years. Some 20% of radio listening in cars is now to digital.
However, even with this momentum, it was clear by December 2013 that while steady progress had been made it was not the right time to commit to a radio switchover for the UK or to set a firm or indicative timetable for a future switchover. Building on the momentum created by the action plan in 2013, the Government announced a package of measures to support UK radio’s transition. This included a £7.75 million commitment to extend the local DAB network to match current commercial FM equivalents, funding for feasibility work by Ofcom to help more small stations go digital, support for the radio industry’s digital radio tick scheme and efforts to accelerate DAB car conversion.
However, a consequence of the Government’s decision in December 2013 was that the licences of more than 60 radio stations renewed under the 2010 Act’s provisions will expire between 2017 and 2021. This is before the date when a switchover will be possible. It is this issue that the order seeks to deal with. At the time that the Digital Economy Act 2010 was passed, the Government and commercial radio anticipated that a timetable for switchover could be set as early as 2015 and that, with good progress, a switchover might even be completed in 2017 or 2018. The proposed seven-year duration for FM and AM licence renewals in the 2010 Act reflected that expectation. However, the reality is that the assessment made in 2009 and 2010 was too optimistic.
The Government strongly support a digital future for radio and want to ensure that policy continues to support the investment in extending choice and services. In November 2014, we launched a consultation to look at the issue and set out three options. First, there was to do nothing, not to legislate but instead to allow licences to expire and to be readvertised in the usual way by Ofcom. Secondly, we could allow the renewal for a further five-year period of licences renewed under Section 103B and Section 104AA of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and for 12 years for stations that had not yet been renewed under those sections. Finally, we could allow the renewal of licences for a longer period of time not specified above.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the quick transition from department to department, the fluency with which he adopts his new brief and the quality of his representation which I have much enjoyed.
However—there is always a however—the reason for this legislative reform order, which is an interesting choice of vehicle for the process, although I do not disagree with it, is because the previous coalition Government and this Government are shooting themselves in the foot on this matter. There would not be a problem if the Government would face up to the fact that what is required is an early and specific date for digital switchover. That would drive the responsibilities of commercial and public service broadcasting and would build on the very successful change that has already happened in the automotive industry from FM and analogue radio to digital radio. The huge majority of new cars sold in this country now have digital radio.
It is all there for the taking. Covered in glory, crowned in his new raiment and wearing the arm of the digital reformer that at heart he surely is, the noble Earl could rise from his seat and proclaim to the world that at last there was a decision from a department not known for giving many decisions— or if it does, they are not very good ones—and we could all get back to normality. Is it not true that the emperor has no clothes and that this is a stop-gap measure? Choosing to extend radio licences in the commercial sector for five years—we are talking about three national radio stations and more than 60 local radio stations, which is a fair whack of the radio stations in this country—is simply going to repeat the uncertainty and chaos that has bedevilled us over the past five years and we will have to be back here in five years’ time extending this yet again. Who knows what we will do the next time? Will we be standing here suggesting that we just give them a permanent licence to print money, a permanent licence for radio broadcasting in order to continue to serve, I suppose faithfully, the 80% of people who say they are satisfied with what they have? I do not know, but the Government are making a mess of this and they ought to ’fess up and set a date, even at this late stage, which will give everybody a chance to work together to make it the success that the television changeover was.
Having said that, I enjoyed the document that was provided, and I thank the officials for it. It is one of the best I have seen in terms of explaining what the issue is and of setting out the context in which the decision has been reached. I do not agree with a lot of things said in it, but that does not take away my admiration of the way in which it attempts to be as transparent as possible. I recognise that and I am glad it is being minuted. Too often these things are just passed over.
I have five issues that I want to log at this stage. Our feeling on this side of the Committee is that this is the wrong way to go. We should set a date for digital switchover, stick to it and put all our effort into making that a success. If we are not going to do so, the proposal made is probably the least worst of the options presented.
First, will the noble Earl be a little more transparent than he has been about what will happen if there is no switchover by 2021? The order is effectively a five-year pause in a process that has an ineluctability about it. Will he give us any idea about what he thinks will happen in 2021? A lot of the evidence from the consultation meetings reflected on the fact that the worst thing for those involved in this area is uncertainty. While they will get certainty now as a result of the order, it will be for only a limited term. Many will have to think very hard about their business plans and whether they will extend beyond 2021.
Secondly, I am not at all clear that the explanatory document is right in suggesting that the issues that have swayed thinking on this were based on the possibility that, by advertising these licences now, there would be a churn, fuelled mainly by competition, that could be a stipulation on the product that comes out of the radio system as a whole. Those are my words, not exactly how it is put in the document. The Government—and the Opposition, too—believe that competition is a great spur to creativity. If we are interested in a broader and more successful creative economy, surely the right thing to do is to seek all the opportunities we have for competition, not to avoid them. Here we have an option where, although it would have been extra work for Ofcom—poor Ofcom—it could, in a reasonably short period of time, have advertised and received submissions from those who currently have licences and those who want them, in order to try to redraw the map of radio as we currently have it.
The document reflects a failure of the process. It says:
“Whilst there is little to no quantitative evidence on how many, and which, new entrants, might bid for any re-advertised licences, research by Value Partners demonstrated anecdotally that, should these licences be re-advertised, there would be some interest in them from new entrants particularly for the national and large city licenses”.
So we have some evidence that there would be interest in the larger franchises—even in some of the local ones. That would have provided some change. The document goes on to explain that that might have been about 10%. A 10% increase in competitiveness and creativity is not to be sneered at. If we had that in other industries we would be quite pleased with it. However, the document—signed off by Ministers—says:
“We do not believe that the hypothetical benefit to listeners and industry of a small number of new services outweighs the cost to the wider industry and to listeners of a wholesale re-advertisement process. We therefore consider that, taken as a whole, the provision in the draft Order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of any person who might be adversely affected by it”.
Not to readvertise is quite a big decision. I hope the noble Earl will not take it wrong when I say that this bit is a bit thin. We could have had more evidence. He could have sent this document back to officials and said, “I think if I’m going to stand up here and try to defend this against the fearsome Lord Stevenson, I need better evidence than just simply saying ‘anecdotally’ and ‘on balance’”.
I mentioned my concerns that some of this decision has been driven by worries that Ofcom might be troubled by having to do all this work. Ofcom is, of course, a body that covers most of its costs by recouping them from those concerned. Therefore, it is not a cost issue, but a volume or process issue. That is really in the hands of government. Again, it is infelicitous to blame Ofcom, which might be too busy to do this, for a decision that is being taken for different reasons. I would be interested to hear the noble Earl’s responses on that.
If we are not minded to support competition and creativity, we are worried about poor little Ofcom and we are not concerned about having to do this again in five years’ time, what are the other issues? There are two things I want to mention. The first relates to the paper provided in support of the LRO, which goes through the things that Ministers must decide. One of the things that Ministers must decide, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is whether or not the provision is of constitutional significance. The Government cannot be serious about this, surely. We are talking here about a range of diverse views and opinions; the ability of people up and down the country to receive news, comment and opinion; and the freedom of the press, independence and plurality. For the document to say the provision is not of constitutional significance does not bear scrutiny. I really think that is something that the Government should think very hard about. If they do not have that view about commercial radio on a national basis, why are they bothering? They may as well just give operators’ licences in perpetuity because it is obviously not important enough for them to be concerned about. I disagree. I think this is really important, and as part of our understanding of how the constitutional process works we need the contribution of a free and independent press, including radio and television, and a plurality of voices in order to make good decisions about that.
My final point is about the consultation process. There are many good things about the document but the best thing is the fact that at last we see some of the notes from the various meetings that have been held. Reading these through, there is just a slight feeling that we were talking to the establishment rather than the wider context. I did not see much there from people who might have been considered to be applicants for radio licences. Obviously, we might not know who they are but looking at the lists of people who were invited to these consultation meetings in Edinburgh and London, they were largely the establishment of radio. Again, looking at the written responses, we did not get much of a range of the general public. There were one or two freelance media consultants, I note, but not very much from the wider public. The Minister praised Radiocentre for supporting this proposal. Actually, it did not support the proposal in its evidence; it supported option 3, not option 2. It subsequently said that it supports option 2 and wishes it to go through—it would, wouldn’t it? It is involved in part of this process.
But enough from me—we are faced with a fait accompli in this matter because without a digital switchover date there is not much we can do about it. But I hope these points might be considered.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments. Although he had concerns, I think he was generally supportive of the move. I do not want to put words in his mouth.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I said that we are facing a fait accompli, which is certainly not the same thing as being supportive.
The Earl of Courtown
I withdraw my remark. I also thank him for his congratulations to the officials in the department on the work they have done and the document that he received.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of different points. Once again, if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that I write to him. He mentioned a number of points relating to when the Government will make a decision on when the switchover will actually take place. He felt that it would be far better if we made a firm decision on that. Our position on the switchover decision remains the same. A decision about the timetable for a future switchover will be considered only once the listening and coverage criteria have been met; for example, when at least 50% of all listening is through digital, national DAB coverage is comparable to FM, and local DAB reaches 90% of towns. The noble Lord also asked when that stage will be reached. According to the radio industry source, on current trends digital listening should reach the 50% threshold sometime in late 2017 or 2018. We have always linked switchover to listener take-up and that has not changed.
The noble Lord also commented on the research commissioned from Value Partners and its findings. The research we commissioned on the various options for addressing the expiry of analogue licences was extremely useful as a starting point for a more detailed consideration of the future of radio licensing. However, we believe its conclusions are only partially developed, particularly when it comes to assessing the level of interest there will be around contesting commercial analogue radio licences in the open market. We concluded that the wider disruption caused by a major licensing round would outweigh the benefits of new entrants to the market. There is scope, as the noble Lord mentioned, for new entrants, through acquisition of existing stations or the development of services on DAB online. The launch of the second national multiplex in March 2016 will open the way to new providers coming into the UK radio market.
The noble Lord also asked why we are not setting a firm date for 2022 or 2023. We have always said that a switchover must be listener-led. If progress with listener take-up of digital radio continues, it is quite possible to envisage a scenario where a switchover takes place in the early 2020s, although the exact timing and process is something that will need to be carefully considered by the radio industry and the Government. I stress that we will not be in a position to commit to a switchover unless or until listeners are ready.
The noble Lord also mentioned the situation of smaller radio stations following a switchover. The Government recognise the vital role that local stations play in supporting the communities they serve. That is why we have always said that, in the event of a future switchover, part of the FM spectrum will be retained for smaller, independent local and community radio stations for as long as it is needed. At the same time, we recognise that some smaller stations want more choice in terms of broadcasting on the DAB platform and are concerned about being left behind as more radio goes digital. That is why DCMS has provided £500,000 to Ofcom to support further feasibility work on small-scale DAB solutions to enable smaller stations to broadcast on digital.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also asked why we are afraid of an open licence competition. We agree that there is a difficult balance. Stations can start on digital and online and broaden the market that way. He also drew attention to Ofcom as a resource that could undertake a licence reapplication process. Not at all—relicensing will create a period of instability for radio and this will make a future switchover decision harder.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also said that the subject of the order is not of constitutional significance. That is why we have opted for the smallest possible change: a five-year renewal. The scrutiny committee of both Houses, as I said, agree that it is not of constitutional importance. We are not seeking to restrict access to news or radio. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution, all the same. He certainly raised a number of important points. I commend the order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Stunell
Introduction: Lord Bird
Sex-selective Abortion
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take action to protect unborn girls from abortion for the sole reason of their sex.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal, and we have made this very clear on a number of occasions. The Government published an analysis on 27 August this year which found no substantiated evidence of gender abortions taking place in Great Britain. We are committed to continuing to monitor this issue carefully and will examine any evidence that comes to light.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, I am most pleased to hear what my noble friend just told us. Why are there constantly reports in the papers of such abortions being carried out? It seems to be fairly usual if we look at the papers. Is he as concerned as I am that there seems to be no great battle against this?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, abortion on the basis of gender alone is illegal; there should be no doubt about that. There is no evidence at all on a population basis of any such abortions taking place. However, my noble friend has mentioned that there is anecdotal evidence to the effect that that may not always be the case. To that extent, she is right to be eternally vigilant about these matters. If it is happening, it is totally unacceptable, abhorrent, and against everything we stand for in this country.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, with which stakeholders are the Government working in order to fulfil their commitment to explore pressure and coercion on women in relation to boy preference and its possible link with domestic violence?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I have a long list of stakeholders, which covers all the usual suspects in this area, if I can put it like that. In the way that the methodology was developed to assess whether there was a population basis for gender abortions taking place, we took advice from the Office for National Statistics and a number of the royal colleges.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister yet had the opportunity to consider the judgment made last week about abortion in Northern Ireland? What advice and work are the Government going to do with the devolved Administration to ensure that women in Northern Ireland get the same human rights as women in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and not really for me or for us.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, there may not be sufficient evidence for gender-based abortion prosecutions, but there is sufficient evidence, surely, for greater effort to be made about female genital mutilation. Tens of thousands of women in this country have suffered from it yet we still have not had a single successful prosecution. Does he accept that far more needs to be done to deal with this evil?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Gender-based abortion, female genital mutilation, honour crimes and various other issues still take place in some ethnic communities in England. Across the board, we have to be vigilant about all of these issues and make it clear that they are not acceptable. They are against the law and anyone aware of these practices going on should report them to the police.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has twice referred to evidence on a population basis, which I take to mean that the evidence is taken without distinction of which part of the country it comes from. Has any effort been made to correlate the evidence with clusters of cases, which might point to some social activity that would be possible to countermand?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the statistics are collected on the basis of birth across the population. They are then analysed in 500 different ways. In only one of those 500, which concerned the third or further child given birth to by women from Nepal, was there any variation from what one would expect. I can assure noble Lords that the statistical analysis is very robust.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)
My Lords, while welcoming the appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, as the Minister with responsibility for women and children and for tackling violence against women and children overseas, given the prevalence of this abortion of female foetuses and the prevalence of FGM among certain girls under five, are the Government thinking of appointing a Minister for violence against women and children in the United Kingdom?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am not aware that we are giving consideration to that, but I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that unborn babies are covered by the discrimination Act?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot confirm or deny that. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his original reply; it is one with which we concur—we do not have the evidence and, like him, we consider that the Act is sufficient as it is. Some of the stories are partly, I think, just about the lack of self-worth that some girl children sometimes feel; that is partly about their education and that of their mothers. Can the Minister say something about what the Government do to encourage greater self-worth among young women and, indeed, older women?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I encourage anyone with an interest in this matter to read some of the case stories put together by Jeena International—they are really quite shocking. They are anecdotal, but they are very real for a small minority of women who lack self-worth. That is, tragically, part of some of the cultures in England and we must do everything we can to improve women’s self-worth. I think that, in the long run, that will be done by education, education, education.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, if, as anecdotal evidence suggests, there are such terminations of female foetuses, surely that would be reflected in the overall population of girls being born. The figures I have seen show that women are, thankfully, still in the majority in this country.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The statistical evidence is absolutely clear and points to the fact that there is no widespread gender abortion happening in this country. One would expect a ratio of 105 to 100 boys to girls and it is actually 105.2 to 100 in England, Scotland and Wales, so it is exactly where we would expect it be. There is one exception, which is the third and fourth born of Nepalese women, but this has been looked at two or three times and it is just a random variation in the statistics that we use.
India: Human Rights
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current human rights situation in India.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, India has a strong democratic framework and its constitution guarantees fundamental human rights. However, it also faces numerous challenges relating to its size and its social and economic development. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed human rights with Prime Minister Modi during his visit in November and welcomed Mr Modi’s commitment to preserve India’s traditions of tolerance and social harmony and to promote inclusive development.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. India does, indeed, have vast problems because of its size, but the human rights situation is extremely worrying in a number of aspects. My particular concern is access to justice for minority groups and, in particular, for the Dalits. Every week 13 Dalits are murdered and five have their homes burned, and every day three Dalit women are raped. The problem is that while legal mechanisms are in place, their enforcement and implementation are weak or non-existent. Will Her Majesty’s Government encourage the Indian authorities to strengthen the whole legal justice system so that perpetrators are charged and brought to justice?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord is right to point to the importance of implementation of laws where they exist on these matters. The British High Commission in India regularly discusses the treatment of minorities with India’s National Commission for Minorities and with state governments across India. It is important that we are able to continue dialogue with India about how best it can implement the strong legislation it already has.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, reference to respect for human rights in a constitution does not necessarily guarantee those human rights, and there has been disturbing evidence of discrimination in particular against the Christian and Muslim communities since the coming in of Mr Modi’s Government. Does the Government agree that human rights should be respected everywhere, without any considerations of trade?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, when we discuss human rights matters with countries around the world, we never allow issues about our economic relationship to get in the way of upholding international law and international humanitarian law, and it is important that that should be the case. I can say of course that during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the UK, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed intolerance in India with him. We should note that Prime Minister Modi has on numerous occasions reaffirmed his commitment to and respect for India’s core values of tolerance and freedom, as well as reaffirming the importance of social harmony and inclusive development. That is most welcome.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have a thriving Indian diaspora in this country, and many British NGOs have counterparts in India and work very closely with them. However, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 in India does now inhibit the extent to which our NGOs and theirs can co-operate, and discriminates against British NGOs providing finance for their Indian counterparts. Have we raised that major and very illiberal Act with the Indian Government?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord is right to point to the importance of the work of the diaspora, which is a valued part of our community. We are aware of concerns that some Indian NGOs have about the use by the Indian Government of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to which the noble Lord referred. We are monitoring the situation closely. When, for example, Greenpeace has made representations about the Act, we have encouraged it to pursue these matters through the courts in India.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, we are aware of an escalation in the number of rapes against women in India, including several allegations made against Ministers in the Modi Cabinet against whom criminal cases are pending. Was the issue of violence against women raised by the Prime Minister in his discussions with Prime Minister Modi—and, if not, why not?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my right honourable friend discussed a wide range of human rights issues with Prime Minister Modi, and I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware of the speech that the Prime Minister made at Wembley underlining his commitment to human rights. Certainly through both the British High Commission in India and the Department for International Development, we look closely at the issue of violence, whether in the public or the domestic sphere. With regard to violence against women per se, we are currently helping to implement India’s domestic violence Act—but clearly it is important that all justice systems should respect the needs of those who are victims within it. That is the case in India as in other countries.
Syrian Refugees: Settlement in the UK
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made to implement the Prime Minister’s pledge to settle 1,000 Syrian refugees by Christmas.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the charter flights which have arrived represent a significant upscaling of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme. We are on track to meet the Prime Minister’s ambition of 1,000 arrivals from the region by Christmas.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the requests that have come from many places that we accommodate 3,000 unaccompanied children? Following the Prime Minister’s promise made last Wednesday—
“I am very happy to look at that issue again … to see whether Britain can do more to fulfil our moral responsibilities”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/15; col. 339.]
—what progress has been made towards Britain fulfilling its moral responsibilities?
Lord Bates
In terms of moral responsibilities, it should be recognised that we have committed to take 20,000 refugees by the end of the Parliament, which represents a significant upscaling of the scheme. The Prime Minister said last week that he would look at this issue again. He is doing so, but a key group that is concerned here is the UNHCR, which we are working closely with. It is concerned that if we offer special treatment to unaccompanied minors, that may encourage more of them to be trafficked or might take them away from the region where they would actually stand more chance of remaining with their families. In fact, that is being exploited by the people traffickers, who send the children first in the hope that they might be resettled, and that others may follow afterwards. The Prime Minister is looking at this again because on the face of it, there is a compelling humanitarian case. However, no decision has been taken yet.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Will the Minister reflect on the fact that another of the Prime Minister’s pledges was to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands? Can he update your Lordships’ House on the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, in which he seemed to suggest that the Government are minded to take migration for the purposes of higher education out of the net migration count?
Lord Bates
I have two thoughts on that. First, of course, it is absolutely right that there needs to be downward pressure on the wrong sort of immigration into this country. We have got to get those numbers down, precisely so that we can also offer more generous support to the genuine refugees and asylum seekers. On the specific of students, whatever the change in the calculation of the numbers, it will make no change to the student policy. There is no cap on the number of students who can come here for genuine courses at genuine universities, and that will remain the case.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
How can we be sure that these people seeking refuge are indeed from Syria?
Lord Bates
Yes, my noble friend is absolutely right to point this out. That is one of the reasons why we want the investigations and checks to take place in the refugee camps in the region, under the auspices of the UNHCR, rather than encouraging people to make the perilous journey here and then try to establish whether their bona fides and credentials are as they say they are.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I return to a question I previously hinted at, and in the light of the rather high-profile reportage of the plan of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to house refugees in a cottage in the grounds of Lambeth Palace. Given that we understand there is some necessary bureaucracy associated with the proper placement of refugees, have we got the balance right? It is not just a question about the Archbishop, but about the good will shown by a good many people, which seems to be turned back by unnecessary bureaucracy.
Lord Bates
We do not want that to happen, of course. We must remember that the priority consideration regarding the vulnerable persons scheme is that the people in question are vulnerable. First, we are talking about women and children who are at risk, along with people who have been subject to torture and those in need of acute medical care. They may not be the ideal people to take up the offers coming forward under the community-based sponsorship scheme. Like the right reverend Prelate, I read that report over the weekend. A meeting is going to take place on Thursday between Lambeth Palace and the Home Office to resolve that difference—I am sure it can be resolved—and to make sure that that very generous offer is accepted and taken up.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent thoughtful report from the Children’s Society, entitled Not Just a Temporary Fix, on the search for durable solutions for separated migrant children? One of its recommendations is that Home Office decision-makers should be trained in how to assess a separated child’s best interests, rather than simply referring to Section 55, the welfare duty, as if such a reference was enough.
Lord Bates
I read that report, which I think is good. We are looking at it and it raises a number of issues. Under the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children scheme—UASC—there is an additional level of guidance from the Department for Education, and the Minister for Children and Families, Edward Timpson, has lead responsibility for it. Also, we cannot get away from the fact that although the Home Office might have such responsibility under the Children Act 1989, local authorities have the statutory duty of care for any children under their care, whether or not they are asylum seekers.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us exactly why progress has been so slow in getting these refugees to the UK, and what work has been done with the UNHCR in organising migration with the refugee community to get the refugees here?
Lord Bates
It is a slow process because we are undertaking the vetting and prioritising procedure in the camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the UNHCR. The UNHCR undertakes its checks, as then does the Home Office. It is a lengthier process at that end, but the whole purpose of the vulnerable persons scheme is that, once they are given leave to remain or international protection, they come to this country and do not have to go through any such process. They have accommodation to go to, they have schools, hospitals and medical care, and benefits if they need them. Therefore, although it is taking slightly longer at that end, we hope that that will shorten the process when they actually arrive here.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that it is the turn of a Back Bencher—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, what advice, support and help are the Government giving to local authorities to ensure that they have a satisfactory settlement, so that people can be helped into move-on housing and that the local medical and education support services, for example, are there? Given that we have previous experience—for example, when the Bosnians came here—please let us not waste it.
Lord Bates
Exactly. Taking precisely from that experience is the reason why the Prime Minister appointed a Minister for the Syrian resettlement programme. Richard Harrington is based in the Home Office and is liaising with the DCLG, which is conveniently in the same building, to ensure that such joined-up work happens and people get the support they need when they arrive.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, what is being done by the Government to help Kent and Dover, in particular, to deal with the large number of unaccompanied minors arriving in the country?
Lord Bates
That, of course, was one of the big pressures. There is now in place the Kent dispersal scheme, for which Richard Harrington is responsible: rather than people being concentrated in a given local authority area, they are redistributed nationally. So far, 55 local authorities have signed up to that scheme, through which they can receive unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, will the Minister note the activities of Siemens in Germany, which is offering—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am so sorry. Although I understand why the noble Baroness is trying to get in, there are occasions when we should give priority to Back Benchers rather than Front Benchers. I suggest that if we are to have one more speaker, it should be a Back Bencher.
Lord Judd (Lab)
While no one would underestimate the complexities, and indeed the pressures on the Minister and his colleagues, is it not important for the consistency of our position to remember constantly to emphasise the values we are trying to protect in our society, one of which is the Christian value of generosity and warmth towards people in situations such as this? Must we not keep that in mind and remember to consider, with all our preoccupations, what we are adding to the preoccupations and problems of Jordan and Lebanon?
Lord Bates
Part of that is the generosity of people directly making offers under the community resettlement scheme. But I am also very proud of the generous commitment the Government are undertaking on behalf of this country in providing £1.1 billion of aid to Syrian people in the region to allay their suffering there. That is the second largest figure in the world.
Cyberattack: UK Defences
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Giddens
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the vulnerability of the United Kingdom to organised cyber-attack.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech to GCHQ on 17 November, despite a huge amount of investment, effort and world-class tools and capabilities, we are not where we need to be, particularly given the pace of innovation in cyberspace. Since 2011, we have invested £860 million in a national cybersecurity programme. As announced in the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review 2015, we plan almost to double investment in cybersecurity over the next five years.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. One of the most serious threats we face is that of a co-ordinated cyberattack against the UK financial sector. The Bank of England has shown that individual banks, especially the large banks, are pretty well protected but there are huge vulnerabilities in the connections between the banks and the rest of the economy, which some people say could lead to panic. One quite seasoned observer described the possibility of financial Armageddon—the meltdown of the system—given that most money today is electronic and no longer held in the form of cash. This is a matter for the Government, not just for the Bank of England, so what concrete steps are the Government taking to address this issue?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord and a number of other of your Lordships in this area. On the specific point, the financial sector, including the City of London, has undertaken a number of exercises in recent years: Waking Shark I, Waking Shark II and the Market Wide Exercise, as well as the more recent Resilient Shield exercise between the US and the UK last month. In June, the FPC agreed that the Bank, the PRA and the FCA should also establish arrangements for CBEST tests to become one component of regular cyber resilience assessment within the UK financial system.
Lord Sugar (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that the infrastructure in most of the exchanges of internet service providers in this country is supplied by a Chinese company, Huawei. In the previous coalition Government, Sir Malcolm Rifkind was commissioned to inquire about this country’s vulnerability to a possible instruction by the Chinese Government to shut our systems down. Does the Minister have the results of this investigation? He should also be aware that the United States does not allow that company to operate there.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I will write to the noble Lord about his specific point. However, we are not complacent on this issue. As the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, will know, virtually every telecommunications network in the world incorporates foreign technology. Most manufacturers have some of their equipment built in China and use technical components from a global supply chain, regardless of the location of their headquarters.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former adviser to Huawei. Given that 90% of larger companies suffered a security breach last year, I welcome what the Chancellor and the Minister have said about setting up a national cyber centre. To date, the Cabinet Office has been responsible for the national cybersecurity programme. Can the Minister confirm that it will continue to be so, and to be responsible for the national cyber centre, rather than handing it over to the tender mercies of the Home Office, which is not known for its business-friendliness?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can confirm that and draw the noble Lord’s attention to paragraph 7.7 on page 82 of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, which sets out a very nice organogram for who is responsible for what.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the firing chain for Trident is air-gapped in its entirety, as it certainly was until 2006, and is therefore invulnerable to cyberattack? Will he also confirm that any upgrades that may be planned for that firing chain will remain air-gapped? If not, there will clearly be a vulnerability.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord speaks with immense experience in this area and I will write to him on the specific point. I cannot comment on the detail of the security arrangements for our nuclear deterrent but we can, and do, safeguard it from threats, including cyber.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister update the figures on substantial attacks on British government institutions and businesses which last year were running at between 150 and 200 per month? Has that figure changed substantially and has there been the slightest indication that, since the Chinese leadership pledged to the Prime Minister that they would lay off, there has been an easing from that quarter?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can give some figures. GCHQ typically responds to an average of 70 sophisticated attacks on government networks per quarter. In summer 2014, GCHQ responded to approximately 200 incidents and this figure doubled to nearly 400 during summer 2015.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) the child is in the household as a result of a kinship care or private fostering arrangement,”
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, my concerns about this measure, along with those of other faith groups and organisations, are set out in the briefing note that my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham circulated to all Members of the House prior to the Second Reading debate. In that note we expressed our belief that children are a blessing and that anything that sends an implicit or explicit message that a child is unwanted or burdensome should be strongly resisted.
The stated rationale for the policy outlined in this measure is to ensure that people on benefits and tax credits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as do those supporting themselves through work. I understand, and support, the Government’s desire to encourage responsibility through the welfare system. However, it is important that personal responsibility is not defined too narrowly or in purely financial terms, and that it encompasses our responsibilities to our families and neighbours, and to the communities to which we belong.
I turn to the amendments in this group. Kinship carers, for example grandparents, older siblings and other relatives and friends who step in to care for children, many of whom would otherwise be in the care system, are affected by these proposals. We have a responsibility towards these people and the Bill does not adequately reflect the share we all properly have in caring for and supporting them. These children are unable to live safely at home because of domestic abuse, their parents’ mental health problems, alcohol or drug misuse or the death of a parent.
In purely financial terms, becoming a kinship carer is an unwise decision. Kinship carers face significant additional costs and often a loss of income as the majority are forced to give up work temporarily or permanently to look after these children. Yet many people take on this responsibility sacrificially out of a commitment to love and care for their extended family, often at great personal expense to their own emotional and physical health. Thanks to their dedication, children in kinship care do significantly better than children in unrelated care, despite having suffered similar adverse experiences. In personal financial terms, it is an unwise decision: in social and community terms, it is a generous and good decision.
For example, Jane is a paternal grandmother and kinship carer. She and her husband are raising four grandchildren who are all under six years old. The children cannot live with their parents due to severe physical abuse. Although Jane and her husband get some special guardianship allowance support from the local authority, they are reliant on tax credits.
Jane tried to continue at first working full time when she and her husband took on the children, but it was too much. The children were suffering with their health and their well-being. They were upset, too. And she did not get any help with child care. Eventually her husband gave up his business to care for them so that Jane could work three days a week. If their tax credits are reduced, she would obviously have to go back to work full time in order for them to manage financially, at the expense of the needs of those very vulnerable children.
It has been estimated by the Family Rights Group that there are around 200,000 children being raised by kinship carers across the nation. More than one in five kinship-care families contains three or more children, and nearly two-thirds of these receive tax credits—around 18,000 families in total. The changes proposed in the Bill with the consequent reduced financial support for these families could well stop potential kinship carers from being able to take on the care of a sibling group of children, or lead to the splitting of a group of three or more siblings, or discourage carers from taking on an additional child if they already have dependent children of their own.
This is clearly not in the children’s best interests, nor in society’s—and nor is it in the Chancellor’s best interests. Exempting this group from Clauses 11 and 12, as I and others are proposing, would reduce the savings to the Exchequer by an estimated £30 million in 2020-21. That is down from £1,365 million in savings to £1,335 million. It would require only 200 kinship carers to be financially prohibited from taking on a sibling group of three or more for the extra care and court costs to outweigh any public savings. In care, the cost per year of a child is about £40,000: the one-off court costs are about £25,000.
The Government’s long-standing commitment to ensuring that families are stable is welcome. Will the Minister be able to agree with us that creating the best possible environment for children to flourish would be best enabled by reviewing this proposal? The moral case for supporting this group of amendments is sufficient, in my view, but the economic case is strong, too.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 16 and 17 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton and to support the other amendments in this group. I fully support the case on kinship care set out so carefully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. There are some common arguments that apply to adoption and kinship care, the two subjects in this group, and reasons that the Government should think very carefully before deciding not to provide tax credits and universal credit to third and subsequent children in those settings.
First and most obviously, we should not be putting financial barriers in the way of families willing to take on what are often very vulnerable children. As the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, if such families are deterred, the state is likely to find that the costs go up, albeit not to the Department of Work and Pensions, but I hope the Minister would not be so parochial as to allow that in any way to influence him.
The average child tax credit claimed for a family of three or more children is £3,670, but, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, the NAO found in 2014 that it cost £40,000 a year to foster a child, aside from the one-off costs. How can that make sense? In many cases, had those children been able to stay with their birth families, tax credits would have been payable for them anyway, so it is not as though the cost is increasing. As we have heard, there is clear evidence that children in kinship care settings do better than those in unrelated care, despite having similar adverse circumstances.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches also agree with kinship care as an adoption exemption. According to the Children’s Society, kinship carers support an estimated 200,000 children across the UK. These, as we have already heard, are families who have taken in children, often in difficult circumstances, out of love and kindness. They could find it all the harder to do so if they are unable to access any additional support through the tax credits system. Although the Government and David Cameron personally have said that they want to dramatically improve the adoption process, stopping child tax credits and universal credit for those who adopt or take in family members or friends runs counter to what they have said in the past. Can the Minister say what has changed?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 1 and 16 in this group. First, can I make an apology to the Minister and the Committee? On Second Reading, I feel I was rather too soft on the Government. I commend the Government for their achievements in terms of employment, but there are several areas in this Bill that cause me real concern the more I contemplate them, and I should have said more about them at Second Reading.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate—if I may agree with him—that it would be unwise for the Government not to pay full attention to these amendments. I was speaking to a kinship carer earlier today. She was a godmother to a child. About six years ago, the child’s mother came into difficulties so she became a kinship carer. It was very challenging for her because local authorities do not offer much support at all for such carers. The child must have been about 11 when she came into the godmother’s care. Over the last six years, the girl has done well and done well at school. About a year ago, the carer adopted the girl. Currently, the girl is making applications to university and it is very good to see how well she has thrived, first under the kinship care arrangement and now under the adoption arrangement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, people in care often lack stable relationships and the only one they may have is with their siblings, yet it can be difficult to find a foster carer or an adoptive parent who will take on a sibling group. We should be very careful to avoid any disincentive to potential adopters to do that. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Delma Hughes, a care leaver herself, who never got to know her five siblings. As an adult with care experience, she set up a charity called Siblings Together, which she has now been running for about 10 years. It provides holiday gatherings for siblings in care and opportunities for them, for example, to go to the Young Vic and perform in plays together or to go off to write poetry together, which bring together separated siblings and are immensely important for them.
I am sure the Minister will give a very sympathetic response to these concerns, which I look forward to. I also thank the Family Rights Group, which provided a very helpful briefing for this amendment on kinship care and has been working in this area for many years. I very much value its work, as I am sure all those in this area do.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments, although as I have a debate tomorrow in the dinner break on kinship care, I will not detain the Committee at great length. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, both the outcomes for kinship carers and the financial issues point to the Government needing to think again.
Kinship care is, by any measure, the most successful means of looking after vulnerable children who cannot live with their parent or parents. All the evidence points that way. However, the evidence also shows that more than 70% of kinship carers are technically in poverty. I know that there will be arguments about what that means, but the reality is that these families struggle. They do this because they want the children to have the very best opportunities, but when people become a kinship carer, as my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate said, they take the family on immediately. Very often, the children whom they are now taking care of will be traumatised and have real challenges. That also means that many of them are unable to work—certainly until they have got the children settled and the children are strong and resilient enough to be able to manage with their carer at work.
The costs of care are enormous, both in terms of the outcomes for children and financially. Have the Government considered, across government, the financial burden that they will be putting on to families that may then break down because kinship carers will not be able to maintain the care of more than two children? Have they considered the emotional and other burdens that they will also be inflicting on those kinship carers who end up having more than two children to care for? They have not sought this or set out to have two children: they do it because arrangements with the parents, for whatever reason, have broken down. I hope that the Government have thought about this and realised that this is an area that they really do have to exempt.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, because Clause 11 removes eligibility for the child element of child tax credits for the third and subsequent children and Clause 12 introduces the two-child limit for receipt of the child element of universal credit for families making a new claim. Families with three or more children could lose up to £2,780 per year for each additional child, and may also face the loss of the family element of tax credits—currently £540 per year per family.
Like other noble Lords, I am deeply concerned about the impact of these changes on the families of friends and kinship carers. Some 22% have three or more children in their household—about 29,000 families. That is why these amendments seek to exempt kinship carers from the two-child limit. Otherwise, future carers voluntarily taking on vulnerable children will hit a financial barrier to support, even where the third child is disabled. Yet these carers will still incur significant costs and may face financial distress from taking on these children. Kinship carers provide vital support for some 200,000 children when parents are unable to care for them, often because of urgent circumstances. The children frequently have emotional difficulties, often because they have been living with parents who are drug-dependent or who have abused or neglected them.
The Family Rights Group estimates that exempting carers from the two-child limit would cost £30 million. Yet these carers already save taxpayers the cost of placing the children in care. To restate the figures referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, the cost of keeping a child in care for a year is £40,000. The cost of care proceedings is £25,000. The savings that the 132,000 kinship families deliver by voluntarily caring for these 200,000 children run into billions. The disincentive effect of the two-child limit needs to deter only 200 kinship carers from caring in the future for three or more children, and the £30 million saving would be wiped out. That is without counting the human cost to the children.
This disincentive effect on kinship carers is compounded by the benefit cap, which will be set at an increasingly lower level. Kinship carers are not entitled to paid leave while children are settled; they care for the children at their own cost. Some 49% have to give up work when the children move in, or reduce their earnings, because they need to take time to settle a distressed child—often a requirement imposed by the social worker, for good reason. Children can arrive with no notice, after a late evening call from the social worker asking the carer to take the children. The impact of the two-child limit on the kinship carer is deeply unfair, and could act as a disincentive to care for the children. It will impact on future carers, whether working with modest incomes or not working. It will impact harshly on carers who already have their own children, or who are young themselves and want to have their own children—such as the family that Grandparents Plus is in touch with, a sibling carer and his partner who are raising four brothers and sisters since their father’s death as well as their own baby.
Let us look at the reasoning for withdrawing support for any child beyond the first two. The impact assessment advises that the Government expect the limiting of the child element of child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children to,
“encourage parents to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child”.
Of course, such a statement is a nonsense—in fact, contrary to common sense—in the context of kinship carers. The need is not to get such carers to reflect carefully on their readiness to care for the vulnerable child. To the contrary, public policy needs to support such carers in their readiness to care for an additional vulnerable child. That is better for the children and secures savings for the state by not placing them in the care system. Kinship carers are not the birth parents of the children, but voluntarily embrace their care. The Government stress that the limits on benefits beyond the first two children is a behaviour-related measure, because,
“encouraging parents to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child could have a positive effect on overall family stability”.
However, such reasoning is incoherent when applied to kinship carers. Encouraging carers to pause and reflect on the disincentives in the Bill on taking responsibility for a vulnerable child could, perversely, have a negative effect on the family stability available to the child. Kinship carers should not be disincentivised; they should be supported.
During the passage of the Children and Families Bill, I listened to a BBC radio programme examining the experiences of kinship carers and interviewing a lady who recounted the night—she remembered the date, having celebrated her birthday with her own two children—when her doorbell rang around midnight. She opened the door to see a police officer, a social worker and two distressed children, her sister’s children, at risk of domestic violence. She told movingly of how she had raised those children along with her own two, and had struggled, with little support from the local authority services, and of how proud she was of the recent graduation of the little girl on her doorstep that night. That alone was a powerful story but she went on to recall how, a few years after that night, the doorbell rang, again late at night. This time, the policeman and the social worker were holding her sister’s baby. The interviewer asked if she was tempted to decline to take the baby in view of the lack of support that she had received previously. I remember the incredulity in the woman’s voice at the question, and the power of her answer to the effect of: “How could I abandon a little baby just because I had been poorly treated?”. She brought up five children, two that she gave birth two and three that she embraced. I ask the Minister: if someone like that lady were faced with a similar scenario in future, under this Bill, what behavioural response would the Government be seeking to achieve from them with the two-child limit on benefits?
If the Government disincentivise kinship carers, the people they will hurt are vulnerable children. I doubt that that would pass the public litmus test. The Minister has previously demonstrated his understanding of the importance of kinship carers to vulnerable children, so I ask him to commit to considering that kinship carers be exempted from the two-child limit on benefits. It does not make sense, either for the interests of the child or in terms of public expenditure.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. The House owes her a debt because of the exemplary work that she has done over many months and years on the subject of kinship caring. Her speech will repay careful study, and I shall look forward to doing that when the Official Report is printed.
This is going to be a harder Committee stage in social security terms than some that we have had in the past. This is basically a Bill that reduces money but does little else of interest. However, it is a very important one. I noticed that the very mild-mannered noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, characterised it as the most wretched Bill that he had ever seen in his life. That is a considered view from a moderate man, so we need to be careful about how we take our proceedings forward.
The Bill dramatically changes the money and resources available to the social security system. I am sure that everyone understands that there is a case in periods of austerity for making special arrangements to deal with immediate and urgent circumstances. However, we need to be careful that we are not making changes that, as if by magic, get woven into the social security fabric in perpetuity. What I am most worried about—this is really a discussion for clause stand part on Clauses 11 and 12—is that the two-child limit is going into universal credit. That is a matter of great concern to me. I say in passing that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was contrite earlier about having been too nice to the Government. Indeed he was, but I am pleased that he has put the record straight.
The department has certainly done a very good job, because the universal credit situation could have been a whole lot worse, which would have overshadowed all these proceedings in Committee. The way we contrive to support people is important, particularly those with larger families; it is mainly ethnic minority communities which have that culture, which we know predisposes them to risk of poverty, and we need to take that into account along with everything else as we go forward.
The Minister needs to listen carefully to the case for exemptions. The Committee will be faced, certainly at the later stages of proceedings on the Bill, with deciding to what extent what the Government are trying to do is reasonable in the long term as well as in the short term. As far as I am concerned—I put it bluntly on the record and cannot make it any clearer than this—I am willing to work with the Government to mitigate some of the sharp edges of the Bill as regards the savings that they hope to make. If the Government are willing to make concessions and think carefully, which the Minister in the past has demonstrated he can successfully do, and if he is willing to go away and look at some of these exemptions we are talking about today, I would be much more disposed to decline to support attempts on the Marshalled List to vote against Clauses 11 and 12 standing part. I will approach the Bill in that way. I will not be unreasonable; I perfectly well understand the financial exigencies that we must face and the continuous battle the department has with the Treasury—it would be unrealistic not to accept that. However, the onus is on the department to look at ways of mitigating some of the changes in the Bill, because it needs to be changed.
I said at Second Reading that I wanted to pursue preventive spending. After the cases that have been made, by the right reverend Prelate and others, I find it hard to believe that a saving of £30 million would not risk a much greater public cost in other silos within Treasury spend across central government as a whole. Therefore the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on whether the Government have done any work about what it would cost if we reduced the support to kinship carers in this way is important.
The situation we face as a Committee will be difficult to reconcile unless the Government are able to answer some of these questions, certainly about spending money and investing to save in future. I certainly hope that the Government will think very carefully about some of the powerful speeches that have been made, in particular on kinship carers.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words about kinship care. I remember the Minister speaking twice on this topic at previous Committee stages. I think that he knows the issues and is sympathetic to them—he certainly was the last time we met to discuss the issue of kinship carers. My noble friend Lady Armstrong has tabled a debate on this topic tomorrow, when I shall say much more, but this issue of adding complexity to the lives of kinship carers is important. Kinship carers deserve all the help they can get not to be landed with some other complex issue of how many children they can care for.
I recall being chair of the National Treatment Agency some years ago, where I came across quite a few grandparents who were carers—I think grandparents make up some 40% of kinship carers. The grandparents called themselves the midnight grannies, because they were often landed with children. But I am talking about complexity because they do not have the support they need. I met people who were getting no support—neither advice nor financial support from the local authority; it seemed to me to be hit or miss as to how local authorities behaved. Some grandparents had court battles about the children they were caring for. These are people in distress, as are the children. The grandparents have lost a daughter or son—they may be in prison, be dead or be using drugs and alcohol—and the children have lost their parents. So there is a lot of distress in the family, and yet these kinship carers are coping with that. One of them said to me, “I’m tired of filling in these forms when I should be reading to my grandson”. That is how it works: they have to fill in forms and go to court, rather than being able to spend time caring for the children as they would want to.
It is a complex issue and I think that we ought to be aware of that—I am sure the Minister is aware of that. Therefore, we do not want to heap complexity on these people who, after all, save the state a huge amount of money a year for each child they care for.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, if I were the Minister, I would grasp with alacrity the olive branch—or is it fig leaf?—that was offered by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. Personally, I oppose the principle of these clauses, but I will talk about that later. I will speak only very briefly now in support of all the amendments in the group. We have heard some very powerful speeches that show the unintended and undesirable social policy consequences of these clauses, which I cannot believe the Government wish to happen. I hope that the Minister will reflect very carefully on these speeches.
At Second Reading, the Minister gave a little hint that, at least on kinship carers, he might be willing to consider an exemption, although I understand that nothing has been taken forward on that. He also said that the Government,
“will look at the important issues around exemption through secondary legislation and will provide more detail in due course”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. 125.]
As well as adding my support to these amendments, I simply want to ask the Minister what he means by “due course”. We really have to have these details before Report. We should not go to Report until we have these details about exemptions.
I remind the Minister that on the previous Welfare Reform Bill the Joint Committee on Human Rights made very clear how important it is that, even if we cannot have the regulations themselves—I can quite understand why that is not possible—from a human rights perspective we should have full details of what will be in the regulations. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister can give us that assurance today and that he will think hard about the arguments that have been made already.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak extremely briefly because the speech I might have made has already been made by other noble Lords in terms of detail.
Having listened to the Minister talk in various venues about wanting to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from this legislation, I want him to think carefully on the speeches that have been made and about what basis of philosophy or principle the Government have underlying this legislation. I know the basic tenet is that they want to make sure that parents can work and that all children are able to achieve the best educational outcomes—those are the Government’s own words. But some of these measures will undermine that and take families into greater financial hardship. I am particularly interested in the children, because taking those families into greater financial hardship will reduce the life chances of those children. Those of us who have worked with children down the years have seen the consequences of that, not only the emotional consequences but the financial consequences.
All the arguments around larger families, kinship care, adoption and the very many informal arrangements that families make to ensure that their children are emotionally cared for have been made. Again, I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in the context of his own Government’s policy and objectives.
We are a nation that should care. Indeed, the Minister’s party described itself as a “caring party”. I also admire the Government’s objective of ensuring that children make their own way and are not left in poverty because of parental behaviour. However, we know that you can affect that behaviour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and others have said, by the kind of care that they receive themselves and are able to reflect with their children. Therefore, will the Minister tell us how he intends to ensure that the Government’s philosophy and principles are reflected in the way that they deal with large families, particularly those from disadvantaged groups?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for some very good speeches. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I have listened to those speeches very carefully, although I am not in a position today to provide much satisfaction as I stand here. Let me begin by setting the context for the policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Does that mean that the Minister will give satisfaction to us before Report?
Lord Freud
No, it means that I am not in a position to provide any satisfaction and, by definition, that position does not change.
Let me begin by setting the context for the policy, which will remain relevant for the other amendments on these clauses. At the 2015 summer Budget, the Government announced their plans to move from a low-wage, high-tax and high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society. This is part of the Government’s plan to deliver a new deal for working families, which also includes incentives to ensure that those who are in work are rewarded fairly. As part of this, we announced reforms to child tax credit and universal credit to help put welfare spending back on to a sustainable footing.
The tax credits system has become too generous. As introduced by the last Labour Government, it was originally forecast to cost £11 billion in its first year. In fact, tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010; and increased by £9.6 billion in real terms between 2004-05 and 2014-15. Currently, the benefit system adjusts automatically to family size, while many families supporting themselves solely through work do not see their budgets rise in the same way when they have more children. The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7, so the Government feel that it is fair and proportionate to limit additional support provided by the taxpayer through child tax credit and the child element of universal credit to two children.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but may I ask him about the difference between those families who choose to have more children—which I understand, in relation to the policy—and those who find themselves with more children, which saves the state money because of circumstances that have been described today?
Lord Freud
That is the point of these amendments, which I am in the process of dealing with, so I will provide the government response to those exemptions.
Turning to the amendments themselves, these are intended to specify circumstances in which the policy to limit child tax credit and the child element in universal credit would not apply. Amendments 1, 9 and 17 are intended to allow exemptions where the child is a member of the household through kinship care or a private fostering arrangement, and Amendment 16 where the child is a member of the household through being adopted. Amendment 10 is an enabling amendment to allow for exemptions to be made in relation to Clause 12.
Amendments 1 and 9 are intended to provide an exemption for particular children who are,
“in the household as a result of a kinship care or private fostering arrangement”.
Amendments 16 and 17 would not apply to particular children or young persons but would exempt households from the limit of two children in child tax credit and universal credit where the specified circumstances applied to,
“a third (or subsequent) child”.
Thus a household with three children, limited to two children, who adopted a fourth child would then receive the child element for the four children. By limiting support to two children in child tax credit and in universal credit, the Government are ensuring that the system is fair to those taxpayers who fund it, as well as those who benefit from it.
The Government do recognise the vital role that kinship carers play. For example, in universal credit, kinship carers will have to attend periodic interviews only for the first year after a child joins their household, which enables the carer to focus on helping the child through this difficult period. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the Government’s attitude to adoption, the Government take the importance of adoption very seriously. In the summer Budget, the Government provided £30 million to support the creation of regional adoption agencies to help speed the adoption process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned the exemptions outlined at Second Reading. The Government have been consistent since the summer Budget in saying that we will exempt a third or subsequent child or young person who is one of a multiple birth where the multiple birth takes the number of children or young persons in a household above two, and that we will exempt a third or subsequent child born as the result of rape. Those are the exemptions that we have spelled out. We have also been clear that the exemptions will be dealt with in secondary legislation and we will provide more detailed information on those exemptions to noble Lords ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the assessment that we have done in terms of the policy deterring adoption and the taking on of sibling groups. That was contained in the impact assessment of 20 July. We have considered the impacts, which in effect meet our obligations set out in the public sector equality duty.
Amendment 10 is unnecessary as regards recognising the need for exemptions to apply in certain circumstances. We have the power in Clause 12(4) to specify exemptions to the limit. As I said, as was set in the summer Budget, we will make those particular exemptions.
Amendments 16 and 17 propose to establish an appeals process. Comprehensive appeals arrangements already exist in relation to social security and tax credits, and these arrangements will apply to any decisions made under the provisions in the Bill, as well as to exemptions set out in regulations. There is therefore no need to establish a new appeals process. For the reasons I have set out, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At Second Reading, when the Minister talked about the exemptions that the Government have made clear will be included, he said:
“The situation with kinship carers is similar”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. 125.]
Why is he today saying that he is now not prepared even to consider the situation of kinship carers? What has changed?
Lord Freud
If I misspoke at Second Reading, I apologise to the Committee. I was saying that they were a similarly important group; I was not trying to say that there would be an exemption. I did not make that statement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister made much of the financial probity argument and said that tax credit expenditure had raced away out of control, with a threefold increase between its first year and today, at £30 billion. Will he confirm that, at the same time, the bill for income support has fallen from nearly £16 billion in 1996-97, when we inherited it from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to £2.9 billion now, because tax credits have helped people who depended on out-of-work benefits to come into work, as we all wanted? Will he also confirm what the OBR has told us: that welfare expenditure, including pensions, was 12% of GDP in 1983-84, was 12% of GDP in 1993-94 and today is 12% of GDP? So the untrue cliché that expenditure is racing away and out of control is not supported by the facts.
Lord Freud
I think the facts that the noble Baroness is comparing are somewhat spurious. Working age IS was £15.8 billion in 1996-97 in real terms, but when you apply that to lone parents—which the noble Baroness was, I think—the figure was only £6.4 billion. The best way to do this comparison is to take all the figures for tax credits and their predecessors—family credit, disability working allowance, child allowance, IS and JSA—and see where they have gone. Those figures have gone up from £7.1 billion in 1997-98 to £30.8 billion in 2010-11. It is really important, when we get into the figures in this area, that we look at like for like.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Would the Minister like also to give us the figures for the number of self-employed people who have been able to move into the labour market, alongside those for lone parents, whose median income is £10,000 a year, who are also dependent on tax credits and who, 10 or 15 years ago, were among the unemployed?
Lord Freud
Of course, one of the most interesting things about the way tax credit has moved is that people who might have gone into the benefits system may well have gone into the self-employed tax credit system, but the figures I have just provided are the best comparison and include the self-employed on tax credits. They show an enormous increase in the overall figure. Because this is clearly a complex set of figures, I am very happy to write formally to the noble Baroness setting out the true figures on this important matter.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. When I asked what assessment the Government had made about the impact on the likelihood of couples to adopt sibling groups, and whether costs would increase elsewhere, he kindly referred me to the impact assessment. I spent quite a bit of time this weekend reading the impact assessment, being a slightly sad person, and I cannot actually find the section which refers to adoption at all, to sibling groups in particular, or, indeed, to costs elsewhere in any government department. If he can point me to the page or paragraph number, it would be very helpful.
While I am on my feet, the Minister may have forgotten to answer the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, who asked specifically about the impact on couples who had not made a choice. The Government mention in the impact assessment that one of their objectives is to ensure that families make the same choice about the number of children they have as might other families who are not in receipt of tax credits—of which more later; watch this space. I think the point the noble Baroness was making is that the kind of choice you get at midnight, when the knock on the door comes, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is not quite the same as the choice other families make. Has any distinction been made?
Lord Freud
It is actually extraordinarily hard to draw up a system. Those choices are different for different groups. What we are trying to do in this measure is make the choices the same whether you are reliant on the state support system—tax credits—or whether you are reliant on your own resources. That is the parity we are looking for here. That, I am afraid, is the best I can do in terms of the government response.
Baroness Sherlock
Has the Minister responded to the question about the impact assessment? I am sorry, which page is it on?
Lord Freud
Again, all I can say is that the impact assessment looks at all the impacts. The costs and savings derived are based on the full gamut of impacts.
Baroness Drake
Perhaps I may say this to the Minister. That is why I was looking back at the reasoning for this policy. When it comes to kinship carers, it cannot possibly be directed at influencing the decision of the carers as to whether or not a woman conceives and has another child, because kinship carers are taking on other people’s children. The choice is whether you embrace a vulnerable child or you abandon them. That is a totally different choice from someone in a family where their parent decides to get pregnant and have three, four or five children. Therefore the reasoning that applies to the person choosing to become pregnant is not the same reasoning that is applied when someone says at midnight, “I will take on this child rather than see them abandoned to the care system”.
Lord Freud
Clearly there is a difference between the voluntary and involuntary taking on of children, whether they are your own or anyone else’s. That is what our exemptions are for. We are seeking to try to draw the line between where it is involuntary, as in the case of rape, and where it is not.
The Earl of Listowel
First, I thank the Minister for his response, in which he said clearly that he is listening to the concerns raised in what has been expressed in the debate. Perhaps I should speak only for myself. I feel very anxious indeed about the welfare of the children whom we are discussing. I am anxious that children in care or on the edge of care might not have the prospect of a secure home that they currently have if this legislation is brought into being. I would be grateful if the Minister could act as soon as possible to reassure me on this. I am sure that this is a concern for all noble Lords in the Committee.
The question I want to raise with the Minister relates to his introductory comments on the rationale for the two-child limit in terms of child tax credit. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but he said that the Government are assuming that people make a rational choice when they choose to have a third child, and therefore, given that they are making a rational choice, that it is fair to say, “Of course the state will allow you to have another child, but it will not subsidise that additional child, or at least not to the extent that it has in the past, so you should bear this in mind if you are thinking of having a third child”. That is my rough understanding of what the noble Lord is saying.
When I think about young people in care, I know that most of them come from poverty in the first place, and many of them will go on to have families in poverty. Many will not get good qualifications; only 6% currently go on to university compared with 40% of the wider young people’s population. Their educational attainment remains stubbornly low. On apprenticeships, one hears all the time that these young people do not have the basic mathematical and literacy qualifications to get on to an apprenticeship scheme. So many young people leaving care will end up in poverty.
But we also know that many of them will have children very early. Many young women have children while they are still in care, and many will have them immediately after they leave. This, I suggest, is not a rational choice on their part. One reason that is often given, which seems to me plausible, is that, because they have never been loved themselves, they want to have a child who they believe will love them—and they will have other reasons for starting a family so early. However, they are not starting from a rational point. So my concern—which we will debate this more fully—is that this aspect of the Bill will be particularly disadvantageous to care-experienced adults and care leavers. They will be penalised because their lives are sometimes so chaotic and unhappy that they will start large families and they will be poor, and this area of the Bill will make them poorer still. I wonder if the Minister might say whether he has thought through the implications for care leavers and care-experienced adults of this aspect of the legislation in terms of penalising people who seem to choose to have larger families and who are poor.
Lord Freud
I know that the noble Earl is very concerned in this area of the care leaver and I understand exactly where he is coming from. Clearly the Government have a great deal of concern about some of these outcomes for young people in care—the noble Earl touched on some of the figures—but the choices, rational or not, should not be different from those of people who have to support themselves. I know that we will come back to this issue slightly later so I will stop on that particular point because we are dealing with another one today.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I understand where the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is coming from and, indeed, I talked about the outcomes for the individual children. On the financial side, have the Government considered the expenditure that other departments will now—or would probably—have to make if this provision goes through as it is currently drafted? My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked the Minister about that and I do not think that he addressed it. While the Department for Work and Pensions may save, other departments will then have to pay more—and the cost of care, of course, is much greater than the cost of tax credits for kinship carers. Have the Government built in the assumptions around that, which are clearly very important?
Lord Freud
My understanding is that when we do these assessments we look at all of these aspects. But I have now been asked this question twice and I will go back and double check in this area and write to noble Lords on exactly how we did that set of calculations.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I am sure we are grateful for the very thoughtful contributions made in Committee and for the powerful case that these amendments bring to us. I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition of the vital role of kinship carers—albeit that it is a limited recognition in terms of the amendments. I was disappointed by—if I heard the Minister correctly—the inflexibility of his position but grateful for the courtesy with which he heard from us and responded to us, and offered to return with further information.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on the choice that is involved. I fear that a rational choice for many potential kinship carers, if these amendments were not passed, would be the agonising one of not really being able to accept the responsibilities that they would like to accept. I will add that the rational choice for the Government and our society would be to accept the amendments and support these people as they fulfil those responsibilities and offer that love and care.
There has been a lot of emphasis on the cost savings: the potential anticipated initial cost savings and the subsequent costs that might occur to other departments and elsewhere. The important costs are those borne by our society—by the children—which may be significant. Failing to do our best for children is always wrong. Doing less than the best for those who are in these challenging circumstances is a poor reflection on us.
I hope that the Minister may be able to give further consideration to the matters that have been raised this afternoon, to which we may wish to return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Manzoor
“(c) subsection (3C) applies.”
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I shall speak to Amendments 4, 7 and 12 in my name. As we have heard, the Bill introduces a two-child limit on receipt of child tax credits for children born before 5 April 2017 and the child element of universal credit for families making a new claim, whether or not the child is born before April 2017.
My Amendments 2, 4, 7 and 12 are about introducing exemptions. On this, I concur with my noble friend Lord Kirkwood because I understand the budget restrictions that the Minister is facing in relation to the welfare budget. My exemptions also highlight the importance of sensitivity in implementing these provisions. Many exemptions are needed. There are groups of people who cannot make rational decisions—or rational choices, should I say? The problem is about determining whether these exemptions are met, which can be very difficult.
Amendment 2 is an enabling amendment to Amendment 4, which addresses the need for exemptions for,
“the person or persons claiming an individual element of child tax credit”,
if the person,
“has been a victim of rape … is a kinship carer”,
which we have already discussed. Again, I concur with what the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said so well. Exemptions would also apply to an individual who,
“has previously claimed tax credit as a single parent but is now part of a stepfamily, or a cohabiting multiple family … has fled domestic violence, or … has suffered a bereavement of their husband, wife, civil partner or cohabiting partner who is the parent of the child or children for which an individual element of child tax credit is being claimed”.
Families are complex units. If two single-parent families, each with two children live together, they are entitled to retain or claim the child tax credit but not if they marry. This is because their change in circumstances mean they will fall under universal credit and the two-child limit. Transitional arrangements are supposed to ensure that existing claimants are unaffected by these changes. However, households in receipt of child tax credits and which are migrated into universal credit will be protected only in so far as they maintain their current claim—in this case, if they stayed single.
Iain Duncan Smith has talked about encouraging dual-parent families but this Bill, as I said previously, runs counter to that. However, let us be clear. We on these Benches do not necessarily agree that two-parent families are in some way better, as Iain Duncan Smith effectively believes. All family types are valid and important. In my view, not exempting families where single parents come together is difficult to understand, given the commitment made in other statements.
In domestic violence cases, a woman—it usually is a woman—with more than two children who flees a violent relationship must know that she will be able to afford to care for all her children so that she is not trapped into staying in a violent or abusive relationship due to financial hardship. It is also clear that if a working husband or wife dies, the income in the family will fall. It is logical that these families should be exempt from the two-child tax credit limitation.
The Bill also impacts on many families who already have three or more children if they make a new claim for universal credit as a result of common, but unpredictable, life events. Anyone can lose their job at any time; we can all get sick; we can all have a disability in the future. So this is totally unfair and unreasonable. The DWP’s own analysis demonstrates the risk of child poverty, which is already significantly higher among families with three or more children: 35% compared to 25-26% for families with one or two children.
Other noble Lords will, no doubt, speak on these important issues. As has already been identified, other exemptions may need to be applied in areas such as private foster care arrangements and disability. This is why I have put down Amendment 4, proposing that:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provisions relating to the operation of subsection (3C).
The main point of my amendments is that there are lots of complex family situations and many areas could be considered for exemption. However, the ability to exempt these people requires knowing what exemptions they meet. Some exemptions will be easier to assess than others, but how will DWP caseworkers assess if a child is born as result of rape? How intrusive will the questions be and what evidence will caseworkers look for? As we know, many people sadly do not report rape and, when they do, convictions are low, so that will not help. The Minister has already stated that cases of rape will be exempted. How will the DWP know whether a claimant’s child is indeed a result of rape? The only way would be to ask, and I shudder to think how deeply upsetting and totally inappropriate it would be for a caseworker to venture into such traumatic, deeply sensitive and personal issues.
Therefore, although the Government should include exemptions in the Bill, they will also need to consider how exemptions will be assessed and applied. To safeguard against deeply intrusive questioning, Amendment 7 would insert in the Bill the provision that the DWP must,
“have regard to the importance of the person’s right to respect for private and family life”, under Article 8(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998”,
and should not,
“in seeking to determine whether the exemption applies, request any information about the claimant’s private medical or sexual history”.
I turn to Amendment 12. As the Bill stands, Clause 12 will mean that families with children born before April 2017, making a new claim under universal credit, do not receive the same protections as those available to claimants of tax credits and may have their child additions within universal credit limited to two children. This seems totally unfair and I do not understand the reasoning behind it.
My Amendment 12 would afford the exempted people I have previously identified, such as people who have been raped and single parents, the same protections once universal credit comes into force through the child element in universal credit. Proposed new subsection (1C) in Amendment 12 states:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provisions relating to the operation of subsection (1B)”.
This is a very difficult and sensitive debate. I listened carefully to the discussion on kinship carers and concur with everything that was said. For many of the categories that we have outlined this is not about rational choice. People sometimes find themselves in certain circumstances for the right reasons—for example, the joy of bringing an additional child into a family. However, circumstances such as rape are not so pleasant or nice. I think that noble Lords around the Committee want the Minister to commit to look at exemptions very carefully. As has been outlined by other noble Lords, I want to avoid unintended consequences. I cannot believe for one minute that the Government want such unintended consequences to arise. I believe that they want to do the right thing. Putting exemptions on the face of the Bill will give many people in our country great hope. We are talking about a lot of people—millions, in some cases. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 4 and 12. It is a privilege to follow the eloquent noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and I shall concentrate on one or two aspects of her comments. As regards the need for these exemptions, someone commented to me that the poor have always had the largest families. The austerity that we are experiencing is due in large part to the fact that some vastly wealthy people made some very poor choices. Yet today we are looking to penalise the poorest in our society, and most especially their children, by taking money away from them. Therefore, I support very strongly the noble Baroness’s call to make the exemptions as wide as possible.
Last Friday a report on the education of children in care was launched at the Nuffield Foundation. The Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson MP, addressed the launch. The report highlighted the fact that the educational performance of children in care was still a long way behind that of the rest of the general population of young people. That is a matter of concern. However, children in need who have stayed with their families and not been taken into care, fostered or taken into a children’s home do far better once they are taken into the care of the state than those children who have not been subject to intervention by the state. We all know that due to pressures on local authorities, the threshold for being taken into care is quite high. Many more children in need live in fairly dysfunctional families but those families are not dysfunctional or abusive enough for the children to be taken into care, and those children are struggling. We need to think about families in which the parents grew up in deprivation, not just financial but emotional deprivation. Often the parents will have had issues around drink and drugs, and have not been able to show the children very much love.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I highlight two particularly vulnerable groups in my Amendments 5, 6, 13 and 14, groups that I believe should be exempted from this measure. These are bereaved parents and victims of domestic abuse. In focusing so heavily on promoting personal responsibility, there is always a danger with welfare reforms that we neglect our collective responsibility to look after those who fall on difficult times, people we will probably never meet but whom we support through our taxes in their time of need so that we, too, will be supported when we need help.
It is not as simple as there being two groups in society, those who contribute and those who receive. I know that one of the most tragic events a child can experience is the death of a parent. When my first wife died, I was the sole parent of my children and a recipient of some benefits. Quite apart from the emotional upheaval, the impact on a family’s situation can be drastic, much more drastic than the situation I faced. It is common for families to require additional support in these circumstances, either because the main earner has died or because the surviving parent must give up work or reduce hours to care for the children. According to the Childhood Bereavement Network over 23,000 parents died last year, leaving around 40,000 newly bereaved children. One in three of these children live in larger families with two or more siblings and will potentially be affected by the two-child limit, if it goes ahead in its current form. It feels particularly unfair that the families who have experienced such a traumatic event should have to cope with additional financial pressures on top of it.
Likewise, parents who are the victims of domestic abuse should not be put in a position where they have to choose between staying with the abusive partner and leaving them for a life in poverty for themselves and their children. I understand that, at any given time, there are around 250 children staying in refuges for women fleeing abusive relationships and that one-third of those are from larger families. Many women remain in abusive relationships for long periods, in part due to the financial considerations. Unless this group is exempted from Clauses 11 and 12, this could prolong their abuse and put them and their children at risk, making it even harder to leave their partner.
As with kinship carers, who we considered in the last group, the cost of exempting bereaved parents and victims of domestic abuse would be relatively small by comparison with the total projected savings, and would help to address the most obvious cases of injustice. I therefore bring before the Committee these amendments in my name, seeking to reflect the circumstances of these children and their parents.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 18 and 20, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 15 seeks explicitly to exempt from this measure children entering a household as a result of a multiple birth. In the light of the Minister’s commitment on the record that such children will be exempted, I will not dwell on this for very long but ask him to clarify a couple of things. First, he mentioned that this will be done by regulation. Will the regulations be of the affirmative or negative kind, given the question raised by the Delegated Powers Committee on that point? Secondly, can he confirm that the Government intend that the exemption will apply to any means-tested benefits, not just tax credits, and irrespective of the number of children who may come along at the same time in that multiple birth?
Amendment 18 is a simple amendment which provides for exemptions to apply in exceptional circumstances, as defined by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The thinking behind this amendment is that, as we have heard already today, there are a number of special circumstances which Ministers may not have thought about when devising the Bill. I know that Ministers never like to admit that things can crop up which they have not already thought of but, just every now and again, things that none of us has been clever enough to work out may suddenly turn up and make a difference. To protect the Minister from the exigencies of such a disastrous situation befalling him, I offer the Committee this amendment today. It would enable the Social Security Advisory Committee—a statutory body with huge expertise—to spot these things that, unaccountably, none of us had managed to spot and to bring forward to the Minister recommendations for exemptions which could then be put into legislation. I commend this idea to the Minister; he may have it free of charge. If he does not like it for any reason, and I cannot think that he would not, he might instead like SSAC to undertake a formal review of the impact of this policy 12 months, say, after its enactment and to advise him and his colleagues of any additional exemptions that might be needed. I would settle for that.
Amendment 20 proposes to exempt from this provision couples with dependent children who, if living in separate households, would not be affected by the two-child limit. This is a broader exemption than that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, in Amendment 4, although I also support her amendment should mine not go forward. Her amendment would seek to exempt someone who is a single parent and previously claiming tax credits; my amendment seeks to address all such reformed families. This is one of the issues which exposes why this whole measure is such a bad idea. The Government have spent a lot of time advocating the importance of family life and making much of their support for marriage. I approve of them doing that, yet they are again proposing a policy which will run in direct contravention to that other policy objective. If two people meet and fall in love and they each have two kids, if they get married or partner and set up home together then overnight this measure alone will make them worse off to the tune of £5,560 a year. The irony is that they may find by coming together as a household—for example, if they are both working—their entitlement to benefits would go down naturally as a result of the means test. It seems particularly unfair to deprive them of support for the children when they would have been supported by the state had those two people decided to stay separate.
I have been struggling to get a handle on data on stepfamilies. Maybe the Minister can write to me. I have had to work my way through official statistics trying to make sense of them. It seems to me that more than 20% of adoptions registered in 2014 were in stepfamilies, and ONS data based on the 2011 census seem to suggest there are 326,425 children living in stepfamilies with three or more children where the parents are either married or in civil partnerships. There are another 196,173 children living in stepfamilies with three or more children where the parents are co-habiting. I make that more than half a million children. They will not all be eligible for tax credits or universal credit, but up to half a million children could be affected by a measure not because they themselves were third children but because their parents made the unconscionable error of falling in love with somebody else who already had children, and by coming together the household suddenly becomes ineligible for those benefits for the third and subsequent children.
I used to run a charity that worked with single parents. Unless the trends have changed significantly, there was a tendency that lone parenthood was a state someone would stay in for an average of five years. It tended not to be a lifetime choice. People tended to repartner or remarry. We are increasingly putting barriers in the way of people ever doing that. I wonder if that is wise. I also wonder whether it is an intention of the Government’s policy. If not, has the Minister given any thought and has the department done any assessment on the likely impact on second marriages or repartnering?
I want to comment briefly on the other proposed exemptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, expressed the concern I think many noble Lords will share about how intrusive a process might have to be to establish that a woman had been raped. I certainly hope the Minister realises that he will find it a challenge to get the Bill through this House in its entirety without explaining how a proposal that somebody should be tested to see if they have been raped would be implemented. At the very least, is the intention that it is only when a woman has made a complaint to the police or someone has been charged or convicted? If not, who will she give evidence to in DWP and how will that be assessed? How will the Minister guarantee that the process will be confidential? If any other official in a benefit or tax office or school could see that a woman was getting benefits or tax credits for a third or subsequent child, there are only two ways at the moment that that could happen—a multiple birth, which would be evident, or the pregnancy being the result of rape. I wonder where that leaves us in terms of confidentiality. Has the Minister given any thought to that? Given that, has the Minister considered the impact on the child if at some point they discover they had been conceived as a product of rape—something the parents may have gone to considerable pains to disguise from them? The Government mentioned in the impact assessment that they would consult stakeholders before deciding how to deal with this. Can the Minister tell us who the Government have consulted and who they intend to consult?
I also asked at Second Reading—but got no answer—what the rationale was for exempting children in multiple births or those conceived as a result of rape. The Minister has indicated that this is about choice. Does he accept therefore that there are other circumstances where a woman may not be able to exercise choice? The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, mentioned domestic violence. The proposal, which I support, to exempt people in cases of domestic abuse rests on two arguments: first, that a child may have been conceived under duress, rather than as a result of a clear choice; and secondly, that the two-child limit may make it harder for a parent of more than two children to leave an abusive relationship as they would struggle to support the children.
We have heard how widespread domestic abuse is. Each year more than 2 million people suffer some form of domestic abuse. Its impacts are severe and hard to escape. About 42% of domestic violence victims have been victimised more than once. On average victims experience 20 incidents a year, which can often increase in severity every time. While 80% of victims report physical abuse, it is not just that—nearly 90% of high-risk victims report experiencing emotional abuse and/or coercive control or behaviours. Those are exactly the kind of things that could lead a woman to become pregnant without exercising choice. Abuse can include a refusal to allow a woman to use contraception. It can include rape and pregnancy as a result of rape which she may have been reluctant to report to the authorities because of fear of the abusive partner. Of course, the use of power and coercion are the very things that make it hard for someone to leave an abusive relationship. Sometimes they do manage to leave, often by getting advice or support and by meeting other victims; sometimes things go too far, such as when a child is caught in the cross-fire of domestic abuse. At the point at which they flee, they need all the help they can get. Too often they leave just with the clothes they stand up in. They are homeless and need to move and often hide from their abuser; they leave behind schools and jobs. It is hard enough to rebuild a life in those circumstances but this policy could act as a further barrier, so I hope very much that the Minister will consider this exemption very carefully.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I think the Minister must by now be feeling pretty miserable at the wretched nature of this two-child policy. It is quite striking that there has not been a single voice in support of these propositions from his own Benches. There are Members here with the expertise to offer that, but they are not giving the Minister the support one would normally expect. We all understand how wretched this policy will be as it plays out—and I am sure the Minister, who is a good man, also understands that.
This is a broad set of amendments, so I will pick up something which perhaps covers almost all the people who have been mentioned as exemptions so far in these amendments today. Poverty has been well researched by the DWP itself, in its evidence review of January 2014. Has the Minister read—I am sure he has—and accepted his department’s Evidence Review of the Drivers of Child Poverty for Families in Poverty Now and for Poor Children Growing up to be Poor Adults, which is at the centre of these child-related policies in the Bill? If so, would he explain to us why not one of the 323 pieces of research that this review analyses supports his policy? Indeed, in my view, they destroy it. Are we dealing with evidence-based public policy or private ideology offered as moral and financial rectitude?
The Minister knows better than anyone—but I will remind him—who are most at risk of serious long-term poverty. They are the third and subsequent children of lone parents. Three-quarters of such children will be in either persistent or recurrent poverty for four out of any seven years. One family in seven has three or more children; within that group, lone parents are twice as likely as couple families to be in poverty, and three-quarters of their children will be in persistent or recurrent poverty.
It is not temporary or transient poverty, deeply unwelcome though that is, which scars families. After all, one-third of the UK’s population falls into poverty at some point over a four-year period, usually when they have lost their job, their health or, desperately, a partner. Many will leave poverty within a year, perhaps to enter work. But the poverty that comes with additional children is not temporary or transient poverty; it is persistent poverty, because those children, for whatever reason, do not conveniently disappear. Yet it is long-term poverty that most damages families. Poverty builds upon itself: the longer you are in poverty, the harder it is to escape from it—and if you do, you have one or, at most, two deciles, and too often, with a year or two, you fall back to the bottom. Any mobility is short-distanced and short-lived. Such children, because they are in larger families, and thus even now facing long-term poverty, have unhappy childhoods, more strained relations with their parents, are more likely to be in contact with the police, and so on.
What does the review last year by the DWP tell us about the drivers of poverty, and how consistent is this Bill with its research? The answer is: not at all. The DWP report says on page 19 that the strongest driver is worklessness, which I am sure we all accept; though even that is a diminishing problem, and of course conceals the unwaged work of caring. Yes, two-thirds of poor children are in a working household, which is a shocking statistic. That is of course because most children are in working families. Proportionately three times as many children in workless families are in poverty as children in working families, so we need to address poverty both in and out of work.
After worklessness, what is the second biggest driver of poverty, according to the DWP? According to the Government in this Bill, it is educational attainment. But that is not so: it is family size. Some 25% of all children are in families of three children or more, and 38%—nearly 40%—of those children in poverty live in larger families. According to the review, other drivers include family instability, parental ill health and lower parental qualifications, but none of those matters anywhere near as much as family size. The DWP’s review concludes on page 30 that other possible drivers—much quoted by the Secretary of State—such as substance abuse and child educational attainment have only limited, indeed marginal, effect.
I repeat: what counts, from the DWP’s own research, are worklessness and a family size of three or more children. Obviously, poverty results from a combination of too low income and family need. Larger families are hit on both counts, because additional and younger children take the single parent or the potential second earner out of the labour market at just the point when family need increases. Research shows that families not in poverty are more likely to enter poverty when they have a third child and not be able to climb out of it.
That is not rocket science, but is recognised across the whole of the OECD—except in this country. Many countries rightly increase financial support for additional children: the rates go up with three, four or five children. Any Government who cared about child poverty, and therefore child life chances, would do the same. Instead, the Government are going to do exactly the opposite, making each child in that family poorer, because the money for two children will now have to be spread over three or four, making their poverty cumulative and inescapable. What a dowry to give to a child: not only are you as a third child not going to be financially supported or helped by tax credits, but your very existence will make your brothers and sisters poorer as a result. You will bring them sliding down the slope of poverty with you.
Every child matters except to the DWP, yet the DWP’s own research shows that families with more than two children, whether through kinship care, through reformation or more generally, will be locked into persistent poverty from which many will never escape, and which will play out for some of them, alas, in troubled lives. The DWP will then piously moralise at them about the very situation that it has itself constructed in this Bill, along the lines of the Reverend Thomas Chalmers in 1819, almost 200 years ago, who said that,
“character is the cause, and … comfort is the effect”.
Today the DWP, just like the Reverends Malthus and Chalmers before it, bleats about poor, large families’ lack of moral or financial continence. This policy is no better than early 19th-century class-superior sermonising, and with little respect for the facts as evidenced in the DWP’s own report. But Malthus and Chalmers, clergymen both, at least had the excuse that they did not have the evidence of statistics, which were not collected then. The Government have no such excuse. They have nowhere to hide. The Minister’s policy today—I cannot believe he wants this at all—is the exact opposite of his department’s own research findings, and will lock large families into persistent poverty.
We know whom the Bill will hit. I have no doubt that it will, directly or indirectly, discriminate against faith and ethnic minority groups. One last thought: we are all living longer, with fewer workers to support pensioners who are living much longer. We need children and, if they are not born British, we will be encouraging Mrs May to bring in immigrants instead.
I ask the Minister again: has he read his own department’s research of last year? If so, or indeed if not, why is the DWP so flagrantly ignoring it? It is abundantly clear that removing financial support, not just from these exempted groups but from the third child and beyond, is the single most powerful way for the Government to increase child poverty and to increase persistent poverty. It is the very worst thing that the Government can do, and they are doing it. Why?
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but it seems to me, listening to the noble Baroness who has just sat down, who spoke with her usual eloquence, that she has given only one-half of the story. Government is a matter of making difficult choices. There are always good points on both sides, so it is right that another point of view should be expressed. I speak, incidentally, as the father of a very large number of children.
The late Dick Crossman was a friend of mine; he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, as I think it was called then, in the 1960s. He told me how surprised he was when he discovered that the family allowance, which was the precursor of child benefit, was unpopular. Whenever he increased family allowance he expected it to be very popular, but it was not. He set out to discover why. The reason why it was unpopular, so he told me, was that the great majority of people in this country felt it was unfair to those parents who had decided to limit the number of their children—having children is an expensive business, what with clothing them and looking after them and so on—that improvident large families were getting all this family allowance. That sense of fairness is very acute among the people of this country, and that has to be weighed in the balance on the other side of the totally one-sided evidence that the noble Baroness presented.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I hate to intervene, but I point out that the evidence to which my noble friend referred was the Department for Work and Pensions’ own evidence. However, at this point I will go back to the amendments, which I support, as we will have another chance to talk about the principle of these nasty clauses later. I just want to ask a couple of questions.
In the impact assessment and elsewhere the phrase is used:
“The Government will develop protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances”.
We have not yet had any clue as to what those “other exceptional circumstances” might be. My noble friend Lady Sherlock has suggested that domestic violence should perhaps be one of them because of the coercion that can be involved in domestic violence and abuse, which are not just about physical abuse but emotional and financial abuse—a kind of controlling which is very relevant in this situation.
Points have already been made about the potential intrusiveness of the questioning that might be required to decide whether a woman has had a child as the result of rape. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no requirement either for a conviction or evidence of a police report for the claim to be accepted? As I understand it, according to Rape Crisis only 15% of victims of sexual violence make a police report, and we have already heard about the potential intrusiveness of any questioning there might be. I hope that the Minister might be able to tell us a bit more about what will happen.
Can he assure us that Jobcentre Plus staff will be trained to handle any such conversations sensitively and to provide women who report that they have been raped or assaulted with information about available support services? Will lessons be learned from the experience of women who were subject to very intrusive and deeply personal questioning about the paternity of their children when the requirement to co-operate was enforced under the Child Support Act 1991? As I understand it, extensive guidance was developed at the time but this rule was subsequently abandoned as unworkable. I suspect that the same will apply now.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thought the House might just like an issue to be clarified. I have the document with me which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to. While nobody in the Committee would want any child to be brought up in poverty, the evidence clearly displays that the two key main drivers for poverty in the UK are, first, long-term worklessness and low earning and, secondly, low parental qualifications. Therefore the first key driver is current poverty and the second is a clear indicator of future poverty.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I hesitate to challenge the noble Baroness, but if she looks on pages 19 and following she will see that that is not the case.
Baroness Stroud
I can clarify that again but it is here, quite clearly. Perhaps we can discuss this later.
The Earl of Listowel
Can the noble Baroness say which page she is referring to?
Lord Freud
I thank noble Lords again for another interesting debate, to which I have listened very attentively. Without wanting to get into the evidence, I read this report when it came out, although I may have forgotten all the page numbers.
As I have already said, the current benefits structure adjusts automatically to family size and removes the need for families supported by benefits to consider whether they can afford to support additional children. The mean number of dependent children per family is 1.7, and 86% of families have only one or two children. The amendments that we are looking at now relate to exemptions from the policy.
Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14 isolate five different groups: victims of rape; kinship carers; those who have previously claimed tax credits as a single parent but are now part of a step-family or cohabiting multiple family; those who have fled domestic violence; those who have suffered a bereavement of their husband, wife, civil partner or cohabitating partner. Amendment 15 would allow an exemption where the child is a member of the household through being part of a multiple birth. Amendment 18 would allow for an exemption in exceptional circumstances, as defined by the Social Security Advisory Committee. Amendment 20 would allow couples to claim the child element for three or four children plus any children to which an exemption would apply.
I make clear to noble Lords that most of these amendments are not actually necessary for inclusion in the Bill because we have already identified the need for exemptions to apply in certain circumstances. Clause 11(4) and Clause 12(4) provide the necessary powers to specify exemptions to the limit of two children or young persons for the purposes of calculating the child element in the two different benefits.
We already have special provisions in the benefits system for people fleeing domestic abuse and suffering bereavement, and we have already talked about kinship carers. On bereavement, to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, we are introducing a system of paying a lump sum of £5,000, with 12 payments of £400. Those payments will be disregarded from other benefits such as universal credit.
On the point made by the noble Earl about care leavers, we recognise, as I said before, the additional barriers that care leavers experience and we have a series of policies to support them already.
As I have mentioned, we will exempt a third or subsequent child or young person who is one of a multiple birth where the multiple birth takes the number of children above two—clearly, if it is more than twins, that is covered in that category. I cannot at this stage go further on exemptions, but, as I said earlier, I will provide more information on them on Report.
I turn now to the exigency offer—that is how I read it—from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to bring in SSAC to define exemptions. The committee clearly has an important role to play in scrutinising draft social security legislation, but it is not right or proper, in our view, for the committee to have a role in policy development and delivery. Accepting this amendment would mean the Government handing policy, and therefore expenditure decisions, to the committee. I should point out, however, that the committee has an independent research capability and so is fully able to look at particular things that it thinks are of interest. The committee can then discuss those with us in some detail. I know that because I have had several of those discussions and found them rather valuable.
Amendment 20 would apply additional support for families that are larger than the average family and have a significant additional cost. Clearly, this amendment goes straight to the heart of the Government’s aim to get welfare expenditure under control and reduce its costs by the significant amounts for which we are aiming.
Amendments 15, 18 and 20 propose to establish an appeals process similar to that which we discussed under Amendments 16 and 17. We already have those arrangements in place.
Amendment 7 has three primary objectives. It would allow claimants to receive additional individual elements of child tax credit where they believe that an exemption applies to them, and where there is no evidence to the contrary. It would require HMRC to have regard to the claimant’s right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would also mean that HMRC could not ask for information about the claimant’s private, medical or sexual history in seeking to determine whether the exemption applies.
We are looking at exactly how this exemption will be applied. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we talked to a number of stakeholders to ensure that these exemptions are delivered in the best possible way. Clearly, to the extent that JCP is involved in doing it, we will be providing that training. We are already required by the Human Rights Act 1998 to respect claimants’ right to a private and family life, so the specific provision introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, is not necessary, as it is already in place through that mechanism.
As I said, we are working on the best way to deliver this exemption; there is clearly a difficult line between voluntary and non-voluntary, which we discussed under the last group of amendments. It is interesting—I remind noble Lords—that we recognise domestic violence in universal credit, and we have got that process organised. Some of the other areas are extraordinarily difficult to introduce in practice, as noble Lords will appreciate, because of the complexity that they would bring to the operation of universal credit, but some of them are more straightforward than others.
Turning to the amendment on making a claim without evidence, if the Government were to allow a presumption in favour of the claimant for all exemptions, it would regrettably leave the policy open to very significant levels of fraud and error. However, we are now working on a way to do it without undermining claimants’ rights to privacy and family life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about applying the two-children policy to all means-tested benefits. Clearly, universal credit will combine all of the means-tested support for families once it is introduced. There will be a need to adjust the calculation of housing benefit to ensure that it remains at current levels, and it will not affect the room allowances in that particular measure.
Baroness Sherlock
Just to clarify, I was talking in this case about the exemption for multiple births, although it applies to all of them. Will the exemptions apply to all means-tested benefits—for a family not getting universal credit, for example?
Lord Freud
I am trying to think of another example because, as the noble Baroness knows, we are trying to incorporate all means-tested benefits. The main one is housing benefit and the other one that the noble Baroness may be thinking of is support for council tax where we have not made any provision because each council has its own policies. I cannot think of any other means-tested benefit to which, once universal credit is in and working, that would apply. I think that I have dealt as best I can with all the points raised and, for the reasons set out, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his responses. I am reminded by what he said of the importance of universal credit, which I think we all support in terms of enabling more people into work. I pay tribute to the Government one more time for their achievement in getting so many of our people into work after a time of such austerity. It is hugely important for families and for all of us.
I also thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of the work that I do and the interest I take in looked-after children. I have a specific question. The Minister talked about important strategies that the Government have developed for care leavers, which are very welcome indeed. But we know that outcomes, despite this good work, are often still very poor for care leavers. Will the Minister consider making an exemption among those that he is considering specifically for care leavers in this regard? Separately, will he consider making a similar exemption for care-experienced adults? These young people and adults have had a disastrous start in life and often their experience in the care system is unsatisfactory, with much instability. As a society, we should consider exempting them because of the histories that they have experienced.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his riposte to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. If I understood him correctly, he said that we should bear in mind that for the taxpayer, payments of this kind are not popular. Hard-working taxpayers may well not wish to pay other people to have more children when they have had to make hard choices themselves about clothing and schooling their own children. I take his point, but just because a measure is not popular, it is not necessarily not the right thing to do.
As an example, the decision by the Prime Minister to make a commitment of 0.7% of gross national income to the Department for International Development seems to have been pretty unpopular, but I certainly think that it was the right one. It becomes clearer and clearer that it was the right decision when we look at what is going on in Syria. I may well be mistaken, but my personal view is that it seems more and more right when we consider the instability in Syria and other places.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Is the noble Earl, whom I greatly respect, aware that Professor Deaton received earlier this year the Nobel prize for economics? His subject is global poverty and one of his important findings is that official aid does more harm than good.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the noble Lord for drawing that to my attention and I shall make it my business to read that finding.
Perhaps I chose a poor example, but often decisions that are unpopular can be the right decisions to make. Governments have a little more time to reflect and can decide that the cost of bringing children up in poverty has such long-term problems in terms of poor educational outcomes, imprisonment and later dependency on the state that despite such a policy being unpopular it is worth while investing in large, impoverished families to prevent their offspring becoming dependent on the state later on.
The Minister said that the average size of families was 1.7 children. What is the average size of families on benefit and the average size of a family in poverty? My sense is that they tend to be larger families and that this particular legislation will penalise larger families.
Lord Freud
Taking the noble Earl’s points in order, we need to have good strategies for care leavers. Clearly, the statistics are disturbing, and they have been for decades. I am not utterly convinced that exemptions in this particular area are the best way of supporting care leavers. There are other things that we can do that are way ahead of this. However, we do now flag care leavers in the benefit system so we know who they are and we can look at what they are doing, certainly with JSA, and I hope that we will be putting that into UC, although I am not absolutely up to date on where we are with that system.
On the noble Earl’s point about popularity, it is important that the benefits system does not become unpopular because that will undermine its legitimacy. It could be argued that one thing that we are doing now is creating a benefits system that has legitimacy and acceptance because it is perceived to be fair and to drive the right outcomes, which is not something that people feel about the legacy benefits system. That is a subtle point and closely related to what we are doing here.
The figures that I have seen, which I am afraid I cannot recall off the top of my head, show that very rich families and very poor families tend to be larger than those in the middle—thereby hangs a tale that goes to my noble friend’s point about who can afford to have large families. But I will have to write to the noble Earl with the exact figures.
Baroness Sherlock
When the Minister does that, will he look at the study circulated to most noble Lords which specifically used ONS statistical data to assess the population? One of the things it concluded was that:
“These data show that socio-economic class, perhaps contrary to popular belief, does not affect family size”.
In the higher managerial and professional classes, 6.8% of families had three or more children compared with 6.4% at the very bottom. I can share the reference with the Minister but the data are not as he suggested. Maybe we can compare notes and come back at Report, but as I understand it—and I pay tribute to the noble Earl’s passion for caring for the very poor—one of the reasons that these things are popular is a presumption that poor people have lots of children, which is not true. Even if they did, if they were not working the benefit cap would cut them off once they had two children, if they were renting anywhere—even modest—in Plymouth.
Lord Freud
We can cut through debating this by getting the facts, which I shall get to noble Lords.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and passionate debate and I thank noble Lords who have taken part. I particularly thank the Minister. I know that he is a kind and caring man and I have spoken to him about some of these issues. But I want to bring him back to the exemptions, which are really very important. I hope that he will forgive me if I did not hear him correctly. I assume that he was saying that other regulations addressed some of the issues that noble Lords and I raised. I will certainly read what he said very carefully to see if that is the case. If those regulations do not apply elsewhere—and they cannot, because we are talking about tax credits and universal credits limited to two children—would he please think again very carefully about these exemptions? It really will make all the difference to some of these very hard-working, low-income families we all want to support and help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Flooding
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in another place. Since my right honourable friend’s Statement, the Lancaster electricity substation has failed and every effort is now being made to restore power as soon as possible. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the impact of storm Desmond and flooding in the north of England.
As the House will know, this weekend has brought some enormously difficult and extreme weather conditions, and I would like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathy to those who have been affected in all parts of the United Kingdom. I would also like to commend the emergency responders, volunteers and the Environment Agency, who have been working tirelessly throughout the weekend, often in horrific conditions. People have come from all over the country, as far as south Wales, Lincolnshire and Somerset, to help. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their work, and the generous community spirit of those who have been offering food, transport and even beds to neighbours.
Over the course of Friday 4 December it became increasingly clear that storm Desmond would bring an exceptionally high volume of rainfall across the United Kingdom. The Environment Agency responded by mobilising its people and assets, moving temporary defences and pumps to north-west England through Friday. On Saturday morning it became clearer which counties would be impacted and that we would see very high levels of rainfall that evening. Therefore, the Government mobilised a full national emergency response. At midday on Saturday I held a cross-departmental meeting to assess the projected impacts, shortly followed by the mobilisation of 200 military personnel and supporting assets, including making available a Chinook helicopter. Local commanders were able to call upon more than 50 high-volume pumps, as well as specialist tactical advisers and rescue boats from around the UK, adding to more than 200 emergency responders already on the ground.
My honourable friend the Floods Minister travelled to Cumbria on Saturday to ensure that the emergency responders on the ground got all they need. He has remained in the north-west throughout. On Saturday night we saw an unprecedented amount of rainfall. More than a month’s rain fell in one day. During Saturday night main rivers all across Cumbria exceeded the highest levels ever recorded. There is a mark on the bridge in Carlisle showing the flood level in 1853. The 2005 flood was half a metre higher than the 1853 flood, which was the highest on record until then. This flood was half a metre higher again. It was 0.6 metres higher than previous records in Kendal, 0.7 metres higher in Keswick and 0.3 metres higher in Appleby.
Although more than 8,000 properties were protected by our flood defences, by Sunday morning more than 3,500 properties had been flooded across the country, with the majority in Cumbria. In Carlisle, more than 2,000 properties flooded. More than 600 properties flooded in both Kendal and Keswick, with more than 200 in Appleby. Flooding was also seen in Northumberland, with more than 60 properties flooded at Hexham. Some 55,000 properties lost power in Lancaster following the flooding of the electricity substation. Transport was severely disrupted, with roads closed across the north-west and bridges damaged. The west coast main line was suspended.
Tragically, I can also confirm to the House that there were a number of weather-related fatalities, with a number of incidents caused or exacerbated by flooding or poor weather. I am sure the House will want to join me to express our deepest sympathy to their families and friends. It is a tragic reminder of how dangerous these conditions can be. On Sunday morning I chaired a cross-Government COBRA meeting to ensure the emergency responders on the ground had all the resources they needed and to address immediate issues, including the threat to the power supply in Lancaster and Carlisle. I spoke with gold commanders in the worst affected areas during the day to ensure they had sufficient national resources to deliver their emergency plans.
The Prime Minister chaired a further COBRA meeting this morning and is visiting the affected areas today. I am pleased to confirm to the House that progress is being made on recovering from some of the impacts. The number of homes affected by power outages has been reduced to fewer than 5,000 following restoration of power at Lancaster substation. Electricity companies are working around the clock to restore power as soon as possible. Transport remains disrupted across much of the area. Many roads remain closed and will need to be repaired. The west coast main line remains suspended between Preston and Scotland, and service is unlikely to be restored until Wednesday at the earliest.
The Government will continue to ensure all resources are made available to support recovery from this flooding. COBRA will continue to meet daily to oversee recovery efforts and I will be travelling to Cumbria and Lancashire after this Statement to continue to ensure we are doing all we can to help those affected. I know local communities will want to know what action Government will be taking to support the recovery phase. I am pleased to confirm to the House that my colleague the Communities Secretary will shortly be opening the Bellwin scheme for local authorities affected by floods, and that 100% of eligible costs will be met by Government. We will be announcing support schemes in coming days.
Since 2009 we have invested £45 million in new defences in Cumbria, but we will need to reflect on any lessons we can learn from this extreme weather event. In the last Parliament there was a real-terms increase in investment in flood defences and in this Parliament there will be another real-terms increase in spending. We are investing £2.3 billion in 1,500 schemes throughout the country that will protect 300,000 homes. The spending review has also confirmed we are protecting flood maintenance spending throughout this Parliament, as well as capital spending.
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our sincere sympathy to those affected by this weekend’s extreme weather conditions. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to do everything we can to support those affected”.
I commend this Statement to the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister in passing on our condolences for the very sad loss of life reported in Cumbria. We wish to offer our compassion and support for all those whose lives and livelihoods have been damaged by the recent floods. It is sometimes hard for us to fully comprehend the scale of the ongoing trauma and pain being experienced by these communities, but our thoughts go out to them.
I also join with the Minister in thanking all those working for the emergency services, the local councils and the Environment Agency. They have responded to the challenge with speed, calmness and efficiency. The priority in the next few hours and days must be to make people safe and to return essential services to full working capacity. Clearly the latest news about the Lancaster substation is a particular cause for concern, so our response will involve the need for co-ordinated action across local authority, energy, transport and health services.
I welcome the statement from the Minister that the Bellwin scheme will be applied to give local authorities some helpful financial relief, but can the noble Lord clarify what additional financial help will be given to other essential services such as transport and health to make up the shortfall caused by these events?
There is also a personal crisis being experienced by thousands of householders and businesses. Many of these individuals have only just put their lives back together after the previous floods. There have been countless stories about individuals waiting years to receive the insurance money that they needed to rebuild their lives. I know that the noble Lord promised to look into this issue when it was raised last week by my noble friend Lady Symons, but, given the events of recent days which have underlined the urgency of this issue, I hope that the noble Lord will commit to a summit of the insurance companies to see what can be done to speed up the process of reimbursement.
Sadly, we also know that the new government-sponsored insurance scheme, Flood Re, will not come into effect until next year, so can the noble Lord say what if anything can be done to prevent the insurance premiums for properties in the affected areas rocketing in the mean time? As we know, the Flood Re scheme applies only to domestic households, but the flooding of town centres has brought its own heartbreak to local businesses. Many of them have spent years building up their businesses, so it is a matter of compensation not just for lost stock but for all of those customer relations which have made their businesses a success.
If we are not careful, these businesses will simply pack up, and, in doing so, they will rip the heart out of those communities. Can the noble Lord give some hope to those businesses that they will receive all the necessary support to help them stay and rebuild? In particular, can he update the House on the expenditure from the repair and renew grant which was meant to provide grants for flooded homeowners and businesses after the previous events of the past few years? Figures published earlier this year show that only 1,680 claims were met, despite the fact that more than 11,000 properties were flooded during the winter of 2013-14. Of those, the average payment was £1,666, which is much lower than the £5,000 maximum.
Meanwhile, the Government’s Farming Recovery Fund, which promised £10 million to help flooded farmers restore their land, has paid out only £2.8 million, with another £2.3 million in the pipeline. Is the Minister content with the limited scale of these payments—and, if not, what else is he doing to make sure that the money is put to the use for which it was originally intended?
Obviously we need to take all necessary steps to make amends for this disastrous event, but ultimately that is not the point. What everyone caught up in this crisis really wants to know is why it happened and what is being done to make sure that it does not happen again. The Prime Minister has again pledged support and financial aid for those affected by the floods, but the track record of this Government tells a different story. We are dealing with the aftermath of a disastrous decision by the incoming coalition Government in 2010 to downgrade flood defences as a priority. In one year alone, the coalition slashed flood spending by more than £100 million. So, despite the money now being pledged for capital expenditure on flood defences, we are spending less than we were in 2009-10. In addition, the Government are preventing the Environment Agency from carrying out long-term planning on flood maintenance by restricting its budget to year-on-year announcements. Will the Minister agree to revisit the allocation policy and give the Environment Agency some longer-term certainty about future expenditure?
The mistake we have been making so far is to concentrate on flood defences rather than on the wholesale countryside management that contributes to these problems. In particular, we should be paying greater heed to upstream river management. We know, for example, that trees absorb water much faster than grass, so it should be a priority to reforest upland areas. Equally, we need to ensure that rivers are encouraged to flow and meander more slowly, if necessary flooding adjacent farmland. We need to address the impact of the CAP and the single farm payment to ensure that they are not offering perverse incentives to clear land that would otherwise trap water and prevent flooding. Moreover, we need to intervene to prevent farming practices such as overploughing, which cause rapid water drain-off. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that these policies are being co-ordinated to ensure that we make the best use of scientific evidence on these issues in the future.
Finally, we will not have a serious strategy at the heart of government until the Government fully embrace the fact that extreme weather events are the result of climate change. The Government have been repeatedly warned by the Committee on Climate Change that these catastrophic events will become more and more common, and that they require a whole-government response. The fact that the Paris talks are taking place is an opportunity for our Government to show real leadership by committing to a low-carbon economy and investing in low-carbon technology. Perhaps the noble Lord could take this opportunity to update us on the Government’s proposed offer to the Paris talks. Ultimately, we are not going to overcome the impact of extreme weather simply by building higher defences. We need to address the fundamental causes, and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, but it is traditional that the Front Benches of the two parties have the first 20 minutes.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I add from these Benches that our thoughts and prayers are with those who are affected at this very difficult time, and we offer our thanks to those who are helping them. After the severe flooding in Cumbria six years ago, some £134 million was made available to the UK by the European Union fund for major natural disasters. It is very welcome news that the Bellwin scheme is going to be opened imminently, but, given the scale of the clean-up, the need for temporary accommodation and the need to rebuild vital infrastructure after the record-breaking floods in the north of England, can the Minister say on this occasion whether the Government will be applying to the European Union Solidarity Fund in order to help these devastated communities?
Perhaps I may add from these Benches that I welcome what the noble Baroness said about an update on the climate change negotiations in Paris. It is important that we do not forget at this time of personal tragedy the wider implications of these events, which are occurring far too often.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments on what is overwhelmingly a personal tragedy for many families, and obviously the fatalities are a great upset to so many people and communities. One thing that has come across strongly is the way in which communities have come together, as noble Lords would expect, to help each other. The other point raised by both noble Baronesses is the extraordinary and exceptional way in which the emergency services from across the country have come together to help. I acknowledge their comments in this regard, and it is something that we should all acknowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised a number of points, and if there are matters of detail that I do not cover, I will be in touch with her. Looking at the investment both in capital and maintenance, it is interesting to note that from 2005 to 2010, there was an investment of £2.7 billion in flood defences. In the last Parliament, it was £3.2 billion. We now have a six-year programme involving a £2.3 billion investment in 1,500 schemes. The maintenance budget has also been protected and that is very important. We obviously have lessons to learn from what happened in Cumbria and other parts of the country.
However, there were a number of key points to which I must respond. A major one was insurance, because, clearly, this is going to be a matter of considerable concern to householders and businesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is absolutely right that this came up in exchanges with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at Defra met the Association of British Insurers recently and, because the Communities Secretary will deal with the recovery element of this, there will be a meeting of the insurers imminently. However, the department is in regular touch with the Association of British Insurers to discuss not only the situation in Cumbria but beyond, and the industry’s responses.
We are assured that the action taken by insurers—we will work closely with them and make sure that this is the case—includes arranging and paying for temporary alternative accommodation or, for businesses, temporary trading premises; drafting in additional claims staff; prioritising elderly and vulnerable customers; doing all they can to ensure repairers are available to start repairs as soon as it is safe to do so; and making interim emergency payments to support flooded customers. Insurers are aware of the need for prompt payment but the need clearly is for the waters to recede before damage can be assessed. Therefore, I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that both the Secretary of State at Defra has already had discussions with the ABI, and that the Communities Secretary will take this forward as we ensure we get into a proper recovery situation.
On repair and renew, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and I need to compare our statistics. My understanding is that more than £24 million was granted for repair and renewal to 6,000 households and businesses who were flooded in 2013-14. My understanding—and therefore we must compare our information—is that on the farming recovery fund all claims were met in full. I think we need to ensure that we both have the right figures in front of us but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter.
The other point was on farming practices. Clearly, we need to think very carefully about how we work with farmers who are going about their business and looking after their land to make sure that we achieve the best for the environment. We need to think, too, about the way in which farmland can be included, not only the protection of properties but also of agricultural land, which is so important for the production of our food. I mentioned in Questions last week the example of the slow the flow project in Pickering—I am conscious my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering may be in the Chamber. This is an important way of proceeding: looking at the use of land and how we work with the farming world to ensure that floods can be accommodated. While we should be mindful that farmland is valuable—it produces a crop—there may be certain parts of the country where we should be working together much more strongly to ensure that we slow the flow. I am a great tree planter. The planting of trees and the way in which we farm alongside watercourses are all going to be important.
Climate change is clearly an area which is of particular importance when, for instance, the Environment Agency is considering how best to work on our behalf to get the right results with the right investment to secure the best overall result. All flood risk management schemes are required to take into account climate change during their design and construction. The Environment Agency also produced its long-term investment scenario study in December last year, which sets out national long-term investment scenarios for flood and costal risk management over the next 50 years and includes adaption to climate change. Therefore, that is also going to be very important.
Clearly, important discussions are taking place in Paris. It is important that we are all responsible custodians of the planet in our generation. We need to have a result that ensures that the planet can—we hope—be better restored, and that there are ways in which we can work together with all countries. We need to do our part in this country but also we need to ensure that around the world there is recognition that many aspects of the way in which we live need to be addressed. I think what the noble Baronesses both raised about changes in climate is important in the way in which we deal with flooding.
The statistics on the floods and the levels of the rivers in Cumbria are extraordinary and unprecedented. A rain gauge in Cumbria in Honister recorded rain of 13.4 inches. This is the scale of what happened and the reason why many of the defences, which were above the level of the previous floods, were over-topped. If there is any positivity to come out of this, it is that those investments enabled fewer properties to be flooded and bought time for us to help the evacuation, the informing of the warnings and getting people away. I am sorry, obviously, that these flood defences held but were over-topped, but when I looked at the statistics for the level of rainfall and what the rivers and the defences had to cope with, it is quite extraordinary what the people of Cumbria had to withstand over the weekend.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, in the almost 40 years that I represented Worcestershire in the House of Commons flooding was one of two issues that came up the whole time. Does my noble friend accept that you cannot hide flood water? If you build barriers in one place, particularly on a river, and keep out the water in a particular place it is quite likely to be pushed on to another place. That happened continually in my old constituency. Upton-on-Severn was always flooding and was almost a national treasure for that at one point. Once we got that sorted out the whole lot went down to Tewkesbury and flooded that out. Therefore, when people call on the Government to spend more money on barriers, I hope he will bear that in mind.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend has great experience of the flooding in his constituency and we have all seen the difficulties when many residents and businesses on the River Severn have been so affected. It is important to note that in Cumbria all the flood storage reservoirs were utilised—at Carlisle, Wigton, Longtown, Kendal and Penrith—and, indeed, the flood basins at Garstang and Catterall on the River Wyre were immensely valuable in preventing more properties being flooded. Therefore, how we stall water or how to slow the flow are things that we need to look at more rigorously.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I live only a short distance from Honister, and indeed from Cockermouth, and not far from Keswick, and I was at home during the weekend. The situation is hard to overdramatise. Obviously I could speak at great length about the experience but I will not. Suffice to say that we cannot thank the volunteers and the specialist services enough. They worked tremendously hard; they were very prompt in their arrival; and they worked effectively.
However, we cannot overemphasise the resilience of the people. I do not want the House to be under any illusion. There is a great deal of despondency in the area about how seriously the situation is taken. First, for a long time, ever since the last major incident, there has been scepticism about whether all the money was being spent to good effect and whether what was done was sufficient. Secondly, people had anticipated and discussed—I have heard them over the years—that because it was not enough it would create new problems. Indeed, this has happened. There were predictable knock-on effects from some of the defence work that was done, which aggravated the situation just along the road, or just down the way, or wherever. That has to be considered very seriously. In other areas, the work was just useless because the floods completely overpowered it. There is a lot to be examined about the effectiveness and how far public expenditure was put to good use.
Thirdly, there is the impact on people. There will be trauma for a long time to come with consequences for the health service and others. While the resilience of the people is magnificent, there will be others who are completely broken, which will place a heavy demand on the psychiatric as well as the physical aspects of medicine. I bring these points to the attention of the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points today. Absolutely, volunteers came from all parts of the country to help the people of Cumbria. I know there is a very strong flood warden system in Cumbria and I acknowledge, because of the resilience of those communities, that somehow they will get through it but it is going to be very difficult and very painful. I realise that and we need to take all these matters extremely seriously. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said, we need to learn further lessons from this. Obviously, there is the whole issue of river systems, and the way in which we deal with these enormous flows of water is absolutely crucial.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I apologise to the House and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the Minister for my earlier ill-timed intervention. I add an expression of my compassion and sympathy, and the assurance of my prayers, to all those whose lives and livelihoods have been affected and particularly to the families of those who died.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle lives in Keswick so has seen for himself the terrible problems caused by these storms. I know that the House will appreciate that he cannot be in his place today. In the past 10 years we have seen in Cumbria three so-called once-in-a-lifetime flooding events. Does the Minister believe that there may be a category problem here, and that some redefinition may be appropriate? Further, will Her Majesty’s Government reassess not only how they categorise these events but prepare for their apparent more frequent occurrence? We have heard of the help given by some of the flood protection measures that are in hand, but does the Minister believe that reconsideration of present flood prevention measures is not just needed—that is the reflection and learning that the Statement mentions—but urgently needed when we see so graphically the results of this particular circumstance?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that, alongside short to medium-term flood prevention measures, these ghastly events have surely confirmed the vital significance of the deliberations in Paris on climate change for a deep-seated change, so that floods and such awful events occur, if not never, certainly less frequently? Meanwhile, I know that Christian churches of all denominations are working alongside the huge number of volunteers, and we welcome that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that all Members of Parliament from Cumbria are in their constituencies and I am not surprised that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle is in his diocese.
The definition of how we deal with and approach what continue to be unprecedented circumstances is a difficult one. All I can say is: having seen the scale of the rainfall, I hope that what we saw over the weekend remains unprecedented. The point is that lessons always have to be learned when we have such emergencies. We need to look at the flood protection measures. As I said, very considerable sums of money are being spent not only on capital projects but on maintenance, but we clearly need to continue looking at whether they are the best value for money and whether they secure the best safety, which is obviously paramount for people. There are lessons to be learned and, as I have already mentioned, the deliberations in Paris on climate change are clearly of huge importance.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest as I was born in Carlisle, I live in Cumbria, and I have property and business interests that have been damaged by these floods. However, they are nothing compared to the misfortune that has fallen on the head of a number of other Cumbrians, many of whom for the second time have been flooded out of house and home at the beginning of a wet and cold winter.
Over recent years the Cumbria Community Foundation, of which I am vice-president, has had a lot of experience after the various floods and the foot and mouth outbreak in distributing money to those who need it. The crucial lesson that you learn is that you need money up front for distribution now. In response to this flood, I understand from the net that the foundation has already raised £100,000, and I ask the Government whether they will make a contribution for immediate distribution to those who are in desperate immediate need of help. I should like to suggest a minimum of £1 million.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I know of my noble friend’s connections and strong affinity with Cumbria and the communities there. I am sure that the Cumbria Community Foundation is an excellent local charity but obviously it is not in my gift to make such a donation. However, I can say to him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defra announced in her Statement that the Government will look over the coming days at what further steps they might take in support of those affected. I will ensure that his suggestion is put forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament for Workington, Cockermouth and Keswick, in expressing my sympathy I declare an interest as the convener of one of the flood action groups in Cumbria, occasionally meeting with the Environment Agency and United Utilities officials.
A lot of money has been spent on flood alleviation and resilience projects. However, none of the authorities concerned has been prepared to spend money on the big-ticket projects that are necessary if this unprecedented and unpredictable scale of flooding is to be avoided in future. Will Ministers now consider upstream storage, even including new reservoir projects, pump-primed with state money but ultimately transferred to the private sector? Will they consider the urgently needed re-engineering of outflow valves on the dam at Thirlmere? Will they consider statutory month-by-month limits on water asset management at Thirlmere? Will they consider the removal of the Gote Bridge in Cockermouth and the Greta Bridge in Keswick and their replacement by single-span bridges that stop the blocking of water flows? Will they consider strengthening the course of the River Derwent below Cockermouth, to remove some of the meanders, as raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench? Can we have a complete ban on housing development on the west Cumbrian flood plain? Finally, can we have a review of the coverage of Flood Re, which is now exposed as fatally flawed, as thousands of people will find that they are not covered, even under the new scheme when it is introduced?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising those important issues. I will take his comments back, with some of his detailed points on upstream storage, re-engineering, water levels at Thirlmere, bridges, and the use of reservoirs and other places to keep water back when we can. The whole area of water asset management is clearly going to be important. On housing, the planning guidance on new development has been very clear. I will look into the particular point about Cumbria, but well over 95% of new housing is now not built in flood-risk areas. The noble Lord and I had a conversation about Flood Re after Questions last week. I am looking into the particular point of long-term leaseholders: I hope I can at least help to address this situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Statement. Storm Desmond was clearly an act of God and resulted in flooding of biblical proportions. No matter what preparedness there was, I would defy anybody to find any flood defences that could have protected all the properties. I greatly regret the loss of life and damage to property.
When my noble friend looks at the role of insurance companies in rebuilding homes, will priority be given to developing greater resilience and lowering insurance claims where householders look to increase and improve the resilience of their properties? I declare an interest, as referred to in the register. Also, the first seat I fought was Workington and it is a delight to follow in the footsteps, in this House, of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I support his bid to have a review of the Flood Re categories, particularly for businesses, farms and leasehold properties. There is also the vexatious issue of those on low incomes who cannot afford contents insurance. What regard can we have for them?
Will my noble friend respond to the concern of farmers who will have lost livestock and the use of the land through contamination by these floods and those in 2009? Will he recognise the role of farmers and drainage boards in clearing minor watercourses to allow the flood waters to recede in events such as this? Will he look to introduce novel means of financing future flood defences by levering in private funding? It is in the interests of insurance companies, and water companies, to fund major flood defences in future. If the Minister can be part of that debate, the whole of Cumbria and the United Kingdom will benefit.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend spoke about the flood defences. I have now studied this: the extent of the rainfall was so extraordinary that the defences held but were overtopped because of the exceptional levels. However, we obviously need to look at where we can best devote our resources. It is very important that insurance companies work with policyholders: we want remedies there. Greater resilience is going to be very important. There are all sorts of ways in which we can start to encourage people, particularly in areas where flooding is a possibility or even a probability. I should have declared that I am a farmer myself. I therefore recognise the importance of the farming community working to maintain ditches and watercourses going through their property. It is important that we work closely with them, which is why we have regular meetings with the National Farmers’ Union and farming organisations. My noble friend asked about further funding. Partnership funding is going to be very important. It plays a significant role and may well help us ensure that there will be other sources, in addition to the £2.3 billion of government funding, to fund working closely with local communities to get good results.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest, because I have a house four miles south of Cockermouth which, according to neighbours, has been flooded. I was not there—
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
We have not heard from the Cross Benches yet and we have got just two minutes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I have two short questions for the Minister. First, will he encourage people against non-permeable structures? Secondly, because electricity supply is so important, will he discuss with the electricity companies and National Grid protecting their substations from flooding?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord rightly mentions how we can best prevent flash flooding in particular. It is important that the policy guidance should be that developers and householders do not concrete everywhere. On the electricity grid, it is also essential that we protect our infrastructure. We are working on this.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, the last time Cockermouth was badly flooded, in 2009, it took a long time for the town to get back to normal and some of the businesses had to struggle very hard to survive. When he meets the insurance companies, will he make reference to the fact that it is partly a matter of being covered and partly a matter of the cost? I fear that some businesses and householders in places like Cockermouth will be charged so much to reinsure that they will not be able to afford it. Could he please get them to be sensible about this and not slap up the charges? Last time there were floods, my insurance went up six or sevenfold.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, which I will feed back. The best thing everyone could do is support Cumbrian businesses next spring and summer. That would be a gesture of support for the great communities of Cumbria, which is a tourism Mecca for so many.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
“( ) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons for whom an individual element of child tax credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (3B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the children or qualifying young persons are disabled (including, but not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disability element of child tax credit).”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to exclude all families with a disabled child from the two-child limit on receipt of the child element of child tax credit and the child addition within universal credit.
I have also tabled Amendment 8, which is more limited in the protection it affords. Amendment 8 would exclude any disabled child from the number of children considered in relation to the child element of universal credit. Thus, if Amendment 8 were accepted by the Government, a family with four children, one of whom is disabled, would still lose the child element for the third non-disabled child. I argue very strongly for Amendment 3, but Amendment 8 would be a great improvement on the Bill as it stands. At this point, I pay tribute to Rob Holland from Mencap for his considerable help with the Bill.
Families with disabled children face financial and other stresses which are not faced where all the children are healthy and able-bodied. These families have extra costs for special aids, adaptations to their homes, and additional clothing and travel costs. The travel costs of medical appointments alone can be very considerable. One family, for example, reported regularly having to get to three appointments a week, and this can rise to as many as seven. The appointments are at four different hospitals, involving additional petrol costs, depreciation of the car and, most particularly, parking fees. Another family talked of their child often breaking bedroom furniture and other items due to the frustration of their disability, which then had to be replaced.
The enormity of the cuts envisaged for families with disabled children is quite extraordinary. While I know that the Government are committed to a much smaller role for the state in future, can it be right to hit the most disadvantaged the hardest? Without these amendments, the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit means that if a two-child family has a third child who is disabled, the family will be £2,780 per year, or an average of £50 or so per week, worse off than they would be under the current provision. This loss must be considered alongside the substantial fall in the level of the disability element of child credit under universal credit. The current value of that benefit is £57 per week, whereas the disability addition in a family’s universal credit entitlement will be worth only £28 a week—a loss of £29 per week. I understand that, in all, a new claimant family with three children, one of whom is disabled, will be about £79 per week worse off when these two changes come into effect than a family currently claiming equivalent benefits. Will the Minister confirm whether or not he agrees with these figures?
Research conducted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice in 2012 into the two-child limit for child tax credit found that the impact could be disastrous for the health and well-being of the children. Two-thirds said that they would have to cut back on food, more than half said that it would lead them into debt and more than one in 10 feared that they would have to give up their home.
Have the Government assessed the impact of these cuts on the number of children placed in residential care? There seems little doubt that all parents will be less able to cope with a disabled child at home if money is as tight as highlighted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice. What would be the net savings to the Exchequer, having taken into account residential care costs of a proportion of the children involved, as well as other costs of health and social care? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether work has been done to clarify the net savings from the two-child limit in the context of the other planned benefit cuts, and taking account of increased government spending on other services. If this analysis has not been done, does the Minister agree that these changes should not go ahead until the Government have a clear understanding of these points? As one parent put it, “We would face the choice of increased debt or the eventual institutionalisation of our child”.
The Government may be assuming that local authorities will take over the burden of these family costs. I understand that this simply will not happen. In fact, among the families already receiving additional support from local authorities, about 60% said that that support had been cut over the past year, and there will be more cuts to local authority services in the coming years.
A big concern is lone parents with disabled children. Many years ago when I was training to be a social worker, which I did for a few years, I spent six months working in a school for severely handicapped and disabled children. I found myself running a group for the parents of those children. The group comprised about 14 parents, every single one of whom was a single mother. The fathers had apparently walked out some time after the disabled child was born. If these mothers had also abandoned their disabled children, the state would have had to take care of the children and pay the bill. The impact of the two-child limit will be greatest for these parents.
In a meeting with Ministers about tax credits, I was told that the Government expected claimants to work extra hours to make up for their losses. However, these lone parents with disabled children are not able to make up the shortfall by working extra hours. The simple fact is that the disabled children and their healthy siblings will suffer if this measure goes ahead. I understand that the Government recognise that some groups—I think it is two groups—should be exempted from the two-child limit for the child elements of child tax credit and universal credit. I hope very much that the Minister will today assure the Committee that he will give serious consideration to exempting families with disabled children from this particularly savage cut. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. It is very important to remember that being the parent of a disabled child is not the same as being a parent. It is sometimes very difficult to get that point over. I remember that when we discussed the Children and Families Bill, officials and even Ministers said, “I am a parent and I do not need any extra support”. However, this is not the same as being a parent of a normal child, if I can put it that way. We all expect to care for our children until they are 18, and many of us for much longer than that but, for a parent who is caring for a disabled child, that caring is likely to be a lifelong commitment— your life or their life. That is the point we have to remember. That lifetime commitment means that these parents face huge problems. They face practical problems, particularly when services are being cut and there is not enough support. They also face very severe emotional problems. As the noble Baroness reminded us, marriage breakdown is very common where there is a child, or more than one, with disabilities. These parents also face financial problems, which is what we are concerned with here. I suggest that most households with a disabled child already face financial hardship, even without these changes. More than half—53%—of parent carers answering the State of Caring survey in 2015 said that they were struggling to make ends meet.
Research shows that it is three times more costly to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child, as we have been reminded. Some 34% of sick or disabled children live in households where there is no adult in paid work compared with 18% of children who are not sick or disabled. Four in 10 disabled children live in relative income poverty once the additional cost of their disability is accounted for. Last year, the Carers UK Caring & Family Finances Inquiry found that parent carers of disabled children were one of the groups least likely to be in employment. As one carer said: “I gave up work thinking I would be able to return within a year or two once I got my daughter the support she needed. Little did I know how poor local services were and I am still caring years later”. That carer will probably be caring all her life and certainly for all the life of that disabled child. Surely we are not thinking of making hard lives even harder by these pernicious changes. I support the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 19, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, and to the other amendments in this group, which I support.
The case has already been so well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley that I will not add much more. However, I want to get a sense of scale. Contact a Family reports that there are 770,000 disabled children under the age of 16 in the UK. That equates to one child in 20. Most struggle on alone with only 8% of families getting services from their local social services. As we have heard, it costs up to three times as much to raise a disabled child as it does to raise a child without disabilities. We have heard the figures from official statistics showing the much higher rate of poverty among families with a disabled member and the high proportion of children with a disability who live in households in poverty
Families are already struggling. It is very good that we will retain the disability element, which covers some of the additional costs of disability, but the child will still have to be fed and clothed and cared for. The reality is that not only do disabled children cost much more but it is much harder for parents to increase their income, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Suitable childcare for disabled children is much harder to find and more expensive when it is found. For some children the nature of their disability makes it very hard for anyone other than the parent to be able to take care of them.
As the Children’s Society pointed out in its briefing, the child disability element for children other than those on the high-rate care component of DLA has already been effectively halved within universal credit. Currently a family with a disabled third child would receive a maximum child tax credit entitlement of £5,920. Following the reduction of the disability component and the two-child limit, they get a maximum of just £1,513, little more than a quarter of their entitlement in the current tax credit system.
The Minister has said repeatedly today that this is about choice and that we want to enable families who are on tax credits and universal credit to make the same choices as other families. Will he acknowledge that having a disabled child is not a choice a family makes? Often the family will not know that the child is going to be disabled when the child is conceived. Either the disability may not be known, or the child may develop a disability or an illness which causes a disability after birth. The family are therefore not in a position to know the additional costs they are going to be taking on. I have problems in general with this policy, as I will explain in a later stand part debate, but one of the reasons for having so many exemptions is to try to get the Government to explain the rationale of exempting certain categories of person and not others. The Minister needs to be consistent. If his intention is all about clear-eyed choice, then can he explain how that applies in this case?
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 3, and I support the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and other contributions that we have had in this short debate. I want to make a simple point about disability. I had the distinct impression that, although the Government were determined to force through their £12,000 million savings, health and disability were going to be a priority for Ministers over the next five years. There are signs that that is true. Some of the attempts that we are watching unfold to bridge the disability employment gap and issues of that kind are welcome, as far as they go. That should give the Minister some cover to go back to the Treasury and say that there should be some identified exemptions for working families in particular. We are trying to encourage people to sustain employment in the future. Some families have young members with different levels of disability as well as mental health issues and disabilities. There is a little more emphasis on this, thanks to the excellent work that was done during the coalition Government days. There is a real peg on which the Minister can hang an approach to these tragedies which says that something needs to be said and some provision made for disability in the context of Clauses 11 and 12.
I say again to the Minister, and I mean it, that the Committee will weigh carefully what he says in terms of the exemptions or otherwise. So far he has been playing a pretty straight bat and holding the line on behalf of the Government, by which I think he means the Treasury. I understand all that, but he has to be very careful. I have said this before, and I will say it again in the clause stand part debate, that he risks losing some of these clauses, if he is not careful, if he does not appeal to good moderates such as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and me. No, I take that back—it will damage his political career in the new Labour Administration.
There is an opportunity in the context of Ministers rightly focusing again on work and health. If that is applied to the amendments that have been so ably moved, I think there is some room for compromise. If there is not some give and take, I think that the Minister is going to have trouble carrying some of this Bill through the rest of its proceedings.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
I was not going to add to the very powerful opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but I will just say to the Minister that, when he faced a similar problem with housing and the cut in benefit to those with a so-called spare bedroom—I refer to the bedroom tax—the Minister understood the degree of disquiet around the House and invested in discretionary housing payments, which he increased and increased. In other words, there was a recognition that there needed to be some head space in the system for dealing with difficult issues, many of which we have discussed today. I suggest to him that we have had so many of those in the previous amendments and most powerfully again on the issue of disabled children that he should seek a similar discretion which then the Government can come back with in proposed draft regulations which the House can discuss before they then become part of the legislative process by the time we get to Report.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Meacher in her amendment, which she so eloquently moved. A couple of years ago a woman called Stacie visited Parliament to talk to your Lordships in preparation for a childcare Bill. She talked about her difficulty, as a mother of a disabled child, in finding appropriate childcare. I think she went through more than 20 childcare providers who just said, “Look, we cannot deal with the needs of your child”. Eventually she found a very good provider that was prepared to go the extra mile. I know that this is an issue we have to take seriously and are looking to improve in terms of making childcare more easily accessible. It continues to be a problem. So there is that additional issue that I would highlight to your Lordships.
My noble friend also highlighted the fact that so many of these women are bringing up disabled children on their own. I invite your Lordships, women and men, to think about trying to bring up a child on your own when that child has a disability. The risks of isolation, of being overwhelmed—all those things must be exacerbated.
The Minister, in the early discussion about popular feeling with regard to taxation, made his response. It made me reflect a little that perhaps part of the way the public sees these issues is mediated by how the Government present them. I encourage the Government to be very careful, and I hope that this will not be taken the wrong way. On Saturday morning I was speaking to a mother with a two week-old baby, and she was speaking with another mother. The other mother, perhaps a little unkindly, because this two week-old baby had an elder sister, who was three, said, “Has the older sister started trying to kill her yet?”. What this highlighted for me is that it is such a basic element of human nature to be envious, to resent something that somebody else has, that one has to think through very carefully how one presents sharing resources with somebody else, or giving resources to somebody else and not giving it to another person. I am afraid that that may not come across very well. I say to the Government that I hope they are being very careful about how they present these things.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, we on these Benches support these amendments, too—Amendment 3 in particular. The House needs some assurances from the Government that the disability premium for each disabled child in both tax credits and universal credits will be protected, regardless of the number of children in the family. However, the child element in tax credits and universal credit will be paid only in respect of two children in a family, even when the third child is disabled. That is the point. We need to look at those exemptions, so if the Government have already said that there is some protection, surely that same protection should be afforded to the third child who is disabled.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a brief point in support of the powerful case that has already been made. I believe that the latest HBAI statistics showed an increase in poverty among disabled children. Can the Minister tell us his assessment of the impact of these clauses on the number of disabled children living in poverty?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I lend my support to these very important amendments. We have heard some extremely powerful arguments. I want to draw attention to one point in Amendment 3, which refers to child tax credits and says that the limit should not apply,
“where one or more of the children or qualifying young persons are disabled”.
I remember vividly a meeting that I attended during the course of what became the Children and Families Act, organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The very point which she was talking about was the impact on parent carers trying to bring up disabled children. One of the mothers was bringing up three disabled children. I remember that vividly because I think it brought tears to most of our eyes, including those of the Minister. Can the Minister say what the Government’s thinking is about households which have more than one child who has a disability?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for this debate and, particularly, I heard the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about how the lone parent—the mother—is so often left on her own with a disabled child. That is a very moving point and clearly rings true.
Perhaps I may look at the technical position. Amendment 3 would exempt those families who have at least one disabled child from the policy which limits support to two children. The intention of this amendment is to allow families with a disabled child to claim the child element of child tax credit for an unlimited number of children. Under Amendment 19, that intention would apply to both tax credit and universal credit. I should point out, as a matter of information, that the difference in having the child element allowed for a third child is not actually that great, if you look at the statistics. That is because the number of parents who go on to have more children is actually very few, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will probably know, so there is not a lot of difference in the cost. I know that she will appreciate the thinking behind that point. Amendment 8, meanwhile, which goes on to the point about paying the child element, is technically a bit misdrafted, but I know that the intention of the amendment is to allow that child element to be paid.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, drew on the issue of whether a choice has been made. Clearly, we have considered the issue of disabled children carefully and looked at the challenges which these families face. We are committed to supporting those families with disabled children by paying the disability element of child tax credit and the equivalent in universal credit. That is true for all disabled children, although there are in practice rather few—I mean that there will be some, but relatively few—so, however many there are, it will be for not just the first disabled child but all of them. From what I am hearing, I think that the debate is now around the child element as well as the disability element and that that is where the differences lie in practical terms.
I acknowledge broadly the figures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, drew attention in regard to the reduction without the child element. When that is in UC as a unified benefit, it will be only one part of the total payment. On the amount that the family gets, the reduction will be much less than the “down to a quarter” figure to which she was referring. On top of the disability element that we are exempting, we are exempting from the benefit freeze all those benefits which relate to the additional costs of disability, including PIP and DLA.
On Amendment 19, which would create a duty for an appeals process, I repeat the point that I made earlier: we already have comprehensive appeal arrangements and therefore do not need this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a point about what happens to HBAI figures. As we have found out year after year, it is impossible to predict with accuracy future HBAI figures. As is customary, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has a solution to it all, but I am not convinced that the discretionary approach would be the optimum one in this area. Whatever happens, I do not think that any kind of solution would come from that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Given the amendments that we have debated so far—in the first group, the second group and now this one—what proportion of the estimated £1.3 billion in savings that I think the Government were expecting to make from this would therefore be lost to the Government?
Lord Freud
I am simply not in a position to deal with what are entirely hypothetical issues. I am not in a position today to offer very much satisfaction in these areas, as noble Lords know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can I push the Minister on this? In earlier debates, he was saying that the two main drivers for these proposals on the two-child policy were, first, the need to get financial control—he quoted very large figures that he expressed great concern about—and, secondly, the need to produce a level playing field between working families and non-working families. He must know the cost of all these amendments, because he will have had the briefing from the Box about them, but I have not heard him tell us that. How much would the cost be of the previous exemptions and, in addition, the exemptions referred to so powerfully by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher? How much of those savings would the Government lose if they were to meet the exceptions that all the Committee has, so far, argued for today?
Lord Freud
I am not in a position to answer those questions because I have had all kinds of amendments tabled—including one from the noble Baroness, which would remove the policy and lose all of the £1.3 billion. I am not in a position to go through the exemptions at this stage like that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
So are the Government really saying, “We are opposing amendments because we can’t afford them”, but do not know what they will cost?
Lord Freud
I have given out as much information as I can on the questions at this stage and indicated what the relative positions are. On this amendment in particular, I was careful to make it clear that there is not a huge difference in cost terms—and I will double-check this—between allowing a child element for the disabled and exempting the family which has a disabled child. That is the main cost implication which I have been able to provide today.
Baroness Pitkeathley
If the Minister is not in a position tonight to answer those questions, can he give an indication of when he might be?
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, before the Minister answers that, can I just say that I have found his responses today a little surprising. Many noble Lords have experience of being in Committee with him and having careful, detailed and well-informed debates. We are used to the Minister regularly getting up and telling us how much things cost and I find it almost impossible to believe that his department does not know how much these elements will cost. They have been proposed a long time. The department has had every opportunity and there are very good statisticians and modellers in the DWP. I can conclude only one of two things—either they know and have not told him or he knows and is saving it up for Report to launch it at us from the Box when we try and press a vote. Which is it?
Lord Freud
I would never launch something at noble Lords on Report in that way. Let me go and think about how I might present some useful figures in a reasonably timely way. That is not a promise to produce anything more than I have but I will look and see whether I can be more helpful, given that I clearly have not been now.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, will the Minister consider writing me a letter about improving access to childcare for disabled families?
Lord Freud
Can I look at that? I am not sure quite how much of this is in my own purview. If I can, I will.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am amazed this information was not available at the Commons stage of this Bill, given it has been discussed in Parliament for several months— I think it was back in July that Second Reading took place—and to still not to know these figures surprises me enormously. While the Minister is being helpful in producing information, given that we know that 85% of the welfare cuts proposed by the Chancellor will fall on women and given we know that nearly all the “victims”—the recipients of concern in the exempted groups that we were talking about in previous amendments—are women, will he also do us a gender breakdown? He is absolutely right, as other noble Lords have also said, that it is usually the mother who is left caring for disabled children. I remember meeting vaccine-damaged children—part of the Minister’s responsibility, I think—and every parent there with a disabled child was a woman. Can I ask the Minister if he will add a gender analysis to the financial analysis of where some of these cuts fall and who the exemptions, therefore, would help to protect?
Lord Freud
I think I have to fall back on the position that we have produced an analysis that is published and is available to noble Lords. I just make the point that often these statistics refer to households with both a man and a woman in them and it depends on who the recipient is. It is a household payment, not a payment to women specifically. One has to be rather careful of that when one looks at those statistics in the way that the noble Baroness has.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The noble Lord is correct but women still tend to bear the main responsibility for the care of children, so the impact on a household is borne particularly by the mother.
Lord Freud
We are getting way off but our evidence is that the vast bulk of households share financial resources, so although someone in a household may receive a particular amount of money it does not necessarily mean that they do not share the burdens evenly. One can make a lot of false assumptions out of some of these data if one is not careful. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but very powerful debate. The Minister certainly got a clear message that this is a matter of considerable concern to Members in most parts of the House. Perhaps I can say again that one-nation Tories of the past have always supported families with disabled children. I still hope that this Government too can show that they will follow the traditions of their party and not leave these families bereft and in severe straits. That is what these provisions will do in the absence of any amendments to them. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses as always. I think he always gives us a pretty good innings, but I hope that before Report he will feel able to clarify the relative costs of these various amendments, and then we can perhaps sit down and really think where the need is the greatest. If we are all in the dark it really is quite difficult to make sense out of things, unless the Government have implacably decided they will not change anything in this Bill at all. I hope that is not the view of the Government and of the Minister. I thank all noble Lords and the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I propose that Clauses 11 and 12 do not stand part of the Bill. We have heard during the debate today that this measure will have all sorts of, presumably, unintended consequences disincentivising kinship care and private fostering, disincentivising adoption, separating sibling groups, incentivising the break-up of larger families and acting as a deterrent to the formation of stepfamilies. It could require intrusive inquires of women who have been raped and, of course, will take large amounts of money from families with children. Another problem with the policy is the lack of any mitigation. Impact assessments often have a section that explains how the policy will be mitigated but here there is nothing. Of course that is because, once a child is conceived, there is no mitigating action that parents can take other than to have an abortion or to give up the child for adoption. I presume that nobody is advocating that. However, the Government are offering no help to families to mitigate the impact of these losses except where a woman has been raped or in the case of multiple births.
The Minister still has not explained the rationale for the exemptions. I am not satisfied with the question of choice. We also are left with the question of domestic violence and the 16% of pregnancies that are unplanned. Ministers sometimes talk as though conception were simply a matter of choice. The NHS website says very clearly that no contraceptive is 100% reliable. Where contraception has failed a woman has not exercised a choice to have a third child, unless the Minister is suggesting that a refusal to have an abortion constitutes a choice to have a baby, which it clearly does not. So why is that family penalised for having a third child? As we have discussed and will discuss again in a moment, it will affect some children who are already alive, as people making fresh claims for universal credit will get no money for their third child.
Given those effects and the lack of mitigation, the Government need a pretty compelling case for this policy. Have they made their case? The impact assessment says:
“The objective of these policies is to reform tax credits and Universal Credit to make them fairer and more affordable. They will ensure that the benefits system is fair to those who pay for it, as well as those who benefit from it, ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work. Encouraging parents to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child could have a positive effect on overall family stability”.
That is what it is meant to do, so does it? Let us deconstruct it. The first objective is to make the system,
“fair to those who pay for it, as well as those who benefit from it”.
This contains an implied fallacy from the start, suggesting that there are two categories of person—those who pay for benefits and those who receive them, and ne’er the twain shall meet. We know that this is not true. As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out in a compelling Second Reading speech,
“over the course of 18 years, half the population has needed and received a means-tested benefit”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. 57.].
People move in and out of entitlement to benefits and tax credits and the amount of tax they pay, and the degree to which they are a net recipient or contributor to the system changes over their lifetime and as things happen to them.
What about the second part, namely,
“ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work”?
Again, that paints a picture of people who are not working and having lots of children that hard-working families, who pay the taxes that fund the benefits and tax credits, could never afford to have. Let us test that. First, are those affected unemployed? The IFS figures show that, at the moment, 872,000 families receive an average of £3,670 for three-plus children. Of these families with three-plus children, 548,000 have parents in work, so approximately 63% of those getting benefits at the moment are in work—the typical victim of this policy is not the unemployed mother of a large family.
Of course, if the benefit cap is reduced, as the Bill proposes, to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere, then any family out of work with three-plus children is unlikely to get to enjoy the benefit of the child tax credit in any case. Shelter has pointed out that a typical couple with two kids renting a house in somewhere like Plymouth or Leeds—so not Mayfair—will be hit by the cap. Most of those affected are working, which means that tax credits are only part of their household income and top up their earnings, with the exact amount they get at any point depending on how much they earn. They are already funding much of the cost of raising their children in any case from their own resources and their own earnings. In that case, is there evidence that those in receipt of tax credits are having lots of children in a way that other people are not? No. We began a debate on this earlier. I have looked quite carefully at a study based on ONS statistical information which looked specifically not just at very large families but at what proportion of families had three or more children. It put it very starkly:
“These data show that socio-economic class, perhaps contrary to popular belief, does not affect family size”.
The third policy aim was:
“Encouraging parents to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child”.
That raises two questions. First, do the Government believe that cutting funding will reduce the number of children born to poorer families? Although it mentions in passing a study on working tax credit, the impact assessment acknowledges there is “no evidence” on the strength of any such effect. My reading of the global evidence is, frankly, that it is inconclusive. Secondly, to what extent is this about choice and, more specifically, economic choice? Ministers—to be fair those of more than one Government—have in my view a surprisingly touching faith in the rational-actor model of humanity. In fact, the evidence shows that plenty of us make economically irrational decisions, or rational non-economic decisions, all the time. People may have cultural or religious reasons for wanting larger families, or be unwilling to take steps that might limit family size because of ethnical views on contraception or abortion. If people had children only when they were sure they could support them, that would mean conceiving only if they knew for sure their household income would be secure for the next 18 years. How many people can be confident of that? Who would have children if that were the case? Eighteen years ago, people might have thought working in steel factories could be a job for life, but factories close and economies falter; even MPs can lose their jobs. Things happen to people and working patterns change.
I then began to wonder whether this could be a way of managing population change. Ministers have not claimed that, but maybe it is a secret option which is so politically sensitive that they cannot mention it. But that does not make sense either, because again the latest ONS population studies, published in 2013 using 2011 census data, showed the fertility rate. They focus on women born in 1968 because they assume that when you reach 45 you are past your child-bearing years—many of us certainly hope we are. The assumption at that point is that you can assume that the child-bearing period has finished. Women born in 1968 had an average of 1.92 children—it is worth noting, as Naomi Finch and others do, that a replacement rate, which would maintain the population, would be a fertility rate of 2.1. The studies also show that fertility rates are remarkably constant. The ONS notes that for over 70 years the two-child family has been the norm, while the numbers for families with three children and no children are also broadly consistent for women born in 1968. Interestingly for those worried about large families, one in 10 women born in 1968 had four-plus children, down from one in five for women born in 1941. That is clearly going in a direction that need not worry the Minister.
I have the following questions for the Minister. If the policy were to result in families on benefits and tax credits having fewer children, would the Government regard that as a good thing or a bad thing, or would they be indifferent to it? Secondly, what will the Government do to mitigate the effects on children of the hardship and damage to life chances that must result from increasing poverty in large families? If this policy succeeds in persuading poorer families to have fewer children, our society will suffer. As my noble friend Lady Hollis mentioned, since our birth-rate is below replacement rate, if the Government are serious about wanting to clamp down on immigration as our population ages, who is going to be around of working age to pay our pensions, fund our health service and care for us when we get old?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I was so disappointed with the Minister’s responses to the olive branch that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, held out and the inflexibility in response to all the suggestions of how these clauses could be mitigated. In support of the contention that these clauses should not stand part of the Bill, I want to address two main issues: one is the mentality underlying the clauses, and the other is the equality and human rights implications.
My noble friend Lady Hollis referred back to the 19th century in her earlier speech. I will go back just one century. The mentality of the Bill was summed up rather well in a letter to the Scotsman in 1931 which was quoted in The People by Selina Todd, which I just happened to read on holiday—it is a very good book. The letter complained that:
“Many of the workless marry and breed families while in receipt of the dole”,
adding to the taxpayers’ “heavy burden”. Nearly a century on, perhaps we are a bit more subtle, but that sums up the mentality. We have this constant false division, referred to by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, between taxpayers who fund the tax credits system and those who benefit from it and references to how families supporting themselves solely through work do not see their incomes increase when they have another child. Who are these families? Apart from the very wealthiest, those families will be in receipt of child benefit, so they are not supporting themselves solely through work. If they have another child, they will get extra child benefit, and rightly so.
The main difference between now and the situation referred to in the letter to the Scotsman is that the Government do not want those in work and on low incomes to breed too many children either, given that, as we have heard, the majority affected will indeed be in paid work. Incidentally, could the Minister tell us what the rationale is for the abolition of the family element and its universal credit equivalent, which I think perhaps we have rather overlooked in focusing—rightly—on the two-child limit? Is that to discourage people in poverty from breeding altogether?
I turn to the human rights and equality implications. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised concerned under a number of articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The impact assessment and the Government’s human rights memorandum do not adequately address these issues at all, although I commend the department for providing the latter.
Relating back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis about the gender impact, the legal officer of the Child Poverty Action Group—I declare an interest as honorary president—refers to Article 14 of the ECHR and the disproportionate impact on women as mothers. Indeed, the impact assessment notes that women are more likely to be affected than men. Article 16.1(e) of CEDAW guarantees that women have the right,
“to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise”,
that right. The International Conference on Human Rights proclaimed:
“Parents have a basic … right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children”.
With regard to families and children, as the Government acknowledge in their human rights memorandum, it may be argued that the clauses discriminate against large families and that large families have status for the purposes of Article 14. They discriminate against religious groups with a conscientious objection to contraception and abortion, which is contrary to Article 14, read with Article 9, of the ECHR. We have heard a lot from different faith groups about their very real concerns about the impact of these clauses.
It is difficult to see how these clauses are in the best interests of children affected, in line with Article 3 of the UNCRC. The Government’s justification in their human rights memorandum is that the articles are,
“justified, proportionate and not manifestly without reasonable foundation”.
That is based partly on all the usual guff about fairness and the encouragement,
“to make the same financial decisions as families supporting themselves solely through work”.
However, we have already heard that the majority of the families affected will be in paid work anyway. The overwhelming response, from a wide range of organisations, suggests that the clauses are not justified, are not proportionate and are without reasonable foundation.
Article 3 of the UNCRC is addressed with what I would call unconvincing arguments in the human rights memorandum, which says:
“The best interests of children … is to have parents in work”—
as we have already heard, the majority of these parents will be in work—
“and work remains the surest way out of poverty”.
These clauses will mean that it is a less sure way out of poverty than it is at present, and that is saying something.
The memorandum says that the savings,
“will allow the Government to protect expenditure on education, childcare and health and the improvements to the overall economic situation will have a positive impact on children and their best interests”.
I draw attention to the arguments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in the recent judgment on the benefit cap. She said that,
“article 3(1) … requires that first consideration be given to the best interests, not only of children in general, but also of the particular child or children directly affected by the decision in question”.
I suspect that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, would give the arguments in the human rights memorandum pretty short shrift. She will probably have the opportunity to do so quickly, if this Bill becomes law. I look forward to hearing her judgment on it.
The EHRC is also concerned about the disproportionately negative impact on particular black and minority ethnic groups, which are more likely to have large families. It says that this could be at risk of breaching Articles 2 and 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The statistics bear this out—of course, those statistics are not provided in the impact assessment, as it would be asking too much to have statistics in the impact assessment. For example, an analysis of the HBAI statistics, pooled for 2010-13 by Professor Lucinda Platt for the Women’s Budget Group, shows that just under two-thirds of children in Pakistani and Bangladeshi families with three or more children are already in poverty. Two-thirds is a staggering figure, and I dread to think what that figure is going to be like if these clauses go ahead.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I will make just two points. First, although it makes me sound old-fashioned, I am in favour of using the social security uprating rules, established over years, for looking at the total spend of the department and what proportion of the national wealth goes to social protection. I am always frustrated and angry when Chancellors of the Exchequer stand at the Dispatch Box. The Treasury knows the square root of nothing at all about social protection. In the run-up to the Budget, we have purdah, so nobody knows what is going to issue forth from the Chancellor’s Budget briefcase. We get things landed upon us that we all have to live with as a consequence.
I want to try to persuade Governments in the future to stick to the established rules, because there are very clear ways of changing rates and benefits. In the annual uprating, Parliament has a chance to look at trends and how things are changing, make decisions and support the Government or make suggestions otherwise. That is a sensible, well-established way of doing business.
My objection to clause stand part, absent any further exemptions, is that we now have a two-child rule. It is a precedent that I believe is very dangerous, because Chancellors of the Exchequer in future could start importing it to other parts of the social security system without let or hindrance. We might start asking ourselves: what are the intrinsic differences between the child element of tax credits and child benefit itself? They are semantic and subtle; we could be entirely wrong. My point is that a clause such as Clause 11, interfering with child tax credits, and the way in which it has been done, leaves the House with some really serious thinking to do about whether this is supportable.
My view is an olive branch, and I will probably be off the Christmas card list of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as a result of taking this weak-kneed position. But if the Government do not come up with serious responses to the powerful speeches that have been made this evening, it will condition how I will approach any future support for Clauses 11 and 12. Of course, it is technically true that clause stand part is not necessarily available to us on Report or at Third Reading, but there will be ways of trying to address this in other ways. I was put right on that by a stern note from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a moment ago. She is of course right, as she always is.
I am quite clear about this: it is dodgy procedure and a dangerous precedent. The Minister might be able to sell it to people like me if there is serious consideration of the powerful speeches that have been made. I understand the constitutional context; we are not in easy territory. I am not looking for trouble or to pull the Government down, defeat manifestos or any nonsense of that kind, but I have a conscience to deploy in deciding how to vote on some of these really important things and I will follow my conscience. I am not frightened of constitutional rows, if that is what it comes to. However, we do not need to get into that territory if the Minister carefully reflects, as he has done in the past, on what he has heard this evening and comes back with further and better particulars in terms of exemptions.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in listening to this debate, a few things have become clearer to me. One is how important it is that the Government have been so successful in securing employment for so many of our people. In the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, spoke to, both agreed that getting work is the most important way out of poverty. I pay tribute to the Government again for being so successful in that.
The Minister opened by saying that we are in an atmosphere of austerity and may need to make some tough choices. But it seemed to me that the language changed later on, to say that this is not just about austerity but is the right thing to be doing. I challenge that sincerely. It does not seem at all right to put these burdens on people. Just think: at the moment there is a storm in the north of England—Storm Desmond—flooding many families’ homes. A family in poverty, who may be working but on a very low income, may think to themselves, “We won’t take out insurance on this, that and the other, and we will hope for the best. We hope that there won’t be a storm”. Then this storm comes along and they have not insured their home, and they are already borrowing money anyway for various things because that is the only way that they can afford them, so they already have that debt and now they have lost more. The point I am making is that we are dealing here with some of the more vulnerable families in our society, and we are reducing their resilience.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, this is a Bill that my noble friend Lord McKenzie has gone on record as saying—and I certainly support him in this—is one of the most wretched that he has known in this House. Most of it deals with cuts that many of us find objectionable because they fall on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. We will oppose those, and on Report we will try to persuade the Minister to make some mitigation if that is possible.
However, the two-child policy is of a different order from the issue of cuts, primarily because it is saying to those families who have a third child, “We are hugely increasing the odds that you as a family will descend into poverty, that your poverty will be persistent, that you will not be able to get out of it and that your children will carry that poverty into the next generation”. We know this to be the case, yet the Government, and the Minister on their behalf—I cannot believe that his heart is in this—are actually willing to go down a policy route that knowingly sends poor children into longer, deeper and more persistent poverty, not only for their childhood but for a substantial chunk of their adulthood as well. We know that the children of poor parents are twice as likely to be poor at the age of 30 as others of the same age, yet the Government are going down a route that, to me, is deeply morally offensive. As opposed to the cuts, over which we have argued and will continue to argue, this seems to be a knowing castigation of poor children into permanent poverty for sums of money that we do not even have any evidence for. I say to the Government that they really should not go down this path: it is a damned path to go down.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I express my strong concern about these clauses remaining part of the Bill. I offer three straightforward and, I hope, succinct comments: first, about the implications of these clauses; secondly, about the motivation of parents that is implied; and, thirdly, about where responsibility lies.
First, the Government place great emphasis on choice and personal responsibility for family size. I have to say that that assumes a remarkable assumption about the fail-safe effectiveness of contraception—or, if not, an apparent willingness for abortion to be appropriate as a sort of emergency contraception to keep family size to two children. I doubt the assumption, and would deeply regret driving people to seek termination on economic grounds. Is that really what the Government wish?
Secondly, over 35 years now I have played some part alongside others in preparing engaged couples for marriage and have often heard myself saying, “If you wait until you are sure you can afford children, you will never have them”. Religious traditions other than my own go further and specifically enjoin the blessing of children and family life. Are the Government aware of how these clauses will be received?
Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier in Committee, we—that is, a number of faith groups and organisations—made clear, in a letter circulated to all Members of the House prior to Second Reading, our belief that children are a blessing and not burdensome, a problem or a difficulty. To consign a child to being a financial problem over which the child himself or herself has had, and has, no control is indeed a singular responsibility—a responsibility for the mother and father indeed but, if these clauses go forward, it is a responsibility in which we shall all share. How sad it will be that a child growing up, becoming increasingly aware, will one day hear or discover that he or she is responsible in part for the family’s level of income simply by having been born. Although the Government seem to place that responsibility wholly on parents, I fear that the responsibility for this change would rest with us all. Is that what the Government want, and are we all prepared to accept that responsibility?
Lord Freud
My Lords, Clauses 11 and 12 introduce the Government’s reform to the child element of child tax credit and universal credit, which was announced by the then Chancellor in the Summer Budget of 2005. The purpose of child tax credit is to provide support to low-income families to help them with the cost of raising children, while universal credit, which replaces the child tax credit, is a unified benefit that provides support to low-income families both in and out of work. As it is being rolled out across the country it is providing a clearer and simpler system of support for families and provides real incentives for work. However, it is important that universal credit is kept on a sustainable basis and encourages families to make similar decisions to those who support themselves fully through work. The Government believe that child tax credit has become unsustainable, with expenditure trebling in real terms between 1999 and 2010, and going up the income scale to a level where a family with three children earning up to £40,000 will still be eligible for support. Last year the Government spent almost £30 billion on tax credits.
I will deal with the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the dependency ratio. In recent decades Britain has had a higher total fertility rate than the average of the older EU member states. Most families will not be affected by this measure. The mean number of dependent children per family is 1.7, and 86% of families have one or two dependent children. In fact, those families with two or fewer children are remarkably stable, whether they are lone parents, at 88%; opposite-sex cohabiting couples, at 87%; or married couples, at 84%.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the point my noble friend was making was not just about replacement fertility rates. Given the time all of us hope to live longer, one of the responses of government has been to say that unless we can improve the worker-to-pensioner ratio we have to defer the age at which people begin to draw their state pensions, even if they have had hard lives previously. We do not have the resources to pay for it from existing workers as we do not have enough of them to sustain that pensioner support in the future. Nothing the Minister has said has challenged that.
Lord Freud
We are going way off the core issues by looking at the times people retire. A lot of things are changing, and it is almost impossible to fine-tune for that.
I will address the challenge set by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on what our rationale for this is. It is very simple: the Government want to ensure that the system is fair to those who pay for it as well as those who benefit from it. That is the government position. I should add that the Bill should not be taken in isolation. We are introducing a number of measures to support households in work by reducing income tax through increasing personal allowances, increasing wages and increasing free childcare.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of those areas where there is a cultural disposition for larger families. To that, we make the point that all families need to think carefully and ensure that they can afford to provide for a new child in their household.
I make it clear that these changes will not mean a reduction in entitlement for those families already receiving child tax credit for children born before the 6 April 2017. In universal credit, for families already receiving the child element of universal credit, the changes will apply only to children joining the household on or after that date. I think that we have another amendment on which we can go into that in more detail.
Families moving to universal credit from child tax credit and receiving child tax credit for more than two children, and families claiming universal credit within six months of a previous universal credit or child tax credit claim that included the child element, will continue to be able to receive the child element for those children.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the EHRC, as she knows, the Government set out their assessment of the impacts of the policies in the Bill on 20 July, and the memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights was published on 8 September. Ministers have considered impacts with regard to all the relevant legal obligations when formulating the welfare policies announced in the Bill. The intended impact of these reforms is to incentivise work and ensure that work always pays.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Subsequent to that, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced its own assessment, which says very clearly that it believes that the human rights statement from the Government was inadequate. I welcome the fact that the DWP produced such a statement but given its inadequacy, will the Minister now respond to what the EHRC is saying?
Lord Freud
I believe there has been correspondence with it, which I think is public.
Lord Freud
That is the best I can do at this stage. However, I accept that that is a bit tentative as an answer, so I will look to get the noble Baroness a better answer, or as full an answer as I can provide after talking this through with colleagues.
The Government believe that these changes strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable—we have discussed the extra support for families with disabled children—while encouraging families which receive both child tax credit and universal credit to make the same financial decisions about the number of children they can afford as are made by those families who support themselves solely through work. They help to make the welfare system sustainable and the move towards a high-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare country. Clauses 11 and 12 should therefore stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Baroness responds—and I do not wish to keep the Committee from its dinner—while I thank the Minister for reminding us about the very welcome new higher minimum wage that the Government are introducing, looking at figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on projections for the difference that that will make, it has been clear to me that the complex way in which the tapers work will often mean that, for instance, lone working parents will not benefit that much more from this new, very welcome offer. Therefore I encourage your Lordships to keep that in mind. It is a very welcome offer but it may not make that much difference to the families that we are concerned about today.
Lord Freud
I will just deal with that. In universal credit we are producing something very clearly tapered, without the trap at the 16-hour point, which is in the current legacy welfare system. Therefore we have a pathway. One of the things we are doing, particularly for lone parents, is that once you are freed from that tyranny of the 16-hour rule, it is interesting how firms in the north-west, where that is already happening, are able to work with those people and start moving them up the earnings progression—not just as regards the number of hours but earnings progression—and we are beginning to see signs of a transformation. That is behind some of these changes—we want to make people independent of the state as much as we can.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I have debated a lot of subjects with the Minister over the last few years, and I am not sure I have ever been as disappointed in a Dispatch Box performance as I have been today. I know that the Minister knows these issues very well, and that he normally comes back. When noble Lords take a lot of care to mount arguments, take apart his arguments and engage, as many have done today, he normally does us all the courtesy of taking them on and responding to them carefully. He simply has not been doing that today.
I asked him only two questions and he did not answer either of them. I deconstructed the argument, and all he did was repeat it. He did not even engage with it. This is only a suspicion, and I am sure I am wrong, but it may just be that the Minister does not have any more enthusiasm for these provisions than I do. However, I am sure that that cannot be the case, and we will find that he comes back from supper enthused with zeal to take on and defend these proposals—which, frankly, has been sadly lacking so far.
I will say a couple of things. One is to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He mentioned worrying about constitutional implications. He need not worry, of course, as he will well know, being much longer-serving than I am. Since this is primary legislation there is absolutely no reason why we should not send matters back to the House of Commons. The Companion makes this very clear at paragraph 8.181, where it says that,
“with regard to Commons financial privilege, the Lords may properly make amendments to Commons bills (other than supply bills) which, when they come to be considered by the Commons, are deemed by them to infringe their financial privileges. It also follows that the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to”,
that. I hope that as a result he will sleep more easily tonight and will feel able to pursue this at a later stage.
I will make just one final point. I agree with the point made by many noble Lords that this two-child policy is qualitatively different from all the other measures. What we have traditionally done in support is to recognise in social security that children are a public and a private good and therefore that the costs of raising them should properly be shared between the taxpayer and the family. Traditionally, in the case of child benefit, we have said that we should all contribute something to the raising of all children; that where there are particular needs—for example, for disabled children—we should all contribute more; and that where people’s needs are greater, we should contribute more through means-tested benefits. This is a very dangerous day indeed if we move away from that and I hope very much that we will return to it at a later stage in the Bill. But I beg leave to withdraw my opposition.
NATO and the European Union
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to strengthen defence and security co-operation, bilaterally and multilaterally, with their European partners in NATO and the European Union.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my aim in putting down this Question for Short debate is to draw attention to the constructive co-operation in defence which the UK now pursues with its neighbours within the context of NATO and the European Union. I am conscious that much more co-operation is going on than is reported in the British media—or even reported to Parliament. The gap between the rhetoric of national sovereignty and the realities of international interdependence has been demonstrated by the admission that French maritime patrol aircraft have been searching for non-NATO submarines in the Irish Sea, protecting the access routes to the UK’s submarine base for us while we lack maritime surveillance aircraft of our own.
The British public, and indeed most Members of both Houses of Parliament, remain unaware of how far Franco-British defence collaboration has moved since the Lancaster House agreement of 2010. Several major exercises between the two countries have been conducted—well covered in the French press but scarcely noted in the British. Co-operation in nuclear research and facilities is moving forward. Co-operation in defence procurement has continued to prove more difficult, but joint work on drones and missiles continues. It is a matter of regret to both Governments that the construction of the new British aircraft carriers reached a point in 2010 beyond which it proved financially unjustifiable to install catapults to permit the flexible operation of aircraft between British and French carriers. I remember the efforts that Liam Fox made to achieve this, sadly without success.
Small British contingents are working with their French counterparts in the Sahel, and the two air forces,
“work closely together on operations in the Middle East and North Africa”.
Also, a,
“Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, which will be operational in 2016, will provide a potent combined reaction force of up to 10,000 personnel available to plan for and respond to crises, including beyond Europe”.
I am quoting from page 52 of the SDSR White Paper. I wonder whether the Government will wish to celebrate the achievement of this significant step forward through any public ceremony or joint parade, to catch the attention of the public, or whether they will leave awareness to the tiny number of us who actually get as far as page 52 of the SDSR paper, with Ministers hoping that the Daily Mail and the Telegraph will not notice and that the French Government will not complain that our Government appear to want to keep its existence as private as possible.
I am struck that the SDSR paper makes no mention of the oldest and most closely integrated joint force in which we share with a close partner: the British-Dutch marine Amphibious Force, through which Dutch troops train in the UK and are integrated for operational purposes into the UK marine brigade. This was, after all, established in 1973, although I know from its website that joint operations between British and Dutch marines stretch back to the joint operation that captured Gibraltar in 1704. British and Dutch troops served together in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991, and train together regularly in Arctic warfare. Yet I would guess that at most a dozen MPs are aware of the existence of this force, and I am not aware of any occasion on which the British Government have wished to publicise, let alone to celebrate, this pattern of shared defence that has been going on for more than 40 years.
The SDSR paper does mention,
“our partners in the Northern Group”.
However, it does not explain what the northern group is or how it operates. I have heard from Swedish and Baltic officials that the UK has played a very helpful and constructive part in assisting the development of integrated forces among the Nordic states, and in working with them to strengthen shared defence capabilities in the Baltic Sea, across the Baltic states and into the Arctic north. It is good to learn from others how much they appreciate the quiet work that British officers and men have undertaken over an extended period to assist states that are members of NATO and the EU, and some that are not formal members of one or the other of these two closely linked bodies. However, again, I regret that so few people in the UK have been told by our own Government what has been achieved.
Quietly, German tank forces and aircrew have trained in Britain over many years. The SDSR paper commits the Government to,
“intensify our security and defence relationship with Germany”.
That includes closer collaboration in procurement of equipment and common support facilities for common aircraft such as the Typhoon and the A400M transport. There is a passing reference to the withdrawal of the remaining British forces from Germany by 2020, and efforts that will be made to continue, nevertheless, joint training exercises with German forces. But there is no indication that our Government cherish the close collaboration that we have built up with the German armed forces in the 50 years since they were recreated, while a substantial proportion of the British Army and Air Force was stationed in Germany.
When in government, I argued that the withdrawal of British forces from their garrisons and bases across Germany, after 60 years and several generations of soldiers and airmen, with much interaction and some considerable intermarriage, should be marked by joint parades and ceremonies to celebrate the transformation of our relations and our commitment to future partnership. I was told by a Conservative Cabinet Minister that something like this was entirely unnecessary, that the Germans “are very transactional” and unemotional, and that in the circumstances a silent and unceremonious withdrawal was the best way to let sleeping dogs lie.
I welcome the slow but real progress that successive British Governments have made in developing closer co-operation with our European partners since Tony Blair first signed a bilateral treaty with the French in 1998. I actively supported the further moves forward made during the coalition Government between 2010 and 2015. I hope that these moves will go further: towards more common procurement, and the shared training and maintenance economies that go with it; towards more effective combined forces, both bilaterally and multilaterally constituted; and towards greater specialisation, rather than each European state struggling to hold on to smaller and smaller units in every military field. We all recognise the problems of sovereignty and command that follow such efforts, but they are not insuperable and not novel.
I recall meeting Liam Fox as I came out of an exchange in the Lords in which a Cross-Bencher had declared that it was unthinkable that British troops should serve under foreign command. His response was to list all the different NATO member states under whose rotating command British troops had served in Afghanistan, adding that some of our forces had also served under French command in the last year of the First World War, in 1917 to 1918.
I recall the French and German Governments building mutual confidence out of previous hostility through joint military parades and ceremonies, as well as through efforts at practical co-operation. The depth of German inhibitions over defence deployment has held that practical co-operation back until recently, although the recent German decision to deploy significant air, sea and land forces to the Middle East suggests that at last that inhibition is giving way.
Practical co-operation between the British and the Dutch has, as I have said, been close since the 1970s, and practical co-operation between British and French forces has developed with, I am told, growing mutual respect since contingents worked closely together under very difficult circumstances in Bosnia in the 1990s.
We all know why successive Governments—from Tony Blair in 1990-91 onwards—have shied away from spelling out to the British public the implications of unavoidable, mutually advantageous, defence co-operation with our neighbours. In 1990-91, the Daily Mail mounted a campaign against Franco-British and wider European co-operation, labelling it “the European Army”, and first Blair, and then those followed him, shied away. Eurosceptic myths have sunk into so many aspects of British public policy that it takes courage to disentangle reality from fantasy. Some in Brussels, and others in Berlin, have wanted to create fully integrated European forces with a common European command, but their national Parliaments would without doubt have refused to vote for their proposals, and issues of sovereignty and legitimacy would have blocked their overseas deployment.
Over the past 20 years or more, therefore, British Governments have found themselves in the uncomfortable position of pressing for closer practical military co-operation, spending more money on the defence of Europe than most of our partners and neighbours, while at the same time working desperately hard to downplay the significance of what they were doing for fear of domestic misrepresentation.
There are now, as the 2010 SDSR has already spelled out, no security threats to Britain that we do not share with our neighbours, so it makes sense to share our military response, as far as we can without abandoning the principles of national sovereignty and accountability, with our neighbours. It makes for more effective use of scarce resources and expensive weapons systems. Liberal Democrats have supported these efforts as they have slowly moved forward. However, our partners and neighbours read our newspapers, and some even watch our TV—the disadvantage of English as an international language is that it is easy for others to follow our domestic debate—and note the almost clandestine way in which our Government operate on defence co-operation, hiding its extent from Parliament and the public.
Having sat through innumerable interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others, insisting that NATO has nothing to do with the EU and the EU has nothing to do with defence and security, I was glad to see on page 53 of the SDSR White Paper some substantial paragraphs on the security dimension of the European Union, and the several EU operations in which British forces have played an active—sometimes even a leading—part. These included, most strikingly, the various operations around the Horn of Africa, such as Operation Atlanta, the anti-piracy force directed from the UK Joint Operations Centre at Northwood. That was another shared operation of which our Government should have been proud, but which they have made too little of.
If we are to move further along this path towards more effective co-operation, as the SDSR White Paper quietly recommends, we have to engage more widely with political elites in our partner countries to make sure that we build their support. It was, for example, a mistake for the FCO to cut its grant to the Franco-British Council by 80% in the latest spending review, when that council, among other activities, sponsors one of the most useful dialogues on defence and security between British and French parliamentarians and outside experts. The Government are right to wish to take European defence co-operation further—bilaterally and multilaterally—but wrong not to publicise it or celebrate it, which would help to build a broad base of public support both within the UK and within our partner countries.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, because it brings to an end a most interesting period I have had of some six months of sitting through presentation after presentation, as a member of the House of Lords defence group, from the various parts of our Armed Forces. Over the years I have seen these presentations, but I have never been so impressed as I have been in the past six months. I believe that we might possibly end up with the best Armed Forces in the world.
The question is: what do we do with them and what is the bureaucracy that keeps us at bay? We have 22 member states of the EU and 22 members of NATO. It is quite interesting, however, that members of NATO are also members of the EU, so there is an interrelationship that I find quite interesting. The position that we are facing now is that we are a global nation, and perhaps one of the most global in the world, without actually realising it. We have had historic co-operation with our neighbours, but not within the Armed Forces area until recently.
I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to the interesting position in which we find ourselves under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The territorial land area belonging to the United Kingdom extends outwards to 200 nautical miles and is known as the economic exclusion zone—the EEZ—and this also applies to overseas territories. Just for fun, I looked at the world’s EEZs of some 45 million square kilometres, and found that 60% of this area, or 26 million square kilometres, is represented by the EEZs of the United Kingdom together with those of the Commonwealth and the British Overseas Territories. Some 16% of the EEZ area is represented by France and its overseas territories. Thus, together with France, we have an interesting control of the waters of the world. These zones account for the area almost from heaven above to hell beneath. On the other side, 15% of the EEZ area belongs to the United States, and a further 10% to NATO. In our future thinking on our Armed Forces, therefore, we must look at the maritime sector very closely. The world shipping fleet includes 21,000 Commonwealth vessels. That is about the same as those of Japan, Greece, Germany, China, USA, Russia, Norway and the Netherlands combined. We are therefore, to some extent, a very great maritime nation.
When we come to our trade, one of the fascinating issues when regarding it—and I was on the Trade Board for many years—is that we have always had a deficit on manufactures and a surplus on services that has made up for that. That is because we do not make as many things as we used to, and our raw materials, in general, are sourced from abroad. This deficit on manufactures, therefore, is supplemented by a surplus on services. It means that we have played, and should continue to play, a global role.
This makes me look at the situation with France—and I declare an interest because I am technically a French peasant farmer, as I grow a small amount of wine in France and have been attacked by wild boars, the biggest one of which weighed 300 kilos. There is therefore a certain sensitivity and I have worked closely with French companies over many years. The relationship between the United Kingdom and France is particularly good at this time, and there is much more co-operation and going together in various territories.
I turn, inevitably, to Africa—that vast continent that has many problems—and to the “pays francophone” in Africa, which were very substantial providers of raw materials for France. We cannot look at the defence of the world or of the realm without looking at the requirement to solve the problems in some of these territories, particularly Africa, where migration has occurred, production has fallen and raw materials have been left in the ground. Therefore, if you go back to the past and look at the scramble for Africa and such, there should be a new scramble for these areas, where we, with the protection of our Armed Forces, could help to regenerate much of the production of the past.
In looking at some of the recent migration figures, and trying to determine how accurate they might be—on who came from where to go where for what reason—it seems strange that much of the migration comes from countries that were originally colonised because of their raw materials and the capabilities that they had for produce and products that were required in the western world. That still applies. However dreamy it may be, it would be nice to think that a review of all the production areas of central Africa and others today might be undertaken, and consideration given as to how some of the mines might be reopened or the agricultural production put in place by those immigrants that we have here.
It is a very interesting time for us, and I am very proud of my belief that we have, man for man, the best Armed Forces in the world.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on bringing this Motion forward, and he could not have found a more pertinent moment to have done so. We all need the Armed Forces, and we have had a reminder in horrifying terms just recently of how much we need them.
We do not just need Armed Forces; we need the best Armed Forces. That is to say that we need to select people very carefully, pay them decently, look after them properly and, above all, give them the best training and equipment that we possibly can. We cannot ever fight in this country, or in any democracy, labour-intensive warfare; it must be capital-intensive warfare. We must make sure that, to the greatest degree possible, human lives are protected and that we achieve maximum effect through the capitalisation of the equipment that we provide. That has been the principle on which we have based our defence policy and defence procurement policy for quite a long time, and it was certainly the principle we adopted when I was Defence Procurement Minister during the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements.
The trouble, of course, is that such a policy is extremely expensive. The defence cuts that we have had over the past five years have been egregious and quite disgracefully irresponsible—thoroughly irresponsible. Reference has already been made this evening to the problems raised in the maritime surveillance area. Of course, we always have constraints. We had financial constraints in our time, and there will always be financial constraints. At present, the RAF supposedly has eight squadrons of combat aircraft. That should mean 96 combat aircraft. What have we actually been fielding in theatre? For a long time, there have been eight Tornado jets and there may be two Typhoons as well—a tiny proportion of the aircraft that should be available. That shows how much our defences have been, sadly, run down. We cannot now sustain deployment of more than about 5,000 men—a brigade, really, with various supporting units. I am afraid that, as a result of the defence cuts, we are in a very thin situation.
Nevertheless, there will always be financial constraints and we have to think intelligently about how we can save money. Far and away the greatest potential for saving money in defence—and this has never been properly exploited—is international collaboration. That is a field of which I know something. When I was Defence Procurement Minister, I negotiated some substantial projects involving international collaboration in procurement. For example, I negotiated tranche 3 of the Typhoon programme, which has been a great success, and the renegotiation of the A400M programme, which had run into problems but is now doing very well and will be the greatest turboprop transport aircraft in the world for the next 30 or 40 years—replacing the Hercules in that important role. In my time, although I did not start it, I was also concerned with the F35 programme, which is a splendid piece of co-operation with the United States in which we provided, for the first time, $2 billion towards the R&D cost. That programme is also going well, although I am afraid to say that our uptake of the aircraft is much lower than it should be.
I had a particularly good relationship with my American counterpart, who was then Ash Carter, and with my French counterpart, Laurent Collet-Billon. Laurent and I managed to do together quite a lot of things in terms of common collaboration and providing various naval systems. As a result of that, I was the first Minister—probably the only British Minister—invited to go to Île Longue, the French SSBN base. Of course, I invited my counterparts to Faslane with the full knowledge and support of the Americans. We entered into a collaboration in that area, of course not involving anything to do with the weapons or the weapon delivery systems, which has been very promising. I also brought the French into the Mantis programme to develop an unmanned interceptor. We started to discuss with them something that has always been close to my heart, which is a theatre or tactical anti-ballistic missile capability. That project was completely buried when the new Government came to power in 2010, but I was delighted to see it revived and mentioned again in the SDSR the other day.
So a lot has been going on, but we have not really done more than scratch the surface in terms of getting those very valuable savings. The Typhoon programme, like all previous programmes, was based on a system known as “juste retour”, which meant that each participant in the programme expected to get back, in terms of the work on the project and the employment that flowed from that in his own country, exactly the proportion that corresponded to the money that he put up front to pay for the development of the particular system or platform concerned. That is a very inefficient system. It means that you deprive yourself at the outset of the benefits of competition and the economic pressures on suppliers that you can get through competition, so that is no good. We then set up a body called OCCAR, which is supposed to be an objective body based in Paris, which had some good civil servants from various EU countries seconded to it. It was supposed to act as an agent on behalf of procuring countries to deal directly with suppliers and solve their problems. The trouble was that countries had very little inclination to give major projects to OCCAR because they wanted to go back to the juste retour system.
This matter should be taken very seriously. Although I have never done a study of it myself, it is quite clear that savings to be made by intelligent joint and collaborative procurement run into the tens of millions. They are enormous and it is utterly irresponsible for us not to do what we can to try to secure them. Two things need to be done, and in the time that I have I will mention them. They are both very important and both politically extremely difficult. They are both obstacles in front of us, and we must find a way to surmount them.
One is that, in due time, we need to aim to remove the protection that exists in the treaty of Lisbon—in the Treaty on European Union—for defence procurement, which protects it from the principles of public procurement policy, which apply in every other sector. In other words, we should be prepared to lift all protection of our defence industry. Our defence industry is extremely capable, productive and innovative. Of course, there would be losers along the way, but, on balance, we would do very well from that. I do not know why we are so reluctant to go down that route. We should be championing such a move. It would have enormous economic benefits and dividends for us all.
The second very difficult thing that we need to do, which we must grasp in good time—I hope in my lifetime that we see some real progress towards it—is to go in for defence specialisation to make sure that we do not all have to have exactly the same parallel range of equipment. We can actually expect certain of our allies to deliver certain inputs. It is perfectly all right if we have that sort of relationship with the French for them to provide maritime surveillance aircraft, and we might be permanently out of the business. It would be very unsatisfactory to do that on a unilateral one-off basis, but as a general rule it could have been a practical possibility. We have so many helicopter systems, most of which I bought—I bought 22 Chinooks, and the new Government cancelled 10 of them. We have Pumas, which I got re-engined. We have the Wildcat, which I ordered. I think we still have some Sea Kings but we have got rid of the Lynx. We have Merlin—even I can hardly remember all the types of helicopter. It represents a fantastic logistical cost to keep all those different systems going and to keep men and women trained to operate them. It is very inefficient and something that should be spread over a much wider range of countries.
That is a very difficult thing to do politically, and initially everyone has 10,000 arguments why it cannot and should not be done, but it will be have to be done if we want to go on being able to defend our civilisation effectively, be able to make a success of our alliances and go on being able to respect that essential principle that our young men and women in uniform go into battle with the best possible support that money can buy.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, there were two crucial votes last week. There was the vote in the House of Commons to support air strikes against Daesh and there was the vote in the Bundestag to commit German forces in support. I was particularly pleased with the decision and position taken by my party, the Liberal Democrats, in the Commons. Had my party gone the other way, I would have had to very seriously consider my position.
I speak in this debate as a very committed European. Indeed, one of the prime reasons I left the Conservative Party was that in the 1990s that party became, very sadly, increasingly Eurosceptic. I think that going as far as having a European army is probably going too far, but I believe that we need much more multilateral integration of army units across Europe, as was referred to a little earlier. Similarly, there has to be a much greater rationalisation of procurement. We have far too many production facilities in Europe. Obviously, one is conscious of the sovereignty arguments. Until we have greater integration in military units and consolidation and rationalisation of defence companies, the problem of procurement excess will remain. It was very disappointing to me and to others when there was an immediate outcry when it was suggested, some years ago, that there might be a merger between EADS and BAE.
In my short time allocation this evening, I should like to focus on the UK-French relationship. I have to say that a failure to support France in Syria would have been a near disaster in relationship terms; indeed, in my view it would have been a national humiliation, so I repeat how pleased I was at the decision that was taken in the other House. The truth, of course—it was referred to by my noble friend a little earlier in his excellent opening contribution—is that co-operation between ourselves and France is far greater than is acknowledged and the public is aware of. We are conscious of what we did to help the French in Mali, in terms of heavy lift, and, more recently, the reciprocal help by France in maritime patrols, where we are currently sadly deficient.
I remember a very early briefing that the current Secretary of State gave to a number of us when he told us that the one thing that had really surprised him was the degree of co-operation that he found existed between our military and the French. He almost implied that he was speaking daily to his French opposite number, but there is a great reluctance by the Government to acknowledge just how much and how deep co-operation there really is, as my noble friend said.
I have a number of questions to put briefly to the noble Baroness arising from the SDSR. If she cannot answer the points tonight, perhaps she could write to me. Paragraph 450 says of the SDSR:
“We will … collaborate on complex weapons”.
Can she indicate what these complex weapons are?
Paragraphs 512 and 535 refer to the UK-France Combined Joint Expeditionary Force. Paragraph 535 says:
“Our Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, which will be operational in 2016, will provide a potent combined reaction force of up to 10,000 personnel”—
a crisis-responding force. We are nearly in 2016 now, so what is the latest situation with this force?
Finally, reference is made in paragraph 535 to “shared opportunities” when our new carriers enter service. In a number of briefings that I have been at over the years there have been very strong hints from the Navy that we will be looking to our allies—and, I suspect, particularly France—to provide escort support for our carriers, given the sadly inadequate number of escorts that we have. Can the noble Baroness give some indication of current thinking in this area?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for initiating this very timely and important debate. The European Council only had its first discussion on a common security and defence policy since the Lisbon treaty in December 2013—so only two years ago—but it had another fairly quickly, in June this year, when it vowed to keep security and defence policy regularly on its agenda. There are preparations under way to renew both the EU internal security strategy and the global strategy on foreign and security policy. It is clear that there is considerable overlap and convergence between those two: where does the fight against ISIS/Daesh as a terrorist organisation stop and that against it as a military threat start? European cyberdefence against organised criminal hacking networks shades into defence against cyberespionage and cyberwarfare conducted by states.
Indeed, the way that internal and external security are intertwined is shown by France invoking Article 47.2 of the Treaty on European Union on mutual assistance. It suffered a terrorist attack but the response is a mixture of intelligence policing and military capabilities. None of this means a European army, even if that aim has been supported fairly recently by the Commission President, Mr Juncker. Indeed, to quote Mrs Mogherini, the high representative, the convergence of internal and external security has,
“led to a renewed impetus in the EU-NATO relationship”.
She meets regularly with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
European states are facing common threats. Europe needs a common response through the pooling of resources and equipment, joint procurement and interoperability so that EU and NATO capabilities and operations are increasingly integrated. The European Defence Agency is getting into its stride with a number of effective pooling and sharing projects, including pilot training, satellite communications, medical capability and air-to-air refuelling. I think that there was a Conservative pledge, possibly in the 2010 manifesto, to review UK membership of the European Defence Agency. Can the Minister confirm that that has been quietly shelved?
As my colleagues have mentioned, there are informal examples of co-operation through the French maritime patrols off the coast of Scotland, and indeed the UK offer of the use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus to France. It was most welcome that the strategic defence and security review vowed to further strengthen the UK-France defence and security relationship, and was perhaps a little unexpected. The plans include, as my noble friend mentioned, a combined joint expeditionary force of up to 10,000 personnel, collaboration on equipment, including the procurement and development of missiles, the exploitation of shared opportunities with the new aircraft carriers, and stronger links between the Army’s 16 Air Assault Brigade and its French counterpart. Obviously the joint working in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, although the subject of a particular vote, is part of that trend.
Mention is also made in the SDSR of the relationship with Germany. That makes sense as Germany seems to be emerging from its chrysalis on defence. Germany and Poland should take on more of the role in NATO territorial defence, leaving the UK and France, which are more willing to deploy forces outside Europe, to continue to fulfil a wider range of responsibilities.
All this is taking place against a background of historic weaknesses in terms of waste and duplication, and a reluctance to co-procure and specialise. That is for a variety of well-known reasons: loss of strategic autonomy and sensitivity of the defence sector, along with a reluctance to give up the strategic industrial base which is seen as a matter of national prestige. Then there is nervousness about specialisation, including whether others are going to pull their weight in funding. I think that we need to look at the dangers of free-riding.
While there has been considerable bilateral co-operation, there is no invoking of the facility for permanent, structured co-operation under Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union to develop “differentiated integration”, to use the EU phrase, among member states. Can the Minister tell us if there is any prospect of invoking this structured permanent co-operation so as to streamline the variety of initiatives taking place?
Finally, I shall quote Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of RUSI:
“Most of all, the UK needs to work to maintain and strengthen the partnerships on which its security and prosperity depends. The grand strategy which it adopted in the 1940s, anchored on a community of fate between the countries of Europe and North America, remains the right one for the country today. Those who argue for a return to nationalism, and for a fragmentation of European institutions, remain on the fringes of politics”.
I hope that that remains the case. Can the Minister elaborate on an intriguing mention in the SDSR of the formation of a cross-Whitehall joint Euro-Atlantic security policy unit, apparently to bring together diplomatic and defence expertise and foster EU and NATO co-ordination and co-operation? I would be interested to know how this encouraging initiative will work and whether personnel from our allies will be somehow associated with this unit.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate and for his introduction, which as usual was an excellent lesson in history. I welcome much of the new national security strategy, with chapter 5 setting out how the Government will use diplomats, development assistance, the Armed Forces, the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and soft power to protect and promote our interests and values. If we are to have the international security and stability that we seek, development, defence and diplomacy have to go together.
The SDSR needs to demonstrate a joined-up, whole-government approach. Of course, this is also recognised in the new policy statement, UK Aid: Tackling Global Challenges in the National Interest. My noble friend Lord McConnell referred to that statement in the debate last week, and welcomed the new £1 billion fund for conflict stability and security. However, as he remarked, the strategies for these new funds are far from clear. Although he failed to get an answer from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I hope the Minister will respond today to my noble friend’s request that the Government consider allocating time in the new year for a debate on the strategies behind these two critical new commitments.
The Government’s commitment on defence spending and to the 0.7% for development spending is also welcome, but cutting back on diplomatic analysis and research strength may in the long run cost us more. Better understanding foreign societies at risk of instability and improving the UK’s ability to respond intelligently and appropriately to international crises are vital, as the Ukraine crisis taught us. The UK now spends less per head on diplomacy than the US, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
To multiply what we can achieve alone, the Government talk of investing more in our relationships with our traditional allies and partners and building stronger partnerships around the world. Since we joined the European Union many years ago, British foreign policy has had two key pillars. The first is exercising a leading role in Europe and the second is being the principal ally of the United States. As President Obama made clear, leaving the EU would have an impact on not just one but both of those pillars.
Unfortunately, the strategy section on the European Union is weak, failing to mention the potential of the External Action Service and the Development Commission to build stability in the world. One Eurosceptic myth often repeated is that we were never told when we joined the European Community that it had implications for foreign policy and that it was just a common market for trade. In the debates we have had on the EU Referendum Bill we have heard from the Eurosceptic side of the Conservative Party about the sort of future relationship they would like us to have with the European Union and its leading member states.
One model we heard about was, of course, Norway’s, although the Prime Minister now appears to have decided against that. Whatever model is considered, to turn away from our closest neighbours in the rest of Europe who share our democratic values hardly seems credible when determining what our place and role in the world should be. As the strategy points out, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the destabilising activities in Ukraine directly challenge European security and the rules-based international order. In challenging Russia over Ukraine, the European members of NATO have worked closely together, imposing EU sanctions to parallel those NATO measures.
Of course, as the strategy states, we need to keep open the possibility of co-operation, seeking to engage with Russia on global security, including international efforts to tackle the ISIL threat and building on the successful co-operation that we shared in negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. But one of the difficulties that we have in assessing the long-term sustainability of the review is that we have yet to conclude what future relationship we wish to have with our nearest neighbours. As recent tragic events have taught us, the threats—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said—that we face as a nation today, such as international terrorism, migration and cross-border crime are all shared with our closest neighbours. Key to this debate is understanding that Britain shares values and interests with our European neighbours, and that any coherent British foreign and security strategy has to be founded on that European strategy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short—QSDs always are short—and wide-ranging debate. I am certainly grateful for the contributions of noble Lords. I shall seek to address some of the main issues raised tonight. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, in asking for time in the new year for two more debates put into context what we have had here tonight, which is a debate that has gone far wider than the subject put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Some of the questions about material, which the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, addressed, are absolutely key issues, but we will have to wait for that because they need to be considered across the whole issue of procurement. I hope to be able to answer one or two of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, within the context of this debate.
It is clear that European security must respond to new and changing threats, from terrorist outrages such as those in Paris, to which noble Lords have referred, to state-based threats such as Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the importance of that. The Government’s strategic defence and security review builds on the unique strengths of the United Kingdom and it deepens our co-operation with our international partners. After all, we are the only nation to be at one and the same time a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the G7, the G20, the OSCE, the OECD, the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank. Nobody can say we are not international in our co-operation.
We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU. We are also the only country in the world committed to spending both 2% of our national income on defence and 0.7% on development assistance. This strength is vital in promoting peace overseas. However, as noble Lords have recognised tonight, the threats we face do not recognise borders. That is why we must indeed invest more in our alliances and make these relationships international by design—building our forces and capabilities in ways that complement and integrate with those of our allies. NATO is the bedrock of our national and collective defence. Last year’s summit in Wales saw new initiatives to tackle new threats and secured an unprecedented commitment from 28 Heads of State and Government to halt the decline in defence expenditure.
Under our commitments, the UK will invest more to counter cyberthreats. We will more than double our investment in our Special Forces and will contribute to NATO exercises, reassuring allies against the threat from Russia. In 2017, the UK will lead the very high readiness joint task force, again formed in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
We are working closely with allies to ensure that the Warsaw summit in July next year delivers an alliance that is transparent, accountable and capable of responding to any threat. We will also continue to encourage our other allies to meet the NATO 2% commitment, as we have done.
In addressing modern security threats, it is important, as noble Lords have stressed tonight, to build greater co-operation between NATO and the European Union. It is a high priority of the United Kingdom. Good work has already been done, but we will work with High Representative Mogherini and Secretary-General Stoltenberg of NATO, whom I met earlier this summer when I was at the Croatian forum, and other allies and member states—of course—to drive this agenda forward, particularly on hybrid, ensuring that both institutions’ strategies are consistent with a view to a joint exercise next year.
Cyber—the co-operation between the two organisations—was formalised through the enhanced NATO cyberpolicy agreed at the Wales summit last year, and we are pressing both sides to explore joint training and shared best practice—I hope that that will please the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Also we are building capacity in third states. Both organisations are developing capacity-building initiatives and have much to offer in security sector reform. We will encourage them to co-ordinate efforts where it makes sense to do so.
A secure and prosperous UK relies on a secure and prosperous Europe. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, meaningful reform of the EU in the areas that he has already set out would benefit our economic and national security. That is why he believes that Britain’s best future lies within a reformed EU if necessary changes can be achieved.
As for the European Union’s own work on security, I would highlight in particular what it has called its comprehensive approach—to which noble Lords referred this evening—which combines military, civilian, diplomatic and development tools. I was asked what this cross-Whitehall body was and how it would work. I have to encourage the noble Baroness to be a little patient with us: the report only came out less than two weeks ago. However, it is a signal of our intent to work across Whitehall and to deliver that combination of military, civilian, diplomatic and development work. Because of the work I do on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, I already see joint working with the MoD in ways I never thought possible before and I find its response absolutely encouraging. People are prepared to share their experiences and enable me to meet the Armed Forces overseas. This is a way forward which will bring great benefits.
This approach offers the UK an effective way to project stability in our neighbourhood and across the world. For example, the successful EU missions in the Horn of Africa, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the UK has played a leading role, have directly contributed to UK objectives. I am not backward in coming forward about praising co-operation with the EU. How could I be? Tonight I have the chance to put on the record my admiration for the work of EUFOR Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When I visited there this summer, they enabled me to spend much of the day with some their forces in a helicopter. I was able, thereby, to see the challenges they face and the success they have in carrying out their task of overseeing the military implementation of the Dayton agreement. Co-operation with the EU works, but it is not the only co-operation that works. EU sanctions on Russia have also been an important element in our response to the illegal annexation of Crimea.
We will continue to press for improvements to the effectiveness of the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a focus on making existing structures work better, rather than creating new ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, and other noble Lords mentioned some people being concerned about a European army. We are not, because it is not going to happen, but we do welcome closer co-operation between the armed forces of EU and NATO member states. However, that of course needs to be based on improving deployable defence capabilities across Europe, not creating new institutions. We have consistently made it clear that we would oppose any measures that would undermine member states’ competence for their own military forces or lead to competition and duplication with NATO.
I was also teased a little by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the European Defence Agency and whether we were silent on it. Silent no more: here we go. We welcome the reforms that the EDA has begun, in particular the addition of a three-year planning framework and the project management tool which is in development. This is encouraging progress which will support the agency in delivering greater transparency and enhanced stakeholder communication. We are encouraging the EDA to focus on the existing project areas of cyber, remotely piloted systems—commonly known as RPAS—air-to-air refuelling and government satellite communications, but not to embark on new projects unnecessarily. However we want to look at the budget involved. While we are making further reforms to meet our commitment to cut the budget deficit, and when the wider European economy is still recovering, it is not appropriate to increase UK taxpayer funding to the EDA. Subject to further reforms, we will review our position with a view to considering whether we support an increase to the budget in 2017.
Going further with regard to co-operation, the revised European global strategy, led by High Representative Mogherini, will be an important part of that goal. We welcome the strategy’s broad scope and believe that it should also form a basis for greater institutional co-ordination within the EU, particularly between the Commission itself and the EEAS, where there remains significant room for improvement. As I mentioned earlier, we will also use our influence as a leading member of the OSCE. Not only will we support the ongoing work of the special monitoring mission in Ukraine but we will work through implementation of the conventional arms control regime.
Bilateral engagement is, of course, crucial. It is important to note that the US remains our pre-eminent partner for security, defence, foreign policy and prosperity. We will strengthen co-operation on national security issues and improve interoperability between our Armed Forces, and we will deepen bilateral co-operation with European partners. Since 2010, we have built an exceptionally close relationship with France. Following the appalling attacks in Paris on 13 November, we have expressed solidarity and offered bilateral support, including personnel and logistical support. We are committed to strengthening this important defence and security relationship further. As agreed in the Lancaster House treaties, the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force of 10,000 personnel will be operational next year.
Germany was rightly mentioned. The action it has taken in parliament is so important. Its technical assistance will be crucial and shows the joint European effort against Daesh. We will further deepen our co-operation with Germany, too, in areas ranging from intelligence-sharing, cyber and procurement of equipment to energy security and military support for humanitarian work and deployment.
We are working further with our wider European partners, including Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly mentioned the northern group. In almost every aspect of our national security and prosperity we must work with others, not because we cannot work alone but because the threats, opportunities and challenges are global. That is what underlines my response tonight. We work together because that is the only way we defeat evil opponents such as Daesh.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
“( ) Subsection (1A) does not apply in respect of persons who are either children or qualifying young persons born before 6 April 2017.”
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise—albeit a little slowly—to move Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. This is a very simple amendment which would ensure that the two-child limit applies only to children born after 6 April 2017. The impact assessment for this measure states:
“Entitlement will remain at the level for two children for households who make the choice to have more children in the knowledge of the policy”.
That simply is not true. If someone has more than two children and needs to make a claim for universal credit after 6 April 2017, and if they are not getting tax credits or UC and they have not in the past six months, this measure will apply to them. Entitlement will remain at the level of two children for those households, even though they quite clearly have not made the choice to have more children in the knowledge of the policy.
I suppose that it is just about possible that there will be those who manage to conceive and deliver a child between the passing of the Bill and April 2017, though they would have to get a move on, but most of the children affected by this will be living, breathing, existing children, conceived and born when this policy was just a glint in the eye of a cost-cutting Chancellor.
I know that various attempts have been made to get the Government to explain their rationale for this. I understand that it was indicated to Peers during a briefing session that the reason was that, if someone had not needed to claim benefit or tax credits during the past six months, they clearly have enough money to protect themselves against unforeseen events, so should not have access to the full support of the welfare state. I may be mistaken, but if I am the Minister can correct me. If that is right, however, surely that is precisely what the welfare state is for—to protect all of us against unforeseen circumstances.
Let us suppose that a couple have two primary-school children, and then they have two year-old twins. One day the husband dies or disappears or is paralysed in an accident and cannot work, and they turn to the welfare state. Those twins will be invisible for the purposes of universal credit, so you can see that the dream scheme that Ministers have boasted would swing seamlessly into action as soon as someone’s circumstances changed will not help that family feed, clothe and house the twins.
The family will potentially lose £5,560 a year every year until the twins are adults. We are talking about the best part of £90,000. How should the family have provided for that when they did not know they had to? What should they have done? Saved that much when they are raising toddlers? Maybe they should have bought a PPI policy, the cause of the biggest mis-selling scandal in modern financial history—and I should know, since I am the senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service. But even if that were a good idea, why would they do it? They thought the welfare state was there to help them at such times. That was what they had been led to believe when they had those children.
As I indicated in the previous debate, I think that this whole measure is a terrible idea. But perhaps I can pass on some advice to the Minister from the greatest Cabinet Secretary of modern times, the legendary Sir Humphrey Appleby. Sir Humphrey once said to his Minister: “If you’re going to do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way”. If the Minister is going to reduce support for larger families on the grounds that families on universal credit will have to make the same choices as those who are not, he should at least not apply it to people who have already made their choices because their children are already here. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend, who made a very powerful case. The joint briefing from the churches and faith groups that was circulated to all Peers made a very good point. It said:
“A policy designed to incentivise families to make responsible choices, becomes an unavoidable financial penalty for anyone confronted by relatively common life events”.
This amendment in particular puts that quotation into relief. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has raised similar concerns.
I made the point at Second Reading that this provision sits oddly with the Government’s own emphasis in this and earlier legislation on the importance of a dynamic perspective on family behaviour. Indeed, in a letter of 13 October to the EHRC about impact assessments for the current Bill, the Secretary of State made as his main point the need,
“to take fully into account the dynamic nature of people’s lives”.
So why are the Government refusing to do so now, especially, as my noble friend said, in relation to existing third or subsequent children where there is a new universal credit claim? What is the justification?
As my noble friend said, when this was explained to us I think the way it was put was that there would be an unfair advantage to richer families if they were able to claim universal credit for third and subsequent children. Perhaps these families were not claiming tax credits or universal credit before, but they could still be on a low income and simply not have claimed. We know that take-up is far from perfect. I know that the Government expect take-up to be higher for universal credit, but that remains to be seen. I have been around this game for quite a long time with the expectation that take-up would be improved by various benefits and so forth. However, it remains stubbornly at less than 100% for means-tested benefits. Even if they were better off—my noble friend made a powerful point here—financial circumstances can change very quickly in the event of life events or shocks. So where is the fairness in refusing support to, say, an early teenage child who is the third in the family and who was born many years ago?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for bringing forward this amendment and I thank the noble Baronesses for making their points so succinctly, but effectively.
This amendment would change our approach to applying the two-child limit in universal credit so that it would apply only to children born on or after 6 April 2017. That effect would apply in existing and completely new claims for universal credit. This reform, which sees support for children in universal credit limited to two children, is primarily about fairness to the taxpayer. The tax credits system has grown unsustainably, and spending on tax credits for the 870,000 households which have three or more children is around £9.4 billion. To accept this amendment would, we estimate, increase projected universal credit expenditure by around £250 million in 2019-20. I am pleased that at least on this amendment I am able to provide the Committee with some costings.
The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to reduce welfare expenditure by a further £12 billion during the lifetime of this Parliament, as part of the plan to eliminate the deficit and eliminate burdening the next generation with additional debt. There is no strong justification for the taxpayer to provide more generous financial support for completely new claims in respect of children born before 2017 than in respect of those born after that date.
Families already claiming universal credit or child tax credit, whether in or out of work, will not be affected in relation to children or qualifying young persons in their households before the key date while they remain entitled to benefit. Similarly, any household that has claimed universal credit or child tax credit in the past six months will be protected if their previous award included a child element for more than two children or qualifying young persons and they continue to have responsibility for them. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on being able to cost one of tonight’s amendments. I find his defence genuinely impossible to understand. I think he actually said that there is no stronger justification for exempting existing children than children who have yet to be born. I simply cannot understand how he can say that with a straight face because he has spent much of this evening telling us that this was all about choice and that parents who are on tax credits should make the same choices before having additional children as parents who are not. These are parents who already have children. These children already exist. They are not making a choice at all. The only reason they are making a claim for tax credits, or universal credit in this case, is because something has happened which means they have then had to fall back on the support of the welfare state. I do not understand how that is a justification and I invite him to think about it and maybe come back before I sit down and give me a choice.
The Government need to think very carefully. They keep giving justifications about choice until they do not hold, in which case they suddenly go, “Oh, look over there. Look at fairness”. This is either about choice or it is not. It cannot be about choice and when that breaks down a different defence is pulled out. It surely has to be one or the other. If it is about choice, how can it apply to people who have not made a choice? If it is not about choice, will the Minister please stop telling us that it is. Can I tempt the Minister to explain to me again why there is not a stronger justification for existing children than new claimants because I think I may have misheard? Is that what he meant?
Baroness Sherlock
At least my hearing is better than my understanding. I find that a profoundly disappointing response, even by the standards of tonight. But given that we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“Limiting the child element of child tax credit and universal credit to two children: reporting obligation
Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must consult and lay a report before Parliament, assessing the social and economic impact of sections 11 and 12 of this Act, including—(a) the potential impact on family relationships and functioning, with reference to “The Family Test: Guidance for Government Departments” produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, and(b) the potential economic and social impact on different faith communities.”
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 21 to highlight the impact of this measure on different faith communities who share our concerns with this part of the Bill in particular. Noble Lords who attended the special briefing we organised two weeks ago will have heard Chaya Spitz, chief executive of the Interlink Foundation, speak passionately about the implications for the Orthodox Jewish community that she represents and is a member of. For her community, larger families are the norm and the central pivot around which everything else revolves. There is a positive, faith-based imperative to have children, to create the next generation in service of God. There is also a commonly held conscientious objection to the use of artificial contraception, except in prescribed circumstances, and to abortion, except in rare circumstances. By limiting financial support to the first two children, this policy is making a judgment that touches on deeply personal and strongly held religious and cultural beliefs about the family, and that threatens the viability of whole faith communities.
According to the 2011 census, 52% of Jewish children lived in families with three or more children, compared with a national average of 31%. In Muslim families, the proportion is even higher—60% live in larger families. This measure will have a hugely disproportionate impact on these particular faith communities. Although it is difficult to see how this could be framed as an exemption, the effects will be profound, and I do not believe they have received the consideration they deserve.
A recent report by the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted serious human rights concerns relating to this and other parts of the Bill and argued that the regulations would need to include “extensive exceptions” protecting women,
“family integrity and religious freedom”.
One of the issues it raises is the potential discrimination against members of religious groups who have a conscientious objection to the use of contraception or abortion contrary to Article 14, read with Article 9, of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are other hard cases as well, including situations where women in abusive relationships are pressured into having more children or where a woman uses contraception in good faith but it fails. In all these cases, the assumption that women have a free choice about whether or not to have a child is called into question.
For these reasons, I have tabled this amendment calling on the Government to consult and report on the economic and social impacts, focusing in particular on the implications for family life and for different faith communities. The Government’s own impact assessment is inadequate in this respect, offering only a superficial assessment of the likely effects. To argue, without supporting evidence, that substantially reducing the level of support for larger families will somehow increase their financial resilience and support improved life chances for their children seems wishful thinking at best and requires further investigation. As part of a more rigorous assessment, will the Minister agree to seeing the Government apply their own family test to this policy, using the guidance published by the DWP in October last year?
In an earlier intervention in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, spoke about perceptions of fairness in legislation, citing the example of family allowances. Would the Minister agree that the perceived fairness of these policies will be judged not only by their overall popularity but by the respect they give to deeply held convictions of faith communities that enrich our common life? I seek not an exemption but a clear analysis of the impact.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in speaking in support of this amendment, I will pick up what the right reverend Prelate said about the inadequacy of the impact assessment. This point was also made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission from the perspective of equality and human rights. It argued that it does not “enable proper scrutiny” or meet the requirements of the public sector equality duty; nor is there an assessment of the “aggregate effect” of the changes on people.
In fact, the impact assessment is inadequate from any perspective. In particular, there is no assessment of the impact on child poverty, despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommending that the Government should assess the impact on child poverty of any new law, as child poverty is a human rights issue—I declare an interest as I was a member of the committee at that point. I asked a Written Question about the impact, only to be told to look at the impact assessment—the implication being that I had not read it, which I found rather insulting.
Not only is there no assessment of the impact on child poverty, but this is the quality of distribution analysis:
“The policy has the impact of redistributing income from Universal Credit/tax credit recipients to the Exchequer (i.e. society as a whole)”.
Actually it is not society as a whole, because when I last thought about it, universal and tax credit recipients were themselves members of society. The assessment continues:
“The policy therefore has distributional impacts”.
That is the distribution analysis—and the impact assessment on life chances is similarly risible.
I remind the Minister of what it says in the Companion—that Ministers should be as open as possible in answering questions, because this is inherent in ministerial accountability to Parliament. I therefore ask him again now: what is the department’s assessment of the impact of these clauses on the number of children living in poverty? I simply do not accept that it is not possible to make an assessment. I accept that there might have to be a fairly wide margin of error—we cannot just say that it will be exactly x thousand—but I do not accept that there is no assessment. It is not possible.
The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the family test. That is drawn up by the Department for Work and Pensions itself. It is supposed to be equivalent to the public sector equality duty. According to the DWP, its application should be documented and the relevant department should consider publishing it. Given that this clearly has a family impact, why did the department decide not to publish the family test? As part of its equality statement for reforming asylum support, the Home Office set out very clearly each of the questions that the family test is supposed to answer and gave its answer. I might not agree with those answers, but that was a model of how a department should deal with it.
Will the Minister undertake to provide noble Lords with the documentation of the application of the family test before Report? There must be documentation, according to the DWP’s own guidance. Given that the measure has a clear family focus, can he tell us what additional analysis was undertaken involving stakeholders, as is recommended in the DWP’s own guidance on the test? Finally, will the Minister tell us which other countries restrict payment of benefits for children to smaller families in this way? I am reliably informed that there is no other country, but I accept that I may be wrong. When I last looked at this, I found that countries that cared about family policy and child poverty tended to pay more to larger families, rather than less, but I would welcome elucidation on that.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 21 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I fully support the requirement in the amendment to report on the impact on family relationships and functioning, for the reasons that have been articulated in the debates we have been having this evening. Until now we have not discussed in any detail the impact on faith communities, so I am going to concentrate on that.
As we have heard, larger families are strongly prevalent within some faith traditions and cultures, which leads to legitimate concerns about the differential ways this policy will be felt throughout society. There is an issue of equality for children born into families of faith. This measure will disproportionately affect families where, perhaps because of the parents’ faith, there is a devout desire to avoid contraception and abortion. As we have heard and discussed this evening, family planning is not infallible and many people of faith and other like-minded people are concerned that unexpected pregnancies could lead to a rise in the number of abortions. This point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth earlier.
As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, the most damning evidence about the differential impact of this measure on equality grounds comes from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I declare an interest, in that I am a former commissioner of EHRC. It says:
“The proposed changes may have a disproportionate negative impact on people from particular ethnic or religious groups … The impact assessments and human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill do not assess the effect of the Bill on equality and human rights in sufficient detail to enable proper scrutiny of the legislation”.
It is not kidding.
Disgracefully, the Government have resisted all pressures to conduct cumulative impact assessments of these measures, giving impact assessments only for individual measures. Even within that, however, I was staggered to find that there had been no attempt to conduct an equality impact assessment on the two-child policy. The short section in the IA on the impact on protected groups mentions gender and disability in passing, acknowledges that ethnic minority households may be more likely to be impacted, though offers no detail, but makes no reference at all to the protected characteristic of religion and belief. Can the Minister explain why there is no such reference, when even a cursory glance at the data suggests the possibility for significantly differential impacts on the grounds of some protected characteristics, particularly religion and belief?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Briefly, my Lords, I welcome the introduction by the previous Government of the family test. It was good to see in a recent Bill—it might have been the Education and Adoption Bill—that, just as the European Convention on Human Rights is written down, it was stipulated on the Bill itself that the family test had been gone through as the Bill had passed. I am sorry to hear that the results of the family test have not been published, because that test is very welcome.
The right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State, did good work with Graham Allen MP in looking at early years interventions to begin thinking in this country about how important it is to support families so that their children do well from the very start of their lives, because more and more evidence shows that supportive families, good relationships and bonding early in life have huge and beneficial impacts on society, and that is hugely important. That was really wonderful work but I am afraid that it may be getting lost somehow. I would like to be reassured that that focus has not been lost and that the Secretary of State is still worried about “broken Britain” and broken families, and is still putting that right at the top of his priorities. I wonder if the Minister can say whether it is intended in future, as I gather has been the case in the past, for the Bill to say that it has passed the family test.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Can the Minister help me? I was just checking, and as far as I can see from handbooks, we continue to support various partners in polygamous marriages and we do not say, “After two partners you won’t get any more support for your third, fourth or fifth member of a polygamous marriage”. Why is it okay to have several spouses who are financed by benefit, but if you have more than two children they are not?
Lord Freud
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for this amendment. On the ECHR point, the Government set out their assessment of the impacts of the policies in the Bill on 20 July, as I think I have already said. It is important to ensure that the dynamic behavioural effects of the changes are considered within that. Many of these analyses suffer from the fact that they are too static when considering gains and losses and too focused on notional changes.
On the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on child poverty impacts, I say that the intended impact of our reforms is to incentivise work, ensure that it always pays, and to allow people to keep more of what they earn. That is why, as we will go on to discuss, we are moving towards a life-chances analysis of poverty as our approach.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to intervene, but that is no answer, my Lords. I asked a very clear, factual question. At present, the Child Poverty Act still holds; therefore this House deserves the respect of being given an analysis of the impact of the increase in the numbers of children in child poverty on the measures, which are still the law, and which will still be measured under the HBAI statistics, as the Minister has said. I do not expect to have it now, but I hope that the Minister will give us those figures before Report.
Lord Freud
As I said, projections on the HBAI are difficult, and everyone gets them wrong because they are done on a static basis.
I pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis: she will be pleased to know that universal credit does not recognise polygamous marriage.
On the family test raised by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Earl, it is not a tick-box, pass-or-fail test but is about looking at how policies support or potentially undermine family relationships, and about trade-offs. The family test ensures that family considerations are explicitly considered and recognised when making those trade-offs. These measures will ensure fairness for all families, both encouraging parents into work and giving a fair deal for the taxpayer.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very sorry to intervene again. As I said, the Home Office, which is not the author of the original family test—the DWP was—published the questions in the family test and how its policy met those questions. Of course the department must have carried that out not on a tick-box basis—I am not saying yes or no—but by carrying out a considered analysis around these questions. I simply ask why, therefore, the Department for Work and Pensions is not prepared to make available to this House the documentation of how the family test was applied to this clause?
Lord Freud
As I said, the documentation that we have published is the documentation that we need to publish to comply with our public sector equality duties. We have done that, even though the noble Baroness may feel that it is inadequate.
Baroness Sherlock
I do not presume to know any more than others about this subject—no one knows more than my noble friend Lady Lister. But on a number of occasions this evening, Peers from different Benches have asked the Minister very specific questions and he has simply got up and said, “What we have published, we have published”. The question he was asked just now was: “The Government must have conducted this test, because they are required to do it, so why won’t they publish it?”. “We have published what we have published” is not an answer. I am getting increasingly anxious about the quality of the responses this evening.
Take the example of dynamic benefits. Could the Minister explain that to me again? If he does not think that static analysis is good then he needs to find another way of analysing it. He simply cannot come to this House and say, “I cannot tell you the impacts of this because it is all dynamic”, because otherwise we will never be able to assess anything that the Government are going to do before they do it. That cannot be reasonable, surely.
Lord Freud
This amendment is asking us to do an analysis over the next six months. In practice, that is what will be happening on a dynamic basis, because we have introduced as part of universal credit a test-and-learn approach in which we are able to assess what happens to families and learn the lessons in order to roll out universal credit. That is a pretty public process and we publish what we learn. So, in practice, we have a process that incorporates the dynamic effect of these changes in its overall impact, rather than taking individual bits and pieces of the policy. That is the best answer that I can give to the question. On that basis, I urge the right reverend Prelate to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I want to come back at the Minister. I was not trying to make a cheap jibe but, unless I am misreading a handbook that I have used over the years, if you are in a polygamous marriage and your spouse is married to someone else, you may claim as a single person within it, which is an allowance for you, including if the other person still lives in the same household with you. In other words, under UC—this is on page 154—there is continued financial support for other partners in a polygamous marriage. If that is so, why is it acceptable to apply that to adults but not to children?
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness has a long memory. Polygamous marriages were recognised in JSA, income support and ESA. We took a decision not to recognise those marriages in UC. Only the first marriage is recognised for universal credit purposes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Except that financial support will, presumably, continue to be given to the other women who are in a polygamous marriage by virtue of their polygamous status.
Lord Freud
No. If there is a third person in that household they would be treated as a single person.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The point I am making is that they may be treated as a single person but they are getting financial support by virtue of that polygamous marriage, whereas the third or fourth child will get nothing.
Lord Freud
This is really becoming arcane. We have said that we do not recognise polygamous marriage in universal credit. But clearly there is an individual there, and we will treat them as a single person. It is actually, ironically, a little more expensive than treating them as a wife.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Can I make what I hope is not an arcane point? I invite the Minister, in responding to my amendment, which relates quite specifically to faith communities, to add something about that. He has not mentioned the word “faith” in his response, unless I have misheard.
Lord Freud
No, I have not; the right reverend Prelate is correct. In this policy we have looked through that to people’s choices, whether they are those in the benefits system or the people supporting those on the benefits system. I have not made an explicit comment on race or religion.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I think he will understand that I am disappointed that he cannot respond more positively to my amendment, which seeks some specific analysis of how these proposals would affect the lives of those with deeply held religious convictions who feel actual anxieties about what is proposed. In the course of the coming weeks, I am sure that these matters will be raised again and I hope that we can begin to have conversations about the specific issues that I have tried to raise. We could do that sympathetically and generously, recognising the respect in which these communities, in my judgment, should be held. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
“( ) the progress of children living in England at age 5 in the following developmental areas—(i) cognitive;(ii) personal, social and emotional; and(iii) physical;( ) the progress of disadvantaged children living in England at age 5 in the following developmental areas—(i) cognitive;(ii) personal, social and emotional; and(iii) physical;”
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to the two amendments in my name, I regret that I was unable to raise at Second Reading the issues that they contain. I also regret that, yet again, I find myself tabling amendments to legislation produced by one department in silo, which does not appear to have taken into account that achievement depends on co-ordination with the activities of several other departments. My amendments, and others in the next groups, are intended both to point out and, hopefully, to rectify what will no doubt be claimed as the unintended consequences of not appreciating the impact of factors for which the DWP is not responsible.
The Minister will no doubt remember a seminar during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 focusing on the Wednesbury principles. Afterwards, he told the House:
“The department strives to ensure that no decision is influenced by irrelevant factors and that decision-makers act in a rational and fair manner”.—[Official Report, 25/01/12; col. 1061.]
Parts of this Bill—and particularly the proposal to do away with the child poverty targets contained in the Child Poverty Act 2010, which Alan Milburn has forecast will be missed by a “country mile”—suggest that, rather than being influenced by irrelevant facts, decision-makers appear to have ignored extremely relevant facts related to the responsibilities of other departments. Rather than acting in a rational and fair manner, they have acted irrationally and unfairly by ignoring what they should have taken into account.
In moving Amendment 22, I must declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties. In 2012, we published a report on the links between social disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs, which included an extremely alarming graph that showed that children with very low IQs from supportive families would overtake children with higher IQs from disadvantaged families at the age of five unless they were helped. One of our recommendations, discussed with both the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, was that every child in the country should be assessed by a health visitor—trained or accompanied by a speech and language therapist—by the age of two so that remedial treatment could be initiated aimed at ensuring that every child could engage with education when starting school. We also recommended regular reassessments to measure both progress and change of circumstance. This should continue until school-leaving age for those with special educational needs, whose statutory education, health and care plans continue until age 21.
Assessment of a child’s progress at age five provides a critical measure of their cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. In this connection, I should declare two other relevant interests. I am president of the Institute of Food, Brain and Behaviour, which has reported frequently on the vital importance of correct nutrition for brain development, not least before birth, and chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group, which has campaigned for better understanding of the impact on young people of neuro-disability, which covers a multitude of conditions, including the effects of head injuries. The earlier that you can identify problems, the more likely you are to be able to initiate remedial treatment aimed at ensuring that children achieve the best educational attainment they possibly can and so have the best chance of finding and keeping work, which will help them to break cycles of intergenerational poverty.
What worries me most about the dropping of the targets contained in the Child Poverty Act, inadequate though they are for obtaining a detailed picture of the actual material condition of those in poverty, is that, now, neither central nor local government are to be required to make strategies for reducing child poverty or preparing and publishing assessments of the needs of children living in poverty. Meaningful improvement can be based only on particularised fact, in which regard much of the official data on which judgments will be based are little better than generalised fudge because they hide so many pockets of problems. The same detailed facts are required not only by the DWP for benefit purposes and by the Prime Minister and Chancellor for strategic purposes but by the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Communities and Local Government so that they can sing from the same hymn sheet when planning early years provision and the deployment of social and other remedial workers, to name but two responsibilities.
On Amendment 34, having already voiced my concern that the Bill is yet another example of a department legislating in silo, it appears to me that the Treasury and the DWP have not considered the impact on the mental and physical health of United Kingdom citizens when setting the level of statutory minimum incomes or the cost of treating consequent mental and physical ill-health in the NHS. Provision of the minimum income needed for healthy living is a means of preventing mental and physical ill-health and its cost. Currently, and even more so under the provisions of the Bill, too many parents are frustrated in their attempts to provide for their children by inadequate statutory minimum incomes. The difficulty in understanding the extent of this is exacerbated by the lack of up-to-date information, which Amendment 34 seeks to rectify. The amendment also seeks to open up a debate about the link between inadequate incomes, sanctions and the inevitable and unmanageable debt on the one hand and their impact on the mental and physical health of the poorest citizens on the other.
Ever since the national minimum wage was introduced, successive Governments appear to have ignored that the crucial income for health is the minimum wage after housing costs have been deducted. That amount is constantly being reduced by ever-increasing rents in the chaotic British housing market, the enforcement of debt collection—to which court costs and bailiffs have now been added—and the cost of council tax. According to the Office for National Statistics, 14.5 million people are now in absolute poverty after housing costs have been deducted. That is 4.1 million more than before their deduction. In other words, 4.1 billion additional people lack the ability to buy the food, fuel, clothes and other necessities that are essential for physical and mental health and well-being. That must surely concern a Government who pride themselves on their compassion.
The national minimum wage is based on the assumption that £6.70 an hour is paid for a 37.5-hour week. My amendment would also enable the Government to assess the impact of zero-hour contracts and part-time working on the health of employees working less than 37.5 hours a week. The Chancellor has now announced that the national minimum wage is to be replaced by a national living wage of £7.20 per hour from next April, rising to £9 per hour by 2020. In the absence of any known research into the minimum income needed for healthy living, he appears to be using the word “living” without substance. By contrast, I pay tribute to Reverend Paul Nicolson. I am most grateful to him and Taxpayers Against Poverty for telling me, among other useful information, that it was robust research for the Living Wage Foundation carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that led to the London living wage of £9.40 an hour and £8.25 per hour outside London, which 724 employers, up from 429 last year, are now paying. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has already announced:
“Paying the London living wage is not only morally right, but makes good business sense too”.
More than 2,200 employees working for companies with contracts from the Greater London Authority are now benefiting from the London living wage. In another report, published on 23 November, the Rowntree Foundation showed that 51% of those living below the absolute poverty line lived in households in which at least one adult was in work. My amendment is not so much about the actual amount but to point out that because the Government’s proposed national living wage is so inadequate, it will condemn too many households to absolute poverty, with the inevitable consequences for their mental and physical health.
The DWP cannot claim that this information has not been readily available or that it has not been brought to the Government’s attention. In addition to the activities of the organisations with which I am associated, the link between debt and mental illness has been highlighted in a report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, confirmed in a peer-reviewed study by the University of Liverpool. The Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition has highlighted the link between poor maternal nutrition, low birth weight and developmental brain disorders in children. The Centre for Mental Health, as vice-president of which I must also declare an interest, has calculated that the economic and social costs of mental health problems in England were £105 billion in 2009-10, taking into account costs of health and social care, loss of output and human costs. Many now consider this to be an underestimate.
Those of us who voted in favour of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Meacher to the tax credits statutory instrument have been accused of acting unconstitutionally. My reason for doing so was to try to persuade the Chancellor to think again. I do not believe that anything in our current parliamentary process is as unsatisfactory, if not unconstitutional, as the Committee system in the other place, where Governments have a built-in majority of nine to seven, meaning that virtually no opposing amendment has a hope of being agreed. There have been numerous examples of admittedly imperfectly scrutinised legislation being sent to this House because the Committee, as composed in the other place, had neither time nor the necessary expertise to complete that process. Having read the Committee proceedings in the other place, I believe that to be true of the Bill.
In putting forward these two amendments, like my noble friend over tax credits, I ask the Minister to think again about this part of the Bill, and particularly the decision to scrap the strategic requirements in the Child Poverty Act 2010 and its proposed renaming. Life chances are being eroded by child poverty, which fact ought always to be in the forefront of government minds. In order to improve life chances, everything possible must be done to alleviate child poverty, and in order to achieve this essential, whichever Government are in power will need the information that my amendments seek to ensure is available on a regular basis.
Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, on an earlier amendment, and remembering the Minister’s willingness to discuss contentious issues in earlier Bills, I and, I am sure, other colleagues would be very happy to meet him to discuss this. I beg to move.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 22, 23, 27, 29, 30 and 34. Given that it is quite late, I will try to be as brief as I can. I support Amendment 22. It has already been said that Clauses 4 and 6 remove any income-based measures of child poverty, the duty on the Government to work towards eradicating child poverty by 2020, and the duty on local authorities to work together towards eradicating child poverty. Instead, under the new heading, “Life chances”, Clause 4 focuses on measuring children in workless families and with poor educational attainment.
As I said, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his Amendment 22 as it provides for development measures in the early years, allows for the capture of data for all children at the age of five, and puts disadvantaged children in the same group. My Amendment 23 builds on this, particularly as the latest government figures show that 62% of children in poverty now live in working homes: that is 2.5 million children, according to the End Child Poverty Coalition.
Without question, worklessness and a lack of access to employment are key drivers of child poverty. However, as I said at Second Reading, while work can be a key route out of poverty, it is by no means a guaranteed one. There is much research which shows the significant impact that growing up in poverty has on children. As was said earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, children are much more likely to suffer from poor health, do worse at school, be jobless in the future and die earlier. The changes that the Government plan to make to the support of low-income working families are likely only to make the situation worse.
Clause 4 as it stands proposes a statutory duty to publish an annual report on children in workless households and on the educational attainment of children in England at the end of key stage 4; that is, for children of 16 years of age. That is far too late and there are no baseline comparators. Improving children’s life chances must be more than about teenage educational attainment. I agree with the organisation Action for Children that the Government’s limited measures are a missed opportunity. Educational attainment at 16 does not reflect how far development in the earlier stages of our lives affects our future, from our health to our likelihood of being employed.
Amendment 23 would mean reporting on the educational attainment of children in England, including disadvantaged children, at the end of key stage 1, at the age of five, rather than reporting on educational attainment only at the end of key stage 4, when children are 16 years old. It would also allow a baseline for the Government to measure the progress made by investing in children’s futures. I hope that it will be supported by the Minister, particularly as such data are currently available, so the financial cost would be minimal. If my amendment is not accepted, perhaps the Minister could consider including a measure towards addressing income poverty in the basket of measures in the Bill.
Amendment 27 reinforces the point that “key stage 1” means the first key stage within the meaning of Part 6 of the Education Act 2002. Amendment 29 would allow the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament data which report on children who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. This is important as the data identified can help to support strategies much more effectively in the Troubled Families programme.
Amendment 30 is concerned with children,
“in families living in problem debt”.
This provision will ensure that data are consistently collected and reported on to enable early intervention by programmes such as the Troubled Families programme. Borrowing figures released on 30 November confirm a significant and prolonged increase in household debt, and the measures in this Bill are likely only to make matters worse.
Amendment 34 is about reporting obligations for:
“Working and workless households and health”.
I have added my name to those of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins. As has been said, there is significant evidence that children living in poorer households are much more likely to be born prematurely, have low birth weight, and as adults to die earlier. They are also more likely to be absent from school due to illness, to be hospitalised, and to have long-standing illnesses, and are three times more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
Data collection on the impact of mental health on workless and in working households with incomes below the national minimum wage is important, particularly as the Government have put an emphasis on improving mental health services. The amendment will enable the link between inadequate incomes and their impact on the mental and physical health of the poorest people compared to others, and will allow better joined-up targeting of services between the NHS and the DWP. I want the Minister to look at this very carefully in terms of data collection.
The Earl of Listowel
I will speak to Amendment 22, moved by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and to which my name is attached, simply to say I strongly support the idea of taking measurements earlier in the child’s life. I note what my noble friend said, his reference to a strategy and that the Bill removes a strategy for child poverty. I note in the Government’s general direction of travel that they are quite sceptical of strategies. My sense is that the Government prefer to work from the bottom up, and that in education policy, as in other areas, they are reticent to have overarching plans. I would briefly like to challenge that.
The academy schools seem an example of government trying to build from the bottom up. However, what we see in the education department are real difficulties around teacher recruitment. Visiting an academy school—indeed, the best performing non-selective state school in the country—I saw wonderful results but heard complaints that because of the lack of strategy regarding teacher recruitment, there were real concerns that teachers of various kinds and at various levels would not be easily available and of the excellent quality needed in the future. My sense is the Government are rather opposed to strategies in general but I think in certain areas such as this they are really important, and we will come back to that.
I speak as a Cross-Bencher here: after 15 years in your Lordships’ House, it is rather regrettable that sometimes it seems as if one Government set certain things up and then the next Government set them down. I remember the debates about the Youth Justice Board, which seemed a very effective institution but because it was a quango the Government felt strongly that it had to go. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, managed to persuade the Government that, in fact, it was worth keeping. Therefore, in the discussion of the old Child Poverty Act and the new Welfare Reform and Work Bill, it is worth challenging the Government a bit. I would like to challenge the Government a bit about whether, in part, their motivation might be to simply undo what others have done in the past, and whether there might be a chance to build on the best of the past as well as bring the Government’s own unique contribution to this area.
I want to be as brief as possible so I will speak now to my amendments in the grouping, the first of which is Amendment 28 on children in care and care leavers. The Bill is a real opportunity to improve the outcomes for young people in care and care leavers. It is an opportunity to gather data, for instance on their educational attainment—yes, that is gathered already—but also on their mental health. Historically, there was recognition by the ONS in 2004 of the mental health needs of looked-after children and great work was done by people such as Professor Jackson on the educational attainment of looked-after children. The educational side has been well resourced and legislated on since then, with things like virtual school heads, designated teachers in schools and priority in admissions—all really important steps forward, but the mental health needs of looked-after children have not been so successfully addressed.
The Bill is an opportunity to look at various areas of performance with regard to young people in care and care leavers. Gathering them in one place and obliging Parliament to look at them on an annual basis would really keep our focus on making the most effective difference. Of course, in the care system we have the notion of the corporate parent. In each local authority, I suppose the leader would be the corporate parent for the young people in the authority’s care. I suppose that principle extends somewhat to us as well in Parliament. What that means is sometimes difficult to explain. Obviously we do not have relationships with individual young people in care.
In Barnet in the past, when Paul Fallon was the director of children’s services, it was ensured that each senior member of the council was an advocate for a young person in care. They did not meet that young person but their job was to follow the career, as it were, of the young person in care. They would write to people, nobble them and just be a champion for the young person in care. We in Parliament cannot meet and know young people in care but we can do our very best to be champions for them in this place. They are the children of the state. If we had the data at our fingertips we would be better equipped to do that.
A couple of weeks ago I attended the presentation by Dr Mark Kerr of his doctoral thesis. Dr Kerr left care with no educational qualifications. He subsequently has successfully gone through two degrees and it was a tremendously moving experience to hear him making his presentation on young people in care. The system can work well. Young people can do extremely well and it is on us to ensure that we do even better for them.
Amendment 29 is on children and homelessness. It puts a duty on the Secretary of State to lay data before Parliament on children who are homeless and at risk of homelessness. The purpose of bringing this forward is that child homelessness increases year on year. It now stands at about 90,000, and the number of children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation increases year on year. There is a maximum limit on the time that a local authority is allowed to place children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with their families. That is more and more often broken. We know about the housing shortages in particular areas, especially in London and the south-east. The purpose of the amendment is to focus our minds on these young people.
We might get better data. For instance, we could have data on children at risk of becoming homeless, on how effective we are at preventing children and their families from becoming homeless, and on children who are accepted as homeless with their families, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and so on. There is already a statutory duty to gather data on homeless children but there are various duties. There is a different duty for 16 and 17 year-olds which local authorities are obliged to have, so it might be helpful to have in one place a more thought-through approach to this.
There is an interdepartmental group looking at homelessness, which I welcome. Perhaps this is a bit far from the Minister’s remit, but I would like to know more about how that is progressing. On this issue, particularly given the fact of ever-increasing immigration, there needs to be a senior Minister looking at this, taking forward and championing this matter of family homelessness and having a strategy to really make a difference across the Department of Health, the DWP and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Such a change as this would be helpful in taking that forward.
My final point is on children in families living in problem debt. I am not sure how much time I have taken and I want to take as little time as possible, but this is a very important matter. The Government have decided to replace the child poverty measures with new life-chances indicators, focusing on measuring the number of children in workless households and the number of children with low levels of educational attainment. When the Secretary of State announced this change, he also highlighted the importance of problem debt in understanding child poverty and children’s life chances. The absence of a measure of problem debt has always been a limitation of the current Child Poverty Act. I know, from the families that I have had experience of, that where a family faces problem debt, a large proportion of family income can go on repaying debt every month, substantially reducing the money available for meeting the basic needs of children in the household. As shown in the report The Debt Trap, families in problem debt owe, on average, £3,437, or an estimated total of £4.8 billion, in arrears to service providers, creditors and government, both national and local. The social cost of problem debt is as high as £8.3 billion.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I crave three minutes to support the spirit of the amendments in this group, which recognise that progress and life chances for children depend on their physical, social, emotional and cognitive development and on other influences too. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that a government strategy for children should be drawn up, tracking development from birth to adulthood. As he said, we have the means to do that through government departments such as education, health and welfare working together, with help from the voluntary sector and local authorities. I remember that many years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—possibly when she was Secretary of State for Education—spoke about having level playing fields for children. She said that some children begin the race with both feet tied together. Sadly, this is still the case. Feet are tied together through poverty, deprivation, low expectation and lack of care and stimulation in the early years. We know that the gap in attainment between poor children and more affluent ones is large by the age of five and continues to grow. We have recently had strong evidence from research that a holistic approach is necessary and I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his concerns.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 34, tabled so comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment is of particular importance in view of the enormity of the cuts to welfare spending since the passing of the Child Poverty Act 2010. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that this will amount to £123 billion taken from our poorest citizens by 2016-17. The second feature of government policy the effects of which need to be monitored effectively—and would be under Amendment 34—is the conditionality and sanctions regime which undoubtedly increases the stress level of claimants very considerably.
As a panel member, along with Sir Keir Starmer and others, for an inquiry by the Fawcett Society into the impact of the Government’s welfare measures upon women, and by association their children, I found quite appalling the sheer level of errors and abuse in some Jobcentre Plus offices, affecting innocent women who only wanted, if at all possible, to gain their independence from the state. Our inquiry concluded that sanctions applied through no fault of the claimant were affecting claimants’ mental and physical health and the health and well-being of their children to a considerable degree. The Government have a duty to be aware of the consequences of their policies and to respond to the adverse effects.
I am aware that the Minister believes that injustices are limited in number, and that his department is doing its best to lessen them further. However, the inquiry made it clear to us that in fact the quality of service across the country varies very considerably. In some offices the staff were helpful and professional, and claimants certainly reported that. However, in others they were inadequately trained and could be callous and careless, with the most appalling consequences for the families affected. A typical example were mothers who, contrary to the guidelines, were required to travel three hours a day in total to and from work. They could not afford this and believed—rightly, in my opinion—that it was entirely wrong for their very young children to be in childcare for 10, 11 or more hours per day. Despite this entirely unreasonable requirement, such parents were sanctioned and then could not even feed their children. This was not an isolated problem but rather a regular occurrence in offices up and down the country.
Another often repeated story was that of a mother phoning the office to say that she could not attend an interview or required activity due to the sickness of a child, and was told that this information would, indeed, be passed on to the appropriate official. Of course, nothing was done. The mother would arrive at the post office to pick up her benefit only to find that there was nothing there. A sanction had been imposed with no information given to her. I cannot imagine the shock and utter distress of a mother in that situation. I believe that the Government may have adjusted the sanctions regime to ameliorate that problem and to make sure there is a gap between the imposition of a sanction and it taking place. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position this evening.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced a comprehensive review of international evidence on sanctions within systems in which benefits are conditional on claimant behaviour. It confirmed that sanctions strongly reduce benefit use and increase exit from benefits. However, Rowntree also finds that sanctions are generally less favourable in terms of longer-term outcomes, the well-being of children and crime rates, for example.
Every sanction which is unfairly imposed will cause extreme stress to parents, who suddenly find that they have no food for the children and no money even for the bus fare to reach a food bank, and have more debt and so forth. It should be a matter of great concern to the Government that 28% of sanctions are overturned on appeal and a higher percentage—39%—in the case of lone parents. Successful appeals soar for high-level sanctions. Fully 64% of single parents have high-level sanctions overturned on appeal. These must be just numbers to many of us but the Government have a responsibility in my view to report on the mental and physical health effects of the extraordinary hardship behind those numbers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 34 and focus on the impact of benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems. Mental health professionals are extremely worried about the impact of this, which is why this amendment asks for a report containing data to be published.
The latest statistics around the number of people with mental health problems being supported into work though the back to work scheme are astonishingly low. Just 9% have been supported into employment since the scheme began. There are two key areas where better evidence is needed. We know that more than half of people receiving ESA in the WRAG have a mental or behavioural disorder as their primary health condition, and many more people in the WRAG will have comorbid physical and mental health problems.
We also know that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned. Recent Freedom of Information requests to the department revealed that in 2014, on average 58% of sanctions for people in the ESA WRAG were given to people with mental health problems—20,000 in all.
The mistaken assumption is that people do not want to work, and that the best incentive is to threaten benefit withdrawal. Research shows that people with mental-health problems have a high want-to-work rate. I could say a lot more about that, but in view of the time I will not. What are the barriers? We need much more information—hence the request for a report.
I would like to share an example given to me by Mind, the mental health charity. It told me the story of a man who has been out of work for most of his adult life due to his mental health problems and who is currently in the support group. Under conditionality in the work-related activity group, this man felt so fearful and anxious of the threat of sanctions that he forced himself to attend his appointment a couple of days after being hospitalised following an overdose. This is just one shocking example of the pressure claimants are under, the health conditions that people face and, crucially, the level of anxiety and stress reportedly caused by fear of sanctions.
I urge the Minister to take these concerns and this amendment very seriously.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is largely focused on the non-income issues and seeks to add the matters of worklessness and educational attainment to the measures, which the Government say are focused on the causes of poverty rather than its symptoms. These matters are important because it is asserted that what is measured and reported on will drive the focus of government attention, although reliance on this approach is inherently weaker than having strategy obligation and specific targets. There will be more about that in later amendments.
In considering Clause 4 and these amendments, we should set the context by reflecting on the starting positions, and that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. The current Child Poverty Act 2010, as amended in 2012, contains targets to be met in 2020 that relate to: relative low income; combined low income and material deprivation; absolute low income; and persistent poverty. There are four targets, not just one. It provides for the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission—formerly the Child Poverty Commission, and soon to lose child poverty altogether—to give advice when requested to Ministers on how to measure socioeconomic disadvantage, social mobility and child poverty and to report on progress on improving social mobility, meeting the targets and implementing the required strategies.
The Act also requires the publication of a strategy to comply with the targets and to combat socioeconomic disadvantage. In preparing the strategy, consideration must be given to measures—we referred to them as the building blocks at the time of the legislation—including: parental employment and skills; financial support; promotion of parenting skills; physical and mental health; education, childcare and social services; and housing and social inclusion. The Act imposes a requirement for local authorities to co-operate to reduce child poverty in their areas and prepare local child-poverty needs assessments.
As well as having income measures and associated targets, this required the Government to produce a strategy which would have regard to a range of factors, including the multiplicity of matters which affect child poverty. Apart from for Northern Ireland strategies, this Bill sweeps away all those provisions—the entirety of them. We will seek to reinstate this with subsequent amendments. Instead, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report containing data on children in workless and long-term workless households in England and educational attainment at key stage 4 for children in England and the educational attainment of disadvantaged children. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to define these terms until the first report is provided for, in the year 2017 and a veiled reference to developing “other measures” to recognise what is suggested are the root causes of poverty: family breakdown, problem debt and drug and alcohol dependency. There is no statutory obligation to do so.
There is a reference in the briefing notes to a “life chances strategy” in due course, but no commitment on the scope and timing of this. The commission will have a focus on social mobility and no longer on reducing child poverty. Crucially, the Bill removes any income measure and related targets. This is on the basis that income is a symptom, not a cause, of poverty and that the relative income measure can lead to spurious outcomes when medium incomes are falling.
Lord Freud
My Lords, by virtue of Clause 4 the Government are committing themselves to reporting annually on their life chances measures of children in workless households, including long-term worklessness in England and the educational attainment of children, including disadvantaged children, in England at the end of key stage 4. The collective purpose of all the amendments in this group, laid by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is to place additional duties on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament further reports, information or data about a range of other areas. The question for us to consider is: what is the most effective way of harnessing primary legislation to achieve these aims?
We want to make a difference by taking action in the areas that will improve the life chances of all children and I think that is the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the policy. It will be addressing the life chances of those children, tackling the root causes of poverty, not the symptoms. Our new approach focuses government action on the most important drivers of poverty—worklessness and poor educational attainment—and on reporting progress in those areas annually. We will prioritise action in those areas and follow up our clear commitment to publishing a life chances strategy. As part of this we will develop a wider set of non-statutory measures on the root causes of child poverty, including family stability, problem debt and addiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, by virtue of Amendment 22 seeks to expand the duty placed on the Secretary of State to include a duty to report on the progress of children living in England at age five, including disadvantaged children, in their cognitive, personal, social and emotional, and physical development. It is vital that all pupils thrive and develop in their early years and I recognise the importance of understanding where pupils are at the start of their school journey. Monitoring a child’s personal development is a core function of every education setting, enabling teachers to tailor their support based on how each individual is progressing. However, there are two key issues at the heart of the life chances reforms—action on work and education. Lives can be transformed through focusing on those two key drivers of poverty.
The end of key stage 4 is a vital point in a young person’s education. It represents the culmination of primary and secondary schooling and provides a consistent point at which to measure attainment across all young people. Pupils who fail to achieve at the end of key stage 4 are at higher risk of not being in employment, education or training. That is why the Secretary of State is making a commitment through the life chances measures in this Bill to report annually to Parliament on educational attainment at key stage 4.
Noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Department for Education already publishes a great deal of data on the progress of pupils—how well they are doing in the earlier stages of their career, including key stage 1 and key stage 2—and the annual reporting at different stages of primary schooling already provides significant detail on the progress and attainment of disadvantaged pupils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, by virtue of Amendments 23 and 27 seeks to expand the annual reporting duty placed on the Secretary of State to include data on the educational attainment of children and disadvantaged children at the key stage 1 point. I recognise the importance of understanding and tracking pupils as they make their way through the key stages. It provides a basis for teachers to look at how each child is progressing. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that the department already publishes a statistical first release each year on the assessment of key stage 1 pupils in reading, writing, maths and the results of phonics screening. That includes disadvantaged pupils.
Baroness Manzoor
Just on that point, I have heard this evening that various departments do their own thing, but coming new into the House I find that maybe we need a little bit more joined-up thinking. When you look at the Bill it would be nice to have something that says very clearly that key stage 1 is very important and this is what the Government are doing to track from key stage 1 to key stage 4.
Lord Freud
That is a good point but, in essence, if you are not achieving the target in the earlier stages, you will know you are not going to get to the right point at key stage 4, so I think in practice this is built into the process.
Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on children in care and care leavers. As I think we indicated earlier this evening, we share the noble Earl’s commitment to improving life chances for this particular group. We publish a wealth of information on both children in care and care leavers. There are two annual statistical publications, the first of which provides data on the numbers of children in care and the numbers entering and leaving care. It also includes data on placements, children who go missing from care and outcomes for care leavers, including their economic activity. The second publication deals with educational attainment at both key stage 2 and key stage 4, so I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that we already have the comprehensive data that the noble Earl is looking for.
We are also taking action. We recognise that children in care often need special attention at school. The Government’s own measure of educational disadvantage includes children who have been in care. Children in care also attract the highest rate of funding through the pupil premium plus and, from December, will be recognised in the education performance tables. At a local level, we have given local authorities £44 million over three years to support all young people to continue living with their foster families after the age of 18, helping to provide a stable setting at the key point of transition.
In Amendment 29, the noble Earl looks to do much the same with children who are “homeless” and “at risk of homelessness” every year—in other words to create a duty to lay an annual report. The noble Earl will be pleased to know that I have been a member of the ministerial homelessness committee now for the last five and a half years, so I am absolutely informed in this area. We agree of course that care and attention are required in the case of children who are at risk in this area, and we publish relevant data. Local authorities collect and publish data on the number of households with children who are eligible as homeless and in priority need and data on the number of children in temporary accommodation, which is published on a quarterly basis. I think that the last figures came out in September. This area is a key priority. Since 2010, we have invested over £500 million to support local authorities and voluntary sector agencies to help the most vulnerable back into society.
On Amendment 30, problem debt clearly is a key factor in trapping families in poverty and adversely impacting on their living standards, mental health, family stability, financial inclusion and well-being. This is a well-chosen issue. We intend to develop a range of non-statutory indicators, which will include that one, as well as family breakdown and drug and alcohol dependency, and set these out in our life chances strategy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I have a couple of points, the first on problem debt. Will the Government also be assessing the impact of the Bill on debt? We have had briefings from a number of organisations that give debt advice, such as StepChange, which are very concerned that the Bill, in particular the clauses we have just been debating on the end of financial support for families with three or more children, are going to increase debt significantly.
I also wondered whether the Minister could comment on another point. He has twice referred now to addiction, which the Government talk about as a sort of root cause of poverty. A couple of years ago I put down a Written Question asking what the Government’s estimate was of the proportion of children living in poverty with at least one parent addicted to either drugs or alcohol. The Minister’s answer was that the Government do not have such an assessment. Drug or alcohol use is not recorded on the survey used for UK poverty national statistics. I wonder therefore—how do the Government know that this is a root cause of poverty, when they seem to have no relevant information?
Lord Freud
There have been studies showing the numbers who are addicted to one or the other. I remember producing some figures on that in the debate on the last Welfare Bill. Clearly, one of the points of developing a life chances strategy is to get a better grip both of those areas and, indeed, the figures on debt. As the noble Baroness hinted, the figures are imperfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to get a better grip on it. When we look at the levels of debt, that will tell us about impacts, and we can start to analyse what those impacts are. That would of course include any government measures and the impacts would be revealed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am still a little unclear on one fairly key point. When responding to the consultation on the measurement of poverty, the commission recommended almost a two-pronged approach. One was that there should be a multidimensional focus on the causes of poverty, but a clear focus on recording the experience of poverty and dealing with poverty here and now with an income measure. I understand what the Minister has been saying about focusing on the causes. One can see the longer-term impact of that; but what, precisely, are the Government going to do differently in respect of the here and now of people’s actual experience of poverty—people who simply do not have enough income today, and will not tomorrow or the day after, to get by and play their part in society? That is what I find to be missing, so far at least, from the Minister’s response.
Lord Freud
I am not sure that the Government would do much different from what they are doing. They have a safety net and there are various measures to support people. We are building at speed now the universal support system in which we are combining with local authorities to help the most vulnerable, but in a very different way from how people have been helped in the past, which was through crisis loans that they went on and on building in a random way, without anyone looking at the root causes of their problems and trying to help them out of them. This approach accords with that. Clearly, we will be spending our money on the root causes of poverty and on life chances. But there will be income measures published, because we have said that we will go on publishing the HBAI. If people want to see what is happening, that gets a lot of publicity every year. That is the change: the money that we will be spending on life chances. Those are some of the mechanisms by which we will do it. Universal support is one of the key things, but there are a lot of other things. Getting mental health right is something that has evaded Governments for a long time, and we are now spending more money on that than any Government have before.
I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could we perhaps have one more brief run-through of the issue of income? The Minister says that the Government are not doing anything specific to address income poverty other than the application of their current broad benefit regime, with all the cuts that that is now having to endure. Is that it, in terms of actually tackling current poverty? How does the Minister deal with the point that pretty much every expert out there has concluded—certainly the commission has—that we need to have consistent, robust measures of poverty? What the key driver is, and all the other stuff, is subsidiary to that. There seems to be an overwhelming view coming from the experts on that. Is that not a view that the Government share?
Lord Freud
No. Every year I stand here because there is a forecast that says that child poverty is going up, has gone up or will go up, but when we actually see the figures we find that child poverty has actually gone down; the Government have been impressed and shocked by that. When you transform the economy, change the culture so that work is what has been driving things, and move up the employment rates and the earning rates in the way that we have, you find that the behavioural impacts are very different from the static analysis that many of the external experts tell us about.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, it is late so I will ask just two brief questions. I thank the Minister for his response. Can he give an indication of when a homelessness strategy might be produced, or is there already one that I am not aware of? He has mentioned that there are various kinds of homelessness, such as overcrowding and unfit accommodation. The one that is of most concern, though, is housing insecurity, when families just do not know where they will be from one day to the next. What is the strategy to deal with that? Is one forthcoming? How often does the interdepartmental group meet? Perhaps he might like to write to me on that last question.
I have been talking with practitioners working around the troubled families initiative, which I warmly welcome. Their work is much undermined by the fact that they build a relationship with a family, as they must and do very effectively, but then that family is moved somewhere else because the accommodation was private and temporary, and there just is not the security of tenure that there needs to be. Perhaps the Minister could help me with those questions.
Lord Freud
As I said, we will be putting out the life-chances strategy in time. The interministerial meets every quarter, I think.
The Earl of Listowel
Sorry, but I am asking about a homelessness strategy, dealing with the particular issue of housing security for families.
Lord Freud
Is the noble Earl talking about the interministerial meeting, which deals with those issues? Yes, I think it meets quarterly.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister talked about working with local authorities on child poverty, which obviously is welcome, and I think that he said something about not wanting to do that in a random way—excuse me, it is a bit late so I cannot remember exactly what he said. If that is the case, though, why are the Government removing the duty on local authorities to develop strategies? The letter that the Minister received from the Children’s Commissioners just the other day underlined how valuable that duty has been. I know that local authorities, within the constraints that they are having to work in, have been quite imaginative in trying to think about what they can do as partners of central government in combating child poverty, so I really do not understand why that has been taken away, given what the Minister said about wanting to work with local authorities.
Lord Freud
It is the same answer that I have just given: we want local authorities to focus their time on action to get at the root causes, not at the symptoms.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
But surely the strategy could be a strategy to get at root causes. The Child Poverty Act does not say that local authorities have a duty to deal with symptoms. It says that they have a duty to help to eliminate child poverty, and of course that is about trying to get at root causes.
Lord Freud
What we are doing is working with local authorities to support them in getting at the root causes. That will be our strategy.
The Earl of Listowel
While I am grateful to the Minister for that information about the interdepartmental group and how often it meets, I wonder if he could give an indication of whether it is looking to develop a strategy specifically for housing security for families, or whether he might be prepared to take back to that group a request from this House—at least, from myself—that such a strategy should be developed. This seems a very important area.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I will follow up on the point about local authorities that my noble friend Lady Lister raised. The Minister will be aware that we are in the era of devolution deals, particularly with combined authorities—Manchester was the first, and there are others as well. As part of that process, is the department engaged in inputting into the package with a particular focus on child poverty issues?
Lord Freud
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government’s emphasis is to put authority into the hands of local authorities, which is what devolution is about. Therefore they cannot have devolution on the one hand and then send a whole series of specific requirements down on the other.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group of amendments. I also thank the Minister for his response. However, it contained one of the most disappointing sentences that I have ever heard from a Dispatch Box, when he said that he was not sure whether the Government could do more than they are doing. The Government could do a great deal more than they are doing and more than they have indicated they are willing to do tonight.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord very much, but I do not want to let the noble Lord leave the Chamber tonight so disappointed. When I said the word “do” I meant that our approach to what we are trying to do would not change. That does not mean that we are satisfied with our level of energy and input. I want to make that clear so that the noble Lord does not think that I was making a complacent remark when I was talking about our approach.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. He knows perfectly well that on previous occasions he has earned the respect of the House by the way he has responded to questions and has been willing to take part. If I have another disappointment, it is that he has not responded to my suggestion that we should meet and have a discussion about all these issues. I do not feel that I have had an answer, particularly to the problem of mental health which was raised in Amendment 34.
I have always been worried about strategy as far as its production in Whitehall is concerned. I was once berated by a senior civil servant in the Home Office, who said to me, “I wish you’d stop talking about strategy. We don’t need strategy—all we need is strategic direction”. I said to her, “What do you mean?”, to which she replied, “Top down, of course”. I said, “Well, that’s where you’re absolutely up the creek. Just because somebody says something from the top does not make it a strategy”. A strategy is something which unites everyone in the delivery of something, which includes all the ministries that have been mentioned tonight. For example, when it is mentioned that the Department of Health knows about mental health or the Department for Education knows about attainment at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, why not get together and have an information-gathering strategy at which each of the ministries is required to produce what is required to have an overall strategy which feeds all the government departments that need to draw on that to process legislation.
I very much hope that we will be able to talk through this. I have listened to what has been said from the Floor of the House throughout today’s proceedings and there is a great deal of expertise that could help the department to produce better legislation, which is surely what we are all about. While I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I promise the Minister that we will return to it on Report and possibly at Third Reading.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Amendment 24. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I understood that it had been agreed between the usual channels that this was the point at which we would finish. If that has changed then perhaps somebody might have told the Chief Whip before he left.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I do apologise, but I came into the Chamber expecting that we would be going on to the next group. We have fallen short of the target today by three groups. It is up to noble Lords to decide how they deal with this Bill but I do advise that, if we adjourn the Committee at this stage, it will put us under pressure on successive days. The matter is in the hands of the Committee. If the Opposition do not wish to continue, I will note that point and adjourn the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I think that that is deeply unfair. I am well aware of the discussions that were held in the usual channels. I am well aware that representations were made that today was likely to be tight. Things always move slowly on the first day and there were a very large number of amendments with a very large number of Peers attached to them. I think we fully expected to be at this point. I thought that we might make the next group, but since we have not, I presumed that we would go on to the next day. I am sorry to say it, but I am disappointed. I think we should stick to the agreement that has been made.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In that case, I suggest that the Committee adjourn.