House of Commons
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
On today’s Order Paper it is noted that on 18 November 1917, Captain The Hon. Neil James Archibald Primrose, PC, MC, Royal Bucks Hussars, Member for Wisbech, died from wounds received in action at the Third Battle of Gaza, Palestine. We remember him today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Mr Speaker
I call the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; the length of the name of the Department now makes it sound like a land grab.
Over 94% of UK homes and businesses can now access superfast broadband and we are on track to reach 95% by the end of the year. Superfast broadband coverage will extend beyond that to at least another 2% of premises. For those not covered by superfast broadband, we will ensure universal broadband coverage of at least 10 megabits.
Ross Thomson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am delighted that Aberdeen is one of six pilot areas for superfast reliable full-fibre broadband, which can offer speeds as high as 1 gigabit. However, at a time when the Scottish Government’s slow roll-out of superfast broadband has left my constituency with one of the worst broadband speeds in the UK for an urban constituency—as well as the city being Europe’s energy capital—does the Secretary of State share my belief that this UK Government investment is vital to boosting connectivity in Aberdeen?
Karen Bradley
I am disappointed to hear about the superfast coverage in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because this Government have put the resources behind the superfast programme, but we are obviously reliant on local authorities, and, in the case of Scotland, the Scottish Government, to deliver the superfast programme. But we have always said that superfast gives good connectivity to as many people as possible as quickly as possible, but full fibre is the future, and the fact that Aberdeen is in the pilot is good news for his constituents.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer. People and businesses in my constituency are hungry for full-fibre broadband; when will they get it?
Karen Bradley
We are determined to make sure that all businesses and people living in my hon. Friend’s constituency are able to access the broadband speeds they need to ensure they can be part of the digital revolution in our economy. I assure my hon. Friend that we will deliver full fibre to his constituency as soon as practicable.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Virgin Media has recognised that Wrexham is a great place to invest and is building new infrastructure in Wrexham. What can the Secretary of State do to help all the Conservative Members who ceaselessly complain about this Government’s performance on superfast broadband, and ensure they have the benefits that Wrexham is now having?
Karen Bradley
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman takes that approach. In 2012 only 2% of premises in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for example, had access to superfast broadband, but the figure is now 94%, thanks to the actions of this Government. We know that we need to continue working on this, because it is important that we get the right access for people, and I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has such good broadband access.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Ceredigion has the dubious accolade of being in the bottom 10 UK constituencies for broadband provision. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government to ensure that Wales, and in particular its rural areas, are not left behind and lose out on superfast broadband?
Karen Bradley
My Department speaks regularly to the Welsh Government, who, as with the Scottish Government in Scotland, have responsibility for delivering superfast broadband across Wales. They will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am sure they will act upon them.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about superfast broadband coverage. Superfast Essex will provide coverage for 95% of the county, but what is being done to provide access to the 5% of residents in Essex, many of whom live in rural areas in my constituency, who desperately require improved connectivity?
Karen Bradley
I am very pleased that Superfast Essex will reach 95%, and, as I said in my opening remarks, the superfast programme does not end at the end of 2017; we expect a further 2% of premises to be covered by superfast under the programme. I also urge my hon. Friend and her constituency neighbours in Essex to encourage take-up of superfast broadband, because, as people take up access to it, money then comes back into the system to connect even more premises to superfast broadband.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State explain why the UK Government’s contribution to the Scottish Government’s broadband roll-out project is just £21 million, an amount less than that awarded to Devon and Somerset? Will she join me in applauding the scale of the Scottish Government’s ambition to achieve 30 megabits per second for every Scottish household? Does she not think that the people of England deserve that level of ambition from their Government?
Karen Bradley
This is about delivery of superfast broadband, not just ambition, and I am afraid that the Scottish Government are behind on every single measure compared with other areas—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks about money, money, money but the important point is that this is about delivery. Other local authorities and areas have been able to deliver, and I hope that the Scottish Government will take note.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
We are collaborating closely with industry to develop a sector deal for the creative industries. This includes considering how Government and industry can partner to strengthen the pipeline talent to the sector. Following the independent review of the sector by Sir Peter Bazalgette, we are working with the Creative Industries Council and the Creative Industries Federation and discussing measures including ways of improving information about careers in the creative industries and tackling barriers to working in the sector.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have visited a number of excellent apprenticeship schemes across the broadcast media, and apprentices often tell me that they have had to seek out information about apprenticeships themselves rather than receiving it from schools or careers advisers. What can we do to better promote the value of apprenticeships among our young people?
Karen Bradley
I completely agree that apprenticeships are a fantastic thing, and it is a great achievement of this Government that so many more young people are taking them up. They are a fantastic way of getting the skills and training they need for their careers. There are specific issues with regard to apprenticeships in the creative industries, particularly as a result of there being so many freelancers in those industries, but I know that the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), attended a roundtable of the creative industries earlier this week to discuss how exactly we can make this work so that all young people can benefit from apprenticeships.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Nurturing diversity is key to our vibrant creative industries, and access to those industries. Will the Minister join me in urging the new chief executive of Channel 4, Alex Mahon, to adopt a different approach from that of her predecessor by putting diversity and access to the industry at the top of her wish list as she considers relocation to the likes of Birmingham and Solihull?
Karen Bradley
I think we have a question on Channel 4’s location later. Channel 4 has done incredibly great work when it comes to diversity. Its on-screen talent includes people with disabilities, people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds and people of different sexualities. It has been very good at promoting diversity, and I want to pay tribute to it for the work that it has done. Across the industry as a whole, more diversity would mean more creativity, and that is a message that the whole industry must listen to—and that diversity may possibly be located outside London.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
In order to progress their careers, creative artists need lots of work opportunities. For musicians, that means venues, many of which are now being closed. Will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to embedding the agent of change principle into legislation, as I hope to propose in a ten-minute rule Bill in the near future?
Karen Bradley
We are aware of those concerns and we are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to look at the proposition that has been put forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to promote careers in the creative industries is on the back of a strong economy and having sensible economic policies to drive our country forward?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Of course, the people with the greatest interest in careers in the creative industries are the workforce. In those industries, those people are often rights holders as well as workers, so why are the Government continuing to deny membership of the Creative Industries Council to the trade unions? Will the Secretary of State make a pledge now to rectify that glaring omission immediately?
Karen Bradley
Membership of the Creative Industries Council is determined by the membership of the council. It is not a Government decision. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, if he has been speaking to the council, that because of the sector deal, any decisions about future membership have been deferred until the deal has been finalised.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
As we have heard, superfast broadband is now available to more than 94% of premises. In 2010, only 42.5% of homes in Windsor had superfast broadband access. Today, that number is just shy of 94%.
Adam Afriyie
Windsor is a well-connected constituency —particularly given one notable resident—but we do have concerns that some rural and semi-rural areas may need further connectivity. In order to boost the creative, home education and home entertainment markets, does my right hon. Friend agree that developers and local authorities would do well to push on with ensuring that they deliver broadband infrastructure, such as ducting alongside the mains?
Matt Hancock
Windsor is not only well connected, but well represented. My hon. Friend’s point is that it is important that new developments get infrastructure and connectivity right from the start. We have agreed with the Home Builders Federation and major broadband providers that all new large developments of over 30 homes will get good connections, but we are also talking to the Department for Communities and Local Government to strengthen that requirement, because it is pretty absurd to build a new house without the ducting to take fibre all the way to it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I wrote to the Treasury about its £200 million locally led infrastructure fund, but I was passed to the Minister, who passed me to the local authority. The local authority says that the criteria mean that people have to make bids that are too big for a rural area. Will the Minister please look again at that so that my constituents in Teesdale can get the broadband they need?
Matt Hancock
As it happens, I was in Teesside last week talking to local authorities from across the region. We designed the scheme to allow all local bodies of whatever size to bid—district and borough councils, county councils and larger metropolitan areas—so I look forward to engaging with the hon. Lady to ensure that that can be taken forward.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
May I suggest that my right hon. Friend comes to the other end of Berkshire to look at what West Berkshire Council has done to try to get to the hardest to reach, particularly in rural areas? Only a fraction of the 72,480 homes do not have superfast broadband or will not have it in the next months. Instead of BT, the council is working with Gigaclear, which is a really effective delivery company.
Matt Hancock
West Berkshire is also extremely well represented, and testament to that is the fact that so much progress has been made on superfast broadband. I love the fact that there are now more and more different providers—not just Openreach and Virgin, but Gigaclear, Hyperoptic and others—that are working to get Britain connected.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I understand that the UK Government are likely to be taking up BT’s offer of a 10-megabits universal service obligation for the remaining 5% of premises, which is far behind the Scottish Government’s commitment of 30 megabits for 100%, so concerns have been raised about how the two will align. Will the Minister tell us whether he intends to discuss that with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity before reaching a decision? Will he take up the suggestion of a UK-wide working group?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I saw my Scottish counterpart last week, and I am going to Scotland in a fortnight to discuss the matter. The problem in Scotland is that we delegated the funding to the Scottish Government, who have contracted more slowly than any English county or the Welsh Government. They need to get on with it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Gigaclear is also coming into Devon and Somerset in competition with BT to deliver more superfast broadband. However, the percentage of hard-to-reach people is still big, so we really must concentrate on getting superfast broadband to them.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is dead right. I pay tribute to the work that Devon County Council and Somerset County Council have done together to deliver into some very hard-to-reach rural areas. In contrast to the Scottish contracting, they have been getting contracts out the door in order to achieve connectivity as quickly as possible.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
The creative industries are one of the UK’s greatest success stories, contributing over £87 billion to the economy. We have been working with the creative industries to understand the impacts and opportunities presented by our decision to leave the EU.
Afzal Khan
The Secretary of State will understand that new technologies are fuelling economic growth in our country, and nowhere more so than in Manchester—home to the world’s first computer and the new wonder-material graphene. Manchester is an international city that was built on the work of people from all countries, as exemplified today by an international student population of 20,000. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that Brexit does not create new borders that will separate a community that thrives when there are no physical, language or cultural barriers, just like-minded innovators?
Karen Bradley
I agree that Manchester is a fantastic, creative, innovative and diverse city. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming, for example, the Factory project, in which £78 million is being spent on regenerating the old Granada studios into an amazing creative space and hub. He will also welcome the fact that yesterday the Government announced a doubling of the number of tier 1 visas available for highly skilled—the brightest and best—creative and tech people. He will also join me in welcoming the fact that the success of Tech North, a Manchester success story, will now be expanded across the whole UK through Tech Nation.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that coming out of the European Union opens up great opportunities for the creative industries?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right. Clearly there are challenges, but there are great opportunities. These are global industries that have operated outside the 27 member states of the European Union forever. They are a great British success story, and I am determined to make that continue.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
As well as the current generation of technologies, we have provided more than £1 billion of funding to support the next generation of digital infrastructure, including investment in full-fibre networks and 5G testbeds, so that we are ready to ensure that we are ahead of the pack as 5G is developed.
Lucy Frazer
Given the number of companies in and around Cambridge that specialise in technological innovation, the growth of agritech in east Cambridgeshire and the rural nature of Cambridgeshire as a whole, does the Minister think that South East Cambridgeshire would be an excellent place to hold some of the 5G trials?
Matt Hancock
My hon. and learned Friend has been assiduous in putting the case for Cambridgeshire, because of the combination of amazing high-tech growth in Cambridge itself and its rural hinterland, as an area where we can really test these technologies. I look forward to working with her and with Connecting Cambridgeshire to see whether we can make that happen.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As well as fibre and base stations, data is a key part of digital infrastructure. The Minister claims that his Data Protection Bill will put people in control of their own data, but it systematically strips various groups, including immigrants, of any control. What is he doing to ensure that people can actually control their own data?
Matt Hancock
I am slightly surprised by the question, because we have introduced the Data Protection Bill, which is currently in the other place, to give people much more control and consent over their data and to ensure that in the UK we have a system that supports the use of data in a modern way while strengthening privacy. No doubt we will have a debate when the Bill comes to this House, but it is great that the Bill has cross-party support.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is vital to invest in digital infrastructure if we are to raise productivity, particularly in rural areas like Gordon in northern Scotland?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. Not only are we ensuring that we roll out the current generation of technology—we are pushing the Scottish Government to deliver on that—but for the next generation of technology we will deliver directly to local authorities in Scotland, rather than going through the Scottish Government, because we want to make sure that Scotland does not get left behind, as it has this time round.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that some 63,000 premises in Northern Ireland cannot get a download speed of 10 megabits per second, and 94% of those premises are located in rural areas. Through our confidence and supply agreement with the Government, we secured an extra £150 million for broadband. Can the Minister indicate what discussions have taken place with the Assembly to ensure that the roll-out continues?
Matt Hancock
We have been putting a lot of work into trying to ensure that we get a faster roll-out in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the details. The passing of the Northern Ireland Budget Bill this week will help to deliver that, and it will help to ensure that we have the structures in place. I am determined to make sure that Northern Ireland continues to get connected.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
As the hon. Lady will know, Euryn Ogwen Williams’ independent review of S4C is ongoing. It will consider a range of issues, including S4C’s remit, governance and funding methods.
Jo Stevens
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it is estimated that S4C is going to lose £9 million of funding over the next three years, so will she tell the House what guidance she has given to Euryn Ogwen Williams in conducting her review?
Karen Bradley
This is an independent review. I have asked Euryn Ogwen Williams to look at the issues of remit, governance and funding methods, and it is down to him, as an independent reviewer, to look at those matters.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Welsh is Britain’s oldest indigenous language and, as such, has great cultural, social and historic significance. Based in my constituency, S4C plays a huge role in providing constant opportunities for people to hear and learn Welsh. Will the Secretary of State commit to increasing S4C’s funding to ensure S4C’s digital content is adequately resourced for it to compete on an equal footing with other broadcasters?
Karen Bradley
I agree with the hon. Lady that S4C is a fantastic success story, one introduced by a Conservative Government in the 1980s and one that continues to promote the Welsh language in such a fantastic way. We have an independent review, and I am determined to support and deliver a fantastic S4C for the future, making sure it is fit for the 21st century.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
The Government have made it clear that Channel 4 must have a major presence outside London. As a publicly owned broadcaster, it is essential that it reflects and provides for the country as a whole.
Eleanor Smith
The Secretary of State keeps saying that this has got to be ensured, but many of us have put bids in, particularly from the west midlands—I am from Wolverhampton so I would want Channel 4 to go there—and we still do not know. What will she do to ensure that any relocation of Channel 4 protects its ability to fund itself through advertising?
Karen Bradley
We are discussing with Channel 4 the appropriate way forward and what is appropriate for it to do. I make no comment on an appropriate place for it to relocate to. I have heard a number of bids just today. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members contact the Channel 4 board to put their propositions forward. This is a decision for the board, but clearly if we cannot reach an agreement, we would need to legislate, and I welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the private Member’s Bill on this matter.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Given that Norwich University of the Arts produces many digital and creative graduates each year, does the Secretary of State agree, notwithstanding the fact that she is not going to make a public endorsement, that Channel 4 should carefully consider the merits of Norfolk for a new location when it moves outside London?
Karen Bradley
What we have found through this process, which is still ongoing, is the vast number of incredible creative locations that we have across the whole of the United Kingdom. I urge them all to continue to put forward their suggestions and proposals, not just for Channel 4 but for all other creative industries, because getting creative clusters and a centre of gravity in an area means that creativity can flourish.
Mr Speaker
There is no doubt at least one in every colleague’s constituency.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
My officials and I have regular conversations with the Home Office on matters relating to football and other sporting events, including counter-terrorism, security and policing matters.
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. The cost to the Met of policing premier league football last year was almost £7 million, but the clubs contributed only £360,000. Given that they draw in more than £240 million every match day, is it not high time that premier league clubs were paying their full share to overstretched police forces?
Tracey Crouch
Football clubs do make a significant contribution to policing costs for home matches, and the Premier League and the clubs themselves contributed more than £2.4 billion to the public finances. We have to recognise that there are parameters as to policing costs and where these can be recovered from. I know that recent High Court cases have determined that, based on existing legislation, the police are not entitled to charge for these special police services where they are deployed on public land. That court decision has implications for what the police can charge, but we work with both the Premier League and the clubs on a host of policing matters, and I am sure that will continue.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is absolutely right on this issue, about which I have had meetings with the Home Secretary. I urge the Minister to go with the Home Secretary to meet the Premier League and the English Football League and ask them to make a voluntary contribution from the massive amounts of money they get from TV rights, before they redistribute it to the clubs. If they refuse to do so, the Government should legislate to make sure that police forces get a realistic amount for the cost of policing matches; otherwise, the money is taken away from neighbourhood policing in all our constituencies.
Tracey Crouch
As I said, the Premier League and the clubs contribute more than £2.4 billion to the public finances. We are aware of the continued increase in the cost of policing football matches and other sporting events, and we have ongoing discussions about that with all those involved.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
Protecting the UK from cyber-attack is a tier 1 national securing issue. We are investing £1.9 billion in cyber-security, and this year we opened the National Cyber Security Centre to lead the nation’s efforts.
David Hanson
The Prime Minister has been clear this week that the Russian authorities have been meddling in elections and using social media inappropriately. What extra steps is the Minister taking following those allegations, and has he raised them directly with the Russian authorities?
Matt Hancock
The Prime Minister has been clear—as she set out on Monday night, with more details provided by the National Cyber Security Centre on Tuesday—that we know what the Russians are doing and we are not going to let them get away with it.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that companies such as Facebook and Twitter should respond to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s request to supply any evidence of Russian-backed activity or fake news interfering with British politics to Parliament so that we can scrutinise it?
Matt Hancock
Yes. This is an incredibly important issue and the Select Committee is taking a lead to ensure that evidence is brought to light. We will of course investigate all the evidence we see and take action where appropriate.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
There are now widespread reports of a wave of cyber-attacks, possibly backed by Russia, aimed at subverting our democracy. What conversations has the Minister had with social-media firms about the existence of evidence of Russian interference in the EU referendum and the general election?
Matt Hancock
We have discussions with social media companies on a whole range of issues, including this one, and we discuss the impact of social media on political campaigning around the world. Of course, we cannot solve an issue such as this without working with the social media companies, because they provide the platforms on which a lot of the communication occurs.
Liam Byrne
Well, that was a pretty high-level answer. If we are to stop the cyber-attacks on our democracy, it is important that the right agencies have the right powers. The Electoral Commission tells me that it does not have the power to investigate foreign spending in elections. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will co-operate fully with the Mueller inquiry into Russian cyber-attacks on democracy? Will he begin preparations now for an American-style honest ads Act, so that the right agencies have the right powers to stop these cyber-attacks in their tracks?
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman makes important points. At this stage we are considering all options and looking at all the evidence. We will say more when it is appropriate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Since the previous oral questions, my Department has made progress on a number of key priorities. We have set out the internet safety Green Paper, which is the first step towards making the UK the safest place to be online. This week, we launched the Mendoza review—the first review of the museum sector in 10 years—which will help England’s museums to thrive and grow. We have continued to work to ensure that the UK is a world leader in digital and technology. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor welcomed some of the best and brightest to Downing Street to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the sector. Finally, my Department will be leading work across Government and with a range of people and organisations to develop a civil society strategy. We value the vital work that civil society contributes in a number of areas, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society has today made a written ministerial statement to inform the House of our intention to take that work forward.
Mr Bone
American football is very popular in this country, and growing more so. In fact, we have had four regular season National Football League games in London this year. It is rather like Arsenal playing one of their premier league games in New York. Next year, there will be two games at Wembley and two at the magnificent new Tottenham Hotspur ground. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what efforts are being made to attract a franchise to London?
Karen Bradley
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who chairs the all-party group on American football. Mr Speaker, I am just contemplating what you would do if Arsenal were playing in New York and how you would manage to fit in going there and watching the match. It may be a bit of a challenge, but I am sure that you would enjoy it. I was at the Ravens v. Jaguars match at Wembley, and saw an amazing full house of people enjoying American football here in the United Kingdom. We want to continue to promote American football here, and discussions are ongoing about a full-time franchise.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the Football Association made its final settlement payment to Eniola Aluko recently after initially withholding it because she spoke out about the abuse she had suffered. It is in the public interest to know how many people are being paid to stay silent. Does the Minister know how many settlement payments of a similar nature have been made to individuals by the FA or professional clubs after allegations of abuse or discrimination?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am not aware of the answer to that question. I am sure that the FA is watching this exchange with some interest and that it will be in touch with the hon. Lady.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the decline of local newspapers and the consequences for local democracy? Will she welcome the launch by the BBC of the local news partnership, which will support the employment of local democracy reporters? Does she agree that, perhaps now, Google and Facebook, which also profit from local journalism, could support that initiative?
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for the work that he did on the BBC charter, which included this local news initiative now being carried out by the BBC. The idea that we might lose our local newspaper—the voice for local people—is of great concern to all Members of this House. I have regular discussions with the internet companies on precisely the point that he has raised.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Tracey Crouch
It has been well reported that there has been a decline in the receipts of the national lottery, and it is something that we are looking at. However, we still expect returns to good causes of the national lottery to be in the region of £1.6 billion, much of which will be distributed across the nation, including the constituency of the hon. Gentleman.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Following the statement by the Prime Minister on 17 June, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport gave £1.5 million to Mind to support our emergency services. That was much appreciated. Will she look at increasing that funding going forward?
Karen Bradley
I will look closely at what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps we could have a discussion outside this Chamber.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Tracey Crouch
Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 31 October I published the 12-week consultation into gambling. That consultation will finish in January. On the day, we had an urgent question in which many of these issues were raised. None the less, the Government take the issue very seriously, and we look forward to getting back all the responses from the public and other interested organisations to help shape our policies in the future.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Society lotteries provide invaluable funding for charities and local causes, but they could provide a lot more if the jackpot prize was increased. Will my right hon. Friend outline what plans there are to reform the society lottery sector and the timetable for doing so?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about society lotteries. As Government, we of course want to ensure that we have one strong national lottery, but that does not mean that we cannot also have strong society lotteries. We are looking carefully at the role of society lotteries and we will make announcements in due course.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Tracey Crouch
The Government established an independent review of full-time social action by young people, which is expected by the end of the year.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The biggest concern of the tourism and hospitality sector is access to the labour force once we leave the EU. Will the Minister confirm that he has got this message, and will he update the House on what representations he is making to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the matter?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (John Glen)
My hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for the tourism industry. I have had numerous conversations with the tourism industry across the UK and I am having active conversations across Government. I look forward to progress being made on this important issue in the very near future.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
I shall be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. I know about the exciting proposals. We are very strong supporters of music venues in Bradford and across the country. This gives me the opportunity to warmly welcome the decision of the Met to abolish form 696, which has done so much to prevent a diverse range of live music. Significant pressure was brought to bear and, thankfully, the Met has now taken that decision. That is in London, but I also want to work with the hon. Gentleman to deliver music venues in Bradford.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister responsible for tourism will be aware of the importance of the industry to Torbay. It may seem strange to say this in winter, but many people will soon be starting to think about their summer holidays. What work will he do to ensure that people think of coming to Britain’s great coastline next summer when they book their holiday at Christmas 2017?
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
The listed events regime is incredibly important to ensure that the nation’s favourite sports are seen on public service broadcasting channels. We do not have a proposal to change the listed events regime as it is working pretty well, but I will look into the specific details mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am passionate about getting more women into sport, especially girls in the Eastleigh constituency and across the UK. This Government have done great work with the “This Girl Can” campaign. We must, though, ensure that everyone taking part in sport is properly protected. What is the Department doing to ensure appropriate safeguarding for all children participating in sport?
Tracey Crouch
Mr Speaker, I hope you will forgive me, but it is actually a year ago today that the former Crewe Alexandra player Andy Woodward reported historical allegations. He was incredibly brave to do so. As a consequence of his courage, he has ensured that the Government and other parts of the sporting sector have taken the issue incredibly seriously. I am pleased to announce that I have secured ministerial agreement with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to change laws on the position of trust to include sports coaches.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Tracey Crouch
It is a live consultation, and I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to submit his views to it.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Natural History Museum is embarking on the monumental task of digitising 800 million items, including a collection of dung beetles and flea beetles. These items could hold the keys to our future biodiversity, climate change and pollution problems, so they are very important. Does the Minister agree that this is the kind of project the Government should be supporting in conjunction with our global partners?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are indeed supporting that sort of work, and we have some internationally renowned institutions doing wonderful work. Digitisation is really important, and the University of Sheffield, for example, is working closely with the Natural History Museum to take advantage of some of the pioneering work it has already undertaken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but there is heavy pressure on time today in light of the Backbench Business Committee debates and the statements before them, so we must now move on.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The last financial year saw the highest number of terrorism-related arrests in any year since data collection began, and a 55% increase in trials from the previous year. The conviction rate in terrorism prosecutions remained at 86%. The team of specialist prosecutors within the Crown Prosecution Service counter-terrorism division has doubled in size and their skills have been enhanced through training and sharing best practice with partners.
Alex Chalk
Disclosure to the defence in terrorism trials, as in any other trials, of material that might be of assistance to the defence or that might undermine the prosecution is the touchstone of a fair trial. Yet, notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General’s guidelines, there are concerns about the inconsistent application of those requirements. What more can be done to ensure that this vital task is properly discharged?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience in prosecuting cases. He is right that disclosure is a huge challenge, and becoming an ever greater one, because of the volume of material that arises, particularly in terrorism cases. We need to make sure we understand fully how we deal with a large quantity particularly of electronic material and sift it effectively. Then we need to make sure that all those involved in the disclosure process—both police officers and prosecutors—understand their responsibilities fully.
Colin Clark
What measures are in place to prosecute those linked to the war in Syria?
The Attorney General
This is a matter of considerable public concern. He will know that many of the offences related to what is happening in Syria are offences of preparing to commit acts of terrorism. Over the 10 years from 2006 to 2016, 90 offenders were charged with these offences, 81 of whom received immediate custodial sentences at an average of eight years and five months’ imprisonment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Bearing in mind that there was a 30% drop between June 2016 and June 2017 in convictions for terrorism-related offences, will the Minister outline how he has instructed the CPS to improve the conviction-arrest ratio?
The Attorney General
Across the United Kingdom, the volume of cases and convictions is going up all the time. It is important that we recognise that the volume of cases reflects a genuine problem—a problem not just of terrorist acts, but of those who encourage or glorify terrorism. We must make sure the law keeps pace with that in terms of substantive offences and the sentencing regime.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Following on from that answer, has the Attorney General seen the content published online yesterday by the Leave.EU campaign, in which a number of his hon. and right hon. colleagues were denounced as traitors and as a cancer, simply because they disagreed with the views held by the billionaire owner of that company? Will the Government consider amending legislation so that such clear incitements to hatred can be prosecuted through the criminal courts?
The Attorney General
I agree that incitement to hatred is reprehensible, from wherever it comes and whatever subject it is based on, and it is important that the criminal law is available to deal with that conduct. The hon. Gentleman is right too—he has heard me say this before—that conduct online should be treated no less seriously than conduct offline. No one should imagine that they are immune from the criminal law if what they are doing is online instead of in what we might call the real world.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom is committed to maintaining both the UK’s and Europe’s security now and after our withdrawal from the EU. We believe that the UK and the EU should work together to design new, dynamic arrangements as part of our future partnership, that would allow us to continue and to strengthen our close collaboration on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.
Alex Cunningham
Next year, London will host the Commonwealth summit, which is a real chance to build on what the Minister has just said—that commitment across different countries to build up capacity to prosecute criminals. Can the Attorney General assure the House that every effort will be made to build the widest possible coalition to tackle crime, which knows no borders?
The Attorney General
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance, and he is absolutely right that such offences are best dealt with transnationally, because they are committed transnationally. He will recognise that outside the European Union we have a number of different relationships with many other countries to enable us to do law enforcement more effectively and of course bring prosecutions more effectively too.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Justice Committee, in its report in the previous Parliament on the legal implications of Brexit, referred to a number of practical measures that need to be taken to maintain criminal justice co-operation. Can the Attorney General help us on what progress has been made on those, and in particular what steps are being taken to ensure that we have continuing data regulation alignment after we leave?
The Attorney General
Yes. My hon. Friend is right that data is crucial to this, and he will recognise that two things need to be done simultaneously. We need to aspire to the closest possible co-operation in law enforcement and security with our European friends after our departure from the EU. We also, of course, need to prepare for what I think is the unlikely possibility that we will not have an ongoing relationship, and there may be a need to fall back on other things. But as I say, I think that is an unlikely possibility, and I think it is very important that we have the closest possible co-operation, which of course is in the interests not just of the UK but of the EU.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is vital that we maintain the advantages of our current prosecution toolbox when we leave the EU.
May I press the Attorney General on the allegations that exist of widespread international money laundering against the President of South Africa and the Gupta family, which is stripping money from South Africa and leaving that country as a captured state? Can the Attorney General assure me that our exit from the European Union will not hamper any investigation into those matters?
The Attorney General
As I said to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), we should all recognise that crimes like money laundering do not stop at national borders and therefore they cannot be combated solely by one nation state, and they are not being. Our co-operation with other countries will continue, and I hope be enhanced, because I believe this kind of transnational offending is likely to increase, not decrease. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) would not expect me to comment on ongoing investigations in specific cases, but I can assure him that when it comes to money laundering, as with other types of offending, that transnational co-operation will continue.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that answer. Of course, I would not expect specific points on a specific case, but is the Attorney General aware that there are now further allegations against the Gupta family about a financial kickback from China South Rail that originates from the South African state enterprise Transnet? Can he assure me that if necessary the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority will undertake appropriate investigation of this matter?
The Attorney General
Yes. As the hon. Gentleman will readily recognise, one of the challenges in cases like this is to determine the appropriate jurisdiction, because many other law enforcement agencies in many other countries may well have an interest, but we do try and do that, and we are generally successful in reaching what I think are sensible settlements on who does what. He can rest assured that under this Government, offending of the type he has described will be properly pursued, wherever it takes place and whoever is responsible.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The number of sentences considered by the Attorney General and me has more than doubled since 2010, from 342 to 837 requests last year. We took 190 of those cases to the Court of Appeal in 2016, and the Court agreed to increase the sentences of 141 offenders.
Mims Davies
Controlling behaviour is mentioned in my constituency surgeries and the new law in this area is welcomed. Constituents have also welcomed the Court of Appeal’s increase of the sentence imposed on an offender engaged in serious incidents of violence and controlling behaviour against his partner. The offender is now spending an extra three years in prison, following the Attorney General’s referral of the case through the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Will my hon. and learned Friend please outline what steps he is continuing to take to increase public awareness of the unduly lenient sentence scheme?
The Solicitor General
Indeed. We use every type of media, including social media, to raise awareness. We also use local radio interviews and I personally conduct a number of cases in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Government. The results show an increase in the number of referrals.
Andrew Bridgen
A number of my constituents are concerned at what they see as unduly lenient sentences handed down to some people who have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm how many such sentences have been reviewed and increased?
The Solicitor General
The offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink and drugs are in the regime, and since the beginning of 2015 eight cases of that nature have been referred to the Court of Appeal, five sentences have been increased and one is currently pending, even today.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
As pro bono champions in the Government, the Attorney General and I chair the pro bono panel and committee to bring together the most important players to steer and co-ordinate the overall work. As Members will be aware, last week was the 16th national pro bono week, and the Attorney General and I attended and supported events up and down the country to encourage and support the excellent work being done.
Nigel Huddleston
I am sure that, like me, many colleagues receive requests from constituents who are not wealthy and come to our offices with complex legal issues, although our offices are not capable of dealing with them. How can we ensure that people in desperate need get help, either through legal aid or a much enhanced pro bono scheme?
The Solicitor General
I am sure that my hon. Friend and many other colleagues will use the services of the Bar pro bono scheme and, indeed, the LawWorks scheme, which can assist in individual cases. The Government are reviewing the operation of the legal aid regime, and we are going to work with expert advisory panels to find the most effective ways to provide that essential early advice and support for people in need.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
I have frequent discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions on a range of issues, including cases of rape and other sexual offences. May I take this opportunity to update the House on one aspect of trials of this kind of offending?
Earlier this year, the then Justice Secretary and I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to review a sample of case files to ascertain the frequency of applications to introduce evidence relating to the previous sexual history of a complainant, under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Section 41 provides for a presumption against the inclusion of evidence based on previous sexual history, but allows that evidence to be heard only in restricted circumstances. I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions for her findings, which show that in only 13% of the cases looked at was an application under section 41 made, and that in just 8% of those cases was an application granted by the judge. That indicates that the overwhelming majority of rape cases see no evidence submitted of a complainant’s previous sexual history, but the Government are looking carefully at the detailed findings to assess the operation of the law in practice, and we will set out our conclusions shortly.
Jo Platt
I welcome the Attorney General’s comments, but does he accept that low conviction rates for rape and sexual offences can deter victims from reporting those incidents to the police—an issue that was recently brought to my attention by a constituent? If so, will he work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to improve confidence in our ability to prosecute such cases and ensure that victims are able to come forward?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and the answer to her last question is certainly yes—that is what we are doing. She is right: there are a number of factors that might deter those who should come forward to report crimes of this nature from doing so, and of course deter them from pursuing those cases throughout trial. We must not only do what we can to ensure that conviction rates are where they should be, but make sure that complainants are properly supported throughout the case. We do that through independent sexual violence advisers and special measures. She will know that, in relation to vulnerable witnesses in particular, we are beginning to roll out pre-recorded cross-examination so that people can give their evidence outside a courtroom and get it done before the trial begins. All those things will help, but there is more to do.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Attorney General has just touched on this, but does he agree that it will help more vulnerable people to come forward if they feel that they can have a pre-trial cross-examination?
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is important for two reasons. First, as I have indicated, for those people it means that their part in the case can be over before the rest of the trial takes place, meaning that they are not subject to any delays from which the case may suffer. Secondly, they are of course giving evidence outside the courtroom, without having to confront the defendant in the case. It is of huge benefit and, as I have said, I look forward to its further roll-out.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In his capacity as ex officio Advocate General for Northern Ireland, what advice has the Attorney General given to his colleagues in government about the implications of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 on cases of rape in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the non-consensual sex exemption form?
The Attorney General
As the hon. Lady may anticipate, I obviously do not discuss the advice that I have given within government. However, she can take it for granted that in relation to Northern Ireland, as in relation to all other parts of the United Kingdom, we take these offences extremely seriously, and we wish them to be prosecuted effectively.
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer this question along with Questions 8 and 9.
Mr Speaker
Order. Question 9 has in fact been withdrawn. The Attorney General did not need to know that and clearly did not know that, which is no indictment of him, but it has been withdrawn.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically, and of fulfilling its international human rights obligations. The decision to leave the European Union does not change this.
Hannah Bardell
When the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to this House, we will debate the EU charter of fundamental rights. Will the Government support the codification of the charter into UK law following its departure from the EU, and will they support their own Back Benchers’ amendments that have cross-party support?
The Attorney General
No. The reason is that the charter of fundamental rights, as the Labour Government indicated at the time, does not create any new rights. It incorporates rights that are already part of European Union law, and the Government’s intention is to translate those substantive rights into domestic law by the operation of the withdrawal Act. We do not intend to incorporate the charter of fundamental rights into domestic law.
Patrick Grady
How will leaving the European Union protect and enhance our rights, under the European convention on human rights, to free and fair elections of the legislature? Given that the vast majority of legislators in this country are not elected—they are Members of the House of Lords—are the Government confident that they will be complying with their ECHR obligations both before and after Brexit?
The Attorney General
Yes, we are confident that we are compliant with our ECHR obligations. The hon. Gentleman enables me to point out that, as he knows, our ECHR obligations will remain after we have left the European Union.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The UK has always been at the forefront of international human rights. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we will continue such co-operation, not least, for example, under the auspices of the Council of Europe?
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend. I find it surprising that Members of this House have so little faith in their own institution. This House is perfectly capable of protecting the rights of the citizens of this country, and routinely does so. We do not need the assistance of the European Union to do it, and after we no longer have the assistance of the European Union, I am confident that this Parliament will continue to do it effectively.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
For many years, many people in this House seemed to think that human rights in this country started only with the Human Rights Act 1998, and they now seem to think that they started only with our membership of the European Union. Will the Attorney General confirm that our rights and freedoms in this country go back way beyond either of those points in our history, and will continue long into the future after they have both been replaced?
The Attorney General
The rest of the world is rightly jealous of this country’s ability to protect human rights through a robust system of the rule of law, a fiercely independent judiciary, and an effective legal profession.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
May I press the Minister following the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell)? Last week, in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) stated that the Government believe that the Human Rights Act can be relied on in place of the charter of fundamental rights. Does that mean that the Government are now fully committed to the retention of that Act beyond Brexit?
The Attorney General
I thought we had made clear that this country will remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights for the duration of this Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State was making the point that I made earlier: we are confident that the substantive rights that all Members of the House wish to continue to be protected, will remain protected in domestic law.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Attorney General agree that it is an absolutely absurd proposition to suggest that if we come out of the EU we will deliberately in some way reduce human rights? That is an absolute nonsense, and it is a shame that the Opposition are peddling it.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Attorney General does not seem to get the point. Our role in human rights in Europe has been to set the gold standard and to show an example. The Council of Europe has experienced recent cases of corruption, with a man called Luca Volontè who took a bribe. The chairmanship was by Azerbaijan—a corrupt country. Our role is not to protect our own human rights by being in Europe, but to set a standard that can be emulated by other countries that have very serious breaches of human rights.
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman may be in danger of confusing the European convention on human rights with the charter of fundamental rights. As I said, the Government he supported—the last Labour Government—made it clear that no new rights were created by the charter of fundamental rights. Therefore, taking away that charter cannot remove any rights, and the Government have no intention of doing so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The number of prosecutions commenced under the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which include many online offences, have increased by 68% in the past three years.
Grahame Morris
Latest figures show that the CPS successfully prosecuted 15,000 cases of hate crime in 2015-16. However, in the same year the number of cases referred to prosecutors by the police dropped by 10%. Can the Solicitor General explain why that should be?
The Solicitor General
The CPS is working with the police locally and nationally to understand the reasons for that. Anecdotally, it is believed that some police forces are using restorative justice or out-of-court disposals where they could have pursued prosecutions. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and make clear that it is unacceptable for any group or person to use the internet as a means to harass, intimidate or threaten individuals in an illegal manner online.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Oh no, we cannot stop now. We must hear Mr Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Which CPS area is best at prosecuting online abuse cases, and how might its best practice be rolled out to other areas?
The Solicitor General
I do not have area-by-area figures, but I will endeavour to supply them to my hon. Friend. On hate crime, sentencing uplifts have increased, and they continue to do so, to 52.2% of cases last year—a rise from 33.8% in the previous year.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
What can be done to strip away the anonymity of online trolls who make life such a misery for people online?
The Solicitor General
That issue is being considered as part of the code of practice that is being established, pursuant to the Digital Economy Act 2017. That code will set out guidance on what social media providers should do regarding conduct on their platforms, which includes the behaviour referred to by my hon. Friend. He also raised the important issue of anonymity, and the individuals who hide behind that and use it as a cloak for their illegal activities. The prosecution will always seek to pierce that cloak and prosecute those responsible.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance (No. 2) Act 2017
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Act 2017
Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017
New Southgate Cemetery Act 2017.
I am sure that the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017 will be of great interest in particular to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), when he has concluded his intense and, I am sure, extremely urgent conversation with the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).
Hormone Pregnancy Tests
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the recently published “Report of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
Yesterday, the Commission on Human Medicines published the report of its expert working group on hormone pregnancy tests. As I said at Health questions on Tuesday, this subject demands the utmost sensitivity and I will do my best.
Based on its extensive and thorough review, the group’s overall finding, endorsed by the Commission on Human Medicines, is that the available scientific evidence, taking all aspects into consideration, does not support a casual association between the use of hormone pregnancy tests, such as Primodos during early pregnancy, and adverse outcomes of pregnancy with regard to either miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital abnormalities. Ministers have accepted the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines. A written ministerial statement was published yesterday, along with a copy of the report.
In the UK, hormone pregnancy tests first became available for diagnosing pregnancy in the 1950s. Between then and 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market in the UK, a number of studies that investigated a possible link between women being given a hormone pregnancy test to diagnose pregnancy and the occurrence of a range of congenital anomalies in their babies was published. Although there was never any reliable evidence that HPTs were unsafe, concern about the issue, coupled with the development of better pregnancy tests, meant that a number of precautionary actions were taken to restrict the use of HPTs. The tests were voluntarily removed from the market by the manufacturers.
The body of information subsequently accrued by the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and other campaigners led to a parliamentary debate in 2014, I think in Westminster Hall, during which the then Minister for life sciences, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), stated that he would instruct that all relevant documents held by the Department of Health be released. In addition, he determined that an independent review of the papers and all the available evidence was justified. The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether the totality of the available data, on balance, supported a casual association between use of a hormone pregnancy test by the mother and adverse pregnancy outcomes. It also considered whether, alternatively, the anomalies could have been due to chance alone, or other factors.
The final report summarises the scientific evidence that was considered by the expert working group, its conclusions on the evidence, and its recommendations. All the available relevant evidence on a possible association has been extensively and thoroughly reviewed with the benefit of up-to-date knowledge by experts from the relevant specialisms. The evidence reviewed by the expert working group will be published in the new year, once it has been rightly checked in line with the legal duties of data protection and confidentiality.
In addition to the overall conclusion, the expert working group has made a number of recommendations to safeguard future generations through strengthening the systems in place for detecting, evaluating, managing and communicating safety concerns about the use of medicines in early pregnancy. I recognise that the conclusion of the report will be a disappointment to some, but I hope that they will see the recommendations as positive. They are a credit to the efforts of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and the all-party group on oral hormone pregnancy tests, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and also a lasting legacy.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am so disappointed with the Minister’s response. Clearly he is just reading what his staff and the Department have been telling him. I wish the Minister would actually go through the documents submitted to the inquiry and those documents that we had, because if he had read them, he would never have to come the Dispatch Box and said what he has said.
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that I have raised this issue in Parliament on a number of occasions. In 2014, an expert working group was set up to look at a possible association—not a casual link or a causal link. I am sure that hon. Members agree that that means that a lesser burden of proof is required. The first thing that the commission did was to say that it had found no causal connection, but it was never asked to do that—it was asked to look for a possible association. In 2014, the then Minister made promises about statutory oversight. From the papers we had, there appeared to be a clear criminal responsibility regarding the statutory body, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and the people who ran it, given that so much evidence was adduced to them. They were alerted to the fact that Primodos was causing deformities and miscarriages in women, but they totally ignored that evidence. In fact, the person in charge actually said that he wanted to cover it up so that nobody could be sued. It is therefore highly surprising that the commission has come up with this recommendation.
The commission was shown evidence from many studies, the majority of which showed conclusively that when the drug was given to rabbits and rats—mammals, like ourselves—the tissues were damaged. There were—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I am afraid, although she is highlighting an immensely important matter, and one that she has highlighted before, she has not asked a question—[Interruption.] Order. She has reached her limit and that is it. I have told her, as I have other Members. I have lost count of the number of times Members have been told that if they have an urgent question, they can begin with a few observations—a sentence or two—in response to the Minister, and then questions must follow, but that is not what has happened. I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of and commitment to this subject, but she cannot speak for two minutes and then indicate, “I’m about to get to my questions.” Sorry, I say to her—[Interruption.] Order. No, sorry, but you have had your time. It is up to Members to stick to the limits, so other colleagues will now have to pursue this matter. I genuinely thank her for what she has said, but Members really must observe procedures. If I may say so, there has never been a more enthusiastic friend of the House than me in the granting of urgent questions, but Members must then follow the procedure. That is the situation. I call Anna Soubry.
Mr Speaker
Order. I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon. First, let us hear the Minister respond to the statement made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). It was an important statement; it just did not contain a question.
Steve Brine
You are, indeed, a friend of the House, Mr Speaker.
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), with whom I have served on Select Committees, and I will try to help her out. I have seen some of her public criticisms in the past 24 hours. I know that she has been very consistent about this, but I am not just reading notes put before me; I am citing evidence from an expert working group. It really would come to something if Members suddenly started to second-guess expert, scientific and medical evidence. I am not just quoting what is before me. The review’s conclusions do not take away—I do not pretend for one minute that they do—from the very real suffering experienced by these families. This was a comprehensive, independent, scientific review of all the available evidence carried out by the best experts in a broad range of specialisms. Ministers are confident in the report and the review process, and the focus now must be on implementing the recommendations.
Anna Soubry
On Friday, two constituents came to my surgery to speak to me about exactly this. The mother had taken one of these pills and her daughter was born with deformities. This is not the Minister’s report—he is just giving his explanation and doing his job—but may I suggest that we have a proper Back-Bench debate in which we can exercise all these issues? With great respect to the working group, and having had some experience as a former public health Minister and knowing about contaminated blood, I am afraid to say that I smell something like a very large rat in all of this. I think that there have been cover-ups.
Steve Brine
I thank my right hon. Friend—one of my predecessors in this role—for her question. I appreciate that she will have met constituents who have been affected by this in her surgeries and that that must have been very difficult. The report’s conclusions do not detract from the suffering experienced by the families, and we recognise that the families may find those conclusions hard to accept. Birth defects occur naturally in up to four in every 100 babies, and the existence of a birth defect in a baby exposed to a medicine during pregnancy does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine.
As for the question of any future parliamentary discussion of this subject, I suspect—in fact, I know—that my right hon. Friend is more than capable of seeking such opportunities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This decision has rightly been met with disbelief by campaign groups. It has been called a whitewash, an injustice and a betrayal. It is clear from the reaction to yesterday’s report that real anger remains about the way in which the affected families have been treated. Have we learnt nothing from previous scandals and cover-ups? The chair of the campaign group, Marie Lyon, has said:
“I could go to prison if I divulge what was discussed.”
Does the Minister not agree that that is as far away as possible from transparency? How can Marie Lyon or any of the other campaigners say that their views have been properly taken into account? Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with the affected families about the results of the report and what further action they want to take?
A draft of the report, which was published in October, stated
“Limitations of the methodology of the time and the relative scarcity of the evidence means it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion.”
However, that sentence was removed from the final version. It is critical that the Minister answers these questions: why was the sentence removed; why was there a delay of a month; and did he speak to the authors of the report about the sentence before its removal? The inquiry has answered a question that it was not asked to answer, and it has reached a conclusion not supported by the evidence. What is the Minister’s view of the various studies that have been referred to that show a causal connection?
When he set up the inquiry, the previous Minister for life sciences, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), said that he wanted to
“shed light on the issue and bring the all-important closure in an era of transparency”. —[Official Report, 23 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 1143.]
The reaction that we have seen will demonstrate to the current Minister that on that measure the inquiry has failed. Will he look again at holding a full, independent review, so that families can feel they have seen justice done and we can be sure that this will never happen again?
Steve Brine
The hon. Gentleman referred to a “whitewash”. As I have said, this was a comprehensive, independent, scientific review of all available evidence by experts on a broad range of specialisms who, with respect, are far more qualified to consider the subject than either him or me. It was a rigorous, important and impartial review conducted over the best part of two years, and the experts were given access to all the available documents.
As for the families and issues relating to disclosure, yes, Mrs Lyon was on the panel. However, it is standard procedure for expert working groups to sign such an agreement, as all members of the panel did, in order to keep the process free from external influence and to prevent it from being constantly discussed in the media. The companies did meet the group and gave evidence to it. Having discussed the matter briefly with members of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency this morning, I have to say that I think the families could have been treated a great deal better when they met the group. I thought that the layout of the room was intimidating. Not everyone is like a Minister or a Member of Parliament who can sit in front of a Select Committee and know how to handle it. I think that the process could have been handled better, and I made that very clear.
As for Ministers and meetings, my noble Friend Lord O'Shaughnessy, who ultimately has responsibility for the MHRA and whom I “shadow” in the House of Commons, has met the all-party group and the families group. He will meet them again on 6 December, now that the report has been published. The APPG is also meeting the chair of the expert working group.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other research. He might have been referring to Dr Vargesson, an Aberdeen-based researcher who is, I believe, working on the components of Primodos in fish. He was invited to give evidence to the group, and he did so, but he did not want to leave his work and the evidence, which he said would shortly be published, with the expert working group. As far I am aware, that work has still not been published, but I know that the MHRA will be keen to look at any new work that is published.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I know the Minister very well. He is a passionate and caring Minister, but I am afraid that I disagree with many of the things he said this morning. The families do—I think, rightly—feel that the report is a whitewash. Material has been removed from the draft, and the group looked into matters that were not within its remit. The question of a causal link was not in its remit. The question was whether there was link with a drug that was often given to our constituents with no prescription: a drawer would be opened, and it would be handed out to them so that they could find out whether they were pregnant. An open inquiry was needed, but I am afraid that the families, and many Members who are present today, will not feel that that was what happened. Will the Minister please meet the families again, with members of the all-party group, and try to understand why they are so upset? Will the Minister please also watch last night’s report on Sky News, which exposes much of what has being going on over many Parliaments? No matter who was in government, Governments have ignored these people, and we cannot continue to do so.
Steve Brine
My right hon. Friend and I do know each other very well, but I am afraid we will have to agree to differ on this; I do not agree that this is a whitewash. At the request of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, an expert, Nick Dobrik, who the House and outside world will know well as a respected and well-known thalidomide campaigner, attended all meetings of the expert working group and was invited to give a statement to the Commission on Human Medicines. Mr Dobrik is many things, but the notion that he is some sort of Government yes-man who would have allowed a whitewash to go on does not stand up to much scrutiny, if any at all.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
A constituent of mine has had one of the most traumatic experiences over the past 24 hours. She was invited to come down and hear the results of that report, and she was not able to travel. Like many other such families, they have children who, they believe as a result of taking this drug, require them being at home to care for them. Does the Minister think 24 hours is a reasonable period of time in which to ask a family to travel to London, often from quite rural parts of the country? Does he also think it appropriate that the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and I were locked out of yesterday’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency press conference? That in itself smacks of a cover-up.
A number of relevant documents were not included in this inquiry, so it is not fair to say that it was comprehensive and independent. Will the Minister consider looking again at the process? A significant amount of public money has been used, and we must make sure, and have confidence that, it was used appropriately.
As we know, “causal link” and “possible link” are two very different terms. Does the Minister think it appropriate that an expert working group changes the goalposts halfway through a process, when it is looking at a matter that is, as he says, so serious?
Steve Brine
First, may I correct myself? I might have said that the expert working group met “companies”, not “families”. If I said “companies”, I wish to correct the record.
I agree with the hon. Lady that the notice the families were given was not good enough. I and my colleague in the other place have made that crystal clear. Some notice was given to Mrs Lyon on Friday last week that there was likely to be an event on Wednesday, but that was not confirmed until Monday, so that was the notice the family got, and I do not think that is good enough; I have made that very clear.
On the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who chairs the all-party group, being locked out of the press conference, I cannot imagine how that happened, and again I have sympathy on that. I expect the MHRA to look into that and explain that to me, because, while we may disagree, I can see how that merely feeds the conspiracy theory that some have around this subject.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is clearly struggling to defend this position. I urge him to look at the scope of this review and all the evidence that was presented to it, as all the evidence that was available should be looked at and looked at again. Without that, many people across this country will not be satisfied that justice has been done.
Steve Brine
With respect, I do not think I am struggling at all; I am just setting out a very clear position. Ministers are confident in the report and the review process. I say again that this was a comprehensive independent scientific review of all available evidence by experts across the expert working group who have a broad range of specialisms.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is my understanding that in the research on fish, the researcher was reluctant to submit the findings because they had not been peer-reviewed. Is the Minister confident that all the animal studies that were considered in this review were properly and adequately peer-reviewed?
Steve Brine
I can only give the House the facts. Dr Vargesson’s research was there, and he presented it orally, and orally only, to the group. The expert group felt that it wanted more than that, and he has not been able to provide it. At some point, if he does, I am sure that the group will be more than happy to look at it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
One of the key points here is transparency. What work does the Minister think he can do to increase people’s confidence and to share more information to dispel the image that things are being kept secret?
Steve Brine
As I have said, I think that I have been very honest about the way in which the families have been handled, about the notice that they have been given and about Members being able to attend report launches. There is no great secrecy here, but I can see how events like that merely feed that notion.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Like the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), I am reminded of the contaminated blood inquiry, which is ongoing. In 1975, the regulator knew that there was a potential 5:1 risk of the drug causing deformity. They told the manufacturers but not the patients, and papers were deliberately destroyed by the chief scientist. It is deeply worrying to the families that there is not an open and transparent investigation into this matter. Does the Minister know whether the Berlin archive papers were examined as part of this inquiry, because they demonstrate the cover-up that has happened over many years?
Steve Brine
No, I do not. I will write to the hon. Lady about that, but I can tell her that issues relating to the historical regulatory process were outside the scope and remit of this review.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I come to this having had no constituency involvement in this issue at all, but I have been listening to the exchanges this morning and it is quite clear that the level of concern on both sides of the House is sufficient for the Government to call a debate on the matter in Government time, so that all these issues can be properly explored.
Steve Brine
All I can say is that, right on cue, the Leader of the House has arrived and is sitting right next to me, and I suspect that she has heard my hon. Friend’s request.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the study in 1979 from Primodos that concluded that the visceral malformations should be considered to be drug-related? The manufacturer seems to have made a link that does not appear to have been dealt with in the report. Does he acknowledge that serious concern is being expressed on both sides of the House about the transparency of this report and that it behoves us all to try to make it transparent and understandable and, above all, to get to the correct answer?
Steve Brine
Yes, of course we all want to get to the correct answers. Science and clinical practice have moved on significantly since the 1970s. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been far-reaching advances in the regulation of medicines. One of the reasons that the report has been delayed is that it was felt that it needed to contain far more human-speak, rather than official-speak. That is why I said that Ministers now had confidence in the report and the review process and that we are now going to focus on implementing the report’s recommendations.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
This is simply a matter of confidence. My constituent, Charlotte Fensome, her parents and her brother Steven simply do not have confidence in this report. I trust the Minister, who I know is thoughtful about these matters and wishes that all the families and parents had had their concerns properly taken into account, but the report that was brought forward yesterday falls incredibly short when it comes to inspiring confidence. That is a great shame. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the complete lack of transparency and with the preparation of the report. We had only 24 hours’ notice of this. Will he meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, so that he can hear from the campaigners and truly listen to their concerns?
Steve Brine
I take the comments of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour on board. As I have already said, my hon. Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy is meeting the all-party group on 6 December, and I am sure that she will be more than welcome to attend that meeting.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The report must be judged against the background of the fact that the thalidomide scandal involved only 20 birth defects in America and 2,000 in this country, that we are still misinforming and under-informing mothers and potential mothers about the valproate scandal and that GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion for distorting the results of its research. The Minister must tell us how many members of the expert group are present or past employees of the pharmaceutical industry.
Steve Brine
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information at the Dispatch Box, but he mentions the thalidomide tragedy and I have already said that Nick Dobrik attended all the meetings of the expert working group as an invited expert at the request of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests. Nick is most certainly not a Government placeman or yes-man.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I have a constituent who has been affected by this issue, and they want justice. Based on what I have heard today, justice has fallen short in this case. In any normal circumstances, justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. If the criteria have not been applied correctly, we would in normal circumstances have a review to get the correct decision in the end. Will the Minister look at the matter and get it reviewed?
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend is right to speak up for his constituent. At the risk of repeating myself, the patient voice was present throughout, and the members of the expert working group were deeply moved by the experiences of the families involved. However, the conclusions do not take away from the real suffering of the families and nothing can. Nothing can turn the clock back. Ministers are confident in both the report and the review process, and we now have to implement the recommendations.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been contacted by my constituent Adele, whose mother has suffered immense guilt over the loss of a child, which she now believes to be related to the Primodos hormone pregnancy test. To add further upset, when victims were brought to the inquiry, they were given only half a day to be interviewed. I implore the Minister to listen to individual cases, such as the one I describe, and to explain what steps the Government will take to ensure that the women get the answers they so desperately seek.
Steve Brine
The step that we will take is to implement the report’s recommendations. As I have already said, the way the families were handled when they came down to speak to the expert working group could have been a lot better, which is the understatement of the day, and I apologise for that on behalf of the MHRA.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
A constituent who took one of the Primodos tests and whose son was born deaf visited my surgery on Friday, and she is deeply disappointed with the latest outcome. The Minister said a few minutes ago that checks had to be made before the final report was published, so what hope can he offer her and other parents that the matter will not be swept aside, that work will continue to flush out the truth and that the affected families will be properly supported?
Steve Brine
All I said is that there were checks to be made to ensure that the report was as readable and as accessible as possible. We are confident in the report, and we are not going to sweep it away and forget about it and move on to the next story; we will implement the recommendations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline what support is on offer to those who took Primodos and were traumatised by stillbirth when it was not possible to carry out genetic testing because the baby had died and the remains were gone? We understand the Minister’s compassion, but where is the redress for the still-grieving parents? Where is their support? Where is their help?
Steve Brine
I repeat that we cannot turn the clock back. The conclusions of any review, no matter how it is done, cannot take away from the suffering of families and constituents. I repeat that the review of the evidence by the expert working group was comprehensive, independent and scientific. We are confident in the report and in the review process, and we will now get on with implementing the recommendations.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that in all the years that I have been here, I have never heard of such a decision, particularly one made by this party, presented by a Minister of Health who is constantly telling us all about the Stafford inquiry and how important the last Stafford inquiry was? It is time that he considered the possibility of having this thing reviewed, bearing in mind that we are dealing with drug firms that have millions and millions of pounds. He should start all over again from the beginning. It will otherwise be a bad day for the Government if he is allowed to say what he has without listening to the people from both sides of the House who have rubbished the report.
Steve Brine
I could have sworn I heard the hon. Gentleman bring the word “party” into this. That is deeply unfortunate, and I do not think it is helpful to anybody. Last time I checked, there have been Governments of both colours since the 1950s.
As for bringing Stafford and patient safety into this, the Secretary of State for Health takes many criticisms but he has placed patient safety and getting to the bottom of the issues around Stafford at the heart of his agenda. It is because we do not bury our head in the sand and sweep these things under the carpet—as, I am sorry to say, happened in the past—that we are uncovering this and doing the best for the families with the report’s recommendations. Nothing can turn the clock back and nothing can undo the suffering of these families.
Mr Speaker
As has been said, this is absolutely not a party matter. Colleagues have expressed their interest in a debate on this matter, and I can simply say from the Chair that, one way or the other, through one vehicle or another, this matter will be debated if Members want it to be debated.
Business of the House
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 20 November—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill.
Tuesday 21 November—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 22 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 23 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 24 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 November will include:
Monday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 28 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 29 November—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 30 November—Debate on a motion on treatment of SMEs by RBS Global Restructuring Group, followed by debate on a motion on mental health and suicide within the autism community. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 1 December—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of November will be:
Monday 20 November—Debate on an e-petition relating to the TV licence fee.
Thursday 23 November—General debate on anti-bullying week, followed by general debate on the 100th anniversary of the Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917.
Monday 27 November—Debate on an e-petition relating to university tuition fees.
Tuesday 28 November—General debate on Dr Elsie Inglis and the contribution of women to world war one.
Thursday 30 November—General debate on deafness and hearing loss.
Mr Speaker, thank you for sending out notification today of the extension to the telephone helpline service to include staff of the Commons and of the other place. This will help ensure that all staff can access the counselling support they need, both by phone and in person, and can raise any grievance or complaint they wish to make. I am sure this will be widely welcomed across the estate.
I take the opportunity to thank the Members of the Youth Parliament who filled this Chamber last Friday with energetic and passionate debate. They did themselves proud, and I wish them the best with their future campaigns.
I also congratulate the thousands of organisations hosting UK Parliament Week events this week. I had an excellent evening with the Wootton scouts in my constituency to answer their questions on Parliament, and I am sure many colleagues have had and will have similar events.
Mr Speaker
I completely endorse what the Leader of the House has just said about the sitting of the UK Youth Parliament last Friday, about which I hope I was suitably expansive and congratulatory at the time. I also echo what she said about Parliament Week. I am glad that she herself has invested in it and derived satisfaction from it.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I note that next Tuesday we have day three of our consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—cheer!
Valerie Vaz
That is day three of eight. We are talking about clause 5 and schedule 1. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the deadline for new clauses and amendments is 5.30 pm today? I have asked her previously about proper notice being given for Members, in the interests of our democracy, so will she ensure that she gives Members proper notice of consideration of Bills and ensure that this does not happen again? Can she say whether the Committee of the whole House will be completed before Christmas recess, which begins on 21 December? Will the Bill be in the other place before the Christmas recess? My friends in the other place are keen to help out.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the List of Ministers’ Interests is updated, as it was last updated in December 2016? This is vital not just for Ministers, but for Members, because some of them, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), may have another position. It seems that in an article, in his other job as an investment manager, he said it is:
“Time to look further afield as UK economy hits the brakes”.
Will the Leader of the House therefore say whether it is Government policy for Government Members, in their other jobs, to advocate not investing in the country?
It is difficult to understand how the Government cannot know the size of the divorce bill. Surely the Chancellor will have to know this amount of money, because he has to set his Budget. This just smacks of more fiscally incompetent government. The way the Government dealt with the Paradise papers, including in the response they gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) earlier this week, was appalling. We have had the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, and now we have the invisible papers—the so-called “impact assessments” on the 58 sectors; first, they exist and then they do not exist, and then they exist in a form that is incomprehensible to everyone apart from Ministers. The deadline for providing these to the Committee is next week, because the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said he needed “three weeks” from the time the motion was passed by this House. He said there was a mixture of “qualitative and quantitative analysis”, but I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is perfectly capable of analysing those papers. As the motion was very clear, will the Leader of the House give a commitment that the invisible papers will be available and say when they will be delivered, given that the motion was passed by this House?
The invisible papers are rapidly leading to an invisible Cabinet. Some may have missed it but there seems to be a new game in town: “‘I’m a Cabinet Minister get me out of here!” The week before last one left the Government and last week another did so, and another comes before a Select Committee and makes a mistake on Government policy, putting a young family at risk. This is a heartless Government—[Interruption.] Listen to the evidence: 38 days before Christmas eviction notices are being sent out following a policy that is flawed and cruel, denying people a chance to manage their life; if the Government think universal credit does not have an effect, will the Leader of the House say why a major housing association has stated that the arrears rate for those claiming the new benefit is about three times higher than that for other tenants? That is the evidence, and that evidence calls for a pause in the roll-out of universal credit.
I note that there is to be a debate on tuition fees in Westminster Hall next week, but we would like the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation to come to the House to make a statement and explain why the chief executive of the Student Loans Company has been sacked. Given that his Department is a major shareholder, with 85%, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister comes here, particularly as some students have overpaid their loan by £10,000 and the budget is £100 million? [Interruption.] It is in the papers today—it is in The Times.
Finally, I come to House matters. Will the Leader of the House say what day and time has been allocated for the debate on the restoration and renewal programme? She has previously talked about December, but given the Budget debate and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we do not have many days left before the Christmas recess. I, too, wish to remind everybody that they have three days left of #Parliamentweek2017. This was kicked off brilliantly by the ninth sitting of the Youth Parliament, and we have you to thank, Mr Speaker, for allowing it to sit here. Its Members are fantastic, treating this House with such respect and listening to the arguments on both sides. We can learn lots of lessons from them. On your behalf, I thank all the staff and volunteers who co-ordinated the whole day. Their topics for the year ahead were “Votes at 16” and “A curriculum to prepare us for life”. As the Leader of the House said, Parliament’s education service has ensured that 4,000 events are taking place throughout the country, with more than 900 primary schools and more than 300 secondary schools taking part. I thank them all for their efforts in educating the next generation on democracy.
Andrea Leadsom
I think both the hon. Lady and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the enthusiasm of the young people in the Youth Parliament in this place. I absolutely endorse what she said about our pleasure at young people’s interest in our democracy and politics.
On her question about tabling new clauses and amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the deadline is the rise of the House today. She asked whether the Committee of the whole House on the Bill will be completed by Christmas. She will be aware of the usual procedure: because it is difficult to project forward with absolute certainty for a lengthy period of time, we will continue to update the House every week about the future business in the usual way, as far as we are able to do so.
The hon. Lady suggested that the Government are somehow not clear on our negotiations with the EU. Far from it: the Government are entirely clear. We are seeking to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom when we leave the European Union in March 2019, as stipulated by the triggering of article 50. The entire Government are working to that end.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Paradise papers. Since 2010, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has secured £160 billion more in tax revenues as a result of steps taken to reduce tax avoidance and evasion. The Government have taken a lead in efforts on greater international tax transparency. My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister took enormous steps to ensure that our Crown dependencies, overseas territories and other international colleagues and friends work with us to make sure that we stamp out tax avoidance and evasion. Nobody has done more than this country to achieve that.
The hon. Lady asked about the 58 impact assessments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made it clear that he is working with the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to find a way forward that will make sense of the impact assessments in such a way that they can be useful. We must balance that with the need not to hamper the negotiations, while at the same time providing maximum transparency.
The hon. Lady asked about universal credit, which has been discussed many times in the House. To be clear: universal credit is being rolled out very slowly and all the lessons learned are being taken on board. More than 50% of those on universal credit are now receiving an early payment so that they can manage their finances. The Government have listened to the views of the House and taken steps to improve the roll-out of universal credit.
The hon. Lady asked about the Student Loans Company. I encourage her to direct her question to the relevant Department, perhaps through a parliamentary question on the specifics of the issue with the chief executive of the Student Loans Company. I am sure she would agree that it is not helpful for a public servant effectively to undermine the work of the company they are managing on behalf of the Government.
The hon. Lady asked about the debate on restoration and renewal. She will know as well as I do that we are seeking to bring a motion to both Houses as soon as possible. It is our intention to do that before the House rises for Christmas but, as ever, that will of course be business permitting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the first Back Bencher, I should advise the House that there is a statement by the Leader of the House to follow on an extremely important matter of great interest to Members in all parts of the House. Thereafter, we have two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, to which more than 30—from memory, I would say 35—Members have submitted an application to speak. Those debates have to finish by 5 o’clock. Thereafter, there are two further matters that are potentially debatable for a total of three hours. That may very well not happen, but it could, so there is a premium on brevity. First, if colleagues were late, I ask them please not to stand and try to take part; that is not fair. Secondly, can people please ask single-sentence questions without preamble today? I know that the Leader of the House will respond with characteristically pithy replies.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last week, at the transport in the north debate, I raised the matter of the long-dormant plans to extend the M11 up to the Humber bridge. Such a move would be a great boost for the midlands engine and the northern powerhouse. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a big champion for his constituency and for the north, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate on that very matter.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. May I also congratulate the Youth Parliament on the proceedings last week? Is it not strange that we invite young people to this House to have a debate and then send them away and tell them that they cannot participate in our democracy until they are 18?
It has been only a couple of weeks since the last business questions, but two weeks in politics must seem like an eternity for this Government. In that time, they have managed to lose two members of the Cabinet, and the Brexit civil war now raging would actually put the Roundheads and Cavaliers to shame. We should fear not, because the Environment Secretary has apparently been auditioning at Cabinet meetings for the role of Chancellor by, according to his colleagues, using lots of “economicky” words, so all is not lost.
Mr Speaker, I wrote to you this week, stating that, in my view, the Government are in contempt of this House for not forwarding the Brexit analysis papers as instructed by a binding motion of this House. It is entirely up to you how you respond to this, Mr Speaker, but, yesterday, I noted that, in response to a point of order, you said that the Government have a three-week period starting from the Minister’s statement last week to comply with the instructions of this House.
I must say, Mr Speaker, you have been characteristically generous to the Government in allowing them three weeks, because that motion had no time limit attached to it. I ask the Leader of the House today, will we see those papers next week? Will we see them in full, without any redactions or qualifications, and will they be supplied to the Brexit Committee as instructed by this House?
Finally, it is the Budget next week, and we are all very much looking forward to it. Listening to the Prime Minister yesterday, it seems that the Scottish National party has been successful in ensuring that Scottish police and fire services will be exempt from VAT. A single Scottish police force is something that all parties in Scotland have supported over the years. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to welcome that and thank all the other parties of this House for getting behind the SNP in this campaign.
Andrea Leadsom
I reiterate only that the Government are fully committed to making a success of Brexit and of fulfilling our domestic agenda. That is absolutely where we stand. On the impact assessment papers, I told the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) that we will comply with the motion of the House, but that there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that we act in the best interests of the public—in the national interest—and complying with the wishes of the House. On the hon. Gentleman’s third point on a single Scottish police force, of course the UK Government will support and ensure, in every way we possibly can, that it is a success.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that, last week, the official Businesses in Scotland 2017 report showed that the number of businesses per person is 27% higher across the United Kingdom compared with Scotland. May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on what the Government can do to support business start-ups across the UK, especially when the Scottish Government are doing all they can to chase them away?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know that he as well as the Government are working hard to support businesses and entrepreneurs right across the United Kingdom. However, as he points out, many of the levers to growth are devolved to the Scottish Government, not least business rates. It is in their power to make Scotland an even more attractive business destination. I am sure that he and many of my hon. Friends will be encouraging the Scottish Government to focus less on a second independence referendum and more on turning Scotland into one of the most attractive places in the world for doing business.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. May I make a special plea for as early notice as possible of any Back-Bench Business Committee time after the Budget in the run-up to the Christmas recess? In particular, there is a time-sensitive application for a debate on fisheries from the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). The hon. Lady has asked for that debate to be held as close to, but before, the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels on 11 and 12 December, so I make a special request for that debate to be held on 7 December, if at all possible.
On a personal note, tomorrow is 17 November, which marks the four-month anniversary of the Tyne and Wear MPs’ letter to the Secretary of State for Transport. This matter has been raised in this House at Transport questions on 19 October and in the debate on transport in the north on 6 November. We sent a follow-up letter on 12 September, but we have not yet had a holding response, never mind a response. This is beyond the pale—four months is well beyond Cabinet Office recommendations for ministerial replies to MPs’ letters.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman knows that we will always give him as much notice as we can of Back-Bench time. I am grateful to him for raising the specific point about fisheries, which is a matter of huge interest to many of us across the House; I will see what can be done. With regard to his letter to the Transport Secretary, Transport questions will be held on 30 November, but if he wants to write to me, I will certainly take up his point with the Department.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I was not expecting to be called, Mr Speaker—thank you. Will the Leader of the House please advise me how best to raise in this House the issue of the £29 million that is ready and waiting for the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch? It wants to start the work, and the patients are looking forward to the investment and the improvements in our health service for which they have waited a long time. Will she help me to speed up this process?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great champion for the NHS care in her constituency. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can hear directly from Ministers about exactly what more can be done.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Today is World Pancreatic Cancer Day. Last night, the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer launched its report “The Need for Speed: Diagnosing Pancreatic Cancer Earlier, Giving Patients a Chance of Living Better for Longer”. May we have a statement from the Government about what progress is being made to tackle the disease?
Andrea Leadsom
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this devastating type of cancer. I encourage him to raise the matter at Health questions or to seek an Adjournment debate. Some of these specific health issues can benefit significantly from more focused attention.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Last week, the Labour chair of the plans panel on Leeds City Council referred to those who are opposed to the destruction of the green belt in my constituency as “sharp-elbowed NIMBYs”. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister on the quasi-judicial responsibilities of plans panel chairs and the course of action available to applicants, and my constituents in Elmet and Rothwell, when councillors breach those responsibilities?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that my hon. Friend heard the Prime Minister say yesterday that we will continue to protect the green belt. He raises an important point. It is vital that local councillors, like everyone in public life, behave in a way that inspires the confidence and trust of the electorate. My hon. Friend is right to raise his constituents’ concerns. There are some options that he might want to consider if he feels that councillors have breached their responsibilities. There is a code of conduct, required by all local authorities, that applies to local authority members, and there are procedures for considering complaints where members have breached that code of conduct.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
We have seen various reports on the growth of fake news, and growing evidence of Russian involvement in the EU referendum and in our politics. Is it not time that we regulated the social media platforms? The chief executive and the chair of Ofcom both say that Facebook and Google are media companies and should be regulated as such. May we have a Government debate on bringing these companies under UK law on this issue to ensure that their content can be trusted?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this very concerning issue. The Government recognise the need to protect the reliability and objectivity of information—it is an essential component of our democracy. We are working with industry to ensure that high-quality online news media have a sustainable future and, at the same time, that low-quality and fake news is not commercially incentivised. To date, we have not seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes, but, naturally, we would take robust action should there be evidence that this has happened in the United Kingdom.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
In a disgusting and unacceptable snub to the people of Moray, excessive delivery charges are often applied, and in some cases companies refuse to deliver to Moray at all, because we have an AB and an IV postcode. Can we have a debate in the House so that I and other Members can raise this issue and the Government can explain how they will work with me and other interested parties to right this wrong?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has raised this issue a number of times, and he mentioned it in his maiden speech. It is an unjust state of affairs, and I completely agree that the people in his constituency deserve as good a service as people elsewhere in the UK. Retailers do have legal obligations to provide clear information about delivery charges, and I would be very concerned if they did not. I am sure the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be happy to hear the specifics for his local area. I know he has applied for a Westminster Hall debate, and I am sure a number of Members will be very interested to take part in it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Over a month ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over his assertion that it was too difficult to unpack the allocation of common agricultural policy convergence uplift funding. When will I get a response to that letter? Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is not too difficult to unpack that allocation and that it is simply a matter of a Government decision?
Andrea Leadsom
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I can take that up with DEFRA on his behalf, but I cannot address the specifics personally.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
A year ago, I and my constituents were furious when the urgent care centre in my constituency was closed overnight. We were categorically promised by the chief executive of the acute trust that that was temporary—if it was not temporary, it would be illegal, because the trust had not consulted. It still has not consulted, we are a year on and the trust is looking to downgrade the centre. Can we have a debate on the way consultations work—or, frankly, do not work—in our constituencies?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises what sounds like an extremely worrying development. He will be aware that all significant service change proposals must meet the Government’s four reconfiguration tests of support from clinical commissioners, clinical evidence, patient and public engagement, and support for patient choice. Additional NHS England guidance is that proposed changes should be tested for their impact on overall bed numbers in the area. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. He may wish to take it up at Health oral questions or through an Adjournment debate for his hospital.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House make time available to discuss the 58 sectoral reports? I suggest this needs to be done before or shortly after 28 November, because if Ministers have not delivered by then, an allegation of contempt will be made against them. A debate would enable us to discuss why, far from there being extra money for the NHS, more money is being spent on lawyers, and more money will be spent on customs staff and on duplicating a whole range of EU regulators—none of which, of course, was mentioned by the leave campaign.
Andrea Leadsom
I have twice now given the response on the 58 impact assessment reports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will comply with the request of the House, but there is a balance between looking after the public interest and making sure we do not damage our negotiating stance, while at the same time complying with the House’s request.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This Sunday, the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women will proudly parade at the Cenotaph, remembering the comrades who fell in conflicts. It is also Mitzvah Day, when thousands of people from across the UK will come together to help the poor and needy. Could my right hon. Friend therefore find Government time for a debate on volunteering so that we can celebrate those who give their time voluntarily for no reward?
Andrea Leadsom
I share my hon. Friend’s gratitude and enthusiasm for those who volunteer. So many services are provided and so much good is done by people who offer their time for nothing, just to provide help and support to their fellow man, and I thoroughly encourage him, as the subject has been raised a number of times by Members across the House, to seek perhaps a Back-Bench or a Westminster Hall debate on this subject. I know that many Members would be interested in taking part.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I urge the Leader of the House to take more seriously what the Prime Minister said this week about Russian interference in our democratic processes—not just here but right across Europe—not just in terms of social media but in money flowing here, both in the referendum campaign and in our general election? We have not had any motion in this House on that subject—no Select Committee, and our Intelligence and Security Committee is only announced today. Can we not get on with it—scrutinise, bring the spooks in, GCHQ, get some answers?
Mr Speaker
I could not keep up with the hon. Gentleman, but I reckon there were at least six sentences there. I would remind colleagues that I was appealing for single-sentence questions, preferably without lots of semi-colons.
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I think the hon. Gentleman’s grammar was perfectly acceptable. He raises an incredibly important point. I think the Prime Minister was absolutely clear—she is extremely concerned about interference by Russian sources, and she is looking at this very carefully. She could not have been clearer. I think he should be reassured by that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House write a joint letter, with the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, to all the Chairmen of Select Committees, reminding them that they have opportunities to make a statement to the House whenever one of their reports is published? We have today had a publication from the Home Affairs Committee. It would have been interesting to ask the Chairman of that Committee questions about a report.
Andrea Leadsom
I would be delighted to do such a thing, if the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) is happy to do the same. I gather that it was in fact raised at the Liaison Committee, but I think that is a very good idea. I thank my hon. Friend.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Before the Leader of the House came into the Chamber, she will have heard the discussion about Primodos. The report published yesterday had already been published a week before, but not formally. The conclusion of that report was different from the one actually published yesterday. In light of that and of what she heard earlier, would she please consider having a debate on this matter in Government time, and will she also ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement?
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I am very pleased that you granted the urgent question, giving the Minister the opportunity to come and answer some questions. I encourage the hon. Lady, if she was not satisfied with the level of information, to seek a further debate—perhaps a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate in the House—to further probe this subject.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
This weekend we celebrate St Edmund’s Day, commemorating Edmund the Martyr; some people think he should be the first patron saint of the UK, not St George. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking everybody and welcoming their celebration this weekend, and would she—and indeed you, Mr Speaker—like to come and see the town of the first patron saint of England?
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I am sure you and I would thoroughly enjoy such a visit. My hon. Friend represents a very beautiful constituency, with that world- famous cathedral dedicated to St Edmund. It is great that he has been commemorated in this way, and I am delighted to share her pleasure at the celebrations taking place.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not at all reassured by what has been said about Russia, because the answer that the Leader of the House gave today was completely different from what the Prime Minister said, and what the Foreign Secretary said in Committee. The Prime Minister says, “Mr Putin, we know what you are up to.” Well, could she come and tell us what he is up to, because it seems to include targeting individual Members of this House on a regular, daily basis and making sure that the democratic process is undermined? It did not reassure me to hear that she says they have not seen “successful” examples. Well, I think they were pretty successful in the Brexit referendum.
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister was quite clear that we are taking this extremely seriously, and that she is gravely concerned. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are investing nearly £2 billion to protect the UK from cyber-attack. We have been absolutely clear about the work we are undertaking to ensure that there is no interference in the electoral process. The Government are continuing to work with the Electoral Commission on the issue of imprints on electronic materials. I realise that the hon. Gentleman will never be satisfied. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate in order to make sure that a Minister comes to answer his specific concerns.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Might the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the implications for cross-border safety and the delivery of policing resulting from the Scottish Government’s plan to abolish the British Transport police in Scotland by integrating it fully with Police Scotland? The British Transport Police Federation, rail operators and, ultimately, many of my constituents who use the east coast main line are deeply concerned about this issue, which will have an impact on both sides of the border.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. He is of course aware that the decision to integrate the functions of the British Transport police into Police Scotland is devolved, but I recognise his concerns about this approach. He will also be aware that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are raising those concerns with the Scottish Government. I have also been very clear that the UK Government will work with the authorities to ensure that overall policing, including policing across the border, remains as effective as it currently is.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We believe that the Government are about to give the green light to the first UK fracking in six years, in North Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on how that is compatible with our climate change objectives, given that the Committee on Climate Change has said that three key tests have to be met? The Government have not met them, yet we believe the decision in Ryedale is imminent.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady and I have discussed this very issue on a number of occasions, and she is well aware that for the UK’s energy security we will need continued access to gas for many years to come as we move to a renewable, zero-carbon-electricity future, but that it is not possible to do that overnight. Fracking is one industry that represents a huge opportunity for the UK, and our regulatory environment for it is the safest in the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am looking to move on to the statement at midday, so it looks as though several colleagues will lose out, but I know that Mr Chishti will want to ensure that that does not happen, so he will ask a question of one sentence and preferably no more than about 20 words.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—no pressure. Will the Government consider having a special medal of service for this year for all our emergency services in light of all the work they have done in these challenging times—the terrorist attacks in this country and the Grenfell disaster?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a point that I am sure all colleagues across the House would be delighted to join with. If he writes to me, I will certainly take the matter up with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Following another successful Youth Parliament, which the Leader of the House addressed, Mr Speaker chaired and I attended as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, when will the Government dedicate Government time to debating and voting on votes at 16, as that is one of their priorities and our debate was cut so short on our last sitting Friday?
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman found time for that debate on votes at 16. He will realise that the issue does not command 100% support across the House, but I am sure he will find other opportunities to debate it in the near future.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
May we have a debate on the success of the Government’s record in cutting carbon emissions while at the same time fostering business productivity? I say that in light of the fact that the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), is in Bonn as we speak, with lots of innovative businesses that have done so much in this field. We are global leaders and we should shout about it.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has used her passion and experience to campaign on environmental issues ever since she has been in the House. She is right to point out that reducing carbon and growing our economy are now entirely compatible. We should all seek opportunities to praise and continue to develop the excellent work that is ongoing.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Today’s Financial Times reports concerns over a “feeding frenzy” by “unscrupulous” pensions advisers targeting steel workers in south Wales. Can we have a statement from the Government and action by the Financial Conduct Authority?
Andrea Leadsom
I am concerned to hear about the issue the hon. Gentleman raises and I encourage him to write to the Department, or to take part in oral questions, on that specific point, which seems to be of great concern.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
May we have a debate on the importance of rotary clubs in our communities, and will my right hon. Friend join me in highlighting the charitable fundraising that clubs, such as Bolton Lever rotary club, do for incredibly important local and international charities?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend praises those who do so much work just to help their fellow man. Again, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I absolutely commend them for their work. I encourage Members to seek a debate soon to enable us to highlight some of the work that is carried out.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The universal credit roll-out has already commenced in Northern Ireland, but women who have conceived a third child due to rape and the organisations this Government expect to help them still do not have clarity about whether they will face prosecution under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Again, for the umpteenth time, may we have a debate, an oral statement or anything on the implications of the two-child limit and the rape clause for women and organisations in Northern Ireland?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. She will be aware that, in England, any such claim from a woman who has conceived a third child through non-consensual sex will not be dealt with by a Department for Work and Pensions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs member of staff; they will simply take in the claim and receive support and professional third-party advice, and we will not require any evidence of a criminal conviction or a judicial finding. It is very important that we continue to work with Northern Ireland to ensure that that policy is implemented as far as possible. It is a devolved matter, but we will continue to seek to influence the outcome.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Sun newspaper today published pictures of BBC workers asleep at their desk at the BBC News channel, although I cannot find any report about that on the BBC. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate on this next week?
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I feel slightly stumped. My hon. Friend raises what I am sure is an important point, and I sincerely regret it if the reporters are so tired that they fall asleep on the job.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Incredibly, the Prime Minister said yesterday that police budgets were protected. I have to say that that is news to Nottinghamshire police and many other forces across the country. May we have an urgent statement on police funding so that the Government can explain how the budget has been protected given that Nottinghamshire police has lost £54 million over the past five years and, if nothing changes, will lose £16 million over the next two years?
Andrea Leadsom
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we protected overall police funding in real terms at the 2015 spending review, that the 2017-18 police funding settlement maintains protection for police spending in a fair deal for them and that we have increased the police transformation fund to £175 million this year. He will be aware—and no doubt delighted, as I am—that crime has fallen by about a third since 2010, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. That is testimony to the excellent work done by our police forces, to whom we are all extremely grateful.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the case of my constituent Bernie Ross, a former UEFA executive, who has been missing from Oxford since 18 October. It is believed that he may be in France or Switzerland. UEFA will not help him, and the family are struggling to get information from police forces in EU member states. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to see whether the relevant Departments can give the family any assistance and get Bernie Ross home for Christmas?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s case. If she writes to me about it, I will certainly take it up on her behalf.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm immediately that Nottinghamshire police is about to recruit—indeed, is recruiting—an extra 120 police officers?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend’s news direct from the horse’s mouth. Again, I just want to pay tribute to the excellent work of our police forces right across the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Leader of the House was referring to the right hon. Lady in the spirit of saying that she was the authentic voice of her people, just as the hon. Gentleman is the authentic voice of Gedling. [Interruption.] Order. Forget horses. We cannot have an ongoing turf war between Nottinghamshire Members.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House inform the House when the results of the consultation on the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving will come before Parliament and be enshrined in law?
Andrea Leadsom
If the hon. Lady writes to me on that point, I will certainly take it up with the Ministry of Justice on her behalf.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Collective Spirit Free School in my constituency has closed, displacing 200 pupils. We have had an Adjournment debate on this, and I have met the Minister for School Standards, the regional schools commissioner and the National Audit Office, while we have also asked written questions and put in FOI requests, yet the Government still refuse to release the internal audit report on its financial probity and where the money eventually went. May we have a debate in Government time on the oversight of academies, free schools and university technical colleges?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point about a school in his constituency, which would be highly appropriate for an Adjournment debate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The A19 in my constituency is at a standstill following an accident. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting the campaign in the local press for a review of safety on the A19, and will she support a specific debate on the A19 and investment in road infrastructure in the north-east?
Andrea Leadsom
Transport questions will be held on 30 November, and I am sure that Ministers will be pleased to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When will those Members who visited Bangladesh last week have a chance to pass on to the House news about the dreadful suffering of the Rohingya people who have been cruelly persecuted, so that the issue is not forgotten about and remains visible to us? Their suffering is dreadful, the scale is unimaginable, and their help is pitiful.
Andrea Leadsom
All Members of the House will share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the plight of the Rohingya people. There are now believed to be more than 600,000 refugees in Bangladesh, and it is a major humanitarian crisis. The UK Government have given £47 million in relief, including £5 million to match the generous donations by the British public in response to an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee. There has been a Backbench Business Committee debate on the plight of the Rohingya, and I am sure there are further statements to come.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Resolution Foundation has revealed that one in three businesses admit to under-investing, with a staggering nine out of 10 of those firms citing economic uncertainty as a contributing factor. The prospect of a hard Tory Brexit poses a further threat to business, which needs financial stability to facilitate investment. May we have a debate in Government time on the future of investment in the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
The Government are committed to a strong Brexit arrangement for the UK and our European friends that enables businesses to continue to thrive. The hon. Lady will be aware of the Government’s industrial strategy that seeks to put true force underneath particular segments of our industries, so that they can benefit from some of the amazing innovation, science and technology available in the United Kingdom.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
On 26 September the West Papuan people’s petition, signed by 1.8 million people—71% of the population of West Papua—was presented to the UN’s decolonisation committee. Yesterday, the International Academics of West Papua was launched in the Palace of Westminster. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that collective expression of will, and may I ask for a debate on West Papua?
Andrea Leadsom
I am happy to share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the strength of that petition, and I encourage him to seek a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Kernow clinical commissioning group is to remove free transport for kidney dialysis patients, and instead introduce a financial and medical assessment. As chair of the all-party kidney group, may I ask for a debate on that as it is terrifying kidney dialysis patients?
Andrea Leadsom
I encourage the hon. Lady to seek to ask a question during Health questions, or an Adjournment debate, to focus on that specific issue.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Department for Work and Pensions has awarded a contract for facilities management to a company called Interserve, which the media suggest is in major financial difficulty. May we have a statement or debate in Government time to address the concerns of the staff who are due to be transferred to that company?
Andrea Leadsom
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to write to the DWP with his specific concerns. He will appreciate that it will consider carefully all contractors to whom it gives business, to ensure that they are in a financially solvent position.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on the Burns report on Lords reform, so that we can once and for all put an end to hereditary peers in the Houses of Parliament?
Andrea Leadsom
We all welcome the Lords’ review of their procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not a priority for the Government to look at legislating for Lords reform, but we await with interest the conclusion of the Lords’ review of their own proceedings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There has been an increase in human rights abuses in China, with the torture, detention and persecution of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this very important matter?
Andrea Leadsom
Right across the House, I think we all share a determination to see the rights of those of faith and of no faith upheld. The hon. Gentleman often raises very important points about rights abuses. I encourage him to seek a debate on the subject.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on steps that are being taken to tackle harassment and abuse in Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear, there can be no place for harassment, abuse or misconduct in politics. I said that we would take action in days, not weeks, and that is exactly what we have done. Getting this right matters to everyone here, and I want to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I know is taking a keen interest in this matter. I hope that today’s statement will answer her questions.
Last week, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the party leaders to discuss this matter. All party leaders attended, and there was an agreement to work together to make swift progress. The proposals outlined by the Prime Minister for an independent grievance procedure have been embraced across the House and I am reassured by the consensus. All parties have acknowledged that any proposal must adhere to three specific criteria: it must have cross-party agreement; it must include both Houses of Parliament; and it must be independent. The new system will be available to all who work here, including: all MPs’ staff, the staff of Lords, including Cross-Benchers, interns, volunteers, journalists and constituency staff. It was agreed that the political parties would establish a cross-party working group to take this work forward, and I am pleased to report that the group met for the first time on Tuesday.
The working group is made up of representatives from every party and from both Houses: Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist party, Green and Cross-Benchers. Very importantly, the Members and Peers Staff Association and Unite are representing parliamentary staff on the group, ensuring that their experiences and requirements are taken fully into account. The first meeting of the working group made clear that the voices of staff will be at the heart of the process. Any new system will need the absolute confidence of those who use it.
The working group also agreed that the new procedure must be independent of political parties, and that to inform the group over the next two weeks, we will hear from a number of different contributors. This will include hearing from staff directly, as well as groups including ACAS, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and experts on a range of topics that will help us to shape a new process. Anyone who wishes to submit their thoughts or suggestions to the group in writing is also welcome to do so.
This is very early days for the working group and we will certainly be working quickly but thoroughly to make that sure that we create a new procedure that provides confidence to all who use it. In addition, I know that many members of staff have expressed an interested in the provision of HR training, as well as better employee support for staff. All those employing staff need a certain amount of guidance and training to enable them to be good employers.
This week, the working group heard directly from the Clerks of the two Houses, who provided a very helpful account of the procedure used by House staff. While we recognise that the Respect policy used by the House authorities provides an excellent reference point, the independent procedure we are seeking to build will take into account the specific needs of Parliament, and the group has acknowledged the need for more than just mediation. The working group agreed that a new system should provide support, advice and action on a wide spectrum of complaints around bullying and harassment. We will do everything in our power to ensure the solution is transparent, fair, and effective. And that fairness must also apply to MPs and peers. We recognise that, right across both Houses, we have many model employers who genuinely care about their staff and look after them extremely well.
We are working to a tight timeframe, but we have all acknowledged it is right to address this issue with urgency. The publication of the final proposal will balance the need for fast action with the need for due diligence. The working group, including its staff representatives, is considering the timetable carefully and aims to report back to the House before it rises for the Christmas recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and Mr Speaker have said you hope that all parties will live up to their responsibilities by demonstrating both an appetite for change and a practical means of delivering it. That is exactly what we intend to do. I thank all parties for working together in a supportive fashion. We share this duty to bring about positive change. People come to work in this place for a number of reasons—out of public service, to support the party of their choice, or to gain new work experience—and nothing should deter them from pursuing those ambitions. We are all determined to ensure that this is a safe and fair place to work.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for her statement and for letting me have sight of it, albeit late last night.
As the Leader of the House indicated, the working party has met. There are many issues to deal with, but we hope to have an outcome before the House rises for Christmas. The Labour party is working with all other parties to ensure that there is a robust process that everyone is signed up to, and that there will be due process. The shadow Minister for Women and Equalities is working hard to include everyone and is having many conversations too. We should also note that complaints are sub judice while they are going through the system and that nothing should be done to compromise further action, should it need to be taken. The process should also cover everyone who works on the estate, including contractors—it should form part of their contracts in the tendering process—and those seconded for a year from universities.
I want to mention a few steps that could be taken immediately. The Respect policy, on which House staff have worked for a long time and to which many have signed up, should be rolled out immediately to everyone working on the estate. We should respect the fact that people have taken a long time to refine the policy. Sometimes Members need a point of contact, but complainants and those complained about need professional advice, and complaints need to be reported immediately, so I am pleased to hear from the Leader of the House that the helpline has been rolled out to everyone working on the estate.
We should immediately put in place an independent specialist sexual abuse adviser, as the Leader of the Opposition has called for. That might be a matter for the Commission or the Government, but either way that clearly could be put in place now. I also suggest that the working party has a website and a point of contact so that anyone can make a contribution, including anonymously. Education and training could start now.
All parties’ procedures have been looked at, refined and improved, and the Labour party will continue to look at its procedures. The Leader of the Opposition has made our position clear in a letter to the Prime Minister. I will read it out now, just in case she has not received it, as she mentioned at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time that she might not have received some correspondence:
“In the case of the Labour party, these procedures and safeguards were strengthened by our national executive committee in July. We are now appointing an independent external organisation for reporting complaints and to guide and support anyone affected by sexual harassment through the party’s procedures. We have also appointed an independent legal expert, who will make recommendations as to how those procedures could be further strengthened. We have communicated these procedures to the party at every level in the week.”
I know that other political parties are also working on their policies.
We all want a robust process that has the confidence of everyone, but only when it is tested will we know whether it is robust enough so that everyone can work safely in this amazing place for the good of our constituents and the country.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for her statement—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I was much too quick in calling him; I have not given the Leader of the House an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I do beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). We are both delighted that Mr Speaker arranged today for confirmation to be sent to staff in both Houses that the existing complaints helpline has been rolled out not just to House of Commons staff, but to staff in the other place, and, in addition, that face-to-face counselling will be available on the parliamentary estate from Monday 20 November. An email has been sent to all staff giving specific details of how to express a complaint, how to receive counselling and signposting, and so on. That is very important, and I am as pleased about it as the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady mentioned the discussion in the working group about the provision of an independent sexual abuse expert to guide and advise that group, and we are seeking to ensure that someone will be available in time for our next meeting. She suggested the very good idea of a website for contributions, which we will certainly consider, but in the meantime, as I said, those who wish to provide written contributions should feel free to do so. I am sure that both the hon. Lady and I would welcome any emails of that kind.
Although the issue of education and training is not within the working party’s specific terms of reference, we will be discussing it further. We will be listening to thoughts from IPSA, among others, about what sort of training and HR support can be provided.
The hon. Lady referred to party policies and said that the Labour party has updated its party procedures. I gather that all parties have done likewise, and that those party policies have been made available on the parliamentary website. I look to you to correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am wrong and the information is not yet available, but I understand that that is the intention.
The hon. Lady observed that the system would only really be proven once it had been tested—of course she is right. I am sure that considering how we can review it after it has been operating for a little while will form part of the working party’s final work.
Mr Jenkin
I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for also making a mistake.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I agree that whatever needs to be done urgently must be done urgently to address the present situation, but as we graft more and more new bits on to current systems, will we not be in danger of adding to the confusion that already exists? The Public Affairs and Constitutional Administration Committee, which I chair, has submitted evidence to the review of our present code of conduct, which is being conducted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Much of the current problem arises from confusion about an inadequacy in the code.
As my right hon. Friend develops her proposals, will she agree that whatever is put in place now, there needs to be a comprehensive assessment in the longer term—perhaps by a special Select Committee such as the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was formed during the last Parliament—of what is being introduced and how it should integrate with IPSA, the Standards and Privileges Committees and so on?
Andrea Leadsom
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his Committee’s work on this issue, and for keeping me up to date with its investigations and reports.
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is not intended to be any confusion about the outcome of the working group’s activities. We aim to create an independent complaints and grievances procedure that will be run within the House, using as a reference point the work that has already been done here, as well as the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and, potentially, support from existing organisations in the House. We intend to end up with the independent helpline, which will continue to provide immediate guidance and signposting, and an independent grievance procedure that will enable action to be taken against Members, staff, peers and so on. In addition, however, there will always continue to be the parties’ own complaints procedures. There will not be a mixture of those different processes; they will be separate, and very clearly set out. I hope I can reassure all Members on both sides of the House that there will be extreme clarity about how individuals can express their grievances.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for early sight of her statement. I commend her for the timely way in which she has set up the working group, her leadership on this issue, and the open and inclusive way in which she has dealt with the business of putting the group together and organising its important work. She is right to say that it must be a fully cross-party group with an input from staff bodies across the House. I am particularly delighted that Unite and MAPSA will be involved. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider including other representative bodies.
Our approach has been to ensure that there is zero tolerance for any abuse or inappropriate behaviour, and that all means are deployed to tackle not just current issues, but the historical patriarchy and cultural hierarchies that have been allowed to develop in the House and have gone unchallenged in the past. We all agree that an independent grievance procedure that provides a safe place where anyone on the estate can raise any harassment issue should be the group’s objective and, as the Leader of the House has said, a solid start has been made. We must ensure that we act in a timely manner and are able to deal with each issue as it comes along.
I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that anything that we design must have the full confidence of everyone who works on the estate, must be truly independent, and must command the support of all parties in the House. She was right to say—I can confirm this on behalf of the Scottish National party—that all parties have been developing and redesigning their own complaints procedures, which are available to all staff and to the various political parties in the House.
The Leader of the House mentioned the extension of the complaints helpline. Can she tell us when staff can expect to see some new facilities and resources to which they can turn, and perhaps remind everyone what facilities for complaints are currently available?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for their offer to co-operate, very sincerely, in resolving this issue. As I said earlier, all parties have agreed that this is something we must deal with urgently and in a collegiate and non-partisan way. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance in that regard. He is absolutely right to say that the independence of the new grievances and complaints procedure must be assured, and must have the full confidence of everyone who will be using it. We will ensure that, in due course, we can confirm very clearly to all staff—to all who work on the parliamentary estate and, indeed, those who work in our constituency offices—exactly what options are open to them.
Let me reiterate that we currently have the helpline, which is now available to all staff in both Houses—along with face-to-face counselling sessions if required—but that has a limited capability. The grievance procedure that we seek to establish will have a far greater capability when it comes to action to deal with particular grievances and complaints. There will, of course, always be the individual party process as well. There will be three different sources enabling people to express grievances or complaints. Only two of them, the helpline and the party processes, are currently in place, and it is the third—the independent cross-House, cross-party grievance process that we intend to establish—that will, I think, provide the full cultural change that we seek.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I also welcome this statement and the rapid action taken across all the parties to try and deal with what is a very serious matter. This must continue to be a cross-party matter in all parts of this House and we must continue to make the rapid progress we have made so far.
As we are looking forward to the future, will the Leader of the House give some consideration to perhaps pre-empting repeats of some of the abuse that has occurred in the past by making an information document available to all who apply to work on the parliamentary estate and in Members of Parliament’s offices, so people are clear about the standards of conduct to be expected from those privileged enough to work in this environment? May we also put that standard and conduct of behaviour clearly up on our website, so that people also know how they engage with MPs’ members of staff, people working here, and, indeed, even MPs themselves?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the need to ensure that everybody who works here understands the rules and code of conduct expected of them. There are many different places in which to find codes of conduct; indeed, the respect policy itself is very clear on the type of mutual respect required in this place, and online training is also available for those who want to understand more about the legal definitions of harassment and bullying, and I encourage those with a particular interest in pursuing that to look at it.
My right hon. Friend raises the important point that, once we have established our proper independent grievance and complaints procedure, we will also want to look at how we can roll it out, so that nobody can be in any doubt about the sort of behaviour that is expected of them.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House’s statement, although I notice from having quickly read through it, as well as having listened to it, that it does not use the term “sexual harassment” once. I therefore support what the shadow Leader of the House said in encouraging the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a specialist sexual violence service that gives advice to the working group and is in place for people in this place afterwards. I urge that mediation in cases of sexual harassment is never appropriate.
Employees have been put into this process in the round, but what if a person who used to work here wants to make a complaint against a Member of Parliament? What if an activist in a political party wants to make a complaint here through Parliament? What if a journalist who is not a passholder wanted to make a complaint? All the complaints we have seen so far speak to what I am asking here; where would they go in this new system?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for her urgent question earlier this week, which gave rise to this statement today, where we have had a bit more to say. I commend her for her efforts in this area, and I am very happy to speak to her directly at any time on any concern she has. I hope that she is reassured that I have said that we will be bringing in an independent expert in sexual harassment to be a special adviser to the working party for our subsequent meetings.
The hon. Lady raises some specific “what ifs”. As this is a working party that has not yet completely set out the parameters of who will be able access it, I do not want to make decisions on behalf of my colleagues on the working party, but we will absolutely take away every one of her “what ifs” and will make decisions and announcements as soon as we can.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I commend the Leader of the House on the progress made so far and her statement, and the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in all this. It is important that we get on with it, that we have this great leadership from the top and that we work cross-party. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), which I will not repeat because I completely agree with her.
We accept that this is going to be very complicated, but there are some simple principles that must underpin it. For example, first, this independent system could apply to all passholders. Secondly, there must be sanctions somewhere along the line, and everybody must sign up to the system. Thirdly, as an underlying principle, it must confer rights, duties and responsibilities on all workers in this place just like workers in any other place.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and think I can give her reassurance on each of her points. The complaints and grievance procedure will include all passholders, as the working party has accepted. It will also ensure that people are very clear about rights and responsibilities, and that they all have a duty to abide by the rules as set out.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the positive response from the Leader of the House to the proposal I made, along with others, for this specialist in ending sexual violence to be a full member and adviser of the working group.
Does the Leader of the House support introducing a separate and named policy on sexual harassment? It is vital that we do not simply try to reuse an existing anti-bullying policy, which is essentially the respect policy, with its focus on things like mediation. Instead, we need a named sexual harassment policy, which will be more appropriate. Will the Leader of the House commit to looking to change the culture of this place, as well as the structures, and therefore look at issues like the consent training for MPs?
Andrea Leadsom
I commend the hon. Lady: she did first raise the issue of having a specialist adviser on sexual harassment, and I agree that that is important. I point out, however, that the House’s respect policy does deal with sexual harassment. It might not do so to her satisfaction, but for the purpose of clarity I should say that the helpline would include advice and guidance to individuals who wanted to complain of sexual harassment. I am, however, absolutely open to her suggestion that there should be a separately named policy on sexual harassment, which will be a matter for the working party to consider.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I fully support and congratulate my right hon. Friend on acting so speedily and working in a cross-party manner to get this situation reconciled, and I fully support everything that has been said. I agree that there is a real issue about separating sexual harassment from other charges and think that will have to be looked at separately.
I have two points to make, however, in observation. First, the parties keep on stating that they must have their own party procedures. There is, however, a real issue here. What we get is parties acting, by, for instance, suspending the whip from an MP, but they are still an MP and carry on with duties and responsibilities here in the House. How swift and co-located can the process be with what goes on in the House in terms of investigations? MPs stand accused, and the longer this goes on, the more difficult it becomes for them to do their job, or should they be doing their job at all? I ask my right hon. Friend to look carefully at that, because if there is a false charge, we need to get that cleared up quickly. The dichotomy between an MP having a suspended party membership but still working as an MP could end up being the problem.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, which the working party has acknowledged needs to be resolved. He is right that if somebody stands accused, it is difficult to be clear how to proceed where a party procedure might make a decision to take action on the whip and there is an ongoing grievance or, indeed, a criminal procedure in another area in terms of either the police or this grievance and complaints procedure. My right hon. Friend therefore raises an important point, which the working party will look at, but we do not as yet have the answer.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the progress made on this issue on all sides, but the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) have hit upon the elephant in the room. What will the sanctions be if somebody is found to have behaved inappropriately in a workplace—to have sexually harassed a member of staff, a journalist, or another MP? In the Leader of the House’s statement in response to the urgent question on 30 October, she suggested that a member of staff who had been found to have behaved in that way would lose their job. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, suspending the whip means somebody could still be in Parliament and constituents would be expected to speak to them. So can the Leader of the House confirm that the working party is looking at the concept of recall as a way to resolve this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady reiterates the point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Sanctions are absolutely integral to this, and they are within the scope of the working party, but as I have made clear, these are early days. We will be taking advice from a number of different expert groups who will inform the decisions that the working group takes, but I want to assure her that the subject of sanctions is absolutely within scope for resolution by the working party.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I would like to add my voice in support of the strong lead shown by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House and of the cross-party working that has gone on so far. I would like to raise two brief points. First, I welcome the fact that Mr Speaker has written to all members of staff, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, there is a much broader picture here. What other methods are being considered to ensure that the helpline is known to people? Perhaps it could be advertised on the back of lavatory doors, for example, so that others who come to work here, not necessarily on a full pass, know how to access help. Secondly, will the Leader of the House think about a suggestion from a member of my staff, which was put through her office, that we should have a staff Select Committee? Such a Committee could raise issues and produce reports that we could then consider. There are many people who do not have a voice here except through the conduit of ourselves, and we already know about some of the problems associated with that process.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for making those two specific suggestions. She asked about the notification of the expansion of the helpline services. I know that Mr Speaker has asked that an email should go out from the Clerks of both Houses today, and I think that it has already been sent. It contains specific advice on the alternatives available to people who wish to make a complaint. My hon. Friend has suggested posting helpline information on the backs of lavatory doors, and I think that that is a very good idea. My office has contacted the communications team in the Clerk’s office to suggest ways in which we could further ensure that people are aware of the helpline. She also suggested establishing a staff Select Committee. I am delighted that we have representatives of MAPSA and Unite actively on the working party, and I am sure that we will want to consider how staff can continue to be involved in the review of the system.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
As warmly as I feel towards the Leader of the House’s efforts in this area, I think that the composition of the working party is not right. It is heavily overloaded with MPs and with the hierarchy within the political parties as well. One of the really big issues here is how very young, junior members of staff feel when they are being bullied or sexually harassed by someone who holds their life or their career in the balance because of the flow of patronage in Parliament. I note that there are no lesbian or gay members of the working party, despite the fact that issues can arise if a young man or woman wants to make an allegation about their boss that could in effect involve outing themselves or the person concerned. I hope that the Leader of the House will look again at the composition of the working party. However, my biggest anxiety of all is that we should have justice for both sides. If we just have trial by the newspapers, or trial by the front page, that is not justice for the people who feel that they have been abused and want to make allegations; nor does it provide justice for those at the other end. I remember, in 2003, a journalist from The Mail on Sunday coming up to me in the Strangers bar and saying, “We’re all taking bets on when you’ll commit suicide. I hope it will be before Christmas.”
Andrea Leadsom
Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that. I really sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on that last point. That is really, truly appalling. We all recognise the challenge of living in the public eye, and allegations that are either spurious, malicious or designed to hurt are often made against individuals. That is not right. We are seeking to provide justice for those who work here at all levels, whether they are young and extremely inexperienced or have been here for a long time, whether they are LGBT+ or straight, and whatever their race or ethnic background. We are seeking to ensure that there is justice for all. The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points. As I have said, I am pleased that we have two members of staff who represent MAPSA and Unite on the working party, but we will also be hearing from individual members of staff, either in person or in writing if they do not want to come forward in person. We will be seeking to obtain the broadest possible amount of information from those who work here to ensure that we make the right decisions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that there is a clear separation in this process between, on the one hand, the provision of training and advice for members of staff and MPs and, on the other, providing a safe space where people can report allegations. If the same people are involved in both processes, there is a huge risk that allegations will not be taken seriously and will not be advanced. We need to adopt best practice across both Houses, but we also need to give staff the opportunity to report abuses.
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The working party is absolutely clear that we will be establishing an independent grievance and complaints procedure that will be free of interference by political parties, by individual Members or by individuals who work here in any sense. It will be independent and confidential, and it will be able to take specific action to support individuals right the way through a grievance procedure and up to the final sanction, whatever that might be. I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. On his other point about training and advice for those who employ people here, or indeed for those who feel they might have a grievance and want to take advice on it, I can tell him that the working party is committed to looking at and making decisions on those items. However, it is not intended that the training and advice should form part of the grievance and complaints procedure. We recognise the need for those things, but we do not believe that they should form any part of the independent complaints procedure.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The statement shows that there will be eight members of the working group representing employers and only two representing staff. Will the Leader of the House consider appointing a representative from the National Union of Journalists, which has a recognition agreement with the Scottish National party, and one from the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents House staff, so that they, too, can have access to this body? Their experiences and requirements might be different. Can she also assure me that trade union representatives will be able to phone the hotline on behalf of a member of staff?
Andrea Leadsom
I would like to assure all Members that the working party has already agreed on a number of individuals and organisations from which we want to hear advice and views. There will be a big emphasis on hearing from staff and staff representatives, and indeed from the unions. I know that the NUJ is one of those that we wish to hear from. The people sitting on the working party taking evidence include the two staff members representing MAPSA and Unite. At the same time, we are determined to hear from a wide range of staff with different experiences, at different ages and stages of their lives and coming from different angles and career profiles within Parliament, as well as from the organisations that represent them.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I, too, welcome the swift work that has gone on in this area. It is essential that we bring about positive change in relation to sexual harassment and bullying and, particularly, to the issues of confidentiality and trial by media that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. It is essential that we tackle that, and I totally agree with the idea of getting someone from the NUJ on the working party. I also want to raise the issue of suspension. We need a framework in place for when people have been suspended to inform them what they have been suspended for and how long the suspension is to last. I have heard examples of people being harassed and harangued while suspended, and not really knowing why they have been suspended. They can also be subjected to terrible abuse from outside, and we really need to deal with that. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will put in place a framework that is in line with those of other businesses up and down the country? Up to now, we have had no such framework operating in this place.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises several different issues. One of the challenges is that Members of Parliament employ their own staff directly. Unlike large businesses in other parts of the economy, we do not have a big official corporate structure to draw upon, and the working party will seek to address that challenge.
On party suspensions, as I said to other Members, party procedures will continue to be available, and parties will update and have updated their procedures to ensure that they address issues for local councillors, activists, volunteers, MEPs and so on. The working party will need to examine carefully what happens when an independent—hence confidential—grievance and complaints procedure draws a certain conclusion that may have implications for party procedures. The working party will consider that, but it is still early days, and we will come back to the House with more updates as soon as we can.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the helpline will be available not just to those who work in Parliament, but to everyone who works for an MP, such as non-pass holders, those working in constituency offices and, importantly, those who do not have access to parliamentary emails?
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s work on this matter and her statement this morning, but part of the difficulty, especially over the past few weeks, lies with discerning the difference between the serious cases that must, should and can be dealt with and the spurious, fictitious and plain wrong allegations that must be weeded out and that, quite frankly, detract from the other serious cases. I have two specific questions. First, the Leader of the House mentioned fairness, including fairness to Members. Is it not a matter of fairness and natural justice—this affects parties on both sides of the House—that a Member who has received an allegation against them should know the basis of the allegation? Secondly, does she agree that any grievance and complaints procedure must be truly independent of any one political party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, I have allowed the hon. Gentleman two questions on this occasion, but one question is sufficient on an occasion such as this.
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the spurious, wrong, malicious and appalling accusations that have been made against some Members, causing considerable upset and hurt. Right across the House, we have concern for those in public life who are accused unfairly. On natural justice and fairness, I agree that every attempt to consider allegations against particular Members or members of staff must be treated in a completely fair and, as far as possible, transparent way. He asks for equal treatment across all parties and for all members of staff, and I completely agree with that principle. The working party will certainly seek to ensure that we have an equal, transparent and fair grievance system.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank all the Members and anyone else who will sit on this working party. It is a considerable time commitment, so I am very grateful. Many of us have short-term team members—shadows, work experience placements, interns —who are often not here long enough to get a pass. They can be young and are often inexperienced, so will the Leader of the House assure me that whatever is put in place will consider them, too? In the few short months that I have been here, I have found that some HR matters can be slow, so the induction processes that we put in place should be nimble so that all are protected.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her thanks to the members of the working party, which certainly is a time commitment. All the Members involved and our colleagues from MAPSA and Unite are working hard on it, so I echo her thanks to them. She asks about those who are here on short-term placements, and it is intended that those individuals would also be able to access the grievance procedure.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that by the time an allegation is made, we have potentially already failed employees. Will she reassure that House that the system will not just be reactive and respond to allegations, but engage and prevent potential incidents from happening in the first place? Every other employee under a good employer enjoys that privilege in the workplace. Can people who work here say the same?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and raises an important point. When a complaint has been made, something has already failed. The working party hopes that the creation a new system of complaints will by its very existence change the culture in this place. I reiterate that we do have examples of good employers and teams that work extremely well right across the parliamentary estate. Many MPs, peers, chiefs of staff, and senior parliamentary assistants are very good employers and treat their staff with the utmost respect. Nevertheless, he is right to point out that we need to change the culture. By providing proper support for employment matters, which is the intention of the working party, by offering proper training to those who employ staff, and by creating a proper grievance procedure, I hope and expect that we will also change the culture and significantly reduce the number of complaints that need to be made.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am encouraged to hear that the new system will apply to all 4,000 workers who keep the parliamentary estate going, many of whom are my constituents. There is deep concern among the tour guides that sweeping changes to their terms and conditions, which they feel are being foisted upon them, will rationalise many of them out of existence. Will the Leader of the House assure me that none of those who are dedicated to this vital work of the House will lose their jobs? Will she also meet PCS, MAPSA and Unite to allay those concerns?
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. I reassure her that House staff already have their own well-established grievance procedures, which have been in place for some time, and that will not change. They will continue to be supported by and subject to House staff procedures. I cannot envisage a scenario in which any of their roles would be changed or affected by what we are seeking to do for non-House staff, so I hope I can totally reassure on that. If she wants to talk to me or the Clerk of the House of Commons about that, I think we can clarify her concerns. We certainly intend to hear from all those who wish to offer their views, so if PCS wants to provide a written submission, to see me separately or to appear before the working party, I am sure that we would be happy to hear from it.
Points of Order
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Work and Pensions questions on Monday, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), stated in response to my question about the collapse of AEA Technology and its pension scheme that my concerns about mis-selling and the advice given by the Government Actuary’s Department in 1996 had been specifically dealt with by his predecessors in debates in March 2015 and October 2016. Having looked at those debates in Hansard, I am sorry to say that he was simply incorrect.
I have written to the Minister, I have asked him for a meeting with my constituents, and I have asked parliamentary questions. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a new Member, and I feel like I have reached a brick wall, so will you please advise what I can do next, so that not just my constituents but constituents represented by parties of all colours can seek redress on this important matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice to Mr Speaker of her intention to raise this point of order.
First, I would have the hon. Lady reflect on whether she has received an answer to any of the questions she asked and how long she has waited for that answer. I take it from her demeanour that she has waited longer than she thinks reasonable, so I say to her that what Ministers and other Members say in this House is, of course, a matter of their individual responsibility and not a matter for the Chair. She has raised the point, and if a Minister feels that his or her response has been inaccurate, I am sure that that Minister would consider taking steps to correct the record, but that of course is up to the Minister.
The hon. Lady also asks for advice on how to pursue the matter further, and a number of avenues are open to her. I would advise her that consulting the Table Office on what might be the most effective course of action would be a good idea.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions I raised the plight of cancer patients, some of whom are dying as they wait for their universal credit payment, and the issue of terminally ill people having to self-declare as dying when applying for universal credit, even though they might not want to do so.
My question was not specific to Scotland, because these matters apply across the UK, yet the Prime Minister suggested that the Scottish Government could use powers to change these things. Universal credit powers are not devolved to Scotland. It is not acceptable to abdicate responsibility for such UK Government matters—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have to stop the hon. Gentleman because a point of order is a short point, not a speech, and we are about to have a debate on the very matter he is raising. I appreciate that he wants to raise this as a point of order, but, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) not a minute ago, what a Minister says in this place, and of course that includes the Prime Minister, is a matter for them. Whether or not a fact is correct is a matter for debate, and I am quite sure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) will have an opportunity, hopefully within the next couple of hours, to make his points of debate in the Chamber, and they will be listened to by the Minister on duty.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We hope to get on to the debate, and we will all be noting whether the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) stays in his place, even if called last in the debate, to register his views.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just as what Ministers say is not a matter for me, nor is it a matter for me whether the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) stays in his place.
Backbench Business
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Universal Credit Roll-out
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2017-19, Universal Credit: the six week wait, HC 336; and calls on the Government to reduce the standard initial wait for a first Universal Credit payment to one month.
Some of us would not wish to use “roll-out” as an appropriate name for what is happening to universal credit in our constituencies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic, which affects a growing number of constituents. For my constituents, the horror of the full roll-out of universal credit happened yesterday.
I begin by confessing my inadequacies. When we debate in this great place I am sure most, if not all, of us reflect on how we simply do not have the language to match the task of presenting to the nation, through this Chamber, what is happening. This is the most important debate I have participated in during my nearly 40 years as the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. I have never felt more acutely the inadequacy of the language I have to try to tell the House of the horror that is now happening to a growing number of my constituents under this so-called welfare reform programme.
So long as I do not get lots of interventions, as I did last Tuesday, I promise to speak briefly on five brief themes: first, the horrors under the existing roll-out of universal credit, before the full roll-out; secondly, the organised chaos that now presents itself in my constituency; thirdly, the national impact of what will be a growing crash and smash in many decent, honourable people’s lives; fourthly, the one reform on which all members of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions agree—this will not be our only report, but given the evidence, and we want to report to the House on the evidence, not on what we think or feel, the biggest change the Government could make is to reduce the initial wait from six weeks to four weeks—and finally, the long-term reforms.
When I saw the Minister at the coffee machine yesterday and he kindly told me that he would reply to the debate, I said that I had already asked the question four times. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not here today, because he has no more important task. However much affection we have for the Minister of State for the seriousness with which he has gone about his career in this House, this issue is of such national importance that for the Secretary of State not to be here says something pretty big.
I have now asked the question five times. The Secretary of State tells me, “Go back home and say it’s all hunky-dory. You don’t have to worry. It’s all going to be rolled out fine.” And I say, “The food bank says we need 15 tonnes more food.” Who are we to believe?
This case began some time ago, but a person who is involved turned to their MP for help yesterday, the day of the full roll-out. It is an historical case of a gentleman who had waited and waited for an operation at our local hospital. That operation took place at the same time as he was told to turn up for an interview at our Jobcentre Plus. He was sanctioned. A friend reported yesterday that this constituent of mine is now homeless and, while homeless, struggling to recover from the surgery.
I will now give five examples of the horrors that are happening in Birkenhead under the existing system. We were told the system would be simplified and manageable. These five cases have come into one MP’s surgery. I do not want to speak for terribly long, but I could raise yards of cases—we could all raise yards of cases—of what is actually happening to our constituents.
Constituent No. 1 made three applications online. When they finally got through, they were told that no application had been received. They were paid six weeks after the third application. The constituent has three children to feed, and they were hungry.
Constituent No. 2 had twice attempted to apply online, and twice the application had been lost. They waited a further eight weeks before receiving money. They were hungry.
Constituent No. 3, who has a four-year-old daughter, waited two months for universal credit to be processed and tried the hotline six times, but was told that a new system was in place—it took several days before they phoned her back. She was then told, “No claim could be found.” Wow! Her payment date was pushed back by a further 11 days. My constituent and her daughter went hungry.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
These are heartbreaking and unacceptable accounts, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help me. When I met the citizens advice bureau in Broxtowe, where we had UC being rolled out in July, I was told that it is now making the arrangements with all relevant authorities so that these very examples do not exist. My question to the right hon. Gentleman is: did these constituents come to him at the end of this ghastly process or earlier? If they had come earlier, they would find that we as MPs all have exactly the access to speed it up. Does he agree that we should be doing this now before it comes out in our areas?
Frank Field
I could not agree more, although I have been here a little longer than the right hon. Lady and I never thought that as an MP I would be speaking like this, about this, with my job being adapted in this way. Of course we have had summits, and we are continuing to have them, bringing all the people together, including Jobcentre Plus, to try to prevent these things from happening. Despite those efforts, these are the cases of horror that are resulting and that I am presenting to the House.
Constituent No. 4 waited 12 months for universal credit. The Secretary of State, bless him, not here today, admitted that some error had occurred. My constituent is sinking in debt, despite the role of citizens advice bureaux, MPs, food banks, and getting welfare rights advisers in—despite all that. Constituent No. 5 was migrated from housing benefit to UC, with their housing benefit stopped immediately. They then waited seven weeks for UC, but when it came there was no housing component. Again, this constituent risks being evicted.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I have already been contacted by constituents terrified about what they are going to do because they have rent arrears, and they know that if those hit £1,000 they will face eviction procedures and that any delay in getting their payments means they will hit that £1,000 mark. So even when the system works perfectly, the inherent delays push these people into debt and eviction, which will cost us all more.
Frank Field
I could not agree more. We will come on to discuss, briefly, I hope, the reforms we want and will push for. I will certainly do that, as perhaps others will. We will review these things in our Select Committee. We must base this on evidence, but the evidence is mounting up.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has noticed that The Times reports today that property companies are now doing pre-emptive evictions of tenants who are being moved to UC. [Interruption.] The Times is reporting this today; it is actually happening on the frontline. Will he say a few words about the impact this will have on already vulnerable claimants of UC?
Frank Field
Both those statements made by my hon. Friends from east London and Hove, on the coast, are true, and I am sure they will try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I move on to the theme of organised chaos. Even if we are working with CABs, every Tom, Dick and Harry organisation seems now to be embedded in the system. Jobcentre officials say that even when the system is up and running, as it is in Birkenhead, claims are closed down in error and it takes several months to rebuild them. There is no money during the rebuilding—
Frank Field
I am anxious that everybody gets in, so may I move on? I have real affection for people who have fought the battle hard on this, but I wish to pursue the matter. Four constituents of mine have had their claims closed down, with the only too imaginable consequences of what it has meant for their lives. The landlord of one of them has said, “I do not want to evict the tenant, however I might be left with no choice.” That tenant has said, “I am behind with not only my rent, but my council tax. All I’ve got to live off is child benefit. The school has been so worried about the welfare of my son that my sister offered to take him in to her household so that he was not taken into care.”
Frank Field
I might give way a little later, but I want everybody to have a chance to speak.
Let us examine how sanctions apply in this system. I wish to give one example of a lad who, after huge difficulty, got a part-time job. We must consider the pride that came with that job; he was walking out in the morning knowing that at end of the week he was going to bring a wage packet back. I point out that this is at the end of the week, Minister, not the end of four weeks or six. There was a transformation in him, but the jobcentre decided that he was not trying hard enough to get a better job, so they sanctioned him and took his money away. He then could not exist on the money from his job. He now has no money and is well on his way to destitution.
So my third theme is: what is the national impact of this slow motion crash for us, but high-speed crash for our constituents? What has the Trussell Trust told us about the impact around the country of this roll-out of universal credit? We must remember that the Trussell Trust is the “trade union”, so to speak, of only half our food banks. It reports that it needs 1,500 additional tonnes of food for the coming year in any case, but that it will need an additional 2,000 tonnes to take on the consequences now of UC. As I have said, in Birkenhead we will need 15 tonnes of food in the coming year. We knew that this, for us, evolving slow crash, coming up over weeks, was going to happen, but in Birkenhead it actually began yesterday.
That is why the Select Committee, of one mind, on the evidence that it received, said that the most important thing the Government could do, of the many things it could do—this was the one thing that stood out from our evidence and we wanted them to do it as quickly as possible—was to reduce the wait from a maximum of six weeks to a maximum of four weeks. The first 133 submissions to the Select Committee told us that the six-week wait is the main force pushing people to having no food, risking everything and the brink of destitution. It is not a surprise, is it, Minister, given that the data from your old Department, the Treasury, tell us that more than half of low-income and middle-income families have no savings at all to fall back on? Two thirds of us have less than a month’s savings to tide us over a crisis.
Let us consider the very idea that these families—the most vulnerable people that we have the honour to represent in this House—can wait for six weeks. In the cold light of day, one wonders how any decent set of people—[Interruption.] The great architect of this reform is not in this place, although he was here earlier—I refer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). Could he ever have really wanted this result for this reform? I hope he is going to come back and tell us that when he failed to fend off cuts from the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer he could never have envisaged that this reform of noble intent should end in these personal nightmares for our constituents.
The Select Committee does not yet have evidence on this—we may get the evidence to persuade us to publish a united report—but for me there seem to be five obvious reforms that we need to build into universal credit, in addition to that four-week wait. First, if Scotland can have two-weekly payments, why cannot England? Northern Ireland is going to get payments every two weeks; why cannot Wales? I thank Scotland for negotiating a subcontracted agreement to show that what was thought to be impossible is indeed possible, once due pressure is applied. I offer huge thanks for that.
Secondly, we want rents to be paid directly to landlords, if people wish.
Thirdly, we want the DWP automatically to tell local authorities and housing associations that their tenants will be pushed into debt. I do not think that is our or the citizens advice bureaux’ job; it is the Department’s job.
Fourthly, under the current system babies and toddlers are going without Healthy Start vouchers and children are going without free school meals because the data that was previously held separately and could be given to local authorities is now held in the universal credit system and not given to local authorities. Can that terrible nonsense please come to an end?
Lastly, my colleagues and I had a fight when the Government removed from the statute book the duty of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to promote claimants’ welfare. The Government said that it was not necessary and that they were tidying up the statute book—“We’re all in favour. Who could possibly be against promoting the welfare of claimants?” My argument was that if it is so unnecessary, let us just leave it on the statute book, in case. The current sanctions policy could never, ever have worked if that duty on the Secretary of State had existed, because the Secretary of State delegates to every person who works in DWP offices, and they would have to carry out that discretion on the Secretary of State’s behalf.
The House knows that I was as tough as old boots on the need for sanctions—people should have to abide by the rules—but the idea that we have sanctions without anybody in the office being able to exercise discretion is appalling. Imagine being an officer to whom somebody says, “You can ring the hospital and find I was actually on the operating table when you wanted me here for an interview. Please don’t sanction me!”, but the sanction is applied automatically because there is no discretion. That should end.
I plead with the unbelievably decent Minister for Employment: I want those mutterings of his—when he says that he is appalled, that this does not need to happen and that he can explain why it is not going to happen—to be on the record when he replies. I also ask this of Ministers on the Treasury Bench for the fifth time: the Government tell me that the roll-out of universal credit in Birkenhead is going hunky-dory—that all the things I have tried to represent and all the pleas from the food bank to raise 15 tonnes more food is scaremongering—so will the Minister say whether the Government are still as confident as they were when I first asked the question many months ahead of the roll-out? Or should I go home and roll up my sleeves with those at the food bank who are trying to collect 15 tonnes more food to prevent families from being engulfed, this Christmas and beyond, by hunger of undue proportions? This is a national scandal that the Government could stop. Will they stop it, please?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am delighted to call to make his maiden speech Mr David Duguid.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and thanks for pronouncing my name so well!
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this debate and welcome this opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is quite timely, because in just the past couple of weeks I have started engaging with my local Citizens Advice office and jobcentres on this very subject in preparation for the roll-out of universal credit in my Banff and Buchan constituency in March, in much the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) described earlier.
I am proud and honoured to have been elected by the people of Banff and Buchan to represent them in this place. I totally agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken before me about the beauty of their Scottish constituencies. However, as I am the last Scottish Conservative to deliver my maiden speech, I can now say definitively that Banff and Buchan is indeed the most beautiful.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr Eilidh Whiteford. Eilidh represented Banff and Buchan in this House for seven years. She worked hard for her constituents, as well as here in Parliament. Earlier this year, she became the first Scottish National party Member of Parliament to have a private Member’s Bill passed into statute. Her Bill enhanced protection for victims of domestic abuse in line with the Istanbul convention. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking Eilidh for her contribution and wishing her well in the future.
The election results in June made it clear to me and my colleagues from the north-east of Scotland that the people there do not want another independence referendum. On top of that, regardless of how they voted in the EU referendum—for Members’ information, my constituency did vote to leave the European Union—the electorate in Banff and Buchan made it clear that they wanted the Government to get on and deliver Brexit. I committed to do all I could to support and influence the Government in getting the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland.
Leaving the EU presents great opportunities for the two main industries that define my constituency: fishing and farming. As we leave the EU, we will leave the common fisheries policy and, as we do so, we will regain complete control over access to our fishing waters out to 200 nautical miles or the median between two countries. In Banff and Buchan, we have two of the largest fishing ports in Europe: Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Peterhead is also a major port supplying the North sea oil and gas industry as well as, more recently, offshore wind projects. Seafood processing is a major industry in my constituency, with our produce exported across the UK, Europe and beyond, including to North America and Australia.
The other key industry in my constituency is of course agriculture. I am bound to say that Banff and Buchan has some of the best grazing land available, and that helps to produce some of the best Scotch beef and lamb. Of course, the topic of food and drink in Scotland cannot pass without a mention of Scotch whisky. Although there are relatively few distilleries in Banff and Buchan, much of the best malting barley is grown there.
Many of my constituents and others across the north-east of Scotland are employed, as I was for the previous 25 years, in the oil and gas industry. Workers from across north-east Scotland commute to Aberdeen or work offshore. Many work in related engineering, manufacturing and service businesses located around the north-east, not just in Aberdeen. Many of those businesses were started by local entrepreneurs, are still family owned and have grown into some of the biggest employers in the area. Indeed, some have won UK awards for their focus on the training and development of young people and apprentices.
I find it incredible that a constituency that is home to so many entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized businesses, and that contributes so greatly to the food and drink and energy sectors, has one of slowest average broadband speeds in the country. The average download speed across Banff and Buchan of 6 megabits per second can only be dreamed of by many of my constituents who are struggling to get speeds of 1 or 2 megabits per second, if they get any at all. That lack of connectivity hampers business growth and discourages people from coming to live in the area, so one of my top priorities is to pressure Governments on both sides of the border to work towards delivering an acceptable minimum broadband performance across rural Banff and Buchan, not just in the towns.
We live in an age when more and more of our services are provided online. However, while those online services increasingly become the norm, including when applying for universal credit, many people still do not have adequate access to broadband internet. That is simply unacceptable. A decent broadband service is rapidly becoming essential for every business, school, hospital and household, wherever they may be located.
Another growth opportunity in Banff and Buchan is tourism. Our coast across the north-east of Scotland is like no other on the British Isles. Rugged cliffs are home to a wealth of birdlife, including Scotland’s only mainland gannet colony at Troup Head.
David Duguid
You are all most welcome.
Our shoreline is regularly visited by porpoises and dolphins, and even the occasional humpback or killer whale.
In summary, Banff and Buchan is a great place to live in and to visit. However, the standard of some of our public services, particularly education and health, has taken a bit of a hit in recent years under a SNP Government who are obsessed with pursuing independence at any cost.
Our town centres are much in need of regeneration, with many shops and offices lying empty, particularly in coastal areas. For that reason, I decided to locate my constituency office in the old county town of Banff.
In conclusion, like Opposition Members, I welcome the opportunity to have strong voices—Scottish voices—in this House. With that said, I am especially glad to be one of the 12 additional Scottish Conservative voices on the Government Benches.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak. We have limited time, so there will be an immediate time limit of six minutes.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on a really powerful maiden speech. He made a good case for getting up to visit Banff and Buchan, so I will be booking a trip there as soon as possible to taste the whisky and see the wildlife that he talked about. He is a wonderful advocate for the area.
The hon. Gentleman also looked incredibly confident and relaxed as he gave his speech. I think back to how nervous I felt when I gave my maiden speech, but he made his like an old pro—[Interruption.] Seasoned might be a better term. We can look forward to many more excellent contributions from him and I wish him very well in his career in this House.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is no longer in the Chamber, for securing this important debate. Croydon was one of the first boroughs to experience the roll out of universal credit, so we have had longer to see what a total and utter disaster it is. A long and growing stream of people have come to my office, many of whom have been close to tears because universal credit has forced them into debt. It has made it harder for them to stay in work and left many of them facing eviction for rent arrears.
Our local council has had to spend £3 million so far to stop people from being evicted because of late rent payments. Local food banks are running out of food because of the vast increase in demand from people who are going hungry because of what the Government’s scheme has done to them. More than 1,000 tenants in Croydon have over three months’ rent arrears and are at risk of losing their home because of the failures of universal credit.
Stephen Timms
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems—it is certainly not the only one—although it is denied by Ministers, is the fact that the IT system for universal credit is not yet working properly?
Mr Reed
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government insist on ploughing ahead when it is quite clear that the IT system is not fit for purpose. They should pause the process and fix that before they inflict this damage on any more people.
According to my council’s figures, a tenant on housing benefit—the legacy system—had an average rent account that was £42 in credit. Under universal credit, a tenant has an average balance of £722 in arrears. This is supposed to be a system that helps low-income families, but it is instead forcing them into debt and out of their homes.
I wish to share just a few short examples from my own casework, and I suspect that we will hear many, many more throughout the debate. One constituent told me that he had £1,400 of debt and two months’ rent arrears because of errors with her universal credit. She had no money to buy food for her family or to heat her home.
A mother of five children was left waiting nine weeks for her first payment. She works part time and is desperate to keep working. She wants to do exactly what the Government tell her that she should be doing, but the new system has let her down and pushed her into debt.
A pregnant mother with two young children came to see me. She was not eating properly because of debt, which posed a serious risk to not only herself, but her unborn child. She had no option but to take out several high-interest payday loans and has been threatened with eviction because of underpayments. It is outrageous to leave anyone in those circumstances, let alone a pregnant woman.
Severely disabled people face the particular problem that universal credit does not include a severe disability premium. Although the Work and Pensions Committee raised its concerns about precisely that earlier this year, as yet the Government have done absolutely nothing.
Under the current system, a person with severe disabilities in receipt of income-related employment and support allowance with a severe disability premium gets £172 a week. Under universal credit, that is cut to just £146 a week. I became aware of that when our citizens advice bureau referred to me the case of a claimant with severe mental ill health who was moved on to universal credit when he became liable for housing costs. The effect was that he lost more than £100 from his benefits to cover his living expenses, and he had no transitional protection because he had experienced a change of circumstances. When a person has so little income, financial loss on such a scale is utterly devastating.
Universal credit is an unmitigated disaster for hundreds of the most vulnerable people in Croydon North. If the roll-out continues before the system is fixed, those hundreds will become thousands. People just cannot cope. What kind of system penalises the poor, and forces people out of jobs and on to benefits and into food banks? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Employment must do what this House instructed them to do in a recent vote: pause and fix the system before it devastates any more lives.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to be called so early in this debate. It is a pleasure to speak on this important matter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for his maiden speech. I agree with what the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) said about the speech, save in one respect: my hon. Friend gave the confident speech of a young professional. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor. I particularly appreciated his comments on broadband, and I look forward to campaigning alongside him to ensure that all of our rural areas have adequate access to broadband. I look forward to his further contributions in this place.
I am pleased that this is the third or fourth such debate that we have had in the past month, because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate my strong support for universal credit. Like most people on both sides of the House, I am firmly of the view that work should always pay. That is the principle that underlines universal credit. Government Members are passionate about ensuring that more people get into work, that they are supported into work and that, once they are there, they get on and get ever more work both in terms of hours and quality.
Peter Kyle
Does the hon. Gentleman remember the early days of when universal credit was first mooted? At that time, the Labour party was supportive of the concept, but said that universal credit needed to be rolled out over a period longer than one Parliament, and that much more detailed piloting would be needed to get the system right. Those are the things that have gone wrong, and they are inflicting misery on our constituents.
Michael Tomlinson
I will come back to the Labour party’s record on rolling out benefits in due course, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I wish that Labour Members would speak up more loudly with their support for the principle behind universal credit, because at the moment it sounds like they are calling for not a delay or a pause, but a scrap. The Labour party has opposed every single benefit change that this Government have brought into effect, and the cost of its position would have been tens of billions of pounds. However, this is not about the money. More importantly, it is about the people, and universal credit is about encouraging people into work.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I am really pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is supporting universal credit, although he failed to vote in favour of it the other week. Would he also support a renewed project to study how universal credit supports people to get into work? The Department for Work and Pensions has delayed and denied an opportunity to review the original study to prove whether universal credit is still working, because lots of people expect that it is not.
Michael Tomlinson
Perhaps the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point in due course.
I chair the all-party group on youth employment, so I want to use any mechanism available to encourage young people—everyone, in fact—to get into work. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) could listen to my response, rather than just shaking his head and taking part in exchanges across the Chamber.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is chuntering, so I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Tomlinson
Forgive me; I will speak up. If the hon. Gentleman stops talking, however, he might be able to hear a little more easily. He is more than welcome to come along to the meetings of the all-party group. We met yesterday, which was the date on which the latest Office for National Statistics employment figures came out. We track those figures each month. It was pleasing to see that there are still record numbers for youth employment and record lows of young people who are out of work. The youth unemployment rate of 11.9% is in touching distance of the lowest ever figure on comparable records, and it is almost half the youth unemployment rate of over 22% in 2011, which followed the disastrous Labour Government.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Recent forecasts show that universal credit will create 400 jobs in every constituency across the country. Does my hon. Friend welcome that, as I do, given the great work that he is doing?
Michael Tomlinson
I warmly welcome it. I look forward to the time when we look back and say that universal credit has been a success. Now, do not get me wrong. We are not trying to pretend that all is rosy and that there are no errors—quite the opposite. Government Members, as much as Opposition Members—well, certainly Government Members—want to ensure that universal credit works. I encourage the Minister, who will listen as I am sure he always does, to ensure that he is testing and learning, and that we are constantly improving the system.
I support any principle that encourages more people into work. In response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), I threatened to speak about the Labour party’s record. The hon. Gentleman is just about to leave the Chamber, but it does not matter, as he can read this in Hansard tomorrow—[Interruption.] Ah, he has sat down. When the Labour party was in power, a member of my community told me that he had chosen not to take a job because it would not have been worth his while, due to the risk to his benefits and, therefore, to him. I do not blame him. He made a perfectly calculated, sensible and rational decision, but he chose not to take a job because of the Labour Government’s policy.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
If work incentives were so poor under Labour, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why lone parent employment increased from 44% in 1994 to 57% when we left office.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Lady intervened on me during our last debate on this subject. It is always a pleasure to lock horns with her in a constructive fashion. The last time she challenged me, she said, “How about those young people in poverty?” I did not have the figures on poverty to hand at the time but, if the hon. Lady looks at them, she will see that there are 600,000 fewer people—I will check that figure—in absolute poverty this year. Under the old system, for the constituent I mentioned, it did not pay for him to go to work. Under universal credit, the principle should be that work always pays.
Michael Tomlinson
In one moment.
We remember the fiasco of tax credits, with £7.3 billion of overpayments, and we remember the misery that was caused. The hon. Member for Hove referred to the speed with which universal credit has been rolled out. Actually, the lesson to be learned is not to roll out a scheme in a big-bang fashion, as happened with tax credits, when £2.7 billion then had to be clawed back from the poorest and most vulnerable in society. I was a new Member of Parliament in 2015, when people were still feeling the repercussions of that old system.
Michael Tomlinson
I will not. I only have a minute and a half left, and I do not get any more time.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) referred to two-weekly payments. Will the Minister tell us the number of people in employment who actually receive such payments? My suspicion is that it is a very low proportion, but I want the Minister to tackle that point directly, as he was asked the question by the right hon. Gentleman. In particular, I want the Minister to continue to listen and learn, and to ensure that it always pays to be in work rather than on benefits.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just to help the situation, I will drop the speaking limit to five minutes because of the number of interventions. If people continue to intervene, which I do not want to stop, they must understand that they will go to the bottom of the list in order to ensure that those who have not spoken get their chance. That includes you, Helen Goodman.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his maiden speech. He is still to be persuaded on the merits of Scottish independence, and I look forward to debating them with him in the next few years. I thank him for paying a generous tribute to his predecessor, Eilidh Whiteford; I am sure that all Scottish National party Members appreciate that.
As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, let me start by saying that Glasgow is a city where words often have more than one meaning, and in attempting to sum up this Government’s approach to social security benefits and universal credit, I would use the word “ignorant”. Now, Government Members may not agree with that characterisation. They may even point out that the architect of universal credit, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), made a point of visiting Easterhouse in Glasgow in 2002. But, of course, the Government are closing the jobcentre in Easterhouse this year.
Anna Soubry
I was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when we discussed the situation of the Glasgow jobcentres. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Glasgow had somewhere in the region of 16 jobcentres and that the DWP’s very excellent proposal—in fact, it was not radical enough, in my view—was to reduce that number to eight? We compared the number of jobcentres in comparable cities in other parts of the country that had comparable employment rates, and they often had two or three jobcentres, as opposed to eight.
Chris Stephens
The evidence that was used by the Government to justify closing those jobcentres was based on information that did not exist. They were using Google Maps when they should have been using the First Bus app that would have told them that closing jobcentres means a complicated, multi-bus, hour-long journey from Easterhouse to Shettleston.
The Government were faced with all the evidence provided by Members in this place through debate and questions; they were faced with all the evidence provided to the Work and Pensions Committee by a wide range of people and organisations dealing with the impact of universal credit; and they were faced with a report from that Committee clearly outlining where the implementation is going seriously wrong. But even when faced with all that information, the Government continue to argue a line that, in my city, we would call ignorant. When that word is used in Glasgow it does not mean someone who does not know all the facts, someone who does not know any better or someone who needs advice on how to act. No, ignorant—as in “pure dead ignorant”—means someone who knows all the facts and knows what should be done, but chooses to do whatever they want despite it being wrongheaded and damaging to others.
I fully expect, and we have already heard, the tired old Government line about the policy of universal credit as having been welcomed. It is even on the top line of the Work and Pensions Committee report that universal credit is a good idea in principle. But—this cannot be emphasised enough and the report clearly confirms this—it is the design and operation in practice that is deeply and utterly flawed.
Reports of a rethink or U-turn on the waiting time for universal credit were trailed in the media yesterday, but frankly do not seem to present as a clear commitment to reduce to the four weeks maximum. Oddly enough, there was some link between this story and next week’s Budget. I can only assume what many of us have suspected, which is that universal credit is less to do with supporting people into employment and more to do with cutting the benefits bill, and that any changes are a Treasury call.
The Public and Commercial Services Union has clearly outlined how universal credit actually works, as opposed to the fantasy-island wishful thinking of the so-called reforms to the benefits system. The pressure on staff members is intense, with one in 10 who work directly with universal credit claims leaving—double what is considered normal. The DWP employs 30,000 fewer staff than in 2010. If the Government are meant to be in the job-creation business, that certainly does not appear to be in their own backyard—the civil service.
Jobcentre closures and lack of internet access, or digital exclusion, all put a severe strain on claimants and staff. I welcome the dropping of telephone call charges, not just because they are the result of campaigning against the telephone tax, but because they are an indication that someone somewhere recognises that something has to give.
The current situation is unsustainable. The roll-out has to be paused if there is to be any hope of making this work. As universal credit follows on from the implementation of personal independence payments, which inflicted real hardship and humiliation on many disabled people, it is hard not to join the dots and to work out that the Government view benefits as a budget problem to be solved by actively making claiming more difficult.
The changes to benefits are part of a cuts agenda. The budget for universal credit is nearly £3 billion a year less than the budget for the system it replaces. No wonder it has in-built delays to payments: every day that every pound that is rightly owed to claimants is held in Treasury accounts, the poorest and most vulnerable in society are subsidising Government expenditure, while offshore tax avoiders pay their accountants but not their taxes.
The Work and Pensions Committee report is the first in a series and is focused on the terrible impact the six-week wait has on claimants. It also identifies problems with advance payments, which start a claimant off in debt—if they are not already in debt. There are also clear situations where housing associations do not know that their tenants are on universal credit, and I hope the Government will focus on that.
I am calling for the Government to cut the waiting time for universal credit and to pause the roll-out. Glasgow will be the last major city in the UK to be subject to the full service roll-out, but how many thousands of families, children and vulnerable people will have to suffer and starve before we get to that point? If a 10th of the resource that is put into chasing benefit fraud were put into chasing tax avoiders, how much more resource would we have so that we could truly support working people and enable people to work, rather than cutting off their lifelines?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), although I take issue with his claim to have the most beautiful seat in Scotland; indeed, I would take issue with the claim that he had the most beautiful seat in Aberdeenshire. Now that I know that that is where the gannets are coming from, perhaps he could do us all a favour in the southernmost part of the county and keep them up north. I would be very grateful indeed if he could do that.
This is the third time in four weeks that we have debated universal credit in this Chamber. That is not a bad thing. Indeed, this issue affects many of our constituents, and it is arguably the biggest reform to welfare since the Beveridge report in the 1940s, so it is right that we spend our time debating it.
I am incredibly lucky at this stage in my parliamentary career to serve on the Work and Pensions Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), whose skill in chairing it is a lesson in how to drive a debate. I sit alongside some incredibly passionate and learned MPs from all persuasions. What unites us is the desire to get to the nub of some of the biggest problems and issues facing our welfare system, to get answers and to find out how we can make the system better for our constituents, who rely on it. I hope, and I think, that that comes through in the report.
We all, I hope, believe in universal credit, and we all will it to work. The first page of the report states:
“Universal Credit has great merits as an idea. It aims to…simplify an overcomplicated welfare system by combining six different benefits in one…improve incentives for people to start paid work or increase their hours”
and
“ease the move into work, partly by mirroring the world of work in its operation.”
The report goes on to say:
“Implemented properly, Universal Credit has the potential to have a genuinely transformative effect on the labour market and make a valuable contribution to reducing poverty.”
I, for one, believe that universal credit is working and can work.
As I have said before in the House, the “Universal Credit at Work” report found that 71% of people claiming universal credit found work within the first nine months of their claim—a rate 8% higher than that for the comparable jobseeker’s allowance. People claiming universal credit on the live service were three percentage points more likely to be in work after three months than those claiming JSA and four percentage points more likely to be in work six months after starting their claim. These numbers look small, but actually signify many thousands of lives that are dramatically improved by this policy.
Out there and in here, however, there are genuine and serious concerns surrounding elements of the roll-out—specifically the six-week wait for the first payment, and it would be entirely remiss of us, as a Select Committee and as a House, to ignore those. The Committee heard and stated in the report we are debating that the six-week wait has been associated with increases in rent arrears, problem debt and food bank use. It urges the Government to aim—aim—to reduce the standard waiting time for a first universal credit payment to one month.
It would be entirely remiss of us not to acknowledge, however, that the Government have been proactive in trying to find solutions for those of our constituents who need help the most or who cannot wait till the end of the six-week period as it stands now. In October, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State announced that the DWP would make advance payments of universal credit more readily available to those who needed them. As the report says, we were all impressed on our visit to London Bridge jobcentre by the ease and speed with which an advance payment could be granted.
This debate is not supposed to be about whether we should pause or stop the roll-out of universal credit, as other debates on this issue have been; it is supposed to be on the content of the report presented by the Work and Pensions Committee. I feel that the report is balanced and seeks to give recommendations to the Government, rather than unduly to criticise what we all want to be a successful roll-out of a transformational welfare benefit, and that is right. I believe that the Government are listening and are doing what we all, I think, want them to do—to press ahead cautiously, learning and evolving, testing and refining.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for listening on this issue, and I am listening hard because universal credit is soon to come to my constituency. I am pleased to hear him say that the advance payments help with the six-week gap. Has he looked at the repayment period for these advance payments, and is there enough flexibility in their repayment, especially for people who are challenged in getting back to work?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be blunt and honest and say that I have not looked at that in great detail, but I will do so and get back to her.
I was saying that the Government are listening and should be doing what we want them to do, which is to press cautiously ahead with the roll-out, learning and evolving, testing and refining the system as it continues to deliver this important benefit to the people of the United Kingdom.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on an excellent maiden speech. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this debate.
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of a letting agency in my constituency that has issued all its tenants with a notice of eviction, in anticipation of the universal credit roll-out beginning next month. It is effectively a pre-emptive notice of eviction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is no longer in his place, mentioned in an intervention. That notice means that any constituent who falls into rent arrears as a result of the delays in their welfare payments can be evicted without notice. The roll-out of universal credit in my constituency is due on 13 December for all new claimants. Because of the issuing date of the notice, the earliest that people could find themselves at risk of eviction is mid-January. Because the notice has already been served, people could be evicted without notice from mid-January to mid-May, at which point the notice expires, and I assume the plan will then be to re-issue it. The constituent who first contacted me about this said she feels “utterly helpless” and “heartsick”. This is an absolutely outrageous way to treat people.
Melanie Onn
The notice will have left all those who received it stressed and worried for their futures.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) can ask to intervene, but she cannot remain on her feet.
Melanie Onn
I was really disappointed that the Prime Minister did not condemn that letter in the Chamber yesterday, and I invite the Minister to do that today. Rather than acknowledging the impact this policy is clearly having, she waxed and waned about the fact that she had not seen a copy of the letter. Well, I have the letter here, and I am very happy to hand it over to the Minister once I have finished my speech, so that he has a chance to read it for himself, if he has not done so already. The letter appears to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the laws passed in the Housing Act 1988 and the Deregulation Act 2015, which require two months’ notice to be given to tenants before an eviction can be carried out.
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. A number of us on the Conservative Benches would like to join her in condemning that letter, which we believe is illegal, and we would like to have a copy. Has she actually met the housing association to tell them that it is not legal?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The letter is becoming quite contentious. I am sure that it can be passed to the Minister.
Melanie Onn
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I need to make it absolutely clear that this is about the private rental sector; it is not about a housing association. Conservative Members may well feel that this is illegal and I know that one of them condemned the intervention that was made earlier about the fact that they believed this to be illegal. I received some completely unsolicited legal advice—lawyers in housing contacted me—to the effect that this is not illegal. It is completely legitimate; nothing prohibits it. One of the big issues would be that even if it were illegal, many of these people would not have the capabilities to seek legal redress. That is a real issue.
Melanie Onn
Despite the very clear moral questions around this action, I am advised that it remains a lawful way of operating. I have even had some indication that some landlords are issuing these notices at the outset of tenancies, which is really quite frightening—a much bigger issue than that which we are discussing here today. I really hope that the Government will look at closing this loophole in future. I am happy to share the information. It is online; it is on my Facebook page. People are very welcome to look at that.
The Government said that my Opposition colleagues and I were guilty of scaremongering when we warned that rolling out universal credit would lead to people going into debt or being evicted from their properties. Well, it is not just us who are making that claim; it is charities, councils and housing associations. It is the statistical evidence from the areas where universal credit has been piloted, and now it is the letting agencies, too. My local housing association, Shoreline Housing Partnership, has 182 tenants who have already gone on to universal credit. Of those, 145 are in rent arrears of an average of £400. That is 80% of them. When universal credit is fully rolled out, the housing association expects the total debt from tenants to increase to £2.2 million.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help if the Government were to extend the implied consent, so that third sector organisations such as housing associations, but more importantly citizens advice bureau and welfare advisers, could give support and advice to people on universal credit without first having to jump through dozens of hoops to speak with the universal credit managers?
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend. That is an excellent idea, which I hope the Minister will consider carefully and respond to.
My local housing association anticipates an increase in possession orders and evictions. It expects the condition of its properties to deteriorate as tenants opt to eat rather than heat. The Library estimates that more than 13,000 people living in Great Grimsby will be eligible for universal credit once it is fully implemented, so I am sure that everyone will understand that I am really concerned that people in my town will pay a heavy price if the system does not work.
The warnings against pushing ahead with this roll-out now are loud and clear. The Government cannot feign ignorance of what is likely to come. If they go ahead next month in my constituency as planned, they will knowingly be putting more people at risk of debt, eviction and homelessness, and that, for me, really sits at odds with their much-heralded and noisily launched Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, because it appears as though two areas of policy are at complete odds with each other. That is the test: which is more important to them? I am pleading with the Government today to listen, press pause on the roll-out and get this right before moving ahead.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. My congratulations to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid): may I have some dolphins for South Cambridgeshire, please? I am not sure where we would put them, but we would take great care of them. I also sincerely thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this debate via the Backbench Business Committee and for working so closely in cross-party partnership with me on an issue that is very important to us both.
Members, including Ministers, will know that I fully support universal credit and believe that, when it is fully implemented, it will be the most positive transformation of our benefit system in decades. As an employer, I remember only too well the weaknesses of the old system—the 16-hour cliff-edge that limited employees’ ability to take on more hours, knowing they would be worse off. I was reminded of that in a conversation last week with a constituent. The full service universal credit system has not yet come to my local jobcentre in Cambridge. She does not want to take any more hours now because of that. What kind of a benefit trap is that? Surely, no one in the House can support a benefit system that actively discourages progression in work.
Universal credit will be different, and where the live service—the basic system for single, uncomplicated jobseekers—has been rolled out, it is different. We see more people moving into and upwards in work. However, it is without doubt the full service—that is, the full universal credit system which will support families, parents and those with caring responsibilities, health conditions and disabilities—that causes many of us concern.
I appreciate that such a huge transformation in operation will come with challenges and that the “test and learn” approach is commonplace in IT projects; but the crucial difference is that the subject of this project is someone’s life. This is about people; it is about real lives. Get it right and the potential is huge, but get it wrong and the risks are simply too great. They may manifest themselves —I will say it—in debt and in hunger. So it is right that Ministers have opted to roll universal credit out slowly, steadily, carefully, because there have been unacceptable delays in claimants’ first payments. The long-awaited landlord portal should have come sooner. I wish that we had had a freephone number for everyone from the beginning. There remain parts of the system that are incomplete—the minimum income floor for the self-employed and the evidence-gathering process for childcare costs need further development.
If I am honest, I believe the system will never reach its truly intended potential as the ultimate poverty-fighting machine until either the taper rate is reduced or work allowances are restored to their original pre-2015 levels.
I thank the Chancellor for reducing the taper rate by 2% in the last Budget. It cost a lot of money—£1 billion—but every penny really does matter to those living on the lowest incomes. Single parents and second parents returning to work will be worse off now than they would have been under the old system. An in-work couple will lose about £1,370 a year due to the benefits freeze and work allowance cuts. Are they not the very people we should be encouraging to get into work?
Tight fiscal discipline, razor-sharp focusing of precious resources, precise and meaningful interventions, smart thinking—that is what this Government do well. We could find the money by reversing the decision to raise the basic income tax allowance from £11,000 to £12,500 for all; but would it not be better to focus that money on those who really need it? I do not need it. I suspect Opposition Members do not need it. Not everyone needs it.
If we want universal credit to be exactly like the world of work, it has to operate like the world of work. Can any Minister or civil servant honestly say that waiting six weeks for your first payment is normal? So, from my universal credit wish list, one ask stands head and shoulders above the rest: we must get the six-week wait down.
I remain grateful to the Prime Minister for agreeing to meet me so soon after my question in the Chamber, and I appreciate the diligence and receptiveness of the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Minister in hearing our concerns. Members on both sides of the House, our cross-party Work and Pensions Committee, peers, charities, the Children’s Commissioner and, most important of all, our constituents have raised concerns. We cannot all be wrong. The six-week wait must be reduced to a month. When we stopped the cuts to tax credits in 2015, halted further cuts to PIP in 2016 and put £1 billion back into the taper rate last year, they were the right things to do. They demonstrated the good that Government can do.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
As well as making recommendations about what the Government can do, recommendations that are, I think, sincerely meant and will, I am sure, be taken on board by the Minister, does my hon. Friend agree—this has been mentioned by others in the House today—that other parties, including immoral big letting agencies, also need to act in this sphere?
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. System changes of this magnitude require everybody to work properly, with integrity, and not exert any kind of influence on the most vulnerable people in the country, who perhaps cannot defend themselves and are not legally trained. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I praise the hon. Lady for the way that she has argued her point, which I entirely indorse, about the six weeks. Does she see my point that this situation is worsened when there are constituents in Caithness and Sutherland, in extremely remote parts of Scotland, who are very often out by themselves, not near a food bank, not near friends or relations who might be able to tide them over the gap? There is a rurality and sparsity issue to this, which worries me greatly.
Heidi Allen
Indeed, there are many elements that make it especially difficult for some people. We have to recognise that one system will not work for everybody, so we must work together to find the solutions.
The reputation of this place has hit rock-bottom again in recent weeks. Let us turn it around. I checked a couple of words in a thesaurus: “compassionate” means empathetic, thoughtful and showing concern for others, while “conservative” means favouring free enterprise and traditional values. A compassionate Conservative does both those things: progressive and free, but safeguarding of society and showing care for others. Let us show we are listening. Please, Minister, let us do this.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who has established a very positive reputation on these issues. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to debate universal credit again, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who has had a reputation for campaigning on these issues for slightly longer than the hon. Lady.
I hope that the Minister might be able to confirm, although I suspect he will not, that the media reports are true that the Chancellor will take action in next week’s Budget to reduce the waiting time for universal credit, and that other changes might be made, because it is clear from the contributions we have heard so far that the problems with universal credit are not just about waiting time.
I want to refer to statistics and individual cases from my constituency. Citizens Advice East End tells me that analysis suggests that 22,000 families in Poplar and Limehouse will be in recipe of universal credit by 2022, half of whom will be in work. It has dealt with hundreds of cases already, half of which relate to the claiming process. One involved a young mother with a five-month-old baby who was refused universal credit due to an incorrect decision on her right to reside.
On rent arrears, I am grateful for information supplied by Andrea Baker, director of housing at Poplar Harca. She tells me that of its 372 residents claiming universal credit, 98% are in arrears. That cannot be right. Something is going wrong somewhere in the system as the statistics on the benefit cap, housing benefit and the bedroom tax are less than half that figure.
Andrea says:
“Whilst there are still relatively few households transitioning to UC, the average 10 week wait for the first payment has pushed 98% of them into rent arrears. We anticipate it to be very difficult for the majority of UC households to make-up the accrued arrears. When the payment is finally received, they are likely to also owe others money, family, friends, utilities, credit cards, payday loans, loan sharks etc. And whilst we advise that paying rent should always be a priority, most know we are likely to offer time to pay in a way other creditors won’t.”
I have had similar reports from Stuart Veysey of Eastend Homes, and Mick Sweeney, former chief executive of One Housing Group.
My team, Louise Leak and Joytera Khanum, have supplied statistics from their casework. For example, a 61-year-old man, Mr M, was made redundant last year after working in a mental health facility for 22 years, following funding cuts. He was unable to find work, and with his savings depleting, he made the decision to claim universal credit in August. His claim has been continually refused on grounds of missing documentation, but in September he was informed his housing benefit would be stopped. With no universal credit or housing benefit, Mr M has now fallen into £700 of rent arrears with his housing association. He is left with no living family and £200 to his name, and now fears eviction and homelessness, despite still—unsuccessfully—trying to claim universal credit and attending five job interviews. Mr M writes:
“After 4 decades of almost continual employment I find it utterly incredible to find myself in this parlous state and faced with possible homelessness.”
There are a number of other cases involving, for example, someone on low pay whose monthly income has been incorrectly calculated, and someone with a partner who is a full-time student whose eligibility has been incorrectly assessed because of the minimum income floor, which suggests that self-employed people are calculated as earning £1,000 a month regardless of what they are actually earning.
A lady, Ms K, attended my advice surgery in a very fragile state, both emotionally and physically. She initially made a claim for universal credit in August. She is unable to manage her affairs because of her medical and mental issues, and she missed a vital meeting, which led to her claim being closed. Her benefit was finally paid after 10 weeks, with only a small interim payment, and she had to access help from our excellent local food bank, the First Love Foundation. This case was resolved quickly, but only after the intervention of my team, who stated how concerned they were for Ms K’s wellbeing. The First Love Foundation says that universal credit referrals this year to the food bank are at 25% when they were only 4% last year.
All those cases tell me that universal credit is not working, for a variety of reasons. I hope the Minister can offer some expectation that things will improve for my constituents, as well as others whose Members of Parliament are making the case for them this afternoon.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this important debate. It was a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who made a superb maiden speech. The debate about which is the most beautiful Scottish constituency carries on to this very day.
Waiting seven weeks for a first payment, in any circumstance, is challenging. If someone, perhaps a middle-class person, got a new job and had to wait six weeks for their first pay, that would be challenging, but it is quite likely that such an individual would have savings to fall back on and there might be friends and family who could offer support. Also, that person would have a good salary to look forward to once they started the job. However, someone on universal credit or receiving benefits would be far less likely to have such savings, and friends and family might not be so able to offer that support. Such a person would be in a far trickier position if they were receiving benefits, or looking forward to receiving benefits, perhaps having lived on the minimum wage or the living wage.
We have to recognise that the six-week wait is enormously difficult for people in the most vulnerable position in society, and I believe that we ought to get closer to the vision set out when universal credit was initially rolled out—the ideas behind it such as the sense of its being compatible with work and that work should always pay. But that is not the only aspect on which universal credit needs to get closer to that initial vision.
We need to reduce those seven waiting days. I appreciate the point about advances, but someone previously on the minimum wage and with no savings at all who has to spend seven days without any income before receiving the first payment five weeks following that seven days will find that a very difficult position to sustain with little back-up. We also need to look at the taper. I appreciate what the Government have done in the recent past, but we need to go further in improving the taper to give further encouragement for people to get into work.
However, we do have a listening Government, and I want to highlight a note sent to me by Bolton Citizens Advice:
“We welcome the Government’s recent decision to make the Universal Credit helpline free and ensure all claimants are told they can get an advance payment. We called for these changes in July because they will make a real difference to the people we help.”
Heidi Allen
I thought I was the ultimate UC geek and that there was nothing I did not know about it, but recently I learned that people can have a three-month payment holiday before those advance payments are paid back. Does my hon. Friend think that the jobcentres should advertise that more?
Chris Green
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very important to increase communication, and that awareness is vital. Citizens Advice and other organisations play a vital part.
Many people are calling for the Government to pause or perhaps even stop the roll-out of universal credit. I do not agree with that. Recently, I visited a jobcentre that serves my constituents, and people there were absolutely clear: do not stop. My hon. Friend also highlighted a number of failings with the current system, which is failing far too many people. While we need to move on to universal credit, I am equally clear that the initial wait must come down from six weeks to one month.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), and to follow other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) who opened the debate.
No one could object to universal credit’s ambitions to simplify the benefit systems, to smooth the passage into work, to make work pay and to reduce poverty, but so much has gone wrong in practice that it is hard to know where to start. The problems we are seeing are not just because of poor implementation; the problems have been designed in from the outset, despite repeated warnings from Opposition Members since 2011 that the programme was too ambitious, too risky, too complicated, too reliant on complex IT systems—complex for the claimant and for the Government—and did not go with the grain of people’s lives.
Let us start with the six-week wait. It is based on the assumption—I might go so far as to call it the prejudice—that the right and normal way for people to receive their income is to do so every month. That is not the case for many low-paid workers, as we know. It is also based on the assumption, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) mentioned, that people have savings in the bank. Hon. Members should ask themselves whether they could manage if their income suddenly dried up for six weeks or more, especially if it was the result of an unexpected and catastrophic event—losing their job, a partner leaving, their child becoming ill, or having an accident and not being able to go to work. It is unforgivable to put extra pressure on people on the lowest incomes in those circumstances. The six-week wait must be reduced. I recognise that exceptions can be made, but it is not clear that the system is working when such exceptions should be made. My constituent B, who was fleeing domestic violence, was told that she would not have to wait for the six weeks, but she still had no money after two weeks.
That leads me on to the problems with advance payments. My constituent K was not told until her third interview with Jobcentre Plus that such payments were available, and she did secure an advance payment. However, the repayment rate is punitively high, especially when it is combined with the recovery of other debts, such as those relating to council tax or utilities, and payments imposed by magistrates courts. Under universal credit, that can mean deductions of up to 40%, leaving claimants with insufficient money to live on. As a result, one lone parent in my constituency was left with just £100.67 per week to pay all her bills, which is £110 per month less than on the legacy benefit. How can that be right?
Such problems are creating debts and rent arrears: 80% of Trafford Housing Trust customers on universal credit are in rent arrears. The collection rate for arrears of under three months is 79.3%. Although the figure is much higher for arrears of over three months, at 96.4%, that is because mistakes in paying people’s benefit have largely been sorted out by that point or because they have debt relief orders in place. That is not because they have adapted to universal credit, but because other things are kicking in.
The problems are compounded by a complete lack of understanding in Jobcentre Plus about alternative payment arrangements—in other words, paying the rent directly to landlords. Trafford Housing Trust staff have told me that Jobcentre Plus staff do not understand this, will not talk to them about it, make mistakes in the calculations and make payments to claimants that should not be made to them but which are then promptly swallowed up by the bank and other creditors. In one case, an alternative payment arrangement was refused because the debt was deemed to be one of less than eight weeks when that was not the case. This reflected the fact that Jobcentre Plus calculate the claims over a 52-week period, whereas Trafford Housing Trust work out claims over a 48-week period.
Anna Soubry
Broxtowe CAB has told me that it is concerned about people who are on fluctuating hours, and those fluctuations and the lack of good co-ordination with HMRC are causing real problems for people on low wages who are in receipt of UC.
Kate Green
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has raised that issue because it brings me neatly to my next point, which is about the particular problems that arise with the assessment period.
My constituent S received two lots of wages in one assessment period. Similarly, we can see how those with fluctuating incomes will have different levels of payments in different assessment periods. As a result, her universal credit was calculated as zero in the month she received two payments. In the following month, she received nothing in income, but by that time her claim had been cancelled. When the benefit was introduced, we were told that HMRC’s use of real-time information would sort out this kind of problem, but it did not do so. The failure was that of her employer to upload the data in time. The use of real-time information was a complete irrelevance, because the data were not in the system at all. In other cases, constituents who have been paid early—for example, because their employer provided an advance of pay before the Christmas break—have lost their award and their claim has been stopped. None of that is the fault of the claimant, but the DWP is utterly inflexible in its application of the assessment periods. What are Ministers doing about this? I am now being told that S’s case could actually have been treated more flexibly, but I was not told that when I first wrote to the DWP. It is now completely unclear to me and, more to the point, to my constituents what the position is on these problems.
Finally, I want to say something about the problems when claimants migrate from ESA to universal credit. In that circumstance, if they request mandatory reconsideration and then go to a tribunal, they will find that their ESA claim is cancelled. Even if they win their tribunal claim, it cannot be reinstated, and they are forced to remain on UC. My understanding is that that was not Ministers’ initial intention. Claimants are not being told, when a tribunal case starts, that they can have their ESA claim reinstated. In his summing up, will the Minister also address that point? This is putting further pressure on sick and disabled claimants who ought to be getting decent support from the benefit systems, but are not.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. It was a privilege to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) deliver his maiden speech. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this debate. It was very interesting to hear what he said about his constituents.
The House has debated universal credit extensively in recent weeks, and I am pleased to take part in such a debate again today. The principle of universal credit is a very good one, and the Opposition have said on many occasions that they support it, but I am concerned about the dialogue on the roll-out of universal credit in recent weeks. I believe it has caused much distress among potential claimants and people who are waiting to switch to universal credit.
For as long as I can remember, the benefit system in this country has been burdensome and complex. I have lost count of the number of people who have had issues with working and claiming benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, working tax credit and child tax credit. I have also lost count of the number of people who have said that there must be a better way of doing things. We do indeed want a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable and is there for people when they fall on hard times and need help, including by claiming benefits that may need to be paid back.
There is an assumption that it is wrong for individuals to have to pay back advance payments—they are loans, without interest—although they are very gratefully received by claimants when they are in great need of money because of the situation in which they find themselves. I am sure that other Members have, like me, been confronted by constituents who have received large bills from the DWP following mistakes in the information given, and when overpayments have been made to people claiming working tax credit. Do Members believe that those payments should not be paid back, and would such a situation be better than this new system of universal credit?
There is also an assumption that, because of the advance payments, people will automatically get into arrears with their rent, which will result in their getting evicted. I can only speak from experience of my constituency, but I have not had any examples of people who have been evicted from their homes within six weeks. In actual fact, I have seen quite the opposite.
As we have heard, approximately 40% of the universal credit claimants are currently in work, and the number of people moving into work once on universal credit is increasing. Universal credit is part of the welfare reform that is needed, and it has been designed to help people and move more people into work. For so long, many people have been trapped in the benefit system. Such people want to work or to work for longer hours, but there is all the stress and complexity of doing so given the risk of losing all their benefits in one go or of having to pay back large sums when mistakes have been made because of the complexities in the current system. I want, and I know my constituents want, a system that helps people, but does not put them off taking opportunities when they are there. I want a system that aids people, as I believe this system will do.
With any new system there are always things that need improving once implementation begins, and I am therefore pleased that the Government have taken care to implement a gradual roll-out over nine years, moving to 10% of the current claimant count. In my opinion, the roll-out is being done in a measured and steady way that enables the Government to address the issues.
Over recent weeks I have heard a number of Members claim that universal credit is getting people into debt and causing them to be evicted, and that concerns me greatly. The rationale is that universal credit is paid in arrears to mirror the world of work, and in principle that is a good idea and forms part of how we need to reform welfare. I have been concerned by accusations that that is being done deliberately to disadvantage people who are in need of help, and perhaps at difficult times in their lives. In all debates, Ministers have been clear: people who need advance payments will get them within five days. In conclusion, I hope that after today’s debate, the Opposition will work constructively with the Government to try to increase and help the roll-out of universal credit.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to take part in this debate because in my constituency, 10,700 households will be moved on to universal credit. That is 21,000 people, which is almost a quarter of my constituents. On 13 December, those with new claims and changes of circumstance will be moved across to universal credit, and over Christmas many people will face a six-week gap in their income. That is not so much a merry Christmas as a Victorian Christmas that even Scrooge did not think of.
Ministers have banged on about advance payments, but let us look at what that means in practice. Suppose that a single disabled person with a payment of £400 a month takes an advance of £200 to pay their rent. If all goes according to plan they will then have their payments abated, so that their income over the next four and a half months will be £200, £320, £320 and £360. In other words, instead of an income of £1,800 over that period, it will be £1,200. That is not a “wait”; it is a cut, and many will feel that over Christmas it is the cruellest cut.
Seven years ago in my constituency there were no food banks, but after seven years of Tory Government we now have seven food banks. Labour Members have spoken previously about the need to address free school meals, and in my opinion every child in a UC family should receive them. Now, however, to add to the loss of income, during that six-week period children will not receive free school meals either. Ministers talk about preparing people for work, but this is an in-work benefit. In my constituency, 4,500 of the households that are being moved on to universal credit—that is 40%—contain people who are already in work and have jobs.
Vicky Ford
My understanding is that if a child received free school meals before, they will continue to receive them. It is only for those who are new to the benefit system that there may be a delay.
Helen Goodman
I am sorry to inform the hon. Lady that that is not the case for new claimants and those whose circumstances have changed.
I am alarmed at what is happening to women in low-paid work. Many are trying, with great difficulty, to do their best to balance their need to earn an income with their responsibilities for collecting their children from school and looking after them properly. They might work 20 hours a week to get the right balance, but the Government are now going to employ advisers to harass them to increase their hours. When Labour was in power, we had different rules for single parents from those for other families. It seems to me that the Government are trying not to help lone parents, but to grind them down and grind down their children as well.
Vicky Ford
I remember under the Labour Government that single mothers came to me who were unable to continue work because they were better off on benefits. Does the hon. Lady agree that the system of universal credit is to help people move into work, rather than be better off on benefits?
Helen Goodman
I am sorry but the hon. Lady is wrong. I took through the statutory instruments on work conditionality myself, and when we left government, people were always £40 a week better off in work than not in work. Those are the facts.
Women fleeing domestic violence are in an even worse situation. When they arrive at the refuge, they have to register their change of address as a change of circumstance, so they will be in the vanguard of those who have a six-week gap in their income. It may even mean that some do not flee violent partners because they are worried about the effect.
In Bishop Auckland, huge preparations are being made for the roll-out of universal credit. The council and housing associations are employing more people—unlike, I am sorry to say, the jobcentres, which should be employing more people. One housing association is increasing its provisions for bad debt fourfold. Money that would have gone to building new homes is now going to deal with this Government-induced crisis in the housing system.
Three months ago I asked to attend one of the digital courses to see how people are supported by jobcentres. That is a major issue in my constituency because we have very bad broadband in the rural areas, and high levels of digital exclusion. Ministers must bear in mind that 5 million people in this country have never sent an email, and those are predominantly people on low incomes—the very people affected by this change to universal credit. We raised that point with Ministers five years ago, and it still has not been sorted out. Some single men who have already made a claim told me that people are timed out after 45 minutes if they cannot complete the claim, but it is difficult to complete in that time because there is no written guidance to tell people what documents they have to produce and scan in.
I am not saying that the problems with this system are only administrative because there are fundamental problems with universal credit, the first of which being that George Osborne took £3.5 billion out of the system. The Government refuse to recognise that people need these payments, and because of that refusal, rates are too low, payment gaps too long, and tapers too high. Let us pause and fix the system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will now drop the time limit to four minutes to ensure that everybody gets in. It is the interventions that are killing it.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate—I have been looking at proto-plans for universal credit that go back about five years, and it is a pleasure to work with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is also a friend, on the Work and Pensions Committee.
Let us go back to where this all began and the reason why, in principle, we have cross-party agreement on universal credit. The previous system was not good enough. It was set up with good intentions, and it was a way of trying to take people out of poverty by giving them handouts. However, the way it was set up meant that many people were discouraged from taking on more work, which inhibited their ability to move on in life, improve their situations, and support their family. Universal credit was born out of that realisation, and from a desire to build a welfare system that would slowly remove benefits as people moved into work, and actively encourage people to take more hours and be better off.
We also want to create a system in which the world of life out of work mirrors the world of life in work. That means that people are in work to find work, and there is an expectation that they will look for work and sign a contract to that effect—the claimant commitment. It means that benefits will be paid on a monthly basis, so that when people move into work and monthly employment, they will be ready for that. I am afraid I cannot accept the argument that some people will never be able to cope on monthly payments. I feel that is extremely insulting to many people.
Alex Burghart
I disagree with the hon. Lady. It is.
We now have a system coming into being—
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady can shake her head, but it is true. It is insulting to people to say that they will never be able to cope on monthly payments. I challenge her to have that conversation with the many people who are looking for work, because they would be insulted by it. [Interruption.] It is unfortunate that she laughs at that because it is true. [Interruption.] Look, this is a very insulting way of carrying on.
Helen Goodman
Anybody can manage on a monthly payment of £2,000, but managing on a monthly payment of £500 is rather more difficult.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will recognise that there are lots of people who do manage to do that. [Interruption.] I have had enough of this Opposition.
I am delighted to say that under the universal credit system there is personal budgeting support. No one on the Opposition Benches has referred to it, but it offers money advice to help people with a four-week payment and offers alternative payment arrangements so they can have their money paid direct to their landlord. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) found that that was not working well in her jobcentre. I have spoken to people in my jobcentre and I was pleased to see that they were completely on top of how the system worked.
Within universal credit, of course, there are a lot of problems, which have been talked about today and on other days, emanating from the long wait people experience when coming into the system. At the start of the process, far too many people have been waiting for far too long. The Select Committee report has drawn on that. Since the first roll-out phase, however, a number of improvements have been made thanks to the test and learn system. The landlord portal was very favourably received by people who gave evidence to the Committee, saying it would greatly help. We have also recently seen the initial evidence interview, the once and done process, which means that more information can be brought into the system straight away. These measures are all making improvements. I say to Opposition Members that we cannot learn unless we test.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is a great expert on this subject and I would like to hear more about the areas where he considers improvements have been made.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
If Members do not want people to speak, please say so now and I can start to take them off the list. That is what we are doing to each other. I do not mind, but when Members do not get in, please realise what is going on here.
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are now left with a system in which there is a six-week wait for the initial payment. It is worth reminding the House why that exists. The very model of universal credit is about having a month-long assessment period in which the system understands how much you are earning and adjusts your payments accordingly. There must then be a calculation time which works out exactly how much people are owed. At the moment, that is a week. However, when we met Neil Couling, the DWP head of universal credit, he said that they were working to bring that down. I believe it can and should be brought down as a matter of urgency.
At the other end, of course, we still have a week’s waiting time. I do not disagree with the Government very often, but my colleagues from my previous roles know that I do not believe that those waiting days should exist. There have always been some waiting days in the system—three days—but the extension to four, which was not made by this Secretary of State or under this Chancellor of the Exchequer, should not have been introduced. That is why my Committee has called on the Government to remove the seven waiting days. We should not pause the roll-out, but we should make that adjustment.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I was hoping to talk the House through a timeline that covered all aspects of requiring, claiming and receiving universal credit, but the time allotted will not allow me to do so. My constituency has had full roll-out for 12 months, so this is an abridged version based on what constituents have told me at first hand.
My archetypal constituent—I will call her Mrs Smith—is 50 and married. She lives in Port Glasgow and had been working at a local retail shop, but she has left on health grounds. Seeking support, Mrs Smith goes to her local jobcentre in Port Glasgow only to find that it has been shut. She instead walks 3 miles to the jobcentre at Greenock, but is surprised to learn that no one there can advise her on what benefits she is entitled to. She is told that the staff are not benefits-trained and are not even able to offer her options. Mrs Smith subsequently learns of universal credit from a welfare rights organisation, so she applies online. This would make Mrs Smith unlike the 15% of constituents surveyed by my office, who said that they could not use a computer or had great difficulties in doing so.
Mrs Smith lodges her application today, 16 November. By 23 November, she realises that although the application has been lodged, there is in fact at least another month of waiting while the entitlement is calculated. At this point, Mrs Smith’s remaining savings are used up by rent, council tax, TV licence, utility bills and shopping—the usual things. Her husband works, but he has a low income and they are now struggling financially. It is worth reminding Members at this point that the Money Advice Service found in 2016 that more than 16 million people in the UK had less than £100 in savings.
As November presses on, Mrs Smith’s financial situation becomes more desperate as she has underestimated the amount of time it will take to receive support. Please remember that this story is based on real-life examples that my constituents have brought to me. People do not fall into universal credit trained; they learn as they go along. At the start of December, because of a long-standing commitment, she takes her granddaughter to the movies, using a credit card to pay. She is accumulating debt.
By mid-December, Mrs Smith applies for a crisis grant and considers visiting the local food bank. The constant pressure of having no money begins to creep into every facet of her life. She is stressed and her relationship with her husband is suffering. None the less, she makes it through to her first universal credit payment sometime after new year.
Mrs Smith’s husband is paid weekly and coupled with real-time income data, which means that her universal credit payment fluctuates wildly. She is now locked in a boom-and-bust cycle, with her universal credit sometimes falling to almost nothing, while in other months she receives eight weeks of income in one assessment period.
What will the future hold for the real-life constituents of Inverclyde, apart from the uncertainty, stress and poverty that this system inflicts upon them? I am politely asking the UK Government not to ignore the overwhelming evidence. Universal credit is not working. Saying that its predecessor was worse is no excuse. It does not help my constituents from week to week. The roll-out must be halted. Take the time to reform the fundamental flaws in universal credit and then implement a system that truly offers applicants the stability on which they can build their lives.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and it was also a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). To be fair to his predecessor, she managed one Friday what might be a unique achievement: getting me in the same Division Lobby as the Scottish National party. We were voting in favour of her very welcome and creditable private Member’s Bill, and I join my hon. Friend in wishing her all the best for her future.
I welcome the debate. It is important that we discuss universal credit again as it will have a significant impact on my constituency, as it has on others as it has been rolled out. As we have this debate, we need to be careful not to make out that the current system is fantastic. There has always been an illogicality to having a council system for some benefits—housing benefit and council tax—and then the DWP administering income-related benefits. When I was deputy leader of a large midlands council, a lot of time and resources had to be devoted to administering benefits that were, fundamentally, national benefits. There was no way to change policy or to build in any local flexibility, which raised the question of why local councils were getting involved with housing benefit. I accept that there is a slight difference with council tax, because of variations in rates between areas.
In principle universal credit is the right move, but as well as the change from weekly to monthly payments, I suggest that we also consider wider changes. BrightHouse, a store on Torquay’s high street that I am happy to call a bunch of vultures, advertises weekly costs, which means that they look nice and affordable, but the monthly and final costs are always in very tiny writing. That might be something to consider more widely. If monthly costs were advertised, the real costs of these appalling deals might be brought home to people.
I welcome the phased roll-out over nine years. As many of us remember, the tax credits system was introduced in one go, and because it is administered by HMRC, overpayments are dealt with in the same way as the underpayment of tax, but that is not appropriate for those on lower incomes. People who expect a tax bill at the end of the year will often make provision, but those who assume that they will receive a certain level of benefit under tax credits do not.
In advance of the roll-out in Torbay in May 2018, my office staff have been working with the DWP and receiving training to respond promptly to constituents’ queries. We are working with other partners, too. One concern raised by John Dudley, a benefits adviser at Hele’s Angels, a great organisation in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency, is around the delays to personal independence payment appeals. Given those delays, what reassurances can the Minister give us that work is being done to prevent similar problems from occurring in the very important systems for universal credit?
On the six-week initial wait, I hope that the Government are in listening mode—I am sure they are, given the press speculation this week—although I am conscious that we have the Budget next week and that the Minister might not wish to say too much. I would also be interested to hear more about whether people can have their rent paid directly to their landlord.
I shall conclude as I am short of time. This has mostly been a constructive and useful debate. It is right that we continue to hold these debates to ensure that the system works well when it is rolled out to the remaining 90% of claimants.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his maiden speech. I note that the comparative beauties of our constituencies are yet another thing to disagree on across the Chamber.
Universal credit was piloted in Inverness way back in 2013. I am always astounded by the lengths to which Members who have not experienced it will go to defend the system, given that they have not seen what is happening. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is no longer in the Chamber, has said elsewhere that jobcentre staff had told her that universal credit was only 60% built. We have had it since 2013, so we have been feeling its impact daily since its inception. Make no mistake: universal credit, as it rolls out to full service in its current form, without being halted and fixed, is a disaster, and it is only going to get worse as it goes to more people and the resources to support it are stretched even further.
I see Government Members shaking their heads at that. When they accused me previously of scaremongering, I invited all Conservative Members, including the Minister and the Prime Minister, to come to a summit in Inverness to hear from the agencies and people involved about the problems being imposed on them, but none took up the offer. Had they done, they would have heard harrowing stories, as I tried to relate yesterday in my question to the Prime Minister, from the agencies and people there, but none of them came. Instead, when I raised my question, there was laughter—[Hon. Members: “No.”] It was recorded, and people can listen to it. What was funny—the fact that it is harrowing, the fact that I was talking about cancer patients dying before their universal credit claims came through, or the fact that I was talking about terminally ill people who have to self-declare that they are terminally ill, even if they have told their doctors they do not want to know their fate? How cruel is that? And yet there was laughter.
Drew Hendry
If Conservative Members listen to the recording, they will hear the laughter loudly.
If it was not any of those things, was it the fact that we are having problems in Inverness? The manager of the local citizens advice bureau tweeted yesterday:
“Sad when the misery and suffering that is caused by UC could be found amusing by anyone—suggest they try it for a few months.”
Some adjustment is available from the Scottish Government, but universal credit is a reserved matter, so the UK Government’s constant attempts to pass the buck and abdicate responsibility for what is their responsibility is not good enough.
I have very little time, but I want to read out an email I got from somebody inside the ESA benefit inquiry line:
“the chaos that UC is causing me and my colleagues is quite simply unacceptable. People on UC realise it’s not fit for purpose so ring ESA and BEG to be let back on to the benefit but that is not possible. How long do you think it will be before one threatens suicide”?
There are so many problems with universal credit and not enough time to deal with them today. The Government need to halt it and fix it.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow many colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid).
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has said that it is a pleasure to follow so many speeches, but does she agree that the speech she is following got it completely wrong, in tone and manner? There are hon. Members on both sides who want to make this work.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and I can assure him that nobody on the Government Benches was laughing at his comment yesterday. Unfortunately, I could not take up his kind offer to go to Inverness—I am sure it is a wonderful place—because I was busy in Redditch doing exactly what he said: meeting the housing providers and agencies there to make sure that the roll-out was going well.
Universal credit is designed to be an agile system. I used to work in software development, so I understand what that means in terms of designing a very complicated system that deals with individuals and their unique and different circumstances. Opposition Members have called on the Government to pause the roll-out, but that would not fix the problems they have rightly identified. The Minister has recognised the problems in the system, and we all want to work together to fix them, but the nature of an agile system is that it changes all the time in response to people using it. That is how we learn and improve the system.
We have already seen evidence of that. The Prime Minister highlighted an example yesterday when she said that the number of people in arrears on universal credit had gone down significantly—by a third, I think—in the past four months. That is evidence that the system is improving as it is being rolled out. It is a very slow-roll-out—it is taking nine years altogether—but I think that, just as we recognise the seriousness of issues that have been rightly highlighted in the Chamber in, I hope, a serious fashion, we should also recognise the real work that the Government have already done and the real progress that they have already made in addressing some of those serious issues. I hope that that work and progress will continue.
Some Members have used an extremely critical tone, and I think that that is wrong. This is a serious debate, and we are here because we care about our constituents. I am a very privileged person, and I am the first to say so. I have never had to rely on benefits, and I am sure that some Opposition Members have not had to do so either. That, however, does not preclude any us from feeling compassion for and empathising with people who are in that position. That is why I have visited my local jobcentre and spent a long time discussing the issue with social landlords, people who work in debt counselling, and the jobcentre staff themselves.
I do not recognise the stories that I have heard about jobcentres. I heard at first hand from the jobcentre staff about how hard they were working to support the most vulnerable customers through their journeys, and they are proud to do that. Their policy is to make advance payments by default, rather than forcing people to ask for them. They are working hard on an individual basis, providing a tailored package of support for every single claimant in the constituency.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been on jobseeker’s allowance and I know what it is like, but the hon. Lady’s account of DWP workers is not true. A universal credit manager, quoted in the New Statesman, said:
“I see masses of suffering on a daily basis. Case managers…are well-trained to deal with any claimants… we know that children will suffer and go hungry for weeks.”
That is the testimony that we hear from people in jobcentres.
Rachel Maclean
No doubt the Minister will comment on that, but it is not the testimony that I heard at first hand from workers in my local jobcentre in Redditch. They told me that they care about their customers and want them to get the help they need, and they are proud to provide that help.
We have heard about landlords who are sending letters to tenants who will potentially be receiving universal credit. I think that that is unacceptable behaviour on the part of private landlords, and I think it very irresponsible of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to raise this issue constantly from his privileged position without condemning the behaviour that he should be condemning. Rent payments can now be made directly to social landlords, and work is being done to provide the same support for tenants in the private rented sector.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Lady has made a valid point. I shall be meeting a social landlord tomorrow, along with one of my hon. Friends. I think that Ministers, both at Holyrood level and here, should look into this matter in due course, because the current modus operandi does not seem right to me.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Let me end by saying that I think it important for us all to work together proactively across the entire system. Landlords have a stake in this. Bromford Housing Association in Redditch told me that although people are in arrears when they go into its housing, there is not a single case of an eviction. Rather than evicting vulnerable tenants, they are providing support for those people. Surely that should be our approach.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
If what I read in the media is true, the Government are planning to reduce the six-week wait to four weeks, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. Although the change is welcome, however, it does not go far enough.
Gingerbread, the single parents’ charity, has found that about a third of single parents were already in debt before the introduction of universal credit. When families are already struggling, there is a danger that universal credit will put many more at risk of financial hardship. Gingerbread has made several urgent recommendations, including reducing the delay in making the first payment, improving communications about advance payments, introducing longer repayment plans, and, importantly, exploring options for a move to fortnightly payments for those most in need.
While I appreciate that the intention behind universal credit is to emulate the world of work with a payment method that reflects the manner in which workers who are paid monthly are remunerated, I think we should take a step back. We should bear it in mind that many people in receipt of universal credit are in dire financial circumstances, and that trying to emulate the world of work may be just a shade too ambitious for the circumstances in which many claimants find themselves. Will the Minister consider incorporating preparation for the world of work in the support services given to claimants? That could be done in a more tailored manner that would be appropriate to each claimant’s individual issues.
Other charities recommend reducing the six-week wait for the first payment to two weeks, including the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice. I have tabled several written questions on UC, and one of them concerns an issue raised with me by a CAB worker in Heywood in my constituency: if a UC claimant makes an application, they must also arrange an appointment with the jobcentre, and failure to do so invalidates the claim. The CAB worker told me that failure to make this appointment is a very common reason for applications being invalidated, leading to delays, and further compounding the cycle of debt and despair that some of my constituents find themselves in. I am pleased that the Department has replied that it will soon be implementing the option of a text message reminder and will also be reviewing its online orientation processes, to make sure all requirements are as clear as possible for all claimants.
Another issue is the question of what trigger will be put in place in the UC system to replace working tax credits, to entitle children to free school meals. The answer I received from the Department was that no decision had yet been taken and that
“our proposals on this matter will be announced in due course”.
It is difficult to comprehend that such a basic issue has not been sorted out prior to roll-out, and I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on this.
The Government continually repeat their mantra of “Test, learn, rectify”. Why do they feel it is appropriate to carry out tests on the most vulnerable in our society, what evidence can they show of having learned from their failures, and when are they going to start rectifying the damage that has already been done?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I begin by congratulating my fellow Scottish Conservative, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), on his excellent maiden speech, and also by expressing my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister, whose attentiveness and attention to detail are unsurpassed.
I am an avid supporter of universal credit and am fully vested in its success in my constituency, but I am not going to rehearse the arguments in favour either of welfare in general or UC specifically, as I have already spoken twice on this matter in recent weeks. Instead I shall refer briefly to certain aspect of the Select Committee report which require the reflection of Ministers.
The first matter is referred to in paragraph 3, which stresses the importance of producing “a robust statistical analysis” of the performance and impact of UC full service. I endorse that. I asked a written question last month about the average times claimants wait to receive their first payments from completion of the claim submission to UC being paid into their bank account, and I was told:
“We do not hold this information”.
That was surprising to me, as I subscribe to the principle that when performance is measured, performance improves, and when performance is measured and reported back, the rate of improvement accelerates. I therefore welcome what the Select Committee observed about the ease and speed with which advances can be granted, and I confirm that this is true in Stirling, as it is in London Bridge.
I am also concerned about the level of repayment, which should take into account matters such as a claimant’s existing benefits and other debt repayments. Perhaps there should be a higher minimum than currently, below which repayments will not be extracted. I had a constituency case of a person who after repayments was left with only £61 for a month. Might some additional discretion be given to DWP staff on repayments, especially where overpayments have occurred due to acknowledged DWP errors?
The Select Committee report recommends that the Government should aim to reduce the standard waiting time for the first UC payment to one month, and I concur with that. I hope the Minister will reflect on it. I accept that the recommendation comes with a cost and there are budgetary considerations and this is public money which cannot be spent twice, but this is also a matter of compassion, and the experience of Stirling CAB is consistent with the Resolution Foundation research finding that more than half of low and middle-income families have no savings and two thirds have less than a month’s money.
I continue to have concerns about the application process, such as online access, especially in rural areas, and the difficulties for applicants who are homeless, have alcohol and drug addiction issues, or who have no online facilities to make a claim, or have anxiety, depression or bipolar disorders. Is there a paper-based application form that could be used in extraordinary circumstances? This would help to address the needs of the small minority of people who have genuine anxiety about the digital system.
I would further ask the Minister to consider allowing DWP staff to offer claimants the option of having their rent paid directly to their landlord, as a proactive ask. Will he also consider widening the circle of approved and trusted advisers who have direct contact with DWP staff to discuss individual case needs, which can then be carefully and closely managed in liaison? In closing, I should like to express the regard I have for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the work of his Select Committee, and ask the Minister to consider the conclusion of its report very carefully—
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
First, I will not take lessons from the other side about how angry we should be on this issue. We are experiencing the suffering in our communities. This debate and all the expressions of concern about this shambolic system lead me to one question: what would it actually take for the Government to pause this roll-out? All the advice services, experts in the field, local authorities, housing associations, landlord associations and private landlords are saying that the system is too riddled with problems to continue safely, yet the Government still choose to ignore their pleas. What does this say about the people in charge?
Let me be really clear about this. Universal credit is an in-work benefit as much as it is an out-of-work benefit. It is so predictable that the Conservatives would use divide and conquer tactics, creating the “strivers versus shirkers” rhetoric and the dangerous myth that this is about those who cannot be bothered to work versus those who can. Universal credit is as much about those in work as those who are not. If this Government last—at the moment, that appears to be a big “if”—7.2 million people will be on universal credit by 2022. Half those people will be in work and subsidising their low pay. I repeat that this is about those who are in work. The system is a scandal.
There are simply too many issues to raise now, but I want to highlight some of the most important. The first is the wait. People should not have to wait six weeks for a payment. The system embeds financial crisis from day one. If a reduction in waiting time by one or even two weeks is announced in the Budget, we should not be surprised if there are no cheers or celebrations from the organisations that are supporting people, because they know that it will only be a tactic on the part of the Government to release political pressure on themselves.
Let me move on to the other problems. Advance payments are not a solution. They are not automatically granted; they are calculated as 50% of the claimant’s entitlement; and they have to be repaid in six months. They exacerbate debt.
Laura Pidcock
Absolutely not. We have heard enough from that side.
Removing the severe disability premium and the enhanced disability premium is callous and part of a wider agenda of reducing the welfare budget. It will lead to disabled people—I repeat, disabled people—being worse off. Also, direct payments to claimants are creating rent arrears. As of yesterday, according to Karbon Homes in my constituency, 75% of people already on universal credit are in rent arrears averaging £810. Yes, that is because of the wait period, but it is also because of the financial demands on my constituents. How can the Government square the fact that rent has to be paid in advance, while universal credit is paid in arrears? Not to mention the DS1500 forms and the fact that those who are terminally ill have to go to the jobcentre themselves because the form cannot be submitted by someone else without explicit consent.
I am deeply concerned that the Government are rolling this system out in my constituency on 13 December. The first payments are expected on 28 January. Who set this roll-out date? Why on earth did this get signed off? These points are just the headlines; I could go on and on about the serious flaws of universal credit. The Government have had all the warning they need; they are now choosing to inflict this Frankenstein’s monster of a system with little or no regard for the wellbeing of people up and down the country. I do not know how the people rolling this out can sleep at night.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I welcome the constructive comments from Members on both sides of the House. I have set up an all-party group to work with all Members, and I would welcome to the group any Member who has concerns, so that we can look seriously at all the problems that have beset universal credit. The six-week wait is just the start. It is just the start of a horrendous time for anyone who is claiming universal credit.
The local housing allowance for a family three-bedroom house in my constituency is £150 a week. There is a seven-day wait with no payment whatsoever, so a household can be £150 down to start with. The allowance is paid in arrears, but rent is paid in advance, as my hon. Friends have said, so a claimant can be £750 in arrears before they even start receiving universal credit. That is where all the reports of arrears are coming from and it is absolutely wrong. This is not about people on low pay not being able to manage; the system just does not take account of the realities of their lives.
I mentioned the six-week wait to the Minister on Monday and pointed out that it was six weeks until Christmas Day. Those who are applying for universal credit this week will have to wait until after Christmas to receive their payment. They will have just two weeks’ pay to get by on over those six weeks, and services will not be open over Christmas. I appreciate that the Government want to wait for the Budget before taking action, but they must appreciate that the people who are waiting for money over Christmas—families who will be able to afford no sort of Christmas—need the Government to act now to ensure that they can receive the payments they need to feed their children and give them a decent Christmas.
When I asked the Minister about that on Monday, he suggested that people could work more hours in the run-up to Christmas. Indeed, many employers are seeking additional people and overtime. Having worked for USDAW—the shop workers’ union—for many years, I can testify that many people rely on overtime in the run-up to Christmas. Under tax credits, that is perfectly reasonable, and people receive their pay at the end of the day because there is an income disregard, whereby if someone’s income increases by £50 a week on average, they do not lose any tax credits. There is nothing of that sort under universal credit. For every extra pound that someone earns in overtime, they will lose at least 63p from their next universal credit payment. People who do overtime in good faith, and as advised by the Minister, will find that their next month’s universal credit payment has fallen by 63% or even 75% of the overtime that they have earned. That does not help them to cover the costs of Christmas or to stay out of debt.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am suggesting that the taper rate should be reduced and that an earnings disregard, like that under tax credits, should be introduced. The Government need to pay attention to the realities of people’s lives under a monthly benefit system that hits them hard as soon as they earn any extra. There is an earnings disincentive that the Government must consider. They need to ensure that passported benefits come to everyone—
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this debate and acknowledge that this is the start of the Work and Pensions Committee’s work on this matter. The six-week delay has become totemic, but it is far from the only problem with universal credit which, let me be clear, has been a disaster. Anyone who looks at its original plan, budget and timetable cannot conclude anything else. The roll-out should have finished this year. Instead, it has reached only 10% of people, but it has done 10,000 times the damage to those who are now affected by it. Universal credit has cost more, and it has delivered less. It was always intended to cut help for 450,000 disabled people through axing the severe disability premium, ending the disability income guarantee and making DLA or PIP less generous for disabled people in work and for disabled children. That was the intention, and it has been made still less generous through the tax allowance changes.
The pretence that the roll-out has gone smoothly needs debunking. Instead of listening and acting on concerns, the Government have doubled down. They told us that things were tickety-boo and hunky-dory just a few weeks ago. They told us that they did not need to pause, tweak or fix it. Then, however, they did not vote on our Opposition day motion on universal credit because they know that universal credit is failing. They have yet to outline how that structural incompatibility will be changed in the longer term.
My home is in Southwark, which has been affected by universal credit and is in the test area. I refer people every week to my food bank, which has seen a third more people this year and has seen a tripling in the number of children needing help solely due to universal credit being extended to parents. Southwark Council has £6 million-worth of arrears from universal credit recipients. Ministers like to pretend that people are carrying arrears and debt over from other systems, which is simply untrue—it is a myth. The average housing benefit tenant in Southwark is £8 in credit, and the average Southwark tenant on universal credit is now £1,800 in arrears, which is unacceptable.
Cutting the timeframe might help, but many other problems need to be fixed including tackling problems with payment amounts. We have heard about real-time information problems today, but payment amounts will affect many more in self-employment and on zero-hours contracts. The Government also need to make clear what payment options, including fortnightly payments, are available, and they need to make alternative payment arrangements the standard for some groups. They need to enhance the trusted partners scheme to allow councils greater management control. They need to maintain housing payments for people moving on to universal credit from housing benefit, and they need to remove the seven-day waiting period before assessment, which is an utter con.
Ministers have had the chance to fix those issues, and they declined the opportunity to do so a few weeks ago, so anyone trying to claim universal credit today will see Boxing day before they get a single penny of support. Father Christmas will arrive before any support and, because of the delays, the Easter bunny is likely to arrive before some people get a penny of help from this Government. For the record, I do not believe in the Easter bunny, but I am still optimistic about Father Christmas appearing today in the form of the Minister offering an early Christmas present by announcing that he will tackle payment delays and resolve all the other problems with universal credit.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on highlighting some of the deeply rooted problems with the accelerated roll-out of universal credit. However, it is indicative of this Government’s complete disregard that we find ourselves debating the issue again.
I highlight the notable contributions of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and their passionate calls to pause the roll-out and to fix the system, which is absolutely necessary.
I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for his kind words for our colleague and friend, and I assure him that of course my constituency is the most beautiful part of the country.
Elements of universal credit have been live in my constituency for some time, but we moved to full service early last month. In past debates, the Government have said that universal credit will work for those who require support, but if that is the case, why has my local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, had to move almost £1.5 million from its revenue account into its welfare mitigation fund? The reason is to keep a roof over the heads of people who are falling into rent arrears as a result of universal credit.
It is worth noting that it was the right-to-buy policy of this Government and of the previous Tory Government, coupled with a failure to replace housing stock, that has decimated social housing provision across the UK. That money would be better spent on building council houses, on supporting people in their tenancies and on improving the existing housing stock.
I have repeatedly called on the Government to halt the roll-out and fix the systemic problems with universal credit. Does the Minister have a hearing problem? Forgive me, but if he is not hearing correctly, let me say it again: it is necessary for the Government to halt the roll-out until the problems have been ironed out. Members on both sides of the House have told him there are problems. Some Conservative Members have not yet experienced the problems and are therefore probably not able to speak with a great degree of authority. Let me assure them that the problems are stark and huge, and they will fall on the doorstep of their constituency offices, as they have on ours.
I have repeatedly called on the Government to halt and fix the roll-out, yet today I find myself asking once more for the same thing. At best, the Government might row back, reduce the waiting time and slightly improve the circumstances, but the fact is that this is a flawed policy. If they admit it and concede that there are problems, why not halt the roll-out and fix it properly and completely? I have even invited the Prime Minister to visit my constituency on a number of occasions to see the damage at first hand, but the invitation has been ignored.
Despite this fact, the roll-out has gone ahead and the number of people in crisis due to complex problems has gone up and up. A constituent of mine has had to wait more than 12 weeks for payments; some have received payments without the housing costs to which they are entitled; and some have been forced to register as homeless. In the last debate, I heard a Conservative Member state that universal credit will end the days of private landlords discriminating against social security claimants. He said, “Gone are the days of the signs outside the estate agents reading ‘No DSS Need Apply.’”
Let me tell that Member and all Conservative Members that that could not be further from the truth. Private landlords, unsure whether they will be guaranteed their rental income, are evicting people across South Lanarkshire simply because they are in receipt of UC. The already sizeable housing list in my area is being added to by this poorly executed policy. These failures are unacceptable for a social security system that is meant to stop people falling through the cracks in society—that is exactly what it is ensuring it is doing. The failure to address these problems is only pushing further people into homelessness and poverty.
For the sake of perspective, it is worth looking back at the initial design of universal credit and comparing it with where we stand now. When it was introduced in 2013, it promised to lift 350,000 children and 600,000 adults out of poverty. How is that working out for us, eh? It was promised that it would increase entitlements and improve rewards earned from work. It was to allow smooth transitions in and out of work, as claimants would not have to claim a different set of benefits when starting or ending a job. Please remind me: how is that working out for us?
Problems apparent now went unmentioned back in 2013. Design flaws such as the six-week waiting time for a first payment were then unknown—they are known now, so what are the Government going to do about them? There seems now to be an expectation that people claiming benefits are able to survive for a month and a half with nothing to live on. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who was the one originally involved in the inception and creation of this policy, proudly told journalists at the time that he could live on £53 per week. I wonder whether he could live on fresh air for six weeks.
For many of my constituents, universal credit has meant falling into debt traps, through taking out loans or advances through the DWP only later to have the cash removed from their already meagre payments. This is the reality of the roll-out of universal credit. What are this Government going to do about it? Even though we have pointed out the myriad problems with the system, I am still waiting, in the fourth debate, to hear anything come back from this Government. If the Government today, as I suspect they will, make a small advancement, that in itself would be an admission that the system is not working and it is time to halt the roll-out. Even back then, and on many occasions since, we have stood here and told the Government the problems. Government Back Benchers, failing in their mission to scrutinise the Government, have failed to accept that there are problems with this roll-out and instead have ignored them.
Each and every time my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) has met Citizens Advice, he has been informed that it is not allowed to perform the role of advocacy because it is not mandated to make representations on behalf of clients. This is a clear attempt to undermine the support available to people that makes sure they get the help they need. Worse than that, one of my constituents has had to wait 12 weeks before his universal credit payment came through, even though his change in circumstances was outwith his control. The DWP had not uploaded documents he had sent it initially with his claim, and when these documents were finally attached to his file some weeks later, as this was discovered, a further six weeks was added to his waiting time. That is the reality of universal credit. What will the Minister do to resolve the issue?
I am asking the Minister this: does he accept—[Interruption.] Of course he will have his time to answer—he has plenty of time. The fact is that universal credit is not fit for purpose and people are suffering. I urge him to halt the roll-out and fix the problems.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his maiden speech. He showed his obvious commitment to his constituency and it was kind of him to praise his predecessor. I, too, extend my good wishes to her.
There have been some outstanding contributions to what has been a fiery debate. I congratulate the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), on securing the debate and on the Select Committee’s timely report on the six-week wait for universal credit. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her excellent speech, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), along with the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) took a sensitive and analytical approach to the report, and described what needs to happen in a measured way. She is not currently in her place, but the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) of course gave a characteristically bold speech.
This is the third debate on universal credit in the past month. Today, as in the previous two debates, the Government have been called on to reduce the six-week waiting period that applicants face. As we have heard, what some have called the “long hello” is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the rise in debt and arrears that we are now seeing. Some 49% of families who are in arrears under universal credit state that their arrears started after they made their claim and because of the waiting times to receive payments, support being delayed or stopped, or administrative errors.
On Monday the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), told the House that as universal credit is being rolled out, social housing providers across the north of England are finding more and more of their tenants are going into rent arrears. The total debt of 10,500 universal credit claimants is nearly £4.2 million, with an average of just over £400 each. In Greater Manchester, where universal credit was first piloted, the average arrears for UC tenants is now £824 compared, with £451 for non-UC tenants. In London, it is even worse: councils such as Southwark are estimating average arrears of approximately £1,700 per UC tenant.
What about the private rented sector? We have heard some of the serious issues related to pre-emptive strikes in respect of tenancy agreements. A landlord contacted me because he was concerned about three of his tenants who are thousands of pounds in rent arrears. They had never previously been in arrears.
A reduction in the six-week wait would be a good start, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that. I was disappointed—as, I think, was Mr Speaker —to hear of certain revelations coming out in the media yesterday. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us as to whether the wait is going to be reduced by one or two weeks. Reducing the six-week wait would only be a start, because it will not address the significant design issues that we have seen since the start of universal credit.
Some examples of those design issues are: the monthly payment being made in arrears following a monthly assessment period, when most people in receipt of UC are paid weekly or fortnightly; the payment being made to the main earner of the household, predominantly the man; rent being paid to the claimant rather than to the landlord; self-employed people being subject to the punitive minimum income floor, which fails to reflect the reality of the peaks and troughs in their working hours; the real-time information flaws that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has mentioned previously, and for which there is no time limit to disputes, leading to more delays in payments; and, of course, the in-work conditionality coming down the track, which will mean a million working people visiting jobcentres while much of the Jobcentre Plus estate is being closed, and facing financial sanctions if they fail to work the hours their job coach deems they must.
In addition, reducing the waiting time does not tackle the chronic issues with implementation and functionality. A pregnant woman got in touch with me when a change in circumstances meant that she had to apply for universal credit because her ESA claim was closed. She could not apply online, and was given a number to call, then another one, then another one and finally, she was referred back to the original number. To say that training is needed is an understatement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) mentioned yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the ridiculous position of one her constituents who did not have photo ID and had to have their identification verified by their doctor rather than being able to use their verified identification on the legacy benefits that they had previously been receiving. There are also issues with lost claims and so on.
The recent Social Security Advisory Committee report on in-work progression highlights those issues in its section on “Getting Delivery Right”. There is no getting away from the fact that the system is complex and more than struggling to cope, and that is not helped by the simultaneous closure of one Jobcentre Plus in 10. It must be recognised that the objective of simplicity should be for ease of access and navigation of the system by claimants. That is still not happening and must be addressed. I am pleased that the Government acceded to the need for Freephone numbers, but I would like to hear when they will be up and running—it is now three weeks since they were announced. We know that much more help is still needed.
Let me turn now to the cuts that were wielded to universal credit in the 2015 summer Budget. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said at the time, they mean that the promise that work would always pay—a primary objective of universal credit—has been lost. Let us remind ourselves of those cuts. They include: cuts to work allowances which, for example, mean that a couple with two children claiming housing costs will receive £192 a month, down from £222 a month; cuts to nearly a million families with more than two children; and cuts to disabled people on ESA work-related activity group of £1,500 a year when they transfer on to universal credit’s limited capacity to work. There is also the freeze in the uprating of universal credit to take account of inflation.
Those cuts will see 3 million families worse off by as much as £2,600 a year. For some it is even worse. For example, in real terms, a single parent, who is working as a full-time teacher, with two children will be £3,700 a year worse off. The cumulative effect of these cuts to universal credit will see more working-age people and their children pushed into poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that, by 2022, an additional million children will have been pushed into poverty, 300,000 of whom will be under five. They will be accompanied by 900,000 adults.
Although reducing the waiting period is a start, it will not be sufficient to prevent rising debt, arrears, and worse. That is why Labour has called for universal credit to be paused while it is fixed. As I have said before, in addition to reducing the six-week wait, we want all claimants to be able to decide whether they want fortnightly or monthly payments, whether they want payments split in the household and whether they want the housing payment to be paid directly to the landlord. Fundamentally, we want investment in universal credit to ensure that work does always pay and that our children and young people are not being pushed into poverty, left destitute or worse.
With nearly a million people set to move on to universal credit over the winter, the Budget gives the Government an opportunity to deliver on their promise
“to make the country work for everyone”.
I hope that they take it.
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this important debate today and also thank Members from across the House for such a good and constructive debate. Unfortunately, my time is now extremely short, but I will try to respond to as many points as I can.
In particular, I wish to mention the absolutely outstanding maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). He paid generous tribute to his predecessor and spoke about how he was focused on securing the best Brexit for businesses in his constituency, particularly those around fishing and farming. He talked about some of the other opportunities for the future around oil and gas and tourism. Overall, he painted a colourful picture of his constituency and what a wonderful place it would be in which to live. Clearly, he will be a great asset to this House and to our democracy. The accents from his part of Scotland are always rich and characterful, but they sound so much better when they come from this side of the House.
Universal credit has been the subject of a number of debates over recent weeks, but it remains important not to lose sight of why this vital reform is needed, and the key principles behind it, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) outlined effectively. Today on the main out-of-work benefits, someone who does more than a minimal amount of work would have to go through the upheaval of changing to a different benefits system. That can deter some people on jobseeker’s allowance from taking on seasonal work, for example, or a trial position. The obstacles to starting work can act even more strongly for people with disabilities who are on ESA. On ESA, people can only do so-called “permitted work” of up to £120 a week. There is no “permitted work” under universal credit, because work is permitted full stop. People do not have to make a choice between starting a career and getting support through the benefits system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said, universal credit simplifies the system, merging six benefits into one, and asking people to deal only with one part of Government, not three. It is paid monthly in arrears, like most jobs these days, allowing claimants to structure their expenditure around a monthly fixed payment day. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) asked me to outline how many people in work are paid fortnightly these days. The answer is about 3%. The majority of people are paid monthly, a sizeable minority are paid four-weekly and, of course, quite a lot of people are still paid weekly. Overall, about 70% of people in work are paid either monthly or four-weekly.
The month-long assessment period starts straightaway for people transferring from another benefit, and for members of certain vulnerable groups. For newly unemployed people, eligibility—and, therefore, the assessment period—starts seven days later. These waiting days reflect the principle that benefit support is not intended to cover very short periods of unemployment. Of course, they also exist in jobseeker’s allowance. The monthly in-arrears payment cycle is fundamental to the design of universal credit, meaning that an individual’s benefit payment each month can reflect what they earned in that month, and can take account of all the different patterns in which different people are paid.
Beyond the month-long assessment period, there is a further time of up to a week for final calculation, verification and making the payments. All DWP benefit payments, including universal credit, are made using the BACS system, which takes three working days to process. A claimant’s first universal credit payment due date will be seven calendar days after the end of their initial assessment period, and subsequent pay days will be on the same date each month thereafter. If the UC pay day falls on a weekend or bank holiday, it will be brought forward to the nearest working day. That is what the seven days after the monthly assessment period are for: three days for calculation, data verification and BACS processing; and four days to allow for the fact that the payment due date may come on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, to then allow us to pay claimants ahead of that due date.
If someone is leaving a job, they normally have a final pay packet, and some may also have redundancy pay. If people are moving on to universal credit from another benefit such as ESA, JSA or income support, paid fortnightly in arrears, they will have their final payment from that benefit. We do realise that different people’s circumstances vary, so advances are therefore available.
My hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) reminded us that no one need go five or six weeks without money. People can get an advance payment of up to half of their indicative award, recouped over six months or, as we were reminded, in some cases longer. Advances are available and paid within five working days. In an emergency, they can be paid on that same day. These advances are not like a loan in the sense that no interest is payable, and they are not like a wage advance in the sense that they do not just get taken fully out of the first wage packet.
I must stress—it is worth repeating—that the universal credit payment cycle is then monthly, with the payment made on the same date each month, unless that date falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a bank holiday, in which case the payment would be advanced to the nearest working day.
This monthly assessment is a much better system than the tax credits system, which works on estimates and often involves big adjustments at the end of the year, including requiring people to pay back sometimes large sums, which they might, of course, already have spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) rightly reminded us.
So UC erases the binary distinction between in work and out, and removes the need to flip in that way from one benefit to another and then back again. Three separate peer-reviewed studies show that people are more likely to be in work after six months if they are on UC than if they are on JSA. Those are matched samples comparing people who are similar in other respects, apart from the benefits they were on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) asked about the direct payment of rent. Since the then Labour Government’s reform of 2008, the default position has been that people in the private rented sector handle their own rent. Universal credit extends that principle to people renting from a council or housing association, but we can pay rents direct to landlords, and a sizeable minority of social sector tenants on universal credit have that arrangement right now. We are further improving the set-up process to make rent payment direct, where appropriate, for the social sector—through the trusted partner status—and for private rentals.
We are also able—the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked about this—to make payments more frequently than monthly. That can be fortnightly or, indeed, weekly, when that is necessary, and we can split payments between members of a couple.
Universal credit is a vital reform that changes how we support people out of work and in work and how we help them progress from one to the other. It is a lot of change—a new benefit, a new IT system, a new operational system and new ways of working with partners—and, yes, that does bring with it some challenges. We will continue to work with claimants, stakeholders, partners, and hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to resolve those challenges as they arise and to improve universal credit as it is introduced across the country. However, it is important that we continue with universal credit in order to realise the benefits that it brings, including boosting employment by an estimated quarter of a million when fully rolled out.
Universal credit is being introduced at a measured pace over nine years. Between last month and January, it will go from covering 8% of the benefits-claiming population to 10%. This gradual, careful approach, with planned pauses in the roll-out to learn and to respond to issues as they arise, means we can continually adjust and evolve the programme.
Universal credit is the biggest modernisation of the welfare state in a generation. Already, it is transforming lives, and we are determined to see this reform through.
Frank Field
Everybody who has spoken on both sides of the House has called on the Government to move and to change their approach. Instead of inviting us to attend to our jobcentres, I will be writing to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to invite them to come with me and my colleagues to the six worst blackspots in terms of how universal credit is affecting people’s lives, and to do so before the Budget.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2017-19, Universal Credit: the six week wait, HC 336; and calls on the Government to reduce the standard initial wait for a first Universal Credit payment to one month.
Frank Field
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. How might I ask the Secretary of State to come before the House on Monday to respond to the unanimous recommendation we have made to the Government to begin the reform of universal credit, so that some of our constituents might have slightly better Christmases than they would otherwise?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. I understand why he wishes the Secretary of State to come to the House, but the Minister has just been before the House, addressing those very points. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will note what has been said in the House this afternoon and that he will note the request from the right hon. Gentleman.
Frank Field
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister of State, bless him—[Laughter.] No, seriously, because he is an incredibly good guy. He made his speech before we had made a collective decision. We are in a new position now. The whole House has unanimously asked the Government to move, and that is what I want the Secretary of State to address on Monday.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point. He knows, of course, that it is not a matter for me, but the Minister is, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, sitting at the Dispatch Box and I am quite sure that he and the Secretary of State will pay attention to the points that the right hon Gentleman and all hon. Members have made this afternoon.
We now come to the Back-Bench debate on defence aerospace industrial strategy. Come on: everybody leaving, leave quickly. It is not fair. There is little time left.
Defence Aerospace Industrial Strategy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defence aerospace industrial strategy.
I must begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this very important debate on the Floor of the House. I also thank my friend, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), for co-sponsoring it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree that the calibre of Members here on a Thursday afternoon is testimony to the importance that the House places on both our military and the need for them to have the right kit, at the right price, at the right time. Our debate on this matter is timely. This month we mark the 100th anniversary of the creation of our Royal Air Force. It therefore seems fitting that we should also recognise the fundamental role that our domestic defence aerospace sector has played in maintaining our country’s aerial supremacy for generations.
Last weekend all of us here today, along with millions of British citizens, gathered across the country to commemorate the courage and the sacrifice of those men and women who have served in our armed forces, to protect our country. But while we remember those who have fallen defending our country, we must also honour those currently in uniform. Their dedication, skill and bravery is demonstrated every day, in every corner of the world.
These efforts are exemplified by those 1,350 service personnel who are currently supporting Operation Shader. In the last week alone, RAF Tornadoes and Typhoons undertook further operations in support of the battle against Daesh, eliminating hidden improvised explosive devices, destroying Daesh stockpiles and, vitally, disposing of Daesh armoured truck bombs. Over the course of this conflict against the most barbaric and ideological of opponents, British air support has played a vital role, striking Daesh 1,384 times in Iraq and 262 times in Syria.
The men and women of our RAF, and indeed of our entire armed forces, serve with courage and distinction, but they do not operate in isolation. They require the platforms and the weapons to do their job effectively and with as little collateral damage as possible. Their military success depends on the technology and the weaponry that we can bring to bear and—crucially for this debate—on the wider defence family that develops, designs, manufactures and maintains it. I am delighted that members of the defence aerospace industry from the GMB at Brough are in the Gallery today.
The men and women who develop these products do so in the knowledge that it may well be the sons and daughters of their friends and neighbours who are called upon to use them. They understand the stakes and they do everything they can to ensure that when our armed forces are deployed, our brave service personnel have what they need to keep them safe and to get the job done, in order to keep us safe. They recognise their role in defending our country; the question today is, do we, and importantly, do the Government?
I maintain that it is the defence family—the inventors and engineers, tradesmen and technicians, fitters and fabricators—who have built Britain’s defence industry into a world leader and sustained our sovereign capability in a world where such strength has never been more vital. It is that very defence family which I fear is currently being sold short by the Government, especially in the aerospace sector. Unless we address that now, the situation will become even more challenging in a post-Brexit world. Simply put, to ensure our sovereign capabilities post-Brexit, we need to develop a defence aerospace industrial strategy now to protect our domestic skill mix.
The Government have recognised that need in our maritime defence sector with the development of the national shipbuilding strategy. All we are asking today is that the same generosity be applied to the defence aerospace sector to give it and the workforce some stability for the next generation.
That is not beyond us. British industry has developed such iconic aircraft as the Hawk, the Harrier, the Tornado and the Typhoon, and that is before we even touch on the A400M or any of our helicopters. We have earned our place as a global leader in the manufacture and support of combat aircraft. It is, however, my contention that the development of a long-term industrial strategy for our defence aerospace industry would do far more than reassure an individual sector. It would provide lasting benefits to our economy, retain a valuable skills base, guarantee our sovereign military capability and secure our position on the global stage.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The hon. Lady has mentioned Tornado twice, including the valuable role it has played in Op Shader. It remains a potent combat aircraft, even today. Does she agree that when the Tornado retires from service in 2019 we should keep some as a war reserve, and that British industry has the skills and capability to support that?
Ruth Smeeth
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has raised that point repeatedly in recent months. We have to decide what reserves we need, but that is no replacement for the development of our future capabilities.
First, on our economy, our defence aerospace sector makes an enormous contribution. It is the core of our wider defence industry, which directly employs more than 142,000 people, with a further 116,000 indirectly employed in the supply chain. In 2016, BAE Systems alone contributed £11.1 billion of gross value added to the UK—equivalent to 0.6% of our entire economic output—but there is further additional value to ensuring that those defence jobs stay in the UK. The Royal United Services Institute has calculated that for every pound the Government spend on a defence contract when the good or service is generated in the UK, the Treasury receives 37p back in revenue, as well as the new platform or system we have procured.
It is self-evident that a strong defence industry is a major contributor to a strong national economy, and our defence aerospace industry supports thousands of well-paid and highly skilled jobs, the majority of which are outside the south-east, as well as boosting our economy through exports of world-class products. Our defence aerospace sector accounts for 88% of all defence exports —an incredibly important aspect of our economy, especially as we look to leave the EU, not least for the impact on our future balance of payments.
But there are challenges in the sector that fundamentally relate to two factors. One is that export sales typically depend on the use of future platforms by our own RAF—the British brand and RAF stamp of approval mean a huge amount for other state actors. When buying British is key for the global success of the sector, we need to pay attention.
The second significant challenge is the extended lead-in times and development processes that characterise the defence aerospace industry. That requires a long-term strategy, not a short-term fix, to ensure a steady drumbeat of orders and constant research and development to maintain confidence within the industry and to protect jobs and our domestic skills base.
We have seen recently what happens when that certainty is missing from the market, with BAE announcing up to 2,000 redundancies owing to a gap in its order book. Those job losses are not just a blow for those workers and their families, but could result in a loss of skill and expertise that could set us back a generation. I believe that those jobs could be protected in the short term if the Government committed to bringing forward the order for the new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows and to securing the next wave of export contracts for that aircraft.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Hawk aircraft is incredibly important to my constituents, many of whom work at BAE Systems in Brough. As well the work the Government are rightly doing to support the Hawk overseas, bringing forward the Red Arrows replacement aircraft would fill part of the gap in the order book, as the hon. Lady has outlined. Could that not also be done in such a way as to support the development of new orders so that what is built now does not necessarily have to be part of the replacement fleet, but can be used as a stopgap?
Ruth Smeeth
I completely agree. Let us be clear: this is a brand-new aircraft, and our Red Arrows, with their skills set, should be selling it to the world.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
At the moment, this clearly hinges on the Qatari order, but does my hon. Friend agree that if that does not come forward and the Government do not bring forward the Red Arrows replacements, we may not have any sovereign capability for building fast jet trainers in this country?
Ruth Smeeth
I completely agree. The reality is that this is about our sovereign skills mix, and about whether we can develop future training aircraft or fast jet aircraft. This is also about people’s lives: for the people in the Gallery, this is about the jobs they will move on to in the future. This is therefore a key moment at which the Government should act.
Ruth Smeeth
Perish the thought that the Red Arrows should fly anything other than British-built planes. Let us be clear: 2030 was not a date anyone recognised until recent weeks for the renewal of the Hawks. I say this as a young Member of this House, obviously—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—but the newest Hawk aircraft used by the Red Arrows is six months older than me, so this is not showing off the best and brightest of our potential capability.
Andrew Percy
We are both very young Members. [Interruption.] Well, it appears there is not so much agreement about that in my case.
On the age of the aircraft, have there not been some really troubling reports about just how few of our current Red Arrows aircraft are actually able to fly at any one time? That is why the 2030 date seems somewhat strange to many of the people who are intimately involved in the group.
Ruth Smeeth
I had the privilege of sitting in Red 1 last year, so I absolutely agree. The Red Arrows are our showcase for the RAF, and for us not to be investing at the time of the 100th anniversary of the RAF seems to me somewhat short-sighted.
I am not in favour of having a new aircraft just for the sake of it, but this is our most impressive and important defence engagement tool, and one of the priorities of the RAF. The Red Arrows can show off the best of our new technologies on a global stage, and we should encourage them to do so. However, I acknowledge that this would be a sticking plaster, and the long-term security of these and other sites can be guaranteed only by the development of a clear, genuine industrial strategy for the future of UK defence aerospace.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I recall that when I was a young major—I am still young, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree—we were talking in 1984 about the requirement for a defence aerospace industrial strategy. We sometimes change the name, but we keep talking about the same thing. The truth of the matter, however, is that every time there is a defence review, the defence aerospace industrial strategy goes into the bin. I am afraid that that is the reality of the situation. We all want such a strategy, but it keeps getting scrapped, like so many of our aircraft.
Ruth Smeeth
This is the perfect chance for the Government to ensure that there is a real opportunity to have an industrial strategy. They must put their money where their mouth is and move forward with such a strategy.
My second point relates to the retention and development of our domestic skills base. Our defence aerospace industry operates at the absolute cutting edge of modern technology. This is a highly skilled, highly qualified workforce, and their talents are a national resource that need to be nurtured as well as retained. Such expertise enabled us to play a major role in developing the F-35 alongside our US partners—a project that was secured by our unique knowledge through the design of the Harrier jump jet.
When deals stall and future projects are uncertain, those jobs are put at risk, and if they go, those skills go with them. Once the capability to develop and produce complex systems in any field has been lost, it can be incredibly difficult and time-consuming to rebuild. One has only to look at the experience of the Astute programme to see the danger. Delays in our procurement of a new submarine programme led to significant redundancies of very specific skills which meant that, embarrassingly, when we eventually decided to upgrade our submarine capability, we had to go cap in hand to an American firm to help us rediscover and upskill the skills that we had lost after the completion of the Trident programme in Barrow.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is right to mention the problem in Barrow, and I am sure she will agree that not only was reskilling a problem, but there was a massive extra cost to the taxpayer in a programme that had only one supplier. In aerospace we could lose out to competitors. Other people make aeroplanes, but we are the only ones who make submarines for ourselves.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend speaks with authority about his constituents and their work in Barrow.
As I was saying, that loss of skills was not just a national embarrassment. The erosion of capability can have serious and long-lasting consequences for our sovereign military capability. Let us not repeat previous mistakes. Let us develop a comprehensive industrial strategy for our defence aerospace sector, and ensure a steady drumbeat of orders to maximise the benefits of an already highly successful exports market.
Central to that strategy must be a forward-thinking plan that starts to consider what a post F-35 future may look like. We need commitment to the development of a sixth-generation combat fighter, to ensure that we have a British option for our next multi-role air defence asset. It will not surprise Members to know that the development of both the Typhoon and the F-35 projects took two decades from concept stage to mass production. We need to commit now to developing that new platform with a view to the finished product entering service in the 2030s—I will still be a young Member.
We should also use that project as an opportunity for a realignment away from a US-led development process, and turn towards our partners in Europe. The F-35 is an exemplary piece of kit, and we should be proud of our involvement in its development. If we are to maximise the benefits for our domestic defence aerospace industry, we must play a lead role in the development and construction of the sixth-generation fighter, and not operate in the long shadow of the US military industrial complex.
Finally, a defence aerospace industrial strategy sends a message to the world that we are serious about our future defence commitments, as well as our long-term security and that of our allies, and it provides us with opportunities to build lasting relationships with international partners. It would also demonstrate that the UK may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving the world and we are open for business.
When a nation develops an over-reliance on foreign imports for its defence capabilities, that does not just impact on jobs and industries; it also sends a signal to the world about that nation’s lack of confidence in its own industry and society. Put simply, great nations become great by acting as though they are. If we put our faith, and our active, long-term support, into our domestic defence aerospace industry, it will show the world that we are leaders in the field and intend to keep it that way. The time is right for the development of this strategy. Industry is willing; the military are wanting. What we need now is Government action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have very little time so there will be a time limit of four minutes.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the run-up to this debate, which was so ably introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—a star of the Defence Committee—I and no doubt other members of the Committee were almost inundated with communications from defence companies that wanted to showcase how much they do for industry in this country. For example, Boeing UK wanted to draw attention to its 18,700 workers in the UK. MBDA, the missile specialists, wanted to draw attention to the £1 billion of annual sales that it generates. BAE Systems, however, is in a rather special position. It has over 83,000 employees in 40 countries. It describes itself as a global leader in making and supporting combat aircraft and states:
“If we are to sustain this leading position, a government commitment to the development of a next generation of combat aircraft”—
precisely as the hon. Lady just said—
“would be of immense value to the industry.”
The Government are committed to an industrial strategy process, with a defence sector deal as a component of that. The question is whether that is sufficient or if we need a separate strategy. It seems rather strange that when we have a separate national shipbuilding strategy—shipbuilding, for all its valuable potential for export, does not even begin to approach the potential and actual magnitude of aerospace industry exports—we should want to subsume a strategy for the aerospace industry under a general industrial strategy.
In the case of the joint strike fighter—the Lightning II, which has been referred to—we provide parts for all the aircraft that are built, but only sections of the aircraft. As valuable as that may be, it is not enough to sustain our importance as a prime integrator with all the supplying companies that depend on that process.
The industry is asking the Government to think ahead and to make advance investment so that we will be able to be in the van of future development in aircraft, but I believe that requests for investment have to be a two-way process. For example, it is not just BAE Systems asking for this; Rolls-Royce itself says that the current research and development investment in future combat engine capability ceases at the end of 2017. I would therefore just say this: if these companies want the Government and the country to invest in the future of the industry, we are entitled to say to them, “You need to invest in the future of the workforce.” As I pointed out in proceedings on the urgent question about the BAE Systems redundancies on 10 October, BAE Systems is a giant company enjoying a
“near monopoly position in many parts of the British defence procurement structure.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 169.]
It should therefore be working, in the closest possible co-operation, with the Government to see whether job losses can be mitigated. It is a two-way process; we need the companies to invest in the workforce.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Let me add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need for collaboration. However, the uncertainty, which I hope the Minister will be able to clear up, is about the extent of the Government’s commitment to the future of aerospace. As a country, we are in a parlous position. A slowdown is affecting many of Barrow’s neighbouring constituencies in the north-west, with the prospect of job losses. There is uncertainty over future orders for which, as my hon. Friend said, the export market remains absolutely key. There is also a big question mark over the determination and even the capacity of the Ministry of Defence to look forwards and do the necessary planning.
If this were about aerospace alone, it would be concerning enough, for all the reasons set out so adeptly by my hon. Friend: the massive contribution aerospace makes to our overall industrial base; the advanced manufacturing jobs it brings; the contribution of its capability to our country; and its defence engagement role in being able to underpin our strategic defence relationships with key partner nations. However, it is in not only aerospace where this vital forward look that the Government need to be doing could be stalling. I was alarmed to hear recently that the key spending on the Government’s future submarine programme, the unfortunately titled MUFC—maritime underwater future capability—had been cut without explanation. That creates the impression that the Government think they are about to hit a wall due to the comparative spending restrictions imposed and the build-up of capabilities. When Conservative Members were in opposition, they criticised —understandably at times—the last Labour Government for shifting projects to the right, yet it appears that an alarming number of projects might be going the same way.
We have the sense that the Government, having lauded the aim of balancing the books, as they spuriously put it, and of looking to the future, are now going back into crisis mode—just getting from one Budget to another. When future planning suffers, it is not only an problem for our future capability, because we end up with inferior capability now, potentially buying off the shelves, meaning that we spend much more and lose jobs. The Government have a window in which they can acknowledge the problems and concerns that are building up before putting them right, and I hope that the Minister will do that today.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The whole defence procurement sector, and especially the defence aerospace industry, has a huge role to play in supporting employment, exports and growth, but our sovereign defence capability, in the national interest, must lie at the heart of the decisions we make and at the centre of the Government’s defence policy. We therefore need a defence aerospace industrial strategy that takes into account the practical needs of our armed forces. Recent and ongoing operations to counter Daesh, as well as humanitarian efforts in the wake of Hurricane Irma, have shown how our modern, powerful and flexible armed forces are vital to our national strategic interest and our place in the world.
It is not sufficient, however, just to ensure we have capability today and in the short term to enable the RAF to defend our skies, fight our enemies, and aid our friends and allies. We must also have the sovereign skills capacity to continue to manufacture platforms and to innovate in Britain far into future. The skills that are needed to continue to develop high-tech, world-leading aerospace platforms are already present across this country, particularly in my constituency, which has Airbus, Boeing, Rolls-Royce and BAE, among many others. We must, however, work hard to maintain and, crucially, to enhance and develop these skills. There is a serious shortage of skilled engineers and scientists, and we must avoid ever being forced to rely entirely on expertise from abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
Does my hon. Friend welcome this week’s announcement at the Dubai airshow that Airbus has struck its single biggest aircraft order ever—for 430 A320neo jets? That is great news for the workforce.
Jack Lopresti
I am obviously delighted and thrilled. That excellent news will help to secure jobs in my constituency and elsewhere in the country.
As I have said in previous debates, the defence and aerospace companies I have met and engaged with over many years are clear that without long-term procurement commitments, Britain will start to lose the skills that we have worked so hard to nurture and develop. To illustrate the long-term nature of this issue, it is worth remembering that equipment used in the 2011 Libyan intervention derived from research and development that started in the 1970s. We cannot fall prey to short-term decision making on the basis of the current defence and budgetary landscape yet still expect to find a skilled defence and aerospace workforce in the future when we need it most.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for writing to update me on the progress that his Department is making on a replacement for the Typhoon. I am sure that that will be welcomed by companies in the defence and aerospace industries such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems throughout the country, but particularly in my constituency. The Minister informed me that the preparatory work for the procurement process had begun. The future combat air system—FCAS—will be vital to support our defence and aerospace skills base. Most importantly of all, it will be vital to the maintaining of our sovereign defence capability, our export opportunities and our place in the world.
Alongside such procurement commitments, it is important that we support and maintain the excellent work of a number of defence aerospace companies to encourage apprenticeships and graduate programmes. Those will help to secure our skills base, as well as providing excellent opportunities for young talent and, of course, enhancing our country’s social mobility. The 5% club, in which companies undertake to ensure that 5% of their UK workforce will be either apprentices or students in structured programmes, is a very welcome scheme. I commend it to all the other manufacturers in my constituency, and indeed to manufacturers throughout the country. I also welcome the efforts of Airbus in particular, as well as others in the sector, to engage directly with universities and university technical colleges, and to invest heavily in highly skilled research and development across the country.
However, our sovereign defence requirements, and the requirements of our skilled industries, extend beyond the FCAS. I urge the Government to consider a wide range of equipment and research opportunities for inclusion in any future defence aerospace industrial strategy. A comprehensive approach is required to ensure that our armed forces remain equipped with the best possible technology, and that our country has the skills base to design, build and continue to develop that technology.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Every Member has the best interests of our country’s defence at heart. The challenge to the Minister is not being made in a partisan way, but it is necessary because we want to hold the Government to account in this regard.
Let me say—in the presence of the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and some of the other Committee members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who initiated the debate—that I think some of the evidence that has been given to the Committee over the past few weeks about defence procurement and equipment should be essential reading for all Members. I commend the Committee and its Chair for that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that the debate is taking place in the context of a great deal of uncertainty about the entire equipment budget. That uncertainty leaves the Government unsure about how they will fill a gap which requires—depending on whom we believe—considerable sums of money. If we are not careful, we will end up with short-term fixes in relation to medium and longer-term strategic objectives. The aerospace industry is particularly vulnerable in that respect.
Let me quote from the Select Committee’s report, which was published this morning. The evidence of General Barrons and Admiral Zambellas was particularly challenging for the Government, but in the context of the debate, I want to quote what was said by Air Marshal Sir Baz North:
“as a juxtaposition, look at our defence exports—80% is in the air sector, yet we do not have an air sector industrial policy to support the very industries that we need to support the platforms at home to sustain those. It’s not just about foreign exchange, but about where we find ourselves. People wish to buy our kit, yet we are not joined up and together in terms of supporting that initiative”.
I think that that sums up where we are. Let us take BAE Systems, although of course there are many other defence companies. We have the Typhoon—or the Eurofighter, or whatever we call it—which has been rolled out until 2040. What will happen after that? We are not sure. We have the Hawk jets, which have been given a 2030 deadline that many of us had never heard about until a week or so ago.
My hon. Friends, and others, have asked why we do not use this as an opportunity to sustain the skills and expertise of our workers. Why do we not take this as an opportunity to look at how we might use the newer Hawk T2s, to showcase everything that is best about our industry and our workforce and to retain that sovereign capability? We cannot just see this industry as a tap that is turned on and off; we have to maintain capability and sustain that capability.
Much of that is about exports, but we do not know where this sixth generation combat fighter is coming from. We are uncertain about that, but we all know that certainty is the key to investment and to maintaining skills—through the training and through apprenticeships of future workers. So I say again to the Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, that the evidence to the Committee should be essential reading for everybody. It challenges the Government to get a grip on equipment procurement, of which aerospace is a crucial and dynamic part.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow so many Members who have spoken with such passion and knowledge on this topic, about which all of us on both sides of the House are dedicated. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) for having co-sponsored it with me. I refer the House, too, to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In 1940, the RAF realised that it was going to need new aircraft and asked North American to look at designing one, and it became the legendary P-51 Mustang. That went from request to first flight in 148 days, and it is fairly trite to say that we cannot do that any longer. That is why I would like this topic to be considered seriously by the Government.
We must think about the kind of capability we will need in the future: what it is going to be, where it is going to come from, what the Air Force needs, and how we are going to get it. The story since 1940—through the period of decline, in many ways, of the individuality of the British aircraft industry—is quite a sad one, and I shall give two examples of what we should try to avoid.
In the ’60s, there were three V bombers: there were three different aircraft industries competing, with three excellent designs. Why did we have three excellent designs competing for the same space, with the result that we now have none of those aircraft industries existing on their own?
The Harrier was probably the last great all-British aircraft that we designed, which we sold to the Americans —the AV-8A. We then looked at having an advanced Harrier but ended up pulling out of our own programme. There were a number of reasons for that. Cost was one; the RAF only wanted 60, which was not enough for the amount of input required. Therefore, we ended up, albeit in a joint programme, essentially buying back from the Americans an anglicised Harrier. The AV-8B—the GR5, GR7 and GR9 we have seen throughout the ’80s and ’90s—was really an anglicised American aircraft. That is what I want to avoid—seeing brilliant British industry, brilliant British skills and brilliant British technology not having the necessary input because of a lack of looking strategically at where we will go.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Will he add that the Typhoon began on the drawing board in 1984 and came into service in 2003? Does that not highlight precisely the problem?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is right. Typhoon, the F-35 and, in my constituency, the A400M have all had a gestation period of between 20 and 30 years, depending on how we cut the initial date. In that case, we need to be looking at what will replace the Typhoon when it is out of service in 2040. It is counterintuitive when we have not got joint strike fighter F-35 in service yet, but we need to consider what will replace it as we are looking now.
Although that is what we must start doing, I do not want us all to become, as we tend to become, fixated on fast jets and on the strike aircraft, because we also have to look at trainers and transport aircraft. We have already referred to the Hawk and we will have to consider that in this mix. I want us to have ambition for aviation, as we all do; I want to see where the fast jet capability will come from in the future, and what will be the transport aircraft in the future, so we know what will be replacing in due course the A400M and the C-17—the Hercules will probably be long gone by then.
We must also think about what we are likely to need. As we all know, it is very inefficient to send a Type 45 destroyer to carry out light patrol activities in the Caribbean when we could be sending a patrol boat. Likewise, if we want a show of force, do we really want to send an F-35 to support troops when there is little or no air threat coming back from the other side? Could we perhaps look at what the Americans are doing? They are considering a light attack aircraft competition at the moment. Could we be doing that? I do not know the answer to that—it is something that the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence will have to consider—but my point is that we have to look at what we are going to need, how we will go about getting it and what the capability is, and then to go forward and look at it from there. We cannot do that unless we have an ambition for aviation.
I have concentrated on other matters, but that is not to take away from the points that others have made about jobs in the industry. There are lots and lots in my constituency who depend on such jobs—at Thales, Boeing, Airbus, RAF Brize Norton and AirTanker, and also at Airbus helicopters near my constituency. I could go on and on. This is all terribly important as well. I am grateful to have had this short time in which to speak, and I hope that I have made my point with force. I should like us to have an aerospace strategy, so that we know where we are going and the ambition for aviation that we all want to see.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate. She has outlined the importance of this industry to the UK economy. The crisis that we face is of the Government’s making. In 2010, they came into office and took great capability out, scrapping elements such as Nimrod. Then, in the strategic defence and security review two years ago, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, tried to put in place a more ambitious programme of development, including the P8 purchase, more unmanned aerial vehicles and the attack helicopter.
The interesting point is that there was no extra money for that programme. It was going to be paid for by efficiencies and property sales. According to the National Audit Office report, the shopping list came to £24.4 billion, and the only extra money was £6.4 billion, which was earmarked to accelerate the in-service date of the F-35. That left the need for £7.3 billion from efficiencies and £10.7 billion from land sales, neither of which have been met. By 2020, £310 million will be met through staff efficiencies, but the drawdown from Germany—which many of us said would cost us—is going to cost £1 billion. This black hole in the equipment programme is of the Government’s own making.
Added to that are some ridiculously stupid procurement decisions that have been made in the past couple of years. In the light of Brexit and the plummeting pound, the procurement of the P8 and the Apache will add to the costs. The Minister intervened earlier to announce the importance of orders that had been placed with Airbus. Why did she not give that contract for the P8 to a British company? Boeing has made lots of promises about investing in this country, but I can tell her now that if that had been the other way round, with the US buying a British product, it would not have been done without a clear commitment to a workshare taking place in the USA. We have only to look at the AirTanker contract to see the muscle involved and the way in which it protects jobs in America first, rather than those overseas. The Government are actually adding to the problem.
The simple question is: do the Government want strategic capability for fast jets and certain other sectors? If they do, they are going to have to pay for that. In regard to the Hawk, there is a clear danger that we will be unable to provide fast jet trainers in this country. It used to be an annual thing when I was a Defence Minister for tabloids and Tory MPs to say that the Labour Government were going to scrap the Red Arrows. We never were, but under this Government, there is a danger that that is exactly what will happen if those orders do not come forward. This short-sighted Government are making lots of promises about equipment, but in practice, those promises are not being funded. The problem facing our industry is that, once we get rid of those skills, we cannot turn them back on again like a tap when we require them. We will be out of this industry for good. If we then wanted a Red Arrows display team in the future, it would have to have aircraft from Korea, France or Italy. That would be a damning indictment of this Government.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is a huge privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and I mean to call him my hon. Friend because we work closely on such matters for North Durham. I also thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) for securing today’s debate. Defence aerospace really matters to my constituency, which is the home of Typhoon final assembly and Hawk final assembly. Some 6,000 men and women work at BAE Systems in Warton, with many thousands more working in the supply chain, so I know how important the defence aerospace industrial strategy is.
With just over two and half minutes available to me, I want to focus on several key points. It is a huge privilege to represent a constituency where aircraft are not only designed, developed and built, but exported around the world. I thank the Minister for her support and for the Government’s support of work in the incredibly competitive defence export markets, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and other countries around the world. Please can we maintain that support? I want to ensure that we continue the development work that we have secured through the memorandum of understanding with France on unmanned aerial combat vehicles and that the technology that arises can be maintained, secured and then put into what will be the sixth generation of aircraft.
The former Prime Minister David Cameron visited my constituency on three occasions, all of them to BAE Systems in Warton. That was how highly he regarded it. On his final visit, he outlined the Government’s commitment to a sixth-generation fighter aircraft. I urge the Minister to ensure that we continue to work to make good on that commitment to deliver it, and I say that not just to keep the United Kingdom secure, but as someone who has had the privilege of visiting RAF Akrotiri and has seen Typhoons and Tornadoes keeping safe the people who are at risk of harm from ISIS.
The defence industrial strategy will also ensure that we have jobs in the UK for the future. The solution is not buying off the shelf, because if we do not have our own strong industrial base, when it comes to working on collaborative programmes such as the F-35, we will not have the technology or the ability to chip in and get an enhanced workshare in the way that we did on the F-35. Having our own ability is absolutely critical. Some of the best people anywhere in the world work in our aviation defence industry, and I am incredibly proud of them. Will the Minister ensure that we do everything we can to support them during an incredibly tough time, with some of them potentially facing redundancies? We are good at this, and Government Members are dedicated to ensuring that our defence industry has a bright future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to take the time limit down to two minutes.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Perhaps it is right and proper if I inform the Chamber at this point that my daughter is a serving officer in the Royal Air Force.
I am new to this brief, but I read the proceedings of the Defence Committee on 25 October with the greatest of interest, and I want to emphasise two points. The first is about the P-8 and our involvement in that aircraft. I suppose that there was nothing else we could do at the time—it was two years ago—but I have to say for the record that I am unhappy that we did not look to British industry to build or develop the aircraft, but perhaps we had no choice. However, let us not make any mistake about our friends in Boeing—I only have to say one word: Bombardier. That situation underlines the crucial importance of a strategy for our future aero-defence industry.
Secondly, to pick up on the point of the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), let us remember why we won the second world war. In the 1920s, the 1930s and the 1940s, our air defence industry was broadly based, had expertise and was innovative. If one studies one’s history, one finds that we actually out-designed and out-built our foes. In that conflict, our aircraft were without question the best in the world. That is what is at stake for the defence of this country. This is extremely important and history speaks to that.
My time is almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise that you were not told that I was the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, so I shall conclude with this: I represent the Tain weapons range and Cape Wrath, where NATO and our forces practise and drop their weapons. I hope very much to see a sixth-generation fighter aircraft flying over my constituency before they put me in a wooden box and carry me away.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
This subject matters fundamentally to me. The Puma squadron is based in my constituency at RAF Benson, and I was concerned by questions over the Puma’s future and how that fits into any strategy that we may be thinking of developing. We need to take account of a proper strategy assessment that covers many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) in her initial contribution.
The Puma is not an old aircraft, as is occasionally stated. All the Pumas were found to be in excellent condition, and, in terms of airframe life, there is no impediment to their making the current out-of-service date of 2025, or indeed considerably later. In addition, we only have to look at the contribution that these aircraft have made to operations around the world: whether deploying in Afghanistan in support of Operation Toral or supporting vital aid in the Caribbean following the recent hurricane disasters, the Pumas have shown their enormous ability to be ready for operations within a few hours of arrival, and they make an ideal platform to support special forces. Moreover, Puma 2 has a relatively low operating cost, delivering excellent value for money.
The £260 million contract to upgrade 24 helicopters was noted by the National Audit Office as a programme delivered on time and to cost. I finish with a quotation from Major General Richard Felton:
“Out of all the aircraft I’ve flown, Puma 2 probably made my jaw drop most.”
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing this debate.
I normally talk up the Royal Navy, but Plymouth is also a proud home to the makers of the gizmos and gyros that support our aerospace and space industries. The clear ask from Members on both sides of the House is for a clear, long-term strategy in which the private sector and the supply chain can invest in the jobs, R and D and skills required to supply our RAF and our fighting forces with the best and most capable equipment to secure our long-term position.
It is important to note that we do not live in benign times. The context of the military world needs to be taken into account in this debate. We are facing a resurgent Russia that is investing in its aerospace and naval power, and we need to keep pace. The aircraft coming on line shortly are formidable, but we need a long-term commitment to ensure that we have a generation to come next. I worry about this country’s sovereign defence capabilities being eroded not by long-term thoughtful strategy but by the short-termism that is currently afflicting the Government.
We need to look carefully at this. Just as the Minister told me that the apprentice who builds the last of the Type 26 frigates has not yet been born, I fear there is no such parallel in the aerospace sector. We need to make sure there is one. Having a new Defence Secretary offers the chance of a fresh start not only in the aerospace sector but in reconsidering the cuts to the Royal Navy I have spoken about elsewhere. The opportunity for a fresh start and new thinking could provide certainty for our sector to invest in the jobs and skills we need at the moment.
I fear that at times, despite the aerospace sector’s importance to our economy, we have had a victory of tactics over strategy, and I implore the Minister to consider a long-term aerospace strategy that secures the jobs we need.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for securing this important debate.
My constituency has a historical link to the British defence, aviation and aerospace industry, because in 1908 the first British flight was made by Samuel Cody from Farnborough Heath. He was piloting British Army Aeroplane No. 1, which he had built himself. That was the start of a remarkable industry in and around Farnborough and it leaves a tremendous legacy, including the headquarters of BAE Systems just a few metres from the runway from which Samuel Cody took off.
That sort of courageous innovation needs to be at the heart of our defence, aviation and aerospace strategy, and I fully endorse the calls for such a strategy. Three things are important for a future strategy. First, an element of competition is important so that different providers can bid for work, driving standards up and costs down. Secondly, innovation is crucial, especially in terms of unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles—they are now battle-winning, critical capabilities that we need to advance on our own terms. Thirdly, exportability is fundamental. I am very encouraged by the exportability component of the excellent national shipbuilding strategy. I would like to see that sort of ethos in a future defence aviation and aerospace strategy, because being able to export our world-leading defence exports is not just a matter of good commerce and domestic jobs; it is also a matter of our global standing, global reach and global power.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing this debate? On 10 October, I raised an urgent question with the Speaker on the issue of more than 1,000 job losses across Lancashire in the aerospace industry and this was addressed on that occasion. The response was that the jobs could not be maintained, with the principal reason given that there were not enough orders coming through. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) said rightly that we are doing quite well on orders from the middle east countries, but the Typhoon is a world-beating aircraft and it should be being sold around the world. Nobody was more angry and upset than me when we did not get the India contract. I am sure there are other contracts where, with good co-operation between Government and the industry, we could do Government-to-Government deals, in order to keep this supply of Typhoons running.
There are two big issues facing the likes of BAE Systems at the moment. One is keeping the current Typhoon work going. It is ticking away slowly; the production lines have been slowed down. That is mainly to do with this not being as saleable as we thought it might be or it not being sold hard enough. The second big issue is one that colleagues have touched on, which is the question relating to a sixth-generation fighter. That has to come, and the elephant in the room seems to be who we collaborate on that with. The Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned that we need to see integrational capability, which we are not getting a great deal of with the F-35. We are not going to get all of this if we do it in partnership with our European neighbours, and the French and the Germans must be prime candidates here. We have to develop that sixth-generation fighter and sell it far better than we have sold the Typhoon to date.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on making a powerful case for the need a defence aerospace industrial strategy and on getting us all here on a Thursday afternoon. Remarkably, in less than an hour we have heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Witney (Robert Courts), for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Fylde (Mark Menzies), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Henley (John Howell), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Preston (Mr Hendrick). There has been consensus across the House on the need for such a strategy.
The BAE Systems announcement in October that it was planning to slow the production on the Typhoon and Hawk jets, resulting in a huge number of job losses, shocked many of us in this place, but with hindsight perhaps we should not have been surprised. Without a defence aerospace industrial strategy there can be no certainty within industry. Of course it is not just the 2,000 BAE Systems workers who will be affected; small and medium-sized enterprises, supply chains and local communities will all feel the impact of this announcement. Importantly, we face losing key skills from this industry, at a time when we should be protecting and developing them. This strategy must look not just at procurement and plans for equipment, but at how we are going to ensure we have the skilled workforce for the future.
Reckless decisions on defence are already affecting the security of the UK. Russian submarine incursions into the waters off Scotland’s west coast are reaching levels not seen since the cold war. The former Defence Secretary admitted that himself, warning of an “extraordinary increase” in Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic when he gave evidence to MPs last month. Despite those warnings, the UK’s ability to find the submarines has been drastically hampered since the Nimrod was scrapped seven years ago. In the past few years, we have seen American, Canadian, French and Norwegian aircraft in UK airspace, helping to pick up the slack.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) submitted a written question after a flight-tracking website at the end of last month tracked a friendly aircraft thought to be looking for a vessel. He asked
“which NATO countries provided Maritime Patrol Aircraft for use in UK airspace”.
The Minister for the Armed Forces admitted that aircraft from
“United States and Canada were temporarily deployed to RAF Lossiemouth during the period in question.”
This is a fundamental problem, and we will have to wait many years for the replacements. In fact, the we believe the P-8s are not going to be available until 2024, meaning that we have another seven years until they will be operational. We can only assume that Russian incursions will continue.
The Government must admit that their actions have an impact. The fall in the value of the pound has exposed the taxpayer to increased spending, and the former National Security Adviser Mark Lyall Grant stated that MOD officials were having to address a funding shortfall well before a final Brexit deal. He said that
“national security cannot be divorced from economic security…Put at its most basic, if the British economy suffers as a result of the prospect or reality of Brexit, then our ability to fund the ambitious 2015 strategic defence and security review will be put at risk, whether we continue to spend 2% of GDP on defence or not.”
These matters really must be considered as part of the industrial strategy. We also have to consider the impact of Brexit. The EU provides important opportunities for defence research and innovation, not only through the single market but through bodies such as the European Defence Agency. The Government must actively explore means to ensure that UK industry can maintain its existing relationship with European counterparts and benefit from collective innovation and joint projects.
The challenge for many companies is to be able to remain globally competitive. This is how an industrial strategy can help, regardless of whether we are talking about defence, aerospace or security. The Government must support investment in future skills and education, promote apprenticeships and technical courses, and build future capability. We need to recognise and support the regional clusters of universities, colleges and companies where collaboration is pushing the boundaries of innovation. Solutions for the defence sector have been applied to the civil aerospace sector, creating the potential for significant new business and economic expansion over the next decade.
We need to focus on collaborative programmes in Europe, the United States, South Americas and Asia if the UK is to continue in its position as a globally competitive player. Any strategy for defence aerospace should ensure that access to the best possible equipment and capabilities for the UK armed forces is safe- guarded.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on her opening speech. The debate has been important because of the significance of the defence aerospace industry to this country and to our nation’s defence. I wish to make two points. The second is about the need for a well-thought-out industrial strategy for the sector. First, though, I wish to address the particular problem that is being experienced with BAE Systems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) said, in October, BAE Systems announced that up to 1,400 jobs were to be lost in its military aerospace business over the next three years. It has said that the cuts will be implemented by 1 January and will affect managers as well as production line workers. At its aerospace bases at Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, where parts for the Eurofighter Typhoon are made and assembled, there will be 750 job losses. In BAE’s other aerospace base in Brough in east Yorkshire, there will be a near halving of its workforce to 500. That is all the more difficult to bear because 500 jobs were previously lost at that site four years ago.
Those job losses will have a devastating impact on the individuals affected and their families. It will also hit those communities that have a long tradition of providing workers for the aerospace industry. Moreover, many of these jobs are highly specialised and extremely skilled. Once those skills have been lost to the industry, it will be enormously difficult to replace them, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) quite accurately said.
A few days ago, my hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary and other Opposition Members wrote to the new Secretary of State for Defence. The letter made several important points and called on the Government to take action in a number of areas. It refers to the fact that the Hawk advanced jet trainer is currently in use by 18 countries across the world. It is therefore vital that the UK does its utmost to promote the Hawk aircraft as a good option for other nations as well. Can the Minister tell me what steps the Government are taking to promote the Hawk advanced jet trainer abroad?
As we all know, the Hawk is the aircraft of the iconic Red Arrows. In a few years’ time, the Red Arrows will need to renew their Hawks. It makes good sense for the Government to bring forward orders for the new Hawk T2s, so that there can be continuity of manufacture. The Minister for defence procurement will know that there is a precedent for that. The Government have brought forward orders for offshore patrol vessels to fill gaps and to support shipyards and workers. If the Government can do it once, they can do it twice.
There is also the statement of intent with Qatar for the purchase of 24 Typhoons and six Hawk aircraft, which was signed earlier in the year. We want to see that statement of intent firmed up as quickly as is humanly possible. The contract is tremendously important and I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on any progress that has been made.
The problems that BAE Systems faces at the moment serve to highlight the more general problem of a lack of a defence aerospace industrial strategy. We welcome the fact that—even though rather belatedly—the Government have produced a national shipbuilding strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned. We argue that a strategy should also be produced for the defence aerospace industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for the way in which he put his case.
Such a strategy should contain a number of elements. For example, there should be: full engagement with industry so that it can develop a more strategic approach to technological development and address the present and future needs of the armed forces; a long-term commitment by the Government to development by the aerospace sector with an emphasis on exports; a long-term perspective to give confidence and certainty, which in turn will encourage business investment; and a perpetual encouragement for industry to develop new, innovative approaches and technologies. That would require Government to allow industry the necessary “room” to develop more blue-sky thinking.
If we look at Britain’s national interest, we can see that it cannot be right for us to be buying so many of our capabilities off the shelf from our American allies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) so correctly argued. In place of short-termism and going for a quick fix, the Government should see things in the long term and value the economic contribution that the defence industry makes to the British economy and to the nation’s balance of payments.
Let us not forget that defence manufacturers in general, and the aerospace sector in particular, pay corporation tax and employee national insurance, and they have subcontractors and suppliers. In this context, it has been suggested—as the Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned—that there ought to be a Government commitment to at least an examination of the development of a next generation of combat aircraft. It has been suggested that such an aircraft will enter service in the 2030s and replace the Typhoon class aircraft. What is the Government’s position on that?
We have had a good debate on an important subject. There can be no doubt that it is vital that Britain has a vibrant defence aerospace sector. We have a workforce of which we can be proud and an industry that is full of enthusiasm and commitment. We now need a Government policy that is up to the challenges we face.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
It gives me great pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing it. We have heard 14 interesting and compelling Back-Bench contributions, and I will start by picking up on some of the general themes that came from them.
Many hon. Members spoke out on behalf of the incredible work of the BAE workforce in their constituencies. There has been an urgent question on this subject in recent days. The decision was made by the company, and it is currently consulting the workforce. As the Department is its largest customer, I have been in discussions with the company, asking that it looks to avoid any compulsory redundancies. As an employer ourselves, we are also in ongoing discussions regarding staff with the right skills who could fit into our organisation.
On the subject of the unfortunately named MUFC—the maritime underwater future capability—there is no hon. Gentleman who speaks up more for his constituents than the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). However, I am sure that he would acknowledge that there is a very solid pipeline of work in his constituency for decades to come. That shows the amazing work of those who live and work in his constituency. The maritime underwater future capability project is still ongoing work, and he will have seen some of the wonderfully imaginative recent ideas.
Regarding the Hawk pipeline, I can reassure the House that we continue to work on export opportunities to Kuwait and India. The RAF has 28 of the T2 aircraft, and there is no risk to the Red Arrows. A number of colleagues mentioned the P-8 aircraft. The first of that capability will come into service in 2019, and will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, which will be good for the local economy. Some excellent UK companies are in the P-8 supply chain, including Marshall with the fuel tanks, Martin-Baker with the crew seats and General Electric with the weapons pylons.
Harriett Baldwin
I will not take any interventions because there is so little time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke eloquently about the excellent Puma squadrons in his constituency. A number of colleagues asked about Typhoons. So far, just over 500 Typhoons have been built, and they are in service and have been ordered by nine countries around the world. There is still a significant pipeline of Typhoons to be built, and the statement of intent was signed with Qatar. Of course, the Government are working as hard as possible to ensure that those and the 12 Hawk aircraft are on contract by the end of the year.
Contributions from across the House have shown that not a corner of our great country is untouched by the nationwide enterprise that is defence aerospace. Indeed, we have a rising defence budget overall, and the strategic defence and security review in 2015 set out a £178 billion equipment plan for the next decade. In the last year for which we have the recorded numbers, 2015-16, the MOD had a spend of over £2 billion with UK aerospace, and that directly sustained over 7,000 jobs. In fact, I am delighted to be able to announce today that we have awarded Babcock three new contracts, worth £160 million, to provide RAF bases across the country with expert support.
As we heard in today’s debate, aerospace strikes a real chord with the British public, and we have heard some key reasons for that. There is obviously the historical connection and the fact that we have 100 years of the RAF coming up in the next year. We also know that our country would be a very different place were it not for the immense intervention of air power in world war one and particularly during the battle of Britain in world war two.
The current crop of aerospace experts in the UK has a worldwide leadership reputation. We have some of the most technically advanced and capable aerospace companies in the world. Aerospace is an engine of local and national prosperity. Up to 2,500 UK companies are involved in it, and it generates more than £33 billion of turnover, employing more than 120,000 people, including 26,000 just in research, design and engineering. Interestingly, more than 80% of the sector’s production is exported. Of the £64 billion brought into this country through defence-related exports in the last decade, 85% was generated by aerospace, and much of that was from the combat air sector.
Crucially, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned, we are using our kit in places such as Iraq today. A combination of our Tornadoes and Typhoons has helped to bring Daesh to its knees and liberated millions of people from an evil death cult. I am sure hon. Members will want to join me in paying tribute to all the brave men and women who are currently serving in our aircrews on deployment.
We are absolutely right to celebrate the aerospace sector, but we also need to talk about the future. The Typhoon has been selected by nine national air forces, and we are currently pursuing exports to Bahrain, Belgium, Finland, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Qatar. Other Typhoon nations are also pursuing export opportunities to other countries.
On the export pipeline, we are looking ahead not just one or two years. We need to look decades ahead, because we know our Typhoon aircraft will go out of service in 2040. The 2015 SDSR allocated a substantial budget over 10 years to the future combat air system technology initiative, precisely to protect and develop key design and engineering skills in our industrial base. The money includes funding for a national technology programme to maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in this area. Some of the work to mature other high-end technologies is with France, and some is with the US.
The decision on the future of combat air will require us to decide at some stage to replace the capabilities currently delivered by the Eurofighter Typhoon. It will be a complex decision, involving a clear military requirement and requiring detailed consideration of the industrial and financial implications. In terms of the timing, the decision will be made in the very early 2020s or sooner to enable a maingate decision on the procurement in or around 2025.
In conclusion, this is a key sector, and we have had a good debate highlighting a number of the issues in it. Our approach to the defence aerospace industry should be about an overall industry strategy, taking into account the business leaders, the educators, the representatives, the unions and the local economy. We must ensure that, whatever the dangers to come, the great industry we have been discussing today flies even higher, faster and further in the future.
Ruth Smeeth
Before I start, may I first apologise to the House? I should have directed everyone to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank all hon. Members for participating today, and the Minister for her contribution. I am a little concerned I did not hear the words, “We will have a defence aerospace industrial strategy,” and I hope she will return to the House at some point in the next few weeks, after she has consulted colleagues, to inform us of when we will have a defence aerospace industrial strategy.
I thank everyone for the debate. I hope everyone recognises that this is an opportunity to cast renewed light on the need for an industrial strategy, supporting both industry and our colleagues moving forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered defence aerospace industrial strategy.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to place on record my unreserved apology to the House for my conduct earlier. I was irritated by something that was said, and I allowed my irritation to get the better of me and I approached the Opposition Front Bench. I apologise unreservedly to the Opposition and to the House, and I have apologised to the Member in question. I believe he has accepted my apology.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courteous and unreserved apology, which is noted by the whole House.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That Richard Benyon, Ian Blackford, Caroline Flint, Mr Dominic Grieve, David Hanson, Mr Kevan Jones and Mr Keith Simpson be appointed to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.
Under the terms of section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the respective House. The Prime Minister has nominated the members, following the required consultations with the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. The House is now being asked to make the appointments in accordance with the Act.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am delighted to welcome the long overdue reconstitution of this Committee and wish it well with its work. It is nice to see at least two of its members in the Chamber this evening.
Mr Bradshaw
I do beg my hon. Friend’s pardon.
I hope that one of the Committee’s early inquiries will be into Russian interference in the UK. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been raising questions about this for the past year, during which the evidence of Russian interference in the American presidential election became credible and compelling. Until recently, the UK Government gave every impression of not wanting to talk about it, but mounting evidence on both sides of the Atlantic of covert Russian propaganda and social media activity, and the role of dark money in our democracy, makes it imperative that the Intelligence and Security Committee looks at this as a matter of urgency. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has already launched an inquiry and the Electoral Commission is conducting investigations into Russian-backed interference in the referendum, including with regard to social media and the funding of the pro-Brexit campaign and its main financial backer, Arron Banks.
The American investigation into alleged collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, led by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, has also now reached Britain. The FBI has named Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader, as a person of interest, and Mueller has indicted a former Trump campaign operative, George Papadopoulos, who had meetings in London with a UK-based academic, Josef Mifsud, to discuss the latter obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Kremlin. We know that Mr Papadopoulos has had access to British Ministers, and that Professor Mifsud has met the Foreign Secretary, although that was at first denied.
While it is imperative that the Government and their agencies give the fullest help and co-operation to the Culture Committee, the Electoral Commission and the Mueller investigations—although I know this is not his area of responsibility, I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that that will be the case, especially as I have been told that the Mueller team was in London recently and was not happy with the co-operation it was receiving from the UK authorities—it is the Intelligence and Security Committee that has much freer and direct access to our intelligence and security services and can question them directly. That is why its reconstitution is so important.
Despite the mounting evidence of recent months, the Foreign Secretary was still insisting last week that he had seen no evidence of Russian interference, but on Monday the Prime Minister said, or at least implied, something very different in her Mansion House speech. She excoriated the Putin regime for hacking, interfering in elections, and spreading fake news to sow discord in western democracies and threaten our international order.
It would be helpful to the Houses of Parliament and the country as a whole if the Government would end this confusion now. Is Britain among the countries that the Prime Minister had in mind when she made her speech? Indeed, it would be rather odd, given the uniquely disruptive impact of the Brexit vote and Putin’s well publicised desire for it, if Britain alone were immune from the Kremlin’s intentions. If the Government will not clear this up, I hope the ISC will. I hope that the ISC will also use its good offices to ensure that the Government and all their agencies give every assistance necessary to the other UK bodies investigating these matters and to Robert Mueller’s team.
Additionally, I urge the ISC to include the issue of dark money and the role of think-tanks in any of its deliberations on this matter. We know that more than £400,000 was donated during the EU referendum to the Democratic Unionist party by the Constitutional Research Council. The CRC has also given money to hard Brexit-supporting MPs, including the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). It was reported last week that the fine the Electoral Commission imposed as a result of the DUP donation resulted from a failure to disclose its source. That is not acceptable.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant and forensic speech, and he is to be commended by us all for pursuing this matter over the past year. Does he agree that a priority for the ISC should be to get to the bottom of whether foreign money was donated to the election campaigns and to the referendum campaign? A gap in the law means that the Electoral Commission is not empowered to investigate foreign actors and foreign money, and their influence on our democracy and this House.
Mr Bradshaw
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Our legal framework is completely outdated for meeting the challenges that we face.
There is a further issue that I hope the Government will address. They have promised to close the loophole in Northern Ireland, where political donations remain secret for historical reasons, but that is completely unacceptable. It is quite clear that Northern Ireland has recently been used as a channel for such donations. The Government, to their credit, have said that they will change the law. Every single party in Northern Ireland— except the DUP, I think—believes that such a change should be retrospective. That would allow us to go back to the time of the referendum so that we would know where the money came from, and we could have full confidence in the integrity of our political and democratic process.
I also urge the ISC to look at the Legatum Institute, its relationship with the Government, and the background of its founder and main funder, Christopher Chandler. It should also consider the activities and funding of political organisations such as Conservative Friends of Russia, now renamed as the Westminster Russia Forum.
I come now to my final and perhaps most important point: the relationship between our intelligence and security services and those of our closest ally, America; and the relationship of each with their respective Government. President Trump is at war with his intelligence community. He has made it abundantly clear that he would sooner believe Putin than his own intelligence and security professionals. That is shocking, but it would be even more worrying for us if that breakdown in relations were mirrored here and had a negative impact on the vital work of our agencies and the extent of their co-operation with their US counterparts.
When the news website BuzzFeed ran a series of articles recently about unexplained Russia-related deaths in Britain, its head of investigations, Heidi Blake, was inundated with American intelligence sources complaining that they did not think their British counterparts were taking these incidents seriously. If that is true, it is extremely worrying.
Until recently, British Ministers have gone out of their way to avoid talking about Russian interference. They might have been worried about doing anything that might cast doubt on the legitimacy of the EU referendum result or embarrass President Trump, from whom they hope to get a trade deal to save them from the Brexit disaster.
I hope the ISC, now that it will finally be reconstituted, will be able to reassure itself and this Parliament that our intelligence and security services continue to act freely within the law, unhampered by any narrow political concerns of Ministers, and that their vital co-operation with their US counterparts has not been affected by the breakdown between the latter and their President. This issue goes to the heart of the security and integrity of our democracy and political system, and I wish the members of the Committee well in their important work ahead.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I want briefly to add to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s to-do list, because it is important that there should be a rapid study—with conclusions brought to the House, when appropriate—of what is a rapidly emerging 21st century propaganda operation for which a playbook emerged during the elections in Europe and in America, and in our recent referendum campaign. That involves some reasonably sophisticated techniques in fabricating division and discord on social media platforms such as Twitter, which are then imported into social media networks such as Facebook, with significant—often dark—money behind them, to spread messages that are quite simply not true.
The impact of that is often to undermine democracy, and we in the mother of Parliaments have a particular duty to ensure that the new techniques are fully exposed and that commensurate action is taken against them. We have talked about the gaps in our laws, and we must make sure that the disinfectant of sunlight shines right the way through the elections we have had so that those laws can be fixed.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I speak not only as a former member of the ISC, but as someone who was involved in the 1980s in trying to counter what were called active measures—the use by the Soviet Union of agents of influence and organisations to try to have an impact on British public opinion. The difference between then and now is that it was then quite easy to expose who was behind the influence operations, but now that is much harder because the internet allows concealment.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main antidotes to the concerns expressed in this debate is that the intelligence agencies, and particularly the new technological arm of GCHQ that deals with the internet, should work to expose who is behind the messages that are coming through? We cannot stop messages getting through, but we can neutralise them by showing up their provenance.
Liam Byrne
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. There are well-sourced reports that there have been at least two briefings about Russian interference to the Prime Minister, if not the Cabinet. It is not clear what action was taken in response, but it is now quite clear that dark forces have new techniques. We recognise their fingerprints in some of the referendums and elections that have played out in our country and elsewhere, but let us be under no illusion that their job is not done. They will continue to try to influence debates in this House because they want to change the political environment in which we debate the terms of Brexit, for example. The faster the ISC can do its work and expose, in an appropriate way, what is truly going on, the better for all of us.
Michael Ellis
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
Needless to say, the topics chosen for discussion by any Committee are not a matter for me or any of Her Majesty’s Ministers. However, the first point to make is that the Government recognise the need to protect the reliability and objectivity of information, which is an essential component of democracy. That is why Her Majesty’s Government are working with the industry to ensure that high-quality online news media have a sustainable future, and that so-called fake news is not commercially incentivised. It is important to make the point that significant work is being done on that.
On the points about alleged electoral abuse, there has much talk for some time about Russian interference in democratic processes both in the United Kingdom and overseas. In response, the United Kingdom has been proactive. It has actively engaged international partners and civil society to tackle the Kremlin’s use of disinformation and propaganda. However, it is the United Kingdom’s very robust, free, wide-ranging, vibrant and varied media landscape that is our key defence against disinformation. To date, as has been said, we have not seen evidence of successful interference in democratic processes in the United Kingdom. Naturally, we would take robust action should there be evidence of such interference.
If there are any other points on which Members think I can be of further assistance, they should feel free to write to me, and I will certainly see to it that inquiries are made of the relevant Departments. Interesting points have been made in these contributions, and I very much look forward to seeing the fruits of the deliberations of this important Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Accounts Commission
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Bacon, Jack Brereton, Mr Nicholas Brown, Martyn Day, Clive Efford, Julian Knight and Sir Edward Leigh be appointed, and that James Cartlidge and Ian Murray be discharged as members of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983.—(Michael Ellis.)
Child Maintenance Service
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is perhaps not surprising that while Brexit dominates most political debate, issues of huge importance sometimes slip through the scrutiny of this place, and I believe that the Child Maintenance Service falls into that category. After several months of working through the formalities of this House, I am delighted finally to have the opportunity to raise my concerns and highlight in the Chamber the real struggles faced by my constituents.
My constituency office has dealt with a huge variety of problems with the Child Maintenance Service, including the tax on survivors of domestic violence—the Minister may be aware of that issue since I have been campaigning on it for some time. I would also like to raise further constituency cases beyond that campaign, and I hope that the Minister will respond to my remarks.
The Child Maintenance Service was established in 2012 to replace the Child Support Agency—an organisation that was arguably worse. The new system was built on the ethos that children fare better when their parents have a positive relationship. However, that is not the case for all former partners, and some of the ill-judged changes made in the transition to the CMS included glaring oversights in the administration of the system. The stubborn refusal of the Government to acknowledge their mistakes has meant that the current system is not always fit for purpose.
The essence of child support is simple. When both parents are not in a relationship, or if they break up, the child should not suffer financially. For some children, the CMS is their means of avoiding poverty. As a result, that organisation forms one of the most important roles of government—the protection of children. It is therefore vital that such a service should be treated with no less complacency than any other Department.
To allow the CMS to fulfil its important duty, some changes should be made. It currently operates three different payment systems, two of which—the family-based scheme, and the direct pay scheme—operate without charge. The collect and pay scheme, however, has a number of charges. The family-based scheme essentially runs without the involvement of the CMS. Parents can sort out financial arrangements without the bureaucracy of Government interference. It is designed for former partners who can maintain an amicable relationship, and it is the most advantageous scheme for all those involved. It is cost-neutral to the Government, beneficial to the child, and ideally involves no ill-feeling between the parents.
The direct pay scheme is where child maintenance is directed to the receiving parent without using the CMS. That happens after a maintenance calculation has been made by the Department. Parents essentially agree between themselves how and when maintenance will be paid, and the onus is on both parents to monitor the payment and highlight any discrepancies within the agreement. The direct pay scheme does not check whether maintenance has been paid, and neither does it offer any enforcement for either parent. Instead, if the scheme does not work, the CMS offers a move to a managed service—the collect and pay service. That scheme is available to those who have failed to receive payment, and if there is a reason why someone may not wish to interact with their ex-partner, or if the parent requests to use that scheme, in many cases the CMS can collect child maintenance payments and pass them on to the parent with day-to-day care of the children.
Paying parents must pay a 20% collection fee on top of their usual child maintenance balance, and receiving parents must pay a 4% per cent collection fee that is deducted from their usual child maintenance amount. There is a £20 application charge for the collect and pay scheme, which is waived should the receiving parent be a survivor of domestic abuse. This scheme is the safest of all. Even in this instance, however, the system can be open to exploitation and abuse. The protections include wage deductions and the removal of any possible contact with an abusive partner. As the Minister will know, one of the biggest barriers to independence for survivors of domestic abuse is financial control, which is why it is welcome that the £20 application fee for the collect and pay scheme is waived for survivors of domestic abuse.
I welcome the waiver, but it leads to the question that if the collect and pay scheme is the most secure mechanism for survivors of domestic abuse to exercise their right to child maintenance, and is free to apply, why is there an ongoing monthly charge for the survivors’ continued safety? The 4% collection charge is removed from the child’s entitlement. This is support that the Government have already determined through their calculations that a child is due, yet they see fit to remove it, taking vital financial support from families and penalising children.
In previous correspondence with the Minister’s Department, I was informed that the charges were to cover administering the cost of the service and to incentivise the use of other schemes within the CMS. Logically, however, that runs counter to the Government’s removal of the £20 charge. The Minister is essentially saying that the initial charges are intended to incentivise the use of other schemes, but the ongoing monthly, and more costly, charges are there to penalise those where this is not possible. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the Government are using the charges to encourage some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country to engage with their abusive ex-partners and to rely on Government bureaucracy or worse. That is unacceptable and it must stop.
The 4% tax on survivors of domestic abuse has rightly caused major concern with support groups and charities, including Women’s Aid, the White Ribbon Campaign, Gingerbread, Engender and One Parent Families Scotland. Those organisations all signed a letter in March this year, alongside Members from every party in this House with the exception of Government Members, calling for the abolition of the tax. Since then, the Government have lost their majority and this could carry the majority of the House. I therefore implore the Minister to do the right thing by vulnerable parents and send a message that the Child Maintenance Service should be a place of safety and security where individuals can exercise their right to child maintenance without fear of recurring abuse. I have been campaigning for this change for some time and have heard many weak excuses from the Department for its inaction. If the Minister in his reply plans to give me some of the same lines I have heard in the past, let me assure him that I have heard them all before. Let me try to counter them in advance and save him some time.
The Government have consistently advised me that the direct pay scheme is a safe scheme and that the collect and pay scheme is the best way to ensure that both parties are protected. The Prime Minister has told me that users can utilise anonymous sort codes and therefore hide their location and that, if a payment is not made, the domestic abuse survivor can move on to the collect and pay service. Let me tell the Minister why that answer is at best careless and at worst negligent. Giving abusers access to communication with their former partners through bank transfers, and the ability to leave messages while doing so, continues the cycle of abuse. Allowing abusers to pay late without fear of enforcement also continues the cycle of abuse. The system is open to exploitation and abuse, and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.
Finally, while the collect and pay service offers the protection required, the charges come into play if a domestic abuse survivor is moved on to it. I am sure that that is not the intention. There is no way, even by the Government’s logic, that a survivor of domestic abuse can escape the tax applied by the Government without subjecting themselves to the possibility of continued abuse. Surely the Minister would agree that that is a flaw in the system? It must be reviewed and addressed accordingly.
Another argument proposed by the Conservative party is that the tax is so small that it does not matter. I would question whether it is the place of the Government to define what matters and what constitutes small or large. Is it the place of the Government to define what is materially impactful when vulnerable families rely on the service? In response to a letter, the former Minister highlighted the fact that the 4% charge was “minuscule” and, in her interpretation, was not materially impactful. That is not a position I would expect of a Minister. I would expect the Minister to listen and adopt the views of Opposition Members as well as Government Members.
I believe that the Minister’s response is contemptible at best, and I seek a better response from the Department. I want to raise two points. First, if it is not materially impactful, why apply it at all? Secondly, it might not have a huge effect on the Government’s budget, but for families living on the breadline, every penny counts. In advance of next week’s Budget, I ask the Government to consider who needs the 4% of child maintenance more—a family who will feel its material impact or the Treasury, which will not? I hope he will feed that back to the Chancellor along with my determination that the tax be scrapped.
The Government consider it a success that more people are using the systems outside the intervention of the CMS, but with one third of those applying for children maintenance citing domestic abuse as the reason, I wonder how many individuals are being put at risk to avoid these punitive charges. The CMS should be protecting, not punishing, those who have fled domestic abuse. It is time that the tax was scrapped. I have spoken at length about the domestic abuse survivors tax—an issue I have campaigned on and which needs attention—but it is just one aspect of the service that is not working, yet, as much of my constituency casework shows, it could very easily be addressed.
I wish to highlight a few further issues with the CMS, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. Several issues with its administration have clearly had an impact on my constituents. One of them had been in an abusive relationship but managed to cut off all contact while receiving maintenance for their child. However, the Department sent her a letter meant for her ex-partner, which caused her great concern, as she was worried that he would get mail meant for her and find out her new location. It is unacceptable that a simple administrative error could strike such fear and alarm into an individual and that any Department, no matter how easily administrative errors might occur, could allow someone to feel endangered in that way.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I rise to mention the case of lady in my constituency who approached the CSA back in 2005 and was assessed as only getting £18 a week. Eventually in 2013, after multiple letters and failures, it recognised that it should have been £68 a week. By that time, though, there were nearly £20,000 of arrears. That woman has been left in debt, and until recently we were told that the arrears would be cleared over the coming 15 years. By then, she would have been left servicing debt for 27 years. We have managed to get it sorted, but the idea that someone could write back to a woman who has raised children for 12 years on her own and say, “Don’t worry. In 15 years, it’ll be cleared,” shows a lack of comprehension of the real world.
Angela Crawley
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that such errors, so glaring and so obvious, should be addressed by the Government.
The service levels offered to my constituents are often inconsistent, and CMS rules are often not followed by departmental staff. For example, requests to use the collect and pay service are often discouraged by advisers. I have previously raised the case of a constituent whose ex-partner was falling behind on payments and had requested to be put on the collect and pay scheme. She was told by a CMS adviser that this was not possible because the shortfall in payments was less than 10%. My constituent had not heard of this rule and, on asking where this was written in the legislation, was told to look it up herself.
I could not find it written down anywhere either, and on questioning the Department, I was informed that it was not policy. Will the Minister tell me if there are targets for staff to keep people off collect and pay? I sincerely hope that there are not. If not, why are excuses being made not to use the scheme? In calculating the amount owed by the paying parent, income details are taken from HMRC, but they are not always taken from the most recent tax year. In fact, HMRC can use historic income data from any year in the past six for which it considers it has complete details.
While this might work for most people, as was outlined in correspondence with the Department, it fails those who are self-employed or who tend to work on a contractual basis. For those people, income figures can vary dramatically year on year, so the calculation often does not reflect real incomes. The CMS system of annual reviews does not work for contractors, particularly when the annual review takes place before the end of the tax year. That simply causes more issues, with CMS payments being calculated on the basis of inaccurate income figures. There is currently no facility for a mid-year adjustment, and I ask for that aspect of the policy to be reviewed.
An additional failure in the system of calculation is that, should a contractor submit payslips to try to prove current income, the amount shown on them is extrapolated to produce an estimated annual income. The contracts are often, by nature, short-term, and a few months of high income may be followed by months of no work. This is what happened to my constituent George Gillan, from Carluke. As the Minister knows, I have written to one of his colleagues about it.
George worked offshore on a contractual basis, with a high income during the months when he was working, which were followed by periods when he could live on those earnings when out of work. At present, the CMS is calculating his payments on the basis of income from the tax year ending April 2015. George tried to submit evidence of a change in his circumstances by sending 12 weeks of payslips, but that was extrapolated across the whole year. The total estimated income did not breach the 25% threshold for a new calculation, so it could not be changed.
That left my constituent owing payments that he simply could not afford to make. His annual review takes place in February, and because a mid-year adjustment could not be offered, he cannot afford to take short-term contracts, as he will be expected to make payments based on his higher income from 2015. He has not worked since December 2016, because he is fearful that he will be penalised on that contractual basis. If mid-year adjustments were possible—I hope the Minister will consider them—things would be much easier for those who are self-employed or work on a contractual basis. I hope the Minister will agree that that would be an easy accommodation to make. There is a fundamental flaw in the current procedure for identifying accurate income details, especially those of contractual workers.
I am sure that I have given the Minister more than enough material to respond to, but Members and the public will know there are many issues I have not been able to cover today. Let me recap. I am asking the Minister to make the system fairer for survivors of domestic abuse by scrapping the 4% tax for those who use the collect and pay service. I am asking him to address the administrative problems that plague the CMS. I am asking him to ensure that its service is managed to a high standard and that policies are clear and correctly interpreted by staff. I am asking him to ensure that the CMS works for contractual workers by allowing accurate income details to be taken and allowing for mid-year adjustments. I realise that it is difficult for policy changes to be made, but I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to some of the injustices that my constituents and people across the country have experienced in their dealings with the CMS.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. It took me rather a long time to secure the debate. I urge the Minister to take my pleas on board and to seek to improve the system to protect and support families, which is what the Child Maintenance Service should be doing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing the debate. There was a debate on the subject in April, but this is the first debate that the hon. Lady has been able to secure. I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for her contribution. Let me deal with that at the outset. The Minister with responsibility for the policy would very much like to know about any specifics of what is clearly a very regrettable story of illness.
Dr Whitford
I had a meeting with the appropriate Minister earlier this week, and it has been found that the person who should pay has money to pay, but if that had not been the case, the response would have been “another 15 years”, which seems inhuman to me.
Guy Opperman
I am very pleased that my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), has met the hon. Lady and has the matter in hand. I am sure that she will be addressing both the individual case and the long-term issue of assessments made on that basis. I should pass on her apologies. I am not the responsible policy Minister, but my hon. Friend has been answering a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on the support that the Department for Work and Pensions offers care leavers, so asked me to step in on her behalf.
I also apologise if the letter in relation to the constituent identified with the self-employed issue had not reached the hon. Lady. My understanding is that it was sent on Tuesday. I was able to hand-deliver it today, but I offer my apologies if it had not made it into the hon. Lady’s hands prior to that. Clearly, there are answers to some of the points in relation to the self-employed in the letter, but if, upon sober and long-term perusal of that letter, the hon. Lady wishes to respond, I am sure that the correspondence can be continued.
I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to the Child Maintenance Service. The Department has since 2012 been delivering a comprehensive package of reforms of the child maintenance system, which is intended to support parents to take responsibility for paying for their children’s upbringing. For many years, the old system, under the Child Support Agency, did not provide the right support to parents. That is why the Government are closing cases under the Child Support Agency and giving parents the opportunity to apply to the Child Maintenance Service.
The new system run by the Child Maintenance Service is designed to encourage collaboration between parents, which we know has a direct positive impact on child outcomes, including health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. Parents can obtain free advice and support from the Child Maintenance Options service on making an arrangement that is right for them, whether that is a family-based arrangement or a statutory one.
More than a quarter of those who have contacted Child Maintenance Options have a family-based arrangement, and 82% of these arrangements are effective. The charges introduced in 2014 provide a further incentive for parents to consider making a family-based arrangement. The total income from fees and charges is less than 10% of the costs of providing the service, which remains heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The statutory scheme is available for those who are unable to set up a family-based arrangement. These parents are therefore most likely to have conflict and difficulties meeting their child maintenance responsibilities.
There is a range of strong enforcement powers, and the Government are ramping up the usage of them. We aim to take immediate action to re-establish compliance wherever a parent fails to pay what they owe. In June 2017 the Government instigated 550 more enforcement actions than in June 2016, and the intake of cases to civil enforcement increased by 670 on the previous year.
Last month, we announced plans for new legislation to allow deductions to be made from jointly held bank accounts, closing a loophole that allowed a small minority of parents to cheat their way out of paying towards their children. Our efforts on compliance and debt recovery are firmly focused on helping today’s children. We have continued to uphold this principle since it was set out in the arrears and compliance strategy in January 2013.
We have also been frank about the shortcomings of the previous Child Support Agency schemes, which included the build-up of debt through unpaid maintenance payments, and the Department is currently working on a new strategy that will maintain the principle of focusing our efforts on collecting money for today’s children while looking at creative and innovative ways to maximise compliance in the system.
This new system introduced simplified calculations and increased automation, allowing cases to be processed with a higher level of accuracy than under previous schemes. Additionally, survey data published in December 2016 showed that 91% of parents receiving payments through a direct pay arrangement were receiving all or most of the maintenance due to them. The most recent statistics show that 85% of new applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 81% of change of circumstances actions on live cases were cleared within 28 days, and the level of complaints received remains extremely low, at less than 0.1 % of the case load. No one is complacent, but in the grand scheme of things, 0.1% is relatively low. The caseload on the Child Maintenance Service is still growing, however, and we are taking every opportunity to maintain compliance and deal with non-compliance before enforcement action is needed. We are continuing to increase the operational resources allocated to enforcement, with 290 full-time enforcement case managers in place as of September 2017.
Turning to fees and charges, the one-off £20 application fee for the Child Maintenance Service is intended to prompt parents to consider whether they can make a family-based arrangement. We want to help parents to reduce levels of conflict after a separation and work together more effectively, as we know that this is in the best interests of their children. The application fee is waived in three cases: for the most vulnerable clients; for applicants who are under 19 years of age; and for those who have been victims of domestic abuse. For parents who need to use the statutory scheme, there are no further charges for using the direct pay service, where parents manage payments between themselves. I will go into the direct pay service in a bit more detail later.
Collection charges apply only to the collect and pay service and are intended to encourage both parents to collaborate. The 4% charge for receiving parents ensures that both parents have an incentive to work together and to try direct pay. The collection charge for the receiving parent is deducted only when maintenance is paid, so they do not owe money to the Child Maintenance Service if maintenance is not paid. In addition, charges make a modest contribution to the cost of running an expensive service, which remains heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
In relation to domestic abuse cases, the Department is committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse get the support they need to use the Child Maintenance Service. I have explained about the waiver of the £20 application fee, and the fact that the more expensive enforcement charges are levied on the paying parent. Where a direct pay arrangement is in place, no fees are required. Research from the 30-month review published in December 2016 showed that receiving parents who had experienced domestic abuse were just as likely to have an effective direct pay arrangement as other receiving parents. We are supporting those parents to use the direct pay service safely without having contact with an ex-partner by: facilitating the exchange of bank details; ensuring that personal information is not shared; and providing information about setting up bank accounts with a centralised—rather than personalised—sort code which does not allow parents to be traced. I have very much taken on board the hon. Lady’s suggestion about bank transfer messages, and I will ensure that the Minister looks into that and gets back to her, in respect of that matter and any others that I have not addressed in the limited time available today.
In addition, we have worked with stakeholders to develop a new training package to ensure that all caseworkers are able to understand and recognise domestic abuse and respond appropriately to clients who are victims of abuse. This training has been piloted and is being rolled out nationally from September 2017. The Government are genuinely committed to continued evaluation of the effects of the child maintenance reforms, including the impact of charging. We will continue to consider our current position in the light of any further evidence that our evaluations produce.
I want to touch briefly on the 30-month review, which included the report on the impact of charging that was published in August 2017. The review consists of a series of independently conducted and internal research reports, official statistics and administrative data. The survey data showed that most direct pay arrangements were in force 13 months after the original direct pay calculation, and that 91% of parents who were receiving payments through a direct pay arrangement were receiving all or most of the maintenance due to them. I accept the need for continued evaluation of the impact of charging as we complete the Child Support Agency case closure process.
If there are any specifics that I have not addressed, I will ensure that the Minister who holds the portfolio responds to them. I want to make it clear that there are no targets to keep people from moving from collect and pay. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are absolutely committed to promoting parental responsibility and collaboration and to providing an efficient, effective statutory scheme to be used as a last resort. Our priorities remain ensuring that as many families as possible have effective arrangements in place that are appropriate for their circumstances and taking action to maintain compliance in the statutory scheme, so that today’s children can benefit from maintenance payments.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Fair Funding for Schools
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th November 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 View all Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 14 November 2017 - (15 Nov 2017)
The Chair
We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind colleagues to turn off any electronic devices, please.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 10
Review of Part 1
‘(1) By September 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness of the system for defining and insuring automated vehicles introduced by Part 1 of this Act.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the impact on the insurance industry,
(b) the impact on the cost of insurance premiums for automated vehicles,
(c) the impact on the uptake of automated vehicles, and
(d) the levels of disagreement between manufacturers and insurers on liability.’—(Karl Turner.)
This new clause would require the Government to lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness and impact of the system introduced in Part 1.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, is self-explanatory, so I will not talk at great length about it. We agree that in future automated vehicles have the potential to improve personal transport arrangements, as well as air quality—which is crucial, given the dire state of the environment and its impact on health—and to provide many other benefits mentioned by Committee members and witnesses during our evidence sessions.
The Bill could lead to a transport revolution. I know from debates in Committee and private discussions with the Minister and his officials that the Government are keen to ensure that that is the reality arising from the Bill. Answering the question of how automated vehicles can be insured, however, is essential. I welcome the Government setting out how to do that, but it is important to consider how the measures will work in practice and not just as legislation. It is also important for the Government to ensure that regulations work as intended, monitoring unexpected impacts—which there always are—before attitudes and practices become entrenched and before automated vehicles become common on our roads.
The list in the new clause is not exhaustive, but given the focus on part 1 of the Bill, it makes sense to review, report on and seriously consider not only the impacts listed but any disagreements about liability. I will not press for a vote on the new clause, but this will be a fast-moving area and primary legislation is not necessarily the way forward. We may well have to revisit this overall area as and when advances in the technology take place, and we will have to look at how they affect the way vehicles are insured.
It is important for the Minister to give an assurance today that he will keep Parliament informed about the effectiveness and impact of the legislation to ensure that we keep it as up to date as possible, given the new technologies in this area.
The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)
The shadow Minister once again does credit to the Committee by insisting that these matters should be carefully considered not just now but as they develop. He is right that this is a developing technology, and the whole Committee recognises the Government’s attempt to do sufficient, but not too much—that is to say, sufficient to create the certainty that will allow the development of the insurance framework, but not so much that we constrain those developments. It is right, of course, that we continue to bring these matters to the attention of the House, which is essentially what the new clause would do. He argues rightly that we need to ensure that the purpose of the legislation is being fulfilled. It is as simple as that.
I risk repeating myself—I know that many rather enjoy the repetition of my arguments; I am not one of them—but I drew the Committee’s attention to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which specifically makes provision to review secondary legislation in which the requisite provisions are made. It confers that duty on Ministers. There is some advantage to be gained from that. None the less, I have made it clear during the course of our consideration that I am not in any way ill disposed to other means by which we can continue to consider these matters. It is important that we recognise that, in a rapidly changing field, further consideration may be efficacious. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will withdraw his new clause.
Talking of sufficiency, I do not feel that that is quite sufficient an argument. I want to talk a little bit about how we envisage the system working, which might offer further reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members. The international standards by which these vehicles will be approved for safe sale and use are still being considered, as I said previously, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, in which the UK plays a leading role. Those standards will form the basis of the type approval process. That means that nothing will be sold or used on our roads that does not meet those standards, and it is vital that standards are agreed internationally, for obvious reasons: the nature of the automotive industry and of the vehicles’ use means that it must be done in that way.
The Government take the view that it is not appropriate at this early stage to set criteria that are too precise or to constrain the identification process until we know what those standards are. We certainly need to maintain sufficient flexibility to ensure that all vehicles relevant to the clause can quickly be identified and included on the list that the Secretary of State is missioned to draw up in clause 1.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as he says in the first of the three letters he has helpfully written to the Committee, it will be high on the Government’s agenda that the type approval process will be used as the means for ensuring the cyber-security of the vehicles, in addition to their safety? Can he also confirm that he is confident that the international negotiations will result in a type approval system that covers security as well as safety?
Mr Hayes
Yes. That was debated at some length when we last met. My right hon. Friend is right that because of the character of the software we use to make these vehicles work, data and cyber-security become ever more significant. My letter addresses this, as he helpfully reminded the Committee, but I can confirm that the discussions we are having have at their heart all the considerations to which he has drawn the Committee’s attention.
We will continue to engage with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other stakeholders to ensure that the system works effectively once in place. In addition, we have produced a detailed impact assessment that looks at potential direct economic impacts on the insurance industry. Hon. Members will remember that we rehearsed the effect that this will have on insurance premiums and the industry as a whole in oral evidence. The industry is already preparing for those effects, because it knows that the shape and character of the insurance industry will alter as a result of all this. Indeed, one of the UK’s major insurers has stated that it expects insurance premiums to become cheaper because automated vehicles will be safer. That view was echoed by the Bank of England, which reported in March this year that the safety benefits from automated vehicles could see insurance premiums become more than 20% cheaper by 2040.
As part of this regulatory programme, we will continue to work with the industry to ensure that, as the new insurance framework is implemented, we still meet our intended policy objectives. I therefore hope I have made it clear that we entirely agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East that these matters need to be considered now and in the future, and I have no doubt that there will be a need for the House to be involved in that process. With those assurances, I hope the hon. Gentleman might see fit to withdraw the new clause.
Karl Turner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Review of impact of Part 2
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out the impact of regulations made under Part 2 on—
(a) the number and location of charge points in the United Kingdom,
(b) the resulting uptake of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom, and
(c) the manufacturing of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.
(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.”—(Alan Brown.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report examining the uptake and manufacturing of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for being late; I am glad I got here in time to make some comments. New clauses 12, 13 and 14, when looked at in the round, encompass a common theme: ensuring a proper UK-wide approach and commitment to reviewing the policy’s implementation and effectiveness across all nations of the UK, in terms of the roll-out and uptake of electric vehicles.
I appreciate that the Minister appears to be a listening Minister who reflects, reviews and advises as appropriate. That has been evident throughout the Committee. I also appreciate that he has already made a number of commitments, but the reality is that nothing is absolutely certain unless it is in the Bill. In February 2016, as part of the Enterprise Bill Committee, I was urged not to push an amendment about cash retentions to a vote and was assured by the then Minister that the issue would be resolved by the end of 2016. We are now a full year on from that deadline and the Government are consulting on a previous consultation. That is proof that Ministers and commitments come and go, which is why we are trying to incorporate these measures into the Bill.
New clause 12 would require a binding 12-month review of the impact of the regulations and ensure that the views of the devolved nations are taken on board. For example, the Scottish Government are creating their own strategy for the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles, which they are linking with the Scottish energy strategy, which is obviously a common-sense alignment. It is important that the Scottish Government’s 2032 target for phasing out new petrol and diesel cars is not undercut by a UK Government strategy. A further example is that the Scottish Government are offering interest-free loans and free infrastructure installation over and above UK Government grants.
It is quite clear that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can and will work together on future strategies. That could include, for example, the UK Government introducing a vehicle scrappage scheme. New clause 12 would therefore formalise that aspect of working together towards a common goal in the long-term future.
Mr Hayes
It is our concern that these things should be dealt with in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. I have regular dialogue with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Administration and other parts of the kingdom on transport matters and will continue to do so. We get on well, and I think we share a common view that these things should be crafted in a way that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. We make it our habit to involve all relevant bodies in these considerations. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely certain that that will continue, and I am happy to put it on the record that that dialogue will form an important part of how we see these measures coming into force.
I see the objective of his new clause, and he makes a perfectly understandable case, but I think he will have determined from working with me in Committee in the past that I always try to find means by which we can build bridges across the House—particularly in those areas where, frankly, it is very hard to make party politics. Any Government, of almost any colour, would introduce legislation such as this. It is a necessity. It is vital, relevant and, one might even say, demanded. Those in the industry, such as those engaged in research and development, whom we have all mentioned, know that the Government need to work in collaboration with them to make it all happen in the interests of the common good. I hope that with that firm, strong assurance, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the new clause.
Alan Brown
I certainly welcome the Minister’s assurances and his comments. I still have the slight feeling of having had my fingers burnt in the past, but I recognise the genuine commitment from him and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Report on electric charging points
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out a UK-wide electric charging point strategy that must include, but is not limited to, a strategy for establishing charging points for —
(a) domestic properties,
(b) urban and rural settlements, and
(c) the road network.
(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.”—(Alan Brown.)
This new clause would require the Government to consult with devolved administrations and produce a report setting out a UK-wide strategy for electric charging points.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alan Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 13 would formalise the need for a reporting strategy for establishing charge points covering the varied demographics and geography of the UK, and would include differentiating between rural and urban areas. I appreciate that the Minister has spoken at length about the commitment to consider how we can roll out so as to ensure that rural areas are not left behind.
Again, this is about ensuring a UK-wide approach and picking up on other investment required for rural areas, which I have touched on before, such as mobile coverage upgrades. Additionally, as other hon. Members have highlighted, a strategy for domestic properties needs to be developed covering solutions such as charging points accessible to terraced houses and flats, and possibly roll-out in future developments, so that infrastructure is incorporated as new developments take place. We also need to consider the road networks and allow best practice to be rolled out fully across the UK. That is the idea behind the clause, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As I did on Second Reading, I want to re-emphasise the point about the provision for other forms of electric vehicle—the Minister and I have had conversations elsewhere about it—particularly in the provisions for EV buses, for example, and cycles.
We are facing a revolution, not just in cars but in all forms of mobility. It is incumbent on us to recognise that at this juncture we should be thinking about how to integrate those needs into the Bill, and specifically about infrastructure. We have talked about where sites might be located, and about commercial properties, but we should be thinking specifically about the infrastructure needed for buses in our town centres. I urge that that be incorporated into the new clause as well.
Alan Brown
I welcome that intervention. It is a valid point; we need to look at the wider considerations. Buses and other vehicles are the biggest polluters in terms of NOx, so it is certainly an important consideration. As I said, I will be happy to hear the Minister’s response; I hope that it will encapsulate these issues as well.
Mr Hayes
In 2013, as the whole Committee, including the hon. Gentleman, will know, the Government published “Driving the Future Today”, which set out the path to achieving zero-emissions vehicles. It was Yeats, my favourite poet, who said that
“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing or that, but simply growth. We are happy when we are growing.”
The growth of new kinds of vehicles has been almost unremitting since that publication. The facts speak for themselves. There are around 10 times more ultra low emission vehicles registered in the UK than in 2013, so although the aims of the strategy published then remain the same, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need a new one. I have thought about it since I read his new clause and since hearing the arguments made from both sides of the Committee. We shall publish a new strategy that will include all vehicles. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right: we have had private discussions about this and he has made representations to me. We will start work on it now, because I do not want to delay—I am casting an eye only at the politicians in the room, by the way. Shall we say that we will have it completed and published by March? That would be well within the time in which the Bill is being considered. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will withdraw his new clause.
Alan Brown
As the Minister says, the facts speak for themselves. I certainly welcome that review and that forward direction. I would also be grateful if he wrote to the Committee to confirm the timescale and the terms of reference.
Alan Brown
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Report on impact of electric vehicle charging points on energy consumption
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on the impact of charging points on—
(a) energy consumption,
(b) grid management, and
(c) grid storage capacity.
(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.
(3) As well as consulting those in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the National Grid, and
(b) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Alan Brown.)
This new clause would require the Government to consult with devolved administrations and produce a report on the impact of energy consumption as a result of increased number of electric vehicles in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alan Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister’s comments on new clause 13 almost make mine on new clause 14 superfluous, because some of the matters that I will raise can be incorporated as he outlined. New clause 14 returns to the theme of assessment and understanding of the impact of uptake on the energy network. We know that spikes in electricity usage are predicted while vehicles are being charged, but there is a huge variation among analysts’ predictions of how big peak surges could be. It all depends on when electric vehicles are plugged in and charged. We heard in evidence from the National Grid that it does not think the surge will be as large as predicted by many other analysts, who say that it will completely overwhelm the network.
The facts speak for themselves, as the Minister said. The number of electric vehicles on the road is still at a low point; we will fully understand the impact on the grid only once the uptake of electric vehicles has increased massively. That proof will be really important, and it is important that the Government review how uptake works in practice. What will the increase in peak electricity demand be? What impact will that have on the National Grid? What upgrades will be required? How will that feed into smart grid charging strategies and future energy storage requirements? All those questions need to be taken into account.
New clause 14 sets out a 12-month timescale, but at the predicted rate of uptake of electric vehicles, we will probably still not understand the full impact on the grid of people’s behaviour in that time. The roll-out of electric vehicles may be patchy across the UK, so on reflection I must admit that even 12 months might not be enough. However, I hope that the strategy assessment that the Minister mentioned in his remarks on new clause 13 could also incorporate consideration of this issue, with a commitment to further reviews in future.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted that the Minister is talking to the National Grid and others. I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see a transparent product of those discussions: a continuous published analysis of impacts.
There are two kinds of impact. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the adverse impact on the grid from peak moments early in the morning or late in the evening, and in winter there is a lot of fast charging, which will increase the peak effect. However, I am much more interested in the other kind of impact, which I see as much more serious: the benefits, which many of us have seen for some years, that the National Grid anticipates from peak shaving. Night-time, and indeed daytime, vehicle charging can be switched off at moments indicated as economically advantageous to the car owner by the half-hourly settlement price. It is also highly economically advantageous for the grid to have reduced demand at such moments, avoiding the need for additional power. That would transform the economics of intermittent energy supply, including through renewables, for example solar, which are currently not regarded as having any contribution to capacity. I am very much in favour of new clause 14’s general principle; I am sure the Minister is about to assure us that he will fulfil that principle through regular publications.
Matt Western
To emphasise the point and go back to buses, which I mentioned earlier, the scale of the need will be quite significant, say in our town centres, where we may have a bus that will be using these charge points for opportunity charging—an immediate fast charge—drawing 300 kW. If we think about, say, 10 buses in our town centres, we can imagine what sort of requirement would be needed. I add that to the debate.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The hon. Gentleman is clearly right that the bus issue is serious. This is not the place for a prolonged discussion about the patterns of charging and so on, but my own instinct is that battery life will have got to the point at which overnight charging will probably mainly suffice for buses. I am also quite optimistic about the ability to have charging en route on the most thickly used routes. Let us leave that aside for the moment. Clearly, we are joined in the view that the Minister will need, through the grid and others, to publish assessments of all kinds of use and storage, including not just cars but buses, taxis and vans, and indeed bicycles, although that is a minor item.
Another issue connected to new clause 14 goes back to the third of the letters that the Minister has helpfully written to the Committee in response to points that I raised earlier about clauses 11 and 12. I am very grateful for the subsequent discussions the Minister has facilitated about that with his officials. I hope he can confirm that he will now look at one specific issue further, which I do not think is wholly handled in the third of his letters. That is the question of ensuring that the vires given by clause 12(1) and (2), for him or the Secretary of State to issue regulations mandating the transfer of data from charge points through to the grid and the distribution network operators, are sufficiently well established by a technical drafting amendment to ensure that they are not challenged successfully in court.
That is obviously vital, because if the spirit of new clause 14 is to be observed and the grid is to be able to publish reasonably reliable forecasts of the pattern of charging and storage provided or demanded by electric vehicles, it needs to be able to use and mine the data from the use and charging of electric vehicles as it evolves. The only way to structure an electricity system is to plan some years ahead. Therefore, we need evolving information to be relayed from an early stage, so that before the load or the opportunity for storage become very big, the pattern is well understood.
To say one further word about that, the Committee must be aware that it is not a marginal point. If those patterns are well understood, the history suggests that one can save in the order of one quarter to one third of the investment costs of the entire electricity supply industry, compared with a situation in which there is chaotic unanticipated demand. The whole system relies on ensuring that one has a capacity margin at peak. If we cannot accurately predict the peak, because we do not understand the configurations of demand and supply on the system, we have to over-provide. We thus end up having bought a lot of heavy metal that is sitting there doing nothing, which is very expensive for the economy. We are talking about fives or 10s of billions of pounds. It is material that that data flow starts, starts early, and starts accurately, without missing anything off, so that the grid can start building a transparent picture that then, as in the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun’s new clause 14, is regularly published and updated.
Mr Hayes
It is indicative of the generosity that typifies your stewardship of this Committee, Sir Edward, that you have allowed us to speak about the new clause, arguably tangentially but not in a way that is not helpful to our consideration. I will return to the argument of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in a second, but the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset are reminiscent of the conversations that he and I had many years ago when I was the Minister responsible for energy and when we unsuccessfully attempted jointly to address these matters.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that the Bill creates the necessary means by which powers could be taken, should they become necessary, to deal with the flow of information in the way he described. He will know well, having studied the Bill in detail, that although clause 11 and clause 11(2) in particular suggest that the Secretary of State can indeed take powers that he considers necessary, those powers are defined as being
“likely to be useful to users or potential users”
of a charge point. Moreover, there is nothing in clause 12 that specifically addresses the argument that my right hon. Friend just made.
In the light of that I am minded to consider a minor technical Government amendment, which either adds a further Roman numeral to the list or amends one there already, to be certain that the Secretary of State taking the powers detailed in the Bill could do so for the purpose that my right hon. Friend set out. I hope that will be sufficient to persuade him not to become rebellious and, even if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who I am about to try to satisfy, withdraws his new clause, bring something potentially destructive to bear, thereby changing the whole atmosphere of this extraordinarily convivial Committee.
I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right again, if I may say so. It is certainly true that the strategy that I described, which we will bring in with vigour and rigour, with diligence and alacrity, should include the manufacture or use of electric vehicles. That is a given. It needs furthermore to relate that to the Government’s environmental objectives, which I spoke about earlier—our desire to create a low emission vehicle environment that is helpful to our broader air quality plans. However, he is also right that consideration of the matters brought up by his new clause must be part of that broad sweep or strategic approach. So, again, he does us a service by highlighting that.
I will take that point away and I hope that by the time we get to the next stage of our consideration of the Bill I will be able to say a little more about the characteristics of the strategy. On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will feel that I am going not the extra foot or yard but the extra mile to ensure that their wishes are granted.
Alan Brown
It is often asserted that the SNP is never satisfied in this place, but I am certainly satisfied with the Minister’s remarks and with that direction of travel, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Liability of insurers etc where accident is caused by automated vehicles in convoy
“(1) That the Secretary of State must set out in regulations liability for insurers and other parties where an accident is caused by automated vehicles driving themselves in convoy.
(2) These regulations must make provision for—
(a) a definition of automated vehicles driving themselves in convoy,
(b) determining liability of insurers and automated vehicle owners in cases where—
(i) the automated vehicles travelling in convoy are insured, including where the vehicles may be insured by different companies;
(ii) one or more of the automated vehicles driving in convoy are not insured.
(c) resolving liability disputes where automated vehicles are driving in convoy,
(d) ensuring any compensation received by the injured party in such accidents is not delayed by liability disputes.
(3) Where a statutory instrument contains the first regulations made under this section, the instrument may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulation under this section that is not the first such regulation made under this section, is subject to an annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Clive Efford.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will be pleased that this is the last of my amendments and my last contribution to the debate. It has been a pleasure to be on the Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Edward; please pass on my regards to Mr Bailey. I also thank the Clerks for their assistance in loaning me a few of their grey cells, from their humungous brains, to draft my ideas for amendments and make them legible; I am very grateful for their assistance.
The Bill attempts to make it easy for an injured party to claim in the event of an accident. That is necessary because we are opening up the insurance industry and disputes in the event of an accident to considerations that have not been part of our road system in the past. That is, we are bringing manufacturers further into the possible area of liability than they have been before, because vehicles will be controlled not by people but by machinery and computer software. Software designers may even be dragged in to these disputes.
As we heard in our evidence sessions, in some circumstances these automated vehicles will be connected and moving in convoy. It is an interesting concept that vehicles moving in convoy will communicate with one another, as is how they will share information and how that information will be used. When we look out of our vehicles, we see the immediate environment around us, but if vehicles are travelling in convoy and communicating with one another, they can see the road ahead exactly as it is seen by the vehicle at the head of the convoy. So, if something is amiss in the first vehicle with the data or the design of the software, or if there is a glitch, that will affect the vehicles further down the line.
When we discussed this issue at our last sitting, the potential hacking of the software was mentioned. If there is hacking, the driver of the vehicle cannot therefore be held responsible—he or she did everything they could to make sure the vehicle was roadworthy—and the manufacturer of the vehicle and the designer of the software may say, “Well, we did everything that was reasonable”. Helpfully, the Minister has written to us to say that in those circumstances the insured person—the person who took the vehicle on the road—is the responsible party.
However, in those circumstances the situation will become more confused and, again, this is an area that the Government need to consider, because who is responsible when we know that the vehicles are not necessarily driving themselves as they are communicating with one another? The assumption in this Bill is that the insurance companies will pay out and it will all be sorted out afterwards, but we know that that is not true.
My daughter had a collision. No one was injured, but her vehicle was damaged. Only when the two insurance companies had sorted out the blame—that is, who had caused the dent in the vehicles—was the claim settled. That took several months, during which time she was driving around in a brand-new damaged vehicle. The insurance company did not pay out straight away, so under circumstances in which consideration of who is responsible could be quite complicated—particularly instances where several vehicles were travelling in convoy—it could take some time for insurance companies to settle who should pay in the first instance. The Bill needs to protect the consumer—both the insured, and the third party, who may be the injured party. We could be creating a situation where no party is paid for some time while those complications are sorted out.
With these automated vehicles, which will be communicating with one another on the road, we are introducing an area that needs further consideration. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Minister should have the answer now—not even on the bit of paper that he may be passed in a few seconds—but I do think that this matter is worth further consideration by the Government, particularly as the Bill progresses through both Houses. We may well come back and look at this complication in more detail at a later date, so that we ensure that we are protecting the consumer—both the insured, and the third party.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I want to add one or two words to what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know whether it is sensible to try to address this in regulations under the Bill, whether it is better to leave it to the courts to settle, or whether some other legislation is necessary, but the hon. Gentleman’s point, although it has its analogue in existing practice, is very serious. Of course there are effectively already convoys on motorways when they are very busy, with somebody at the head of it and, some miles behind, me chugging along in my car. All sorts of complicated things happen, and I am sure that the Minister will be advised to assure the Committee that the courts and insurers already have mechanisms for resolving between them how everything works, and that in principle it makes no difference whether an automated vehicle driving itself or a human-driven vehicle is at the head of the queue.
I see that point entirely, but the difference is that that only happens from time to time on our motorways at the moment. Although it is not at all certain, it is quite likely that motorways will turn into automated, semi-autonomous trains, and that people will basically go onto the motorway and lock into a system which they are then part of, perhaps then travelling hundreds of miles in convoy. The convoys themselves may be hundreds of miles long.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My right hon. Friend says how boring; I see life entirely differently. He is of course a driving enthusiast, and has the most magnificent machines to drive. I drive one of the smallest and cheapest cars in the United Kingdom, and hate driving. I cannot think of anything more delicious than being able to lock in and leave the machine to it while I am reading, listening to music, or talking to my wife. I think all of those things are much nicer than driving, but there we are—tastes differ, chacun à son goût.
My point is, whether we like it or not, we are likely to be in that condition in the future. Once that starts being the case on motorways, Governments and Parliaments—regardless of the political colour of the Administration—will be ineluctably driven to mandate those circumstances, because the efficiency with which motorways can be used will multiply by some considerable factor. Therefore, the amount of motorway building that needs to go on, a significant component of total capital expenditure in the UK budget, will reduce by some appreciable factor. We will clearly be driven in that direction if the technology permits, and it may very well do so.
Mr Hayes
Given that it is not our intention for platooning to be self-driving at this stage—the trials I am about to describe do not include autonomous vehicles—it seems that in allowing us to have this brief debate, Sir Edward, your generosity knows very few bounds indeed. None the less, it is a helpful debate.
As the hon. Member for Eltham knows, we started platooning trials in August. We are adopting a highly consultative approach, and the trials are ongoing. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will need to consider a range of issues not necessarily directly related to the Bill but not unconnected from it, one of which might be the gradual addition of autonomous vehicles into the platooning mode, as it were—that way of driving.
There are potential benefits to platooning, particularly for the movement of goods nationally, which is why we are trialling it. I accept that the insurance issues will need to be considered very carefully for reasons set out by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. As a result of this very useful though short debate, I will be happy to ensure that we include in the consultation discussions with the insurance industry in anticipation of the addition of autonomous vehicles into the platooning field. It will, of course, already be considering the insurance issues relating to non-autonomous vehicles that are platooning. That is implicitly part of what that consultation is about. I am happy to commit to including autonomous vehicles in that.
I obviously cannot comment on individual cases; it would be quite wrong to do so. It is right to say that as an insurance framework develops from the Bill it must be sufficient to take into account the arguments made in the new clause. I will certainly ensure that that message is transmitted not only from this Committee but from the Government. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Eltham will withdraw the new clause.
Clive Efford
The Minister is in an extremely generous mood this morning. I am reassured by his comments that he will take these matters on board and consult on them in the future. There are some important issues here, but I am satisfied by what he has said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Sharing of data to resolve liability disputes
“(1) Where an accident occurs under sections 2, 3 or 4, the insurer and other interested parties have the right to acquire data from the automated vehicle for the purpose of determining the extent of liability.
(2) The Secretary of State must set out in regulations a system for handling and sharing data generated in respect of accidents involving automated vehicles.
(3) These regulations must make provision for—
(a) the format and content of the data recorded by automated vehicles,
(b) identifying who is responsible for data collection,
(c) identifying which interested parties have the right to acquire data from the automated vehicle,
(d) how such data may be acquired by the insurer and other interested parties, and
(e) any limitation that should be placed on how that data can be shared or used.
(4) Prior to making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Where a statutory instrument contains the first regulations made under this section, the instrument may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, that is not the first such instrument made under this section, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Karl Turner.)
This new clause would ensure that insurers and other interested parties have access to automated vehicle data for the purpose of resolving disputes on the extent of liability where an accident has occurred. This clause would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on how such data should be handled and shared.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karl Turner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause will ensure that insurers and other interested parties have access to automated vehicle data for the purpose of resolving disputes on the extent of liability when an accident event has occurred. The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on how such data should be handled and shared.
An automated vehicle is likely to produce huge amounts of data on such things as car location, traffic information, weather information, its route, passenger information and even the parcels that it carries, if used commercially by a courier. Clearly, there are huge advantages to vehicles producing that data when resolving disputes on the extent of liability—for example, increasing the speed and quality of decisions. The data will be a valuable source of information for the insurer and other interested parties.
There are risks. The information gathered by the vehicles might be sensitive; information that needs to be kept private could be damaging if placed in the wrong hands. It is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data is secure, private and accessed only by relevant authorised parties.
Sir Greg Knight
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that without this new clause, the data would probably still be made available, but only after one of the parties sought a court order to obtain it by arguing that it was necessary to settle the issue of liability? Does he also agree that there would be a cost in obtaining that information and that, generally speaking, the person requesting the information should pay that cost, even if he or she is later reimbursed in the settlement of the case?
Karl Turner
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. As a lawyer, I am always reluctant to make lawyers redundant, but that is clearly a potential outcome.
New clause 16 will give insurers and other interested parties access to that information. It will require the Secretary of State to consult with the appropriate persons and then to put in place regulations for the handling and sharing of such data. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding along nicely to my remarks and I look forward to his response.
Mr Hayes
With you in the Chair, Sir Edward, I feel I am surrounded by lawyers.
The hon. Gentleman is right that data collection will be vital as the technology develops. Furthermore, he is right that this is a potentially challenging area because of the sensitivity of some of that data. I would go still further and say that there is a balance to be struck between the desirable collection of data to establish what might have occurred in the event of an accident and the privacy of drivers. That balance will need to be struck with great care and must be struck internationally, because people drive across borders. I have spoken repeatedly about the development of international standards, mainly in relation to the type approval process. Those international discussions should and will include the parallel issues of data storage and data collection. As I have made clear, we are engaged in those discussions, and we will certainly want to highlight the issues raised in the new clause as those standards develop.
The debate about what data, beyond who or what was in control of the vehicle, needs to be collected has begun but still needs to conclude. That debate will include engagement about who needs to access that data, and on what basis and for what purpose they will be allowed to access it. That will need to be clearly established to avoid the eventuality—which the hon. Gentleman, given his previous professional circumstances, teasingly offered us—of countless legal cases, no doubt with countless legal fees.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s concerns about this point. As a non-lawyer, I must admit that my knowledge of the legal aspects is somewhat limited. However, I represent a constituency with large IT businesses, and I urge him to consider the IT industry’s views about the management of big data. There is an ongoing debate in the industry about the various international conventions and rules that govern data. Will he and his officials consult the industry and take on board its concerns about the impact of Brexit and, indeed, our ongoing relationship with the United States on the management of that data? A number of those businesses operate in the European Union, the US and the UK, and I hope that they continue to do so.
The Chair
This was going to be the only Committee where we did not mention Brexit. Let us get back to the point.
Sir Greg Knight
Does the Minister agree that, without international agreement about how it is stored, the data will be in as many forms as there are car manufacturers? That would mean that only the manufacturers themselves were able to decipher it. There is a strong argument for seeking international agreement on this matter.
Mr Hayes
My right hon. Friend is right; he makes a sound point. That is precisely why I said in response to the shadow Minister that we need cross-border international agreement.
By the way, the hon. Member for Reading East is right, too, about the need to ensure that industry—not just the automotive industry, but the IT industry—is engaged. As he knows, my background is in the IT industry, and it is important that we take advantage of all available expertise in judging why, but also how, we manage data. The “why” is about the balance I described earlier, and the “how” is about the mechanisms for achieving that balance.
I end with this statement, which I hope is sufficiently reassuring. I assure hon. Members that the UK Government and others around the world are investing heavily in automated and connected technologies that will assist in providing evidence of what minimum event data recording and sharing requirements might be needed and wanted. We will work on an international basis to decide what can be done, what should be done and how it will be done. Given that assurance, I hope that the shadow Minister withdraws the new clause.
Karl Turner
I am happy to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Accident resulting from unauthorised inspection, repair or maintenance of automated vehicle
“(1) An insurance policy in respect of an automated vehicle may exclude or limit the insurer’s liability under section 2(1) for damage suffered by an insured person arising from an accident occurring as a direct result of unauthorised inspection, repair or maintenance of the automated vehicle, made by the insured person, or with the insured person’s knowledge, that are prohibited under the policy.
(2) But as regards liability for damage suffered by an insured person who is not the holder of the policy, subsection (1) applies only in relation to unauthorised inspection, repair or maintenance of the automated vehicle which, at the time of the accident, the person knows are prohibited under the policy.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where an amount is paid by an insurer under section 2(1) in respect of damage suffered, as a result of an accident, by someone who is not insured under the policy in question.
(4) If the accident occurred as a direct result of unauthorised inspection, repair or maintenance of the automated vehicle, made by the insured person, or with the insured person’s knowledge, that are prohibited under the policy, the amount paid by the insurer is recoverable from that person to the extent provided for by the policy.
(5) But as regards recovery from an insured person who is not the holder of the policy, subsection (4) applies only in relation to unauthorised inspection, repair or maintenance of the automated vehicle which, at the time of the accident, the person knew were prohibited under the policy.
(6) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for authorised inspection, repair and maintenance of automated vehicles by licensed and accredited technicians.
(7) The scheme must include details of—
(a) which professional body will operate the licensing and accreditation of technicians,
(b) how the licensing and accreditation scheme will operate,
(c) a minimum level of training for technicians working on listed automated vehicles, and
(d) how a list of accredited individuals will be prepared and kept up-to-date.
(8) Prior to making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(9) Where a statutory instrument contains the first regulations made under this section, the instrument may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, that is not the first such instrument made under this section, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Karl Turner.)
This new clause would ensure that insurers should not have to bear liability to the insured person for accidents caused by the vehicle being inspected, repaired or maintained by unauthorised technicians in breach of the insurance policy. This would apply subject to various conditions regarding the level of knowledge of the insured person or policyholder about the insurance policy requirements. This clause would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on a scheme for authorised inspection, repair and maintenance of automated vehicles by licensed and accredited technicians.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karl Turner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, would protect the insurer against accidents caused by vehicles having been repaired by unauthorised technicians. It would also require the Government to establish a scheme for authorised inspection. The automotive industry already relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals in roles to support, work on and maintain vehicles. As the technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on them.
We are aware of existing skills gaps in the industry. The Minister and I have had discussions about this very issue. I think the Government have got a really good intention to skill up people in this area, but as the technology develops, skills gaps seem to be worsening. The Bill does not address the worsening skill gap. If we do not start planning now, we will be left with a huge hole in the support structures for the new vehicles. That is why the Opposition believe, as do a number of stakeholders, that the Government should introduce an accreditation scheme for technicians to work on future vehicles. I think the Minister previously said publicly that he may do just that.
If the Government are not proactive, the UK will not be able to support growth in the new technologies. Will the Minister therefore consider introducing an accreditation scheme for technicians, not only to address the skills shortage but to provide a wider set of protections for insurers against unauthorised repairers and unauthorised maintenance of these vehicles, as set out in the new clause?
Mr Hayes
It is a paradox that, as we become more ambitious in respect of future transport, we simultaneously create a greater and greater problem in respect of the skills necessary to deliver those ambitions. With the road investment strategy, which I began, and with our rail investment strategy, High Speed 2, Crossrail and all the other developments, the need for transport skills is growing at a pace that is hard to satisfy. We have analysed that thoroughly. Indeed, I think we can fairly say that the Department for Transport is a leader in terms of mapping those future needs and identifying the space between where we are now and where we need to be. Encouraging more and more people to gain those skills will be critical and could be the “make or break” of the technology. Investing in infrastructure means investing in people as well as in things.
If that is a paradox, it is a pseudodox that the only means of gaining fulfilment comes through academic accomplishment. Curious, is it not, that we should have convinced ourselves of that for so long. Frankly, I was never convinced, but many were. Of course, it is through the application of technical and vocational skills that many people find not only their ultimate fulfilment but the means by which our economy works. Encouraging more people to take the practical journey towards the achievement of such competencies is vital. That is why I am so passionate about apprenticeships and why, when I was apprenticeships Minister, I championed those practical skills.
It is perhaps through practical accomplishment—the combination of the work of one’s hands and one’s mind—that people are most likely to achieve the sublime. Most academic learning, at least up until master’s degree level, is derivative. Technical learning is creative at a much earlier stage. Perhaps a journey to the sublime is made more likely through what we do practically, technically and vocationally.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East. Furthermore, I agree that we need to codify and accredit such skills. The argument becomes, therefore, not about intent, but about method. It is probable that we are at too early a stage to be certain about what that kind of accreditation might look like. Nevertheless, I am happy to agree to have further discussions with the Institute of the Motor Industry and others to help the Government to understand the challenge of ensuring that vehicle maintenance and repair is carried out in a professional and safe manner for technicians and drivers.
May I add a relevant further point, Sir Edward, that does not directly relate to the proposed new clause? I hope your earlier generosity will not have ended.
Mr Hayes
Your generosity declines the closer we get to food; I can understand that, Sir Edward.
There is a risk that smaller providers of services—the small garages and small businesses—will be disadvantaged if those skills are found only in the proprietary repair centres of major manufacturers. I am keen that that should not be the case, not only because it will make those small businesses less viable, but because it will mean that people will travel further to get their car serviced and repaired—the major centres will not be so evenly distributed—and that those acquiring the skills will have to travel much further to do so.
I hope we might be able to emulate the industries that the hon. Member for Reading East mentioned earlier and represents. In the IT sector, while there are a relatively small number of very large manufacturers, they work through a whole series of other smaller businesses that are accredited to work with them or for them. Perhaps that is the model we should look at to avoid the unfortunate eventuality that I have taken the liberty, with your indulgence, Sir Edward, of drawing to the Committee’s attention.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and most of the House are well aware of my absolute commitment to and passion for skills. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Karl Turner
I will happily do so. It is fair to say that the Minister has gone beyond what I had anticipated, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Consultation on the collection and use of data from electric vehicle charging points and smart charge points
‘The Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the collection and use of data from electric vehicle charging points and smart charge points. The consultation must address—
(a) who is responsible for collecting the data from electric vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles,
(b) how the data is shared between different parties, and
(c) any limitations on the use of such data.’— (Karl Turner.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the collection and use of data from electric vehicle charging points and smart charge points.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karl Turner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not intend to speak for long to this new clause, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford. It focuses on the collection and use of data from electric charging points, which will bring about many of the same issues that we discussed in the debate on new clause 16.
As with automated vehicles and the data they collect, charging points for electric vehicles will also hold important and useful information, which, were it to fall into the wrong hands, could be damaging. It is important that we get that side of the legislation right. As the technology advances, it is likely that more and more information will be held. Some of that information will be personal, sensitive information. That is why it is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data is secure and private. It is also important that the legislation deals with who is responsible for collecting the data, how the data is then shared between the different parties, and any limitations on such data.
With new clause 20, we are asking the Minister to properly consult the relevant stakeholders in this area to ensure that the correct safeguards are put in place. I hope that the Minister supports my intention and will be able to give some assurances in this area.
Mr Hayes
On a point of order, Sir Edward. As we conclude our work on the Bill, I want to offer my thanks, of course, to you, Sir Edward, and Mr Bailey for chairing the Committee, and to all members of the Committee. I think it is now a matter of fact that our considerations have been dutiful and considered and continued in the spirit of conviviality and good will in which they began.
Bernard Shaw said:
“We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.”
But he was wrong about that. In truth, all we have known, been and done informs, inspires and enlivens all we can know, be and do. What we do in respect of the Bill must be informed by all that has passed and that we have learned from the past. This is a new technology, although many of the principles that we have discussed are time-honoured ones. We have spoken just today about skills. We have spoken about the balance between privacy and the useful exchange of information; where responsibility lies and who should take it; and the balance between Government and private individuals and private businesses. Those are not new or modern things, although the technology may be. They are things that should always drive and inspire the proper scrutiny of legislation and the proper business of Government, and this Committee has once again shown that.
I am delighted that the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset have shown that even intellectuals add value. I am delighted, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, with his recherché approach, has again made the case for all that is glorious about that which is vintage. His own vintage performances have delighted me and, I am sure, many others.
May I particularly thank the Opposition Members, as well as the Government Members, including members of the Select Committee on Transport, who know far more about these subjects than I do? I also thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, and of course my former PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, who is now my Whip. I particularly thank Opposition Members. For it is very easy in opposition to criticise and carp. It is very easy in opposition to critique a Bill in a way that is designed to be unhelpful rather than helpful. That has not been the case in this Committee. Opposition Members have sought to contribute in a positive, constructive and thoughtful way. I know it is much easier to be a Government Minister than a shadow Minister, because I have done that job, too, so I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East for the approach that he has adopted.
With those brief words—some will say all too brief—I thank everyone once again for making the Committee such a success.
Karl Turner
Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I thank you and Mr Bailey for chairing the Committee. I also thank the Clerks. Without their assistance, I would have struggled a great deal, having come to the brief relatively recently. I also thank the officials, who have been extremely supportive with my colleagues in my office and have helped a great deal, even by just having telephone conversations about certain amendments that we planned to table. I also thank the Minister for the discussions that we have had both privately and publicly on the issues that we have been debating.
Alan Brown
Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I, too, want to put on the record my thanks to you and Mr Bailey for chairing the Committee. I thank the Clerks for their assistance and helping with amendments. I realise that they had to be robust in terms of keeping to the guidelines of the Bill, and I appreciate the guidance that was given. I thank the Minister, who certainly seems to have listened and engaged. He has a good way of getting us to withdraw amendments with a mix of humour, appearing to listen, and a wee bit of flattery thrown in at the start just to keep us off guard. It has been an enjoyable process and I thank everyone involved.
The Chair
On behalf of Mr Bailey, myself and the Clerks, I thank all Committee members for attending. I am thankful for the remarkably good nature of the debate, for the mellifluous tones of the Minister, and for the good nature of the Opposition spokesmen. Whether we will end up with Hayes hooks, Turner turnkeys or something that alliterates with Leigh, we do not know, but there have been some good moments. I look forward to one of Sir Greg’s old cars colliding with Sir Oliver’s 100-mile convoy. I thank you all. We have not deviated too far into the realms of Ruskin.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 5 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
backbench business
(6 years, 5 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
World Antibiotics Awareness Week
(6 years, 5 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
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Antibiotics Awareness Week.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Exactly one century ago, Ernest Rutherford split the atom and humanity entered the nuclear age. The groundbreaking discovery represented a momentous step forward for human progress, but at the same time it unleashed a challenge for those beyond the laboratory and academia—the avoidance of mutual assured destruction. As this debate is about World Antibiotics Awareness Week, some might wonder why I started with the splitting of the atom, but I believe that there is an equally strong argument for the aforementioned period to be referred to as the antibiotic age. It was 11 years after the splitting of the atom that Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, here in this very city of London.
No one can deny the profound impact of antibiotics on medicine, and their widespread use represents a watershed moment in our evolutionary story. However, as Fleming himself understood, shortly after making his discovery, giant leaps in scientific progress produced wholly new challenges. As antibiotics were readily available, it appeared that we had invented miracle drugs of sorts. The snag is that we now face the real and severe threat of antimicrobial resistance.
Across the globe this week, scientists and healthcare professionals are hosting a wide range of events to make antibiotic resistance a globally recognised health issue. I am delighted that we as parliamentarians are here today to represent the role that lawmakers and Governments will play in facing the challenge of antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance. The week is also intended to raise awareness of the need to preserve the power of antibiotics through appropriate use, to increase recognition that individuals, health and agricultural professionals, and Governments must play in tackling antibiotic resistance, and to encourage behavioural change and convey the message that simple actions can make a difference.
While the threat of antibiotic resistance is often considered a doomsday scenario—one might say a medical Armageddon—we must remember that that menace is all too deadly today. Currently, 700,000 people die each year from drug-resistant infections; the future threat is touted as being so severe and extreme, not because we are not living with the effects today but because of the truly appalling potential scale of the problem if we do not take co-ordinated action. If we do not act now, antimicrobial resistance will be responsible for 10 million deaths per year by 2050. That is more than the number of people worldwide who were killed by cancer in 2015. It is nearly impossible to put a number on the lives that have been saved by antibiotics; some sources put the figure at roughly 2 million, but it is entirely conceivable that we may arrive at a position where the balance tips, and antibiotics pose a greater threat than a remedy.
As I have said previously in this House, we run the risk of returning to a medical dark age, where routine operations such as hip operations cannot be carried out, and infections that are standard today become deadly. This week, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy published a report on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on antibiotics. The report, the briefing for which has been sent to all Members of the House, considers the AMR action plans and strategies set out by the World Health Organisation, the European Union and the UK, and asks, crucially: “Has the world lived up to the challenge?”
The overarching theme of the report is that future strategies to combat antibiotic resistance should incorporate specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely—SMART—targets. When the stakes are 10 million deaths each year within four decades, it is easy to become lost in the scale of response that that merits; but as is so often the case, a coherent and clear approach is our greatest weapon. I call on the Government to ensure that all steps are taken to counter AMR and explicitly to incorporate those SMART targets I listed. I believe there is much to be gained from making that standard practice and removing any doubt. I am sure that colleagues will be encouraged to read in the report that
“the UK has taken significant steps to meet the objectives of the EU Action Plan, which in turn satisfies the WHO Europe Strategic Action Plan.”
There are two aspects, however, where our country needs to up its game. First, we need to address education and public awareness, so it is entirely fitting that we meet today during World Antibiotic Awareness Week, an occasion aimed directly at bolstering an understanding of resistance and the threat it poses to humanity. We need to be forthright in promoting the “four rights” when consuming antibiotics: the right drug, the right dose, the right time and the right duration. A survey carried out across Europe in 2016 indicated that knowledge about AMR remains low, and antibiotic consumption has decreased by only 6% over the last seven years. To address that, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy advocates the use of simple and clear language in all awareness-promoting material. There is a direct recommendation of
“monitoring the efficacy of education campaigns through online channels.”
Fleming himself was once quoted as saying that the best remedy for a common cold was a dram of whiskey.
Julian Sturdy
I know the Scottish Members would certainly agree with that. As Fleming said,
“it’s not very scientific—but it helps.”
We now need to make the message as clear as day: antibiotics are ineffective when taken unnecessarily and doing so bolsters resistance and endangers mankind.
The second area where significant progress can be made is on the incentives for antibiotic discovery, research and development. It should be noted that the antimicrobial challenge is as much economic as it is medical. We must find an alternative to the reimbursement model, whereby profitability of bringing new antibiotics to the marketplace is linked to volume of sales. That is because we are actually seeking to limit the use of such drugs to preserve their power; to use new drugs as a point of last resort, as it were. To use an analogy, it is almost like the fire service—we need it to be there and to be effective, but we do not want to use it. However, nobody would dispute the necessity of investment and funding for that key emergency service.
To overcome this task, it is essential that measures are taken to co-ordinate a review of progress in new drugs, alongside the activation of research and development by industry for new antibiotics and related products achieved by Innovative Medicines Initiative projects. On the economics, we need to seek innovative solutions, with the pricing conditions and “pull” measures needed for the long-term sustainability of new antibiotic development, so that they are promoted. An example of that is the compact initiative of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations to promote a sustainable business model and adequate conditions for the introduction of effective new antibiotics.
The O’Neill review, published last year and described last week by a columnist from The Times as
“the best argued and most accessible”
report in his lifetime, was very clear on this matter. Lord O’Neill found that much more needed to be done to close the substantial gap in research and development funding between AMR and the best-funded areas of medical science. The report being launched this week quantifies this further, and states that $40 billion is needed over 10 years, representing about 0.05% of G20 countries’ current healthcare spend. I will not claim that that sum is insignificant, but it is certainly affordable given the magnitude of the threats we face.
For improvement on a global level, the report makes it clear that co-ordinated efforts must be made in the veterinary sector, where I am pleased that tangible progress has been made in the UK. Figures from the Countryside Alliance show that sales of livestock antibiotics across the sector have fallen by an average of 27%—their lowest levels since records began—which is a good start, because a failure to address AMR in livestock has fundamental implications for the treatment of human diseases. For that reason, mirrored co-operation between Government Departments is essential.
While I am delighted that we are joined by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, this matter also encompasses the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Development and the Department for Exiting the European Union. We need a clear commitment from the Government that that co-operation is there and that an interdepartmental strategy is on the agenda. Beyond that, we require what Antibiotic Research UK describes as a “grand alliance” to come together, comprising the Government, the pharmaceutical industry, collective medical research charities and academics.
To reduce further the overall use of antibiotics in the veterinary sector, guidelines have been developed for prudent use. The EU road map also proposed the creation of an animal health legal framework, based on the principle that prevention is better than the cure. Take the example of colistin. In 2015, evidence emerged of colistin resistance with the potential for transfer and spread between bacterial species. In order to preserve colistin for human medicine and limit the spread of resistant genes, the European Medicines Agency imposed strict limitations on its use and recommended the withdrawal of marketing authorisations for all oral colistin in veterinary medical products. Professor Galloway, from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, is calling for a full review of the use of antibiotics used in both animal husbandry and human clinical practices, and I believe the Government should actively consider that suggestion.
In the UK, some sectors have conclusively beaten the target set by the veterinary medicinal products directive. Such industries represent very clearly what we are aiming for with the SMART targets I referred to at the beginning of my speech. In many cases, progress has been made through voluntary schemes. I request that the Government look directly into specific sectors in order to investigate best practice and what we can learn from it.
However, we must go further as a global leader and recognise that this is an international challenge. Almost 80% of antibiotics used in the USA are not taken by people but used within the livestock sector, which I find astonishing. In India, people consume an average of 11 antibiotic tablets per year. Only today, data has been released showing that antibiotic resistance is growing in Europe. Progress that Britain makes will be quite simply irrelevant in the absence of a confident international stewardship programme.
The British Government must act as an example in their commitment to tackling resistance head-on globally and, while I recognise it is not in the specific gift of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health to dictate his published ministerial responsibilities, I believe it is timely explicitly to add antimicrobial resistance to those responsibilities. That symbolic act would send a clear message that Britain is committed to remaining at the forefront of the fight against antibiotic resistance.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the problems with antibiotics, which we see with farm animals. However, there is also now a problem over supply, due to the increased concentration of the pharmaceutical industry—there are new mergers coming along as we talk. Does he think that that is worthy of proper investigation? Those companies can turn the supply on, but they can also turn it off, which can also be life threatening.
Julian Sturdy
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I said, we have to encourage new antibiotic discovery. In our current system, the big pharmaceutical companies have been reluctant to come forward and put that money in, because the financial model just does not work.
However, encouragingly, we are now seeing smaller companies and spin-outs—from science departments within medical departments within universities—looking specifically at antibiotic discovery. There is something to be said about that, and again we have to look closely at it, because it could be used to our advantage. I encourage the Government to look at that, I encourage all Members who have a university in their patch to talk to them and I encourage those who have any of these small companies to visit and talk to them. It is incumbent on us all as parliamentarians to go out there and promote what is happening on our doorstep.
There is no doubt about it: the big pharmaceutical companies are finding it very difficult to promote new antibiotics. It takes 15 years for a new antibiotic to come to the marketplace from the start of the process of discovery. Companies have to make a huge investment. If that investment leads to a drug that is not actually used, because we are using it as a point of last resort, the financial model as it currently sits just does not stack up. That is something we have to address.
The discovery and development of antibiotics should not be seen as a curse. However, we must recognise that responsible steps now need to be taken to ensure that they persist and that we keep resistance firmly locked down. The antibiotic age can remain a golden one, and our collaborative actions can prevent a fall into what has been described by many as a medical abyss without antibiotics.
In the antibiotic age, we are all on the same side. This is not about politics or what the UK can do; it is about global action. That cannot translate into a lack of zeal and an absence of the will to win. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. The UK Government have made great steps forward. The O’Neill report was a great start, but we have to continue that, and we have to be world leaders in this. We have a great opportunity to do that, if not for our generation, for future generations.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing a debate on such an important issue.
As we heard in my hon. Friend’s powerful speech, antimicrobial resistance is a significant and increasing public health threat both here and in the rest of the world. It is estimated that, in the United States and Europe alone, antimicrobial-resistant infections currently cause at least 50,000 deaths a year. We can be proud of the fact that the UK Government have played a world-leading role on this issue. David Cameron was one of the first leaders to put it firmly on the international agenda when he launched the review led by Lord O’Neill in 2014.
Despite that determination and commitment, the effective work that the Government are already engaged in and commitments from many other Governments around the world, I am worried that progress is not fast enough, given the seriousness of the risks we now face. Antibiotics have saved countless lives in the 80 or so years since Alexander Fleming’s historic discovery. Ever since their use became widespread in the 1940s, they have ensured that life-threatening infections can be treated effectively and operations that would have previously been very dangerous can be performed safely. Research indicates that the use of antibiotics has probably extended our average life expectancy by around 20 years.
The consequences of antimicrobial resistance are often portrayed as a future threat, but the World Health Organisation is clear that antimicrobial resistance is already detected in all parts of the world and is already causing serious harm. Across the member states of the European Union, it is estimated that AMR currently costs around €1.5 billion in additional healthcare costs and productivity losses.
Those rather dry sounding points can hide the scale of the potential horror we face. The O’Neill review concluded that more than 300 million people are expected to die prematurely because of drug resistance over the next 35 years. As we heard from my hon. Friend, we could see a return to the days when straightforward operations and minor injuries can routinely result in death and childhood mortality is commonplace.
The chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, has rightly described AMR as a “catastrophic threat”. She has warned of a “post-antibiotic apocalypse”, where 40% of the population die prematurely from infections that we cannot treat. In her view, that could amount to nothing less than
“the end of modern medicine.”
The worst-case scenarios are frightening. It is therefore vital that we take action to address the threats we face.
We clearly need to improve infection control, not only in our healthcare facilities here but around the world, and I urge the Minister to make AMR, improving sanitation and infection control a priority for our overseas aid projects. We need to bring an end to the over-prescribing of antibiotics in human medicine. That means doing much more to raise public awareness of this issue, so that more people understand the consequences of demanding antibiotics from their GP even when there is not clear evidence that they are needed or justified. It is imperative that we develop better and more accurate ways to diagnose conditions so that we no longer see so many instances of antibiotics being used in cases of viruses and other conditions where they have no effect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said, it is crucial that we take action to end the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture. According to a letter from senior medics to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2016, an astonishing 90% of all UK veterinary antibiotic use is for mass medication of groups of farm animals. As we reflect on reform of our agricultural support system in preparing to leave the European Union, the new system of farm support that we introduce must discourage intensive farming practices where animals are kept in overcrowded, unnatural and unhealthy conditions, which leads to routine prophylactic use of antibiotics. We should be promoting much more health-oriented methods of farming. It is possible to maintain a successful farming sector and at the same time significantly reduce levels of antibiotic use, and we have already seen progress in that direction, particularly in the poultry sector.
We need to ensure that we give priority to this area in Government spending on research and development as part of efforts to expand the pool of effective antibiotics. I agree that we should seek a new approach to rewarding and incentivising medical research in this area as a further means to drive forward the search for effective antibiotics. We need also to significantly improve our knowledge and understanding of the scale of antibiotic use and the threat posed by AMR in this country and around the world.
The O’Neill report made 10 recommendations, and I would welcome an update from the Minister today on the progress made on delivering those. I also urge him to make tackling antimicrobial resistance a key element of our public health policy. I hope the Government will press NHS England, local clinical commissioning groups and local authorities to make it a focus of their sustainability and transformation plans. Moreover, tackling AMR should be an important element of our foreign policy and our international aid budget, because it is self-evident that we cannot solve this problem without concerted action on a global basis.
In conclusion, there are many impassioned debates in the House on different subjects, all of which no doubt seem worth while and important at the time. However, there can be few issues of such huge significance as the one we are considering. If we fail to take action and future generations find their lives blighted by the post-antibiotic apocalypse predicted by the chief medical officer, they will look back on debates such as this and their judgment will not be kind. I say to the Minister and to each and every Member of the House that we need to take action now on antimicrobial resistance if we are to safeguard the health and wellbeing of future generations. I urge the Minister to take that message back to his colleagues in Government.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) in this extremely important debate. As my right hon. Friend said, this issue is both important and urgent; it is not something that we can put off.
I declare my interests as a trustee of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which does research in this area, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, the significance of which I shall come to in a moment.
Both previous speakers outlined the importance of this subject. The O’Neill report said that we are looking at the possibility of 10 million deaths a year and the loss to global GDP. However, I do not want to dwell on that, because I want to talk about how we can make progress. We have to make progress because at the moment it is too slow. As the chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, has said, we do not have time. “The Drugs Don’t Work”, to quote the title of her book.
There are four areas in which we need to make some progress. I do not claim any innovation in this. I listened to a lecture on the issue just last week and these were the four areas set out; I am just repeating what I have heard. The four areas are public education, drug discovery, the involvement of drug companies, and financial mechanisms such as advance market commitments. I shall take them in turn.
First, on public education, it is extremely important that we work together, that we bring the public with us. This country has had a great record over the years in preserving antibiotics for the most essential use, at least in relation to human health. My right hon. Friend described the problems in the animal health sector, but in the area of human health, we have preserved antibiotics. Compared with most countries in the world, we are extremely prudent in our use: doctors do not prescribe them unless they are really needed.
We can do more, however. We can involve the public—citizens—in the search for new antibiotics. I was introduced last week to a great scheme called Swab and Send, which can be looked up on the internet and which is run out of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine now. For a small amount—I think it is £30—people get five swab kits. They are encouraged to send in dust samples or whatever; they are encouraged to swab anywhere in their house where they think interesting cultures might be building up and to send the samples in to be tested in laboratories. I saw some of the results. Young people, children and adults all around the country are sending swabs to Liverpool for them to be tested and cultured to see whether potential new antibiotics can come out of that. The reason for doing it is that, just as with the fortuitous discovery of penicillin, we have, potentially, the answer—it could even lie somewhere in a corner of this room. We do not know, but let us get citizens involved in sending those samples in from all over the country and, indeed, the world and get them tested. We have an army of volunteer scientists and researchers out there who are able to help us to discover the next generation of antibiotics.
The second area is drug discovery. We have heard that it has been extremely difficult to make progress in drug discovery, for a number of reasons. I believe that the last major development was 30 years ago, so we have not had a new antibiotic for 30 years. The problem is that antibiotics are cheap. When drugs are cheap but developing them is expensive—it takes years, we have heard 15 years, and the cost can be in the hundreds of millions of pounds —it is simply not commercially possible for drug companies to engage in this kind of research and development. It needs a combination of public finance and private development and initiative.
At this point, I want to reflect on what has happened in relation to malaria, which I know a little about, over the last 16 or 17 years. The Medicines for Malaria Venture is a fine example of how we can have international co-operation. It supports pharmaceutical companies to develop new medicines for malaria that would not be able to be produced commercially. Seventeen years ago, in 2000, as I know myself having contracted the disease a number of times, the efficacy of standard treatments for malaria was poor, or they were pretty toxic. Resistance to chloroquine, which was the main drug, was high everywhere. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, or SP, which had replaced chloroquine as the main drug in a number of places, was also becoming less effective. New drugs, based on the Artemisia annua plant, were emerging, but much more work needed to be done on them. Drugs were available, but they were not particularly well developed, and because they were single therapies, not combination therapies, there was the great risk that resistance to them would occur very quickly.
The Medicines for Malaria Venture was set up with the specific aim of working with companies to bring potential drugs through research and development to the market. I am proud to say that, since 1999, the United Kingdom has been the second largest provider of funding to that excellent organisation after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has funded more than half the total expenditure since then, which is something like $1 billion.
What have we seen as a result of the $1 billion of expenditure over 17 years? We have seen a transformation. In 2000, there were 10 products around and being worked on: six at the research stage and four at the translational stage. There was none at the product development stage and none on the market. Where are we now, 17 years later? There are 21 in research, nine at the translational stage, seven at the product development stage and 10 on the market. That is a huge return on investment. Obviously, it was not just the investment of the $1 billion or so with MMV; it was also investment by private companies working alongside MMV that put a lot of their own money into it.
Now, therefore, we have not only a good range of very effective drugs available globally that have saved millions of lives—one estimate is 6 million; it is possibly more than that—but a very healthy pipeline: 30 drugs at the research and translational stages and another seven at the product development stage. That is exactly what we need to see for antibiotics, and not just in the future but now. There we have a model. It may not be exactly the right model for antibiotics, but it is a model. That shows that it can work and not just in relation to malaria drugs; we have seen it work in relation to drugs for so-called neglected tropical diseases. An equivalent organisation is bringing forward drugs in that area. We have seen it with vaccines. The world has come together to produce better vaccines or more vaccines to cover more diseases through the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation.
We therefore have models for drug discovery, but we need to ensure that they involve the drug companies. This cannot be done just by the public sector. The drug companies have enormous expertise and great researchers; they just need the incentive to work on the development of new antibiotics to a much greater extent. We are not talking about doing one or two; we are talking about looking at dozens and dozens. That is why it needs a co-ordinated and global approach. I think the drug companies are willing. They are out there, they are able to do it and they want to do it; they just need a bit of co-ordination and incentive—a bit of a push—and also the public encouragement that comes from knowing that this is something that we all want to do and that will benefit the entire world.
We need to look at how that finance could be introduced. I have talked about advance market commitments. That is the possibility that has been suggested to me. It has been done before. Just over a decade ago, advance market commitments were developed for vaccines. We have vaccines available around the world now, inoculating children and preventing them from getting debilitating or killer diseases, because of the commitment made by our Government in 2005-06 and other Governments, with again the UK taking the lead. That is an area in which we have expertise and have already shown commitment. Therefore, it is absolutely right, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet have said, that the UK should be taking a lead in this. At this time, when perhaps our global position is changing, what could be better than showing global leadership in an area that is of great benefit to all humanity and showing that global Britain is a reality, not just a form of words?
Just a few words on how advance market commitments work. In the case of vaccines—there is no reason why it could not work in the same way for antibiotics—there is an agreement for money to subsidise the purchase of a future drug at a given price, so that people know that they are going to sell that drug at a certain price, which means that they can invest in the research and development. That gives manufacturers the incentive to invest not only in that R and D, but in capacity. We need to build that capacity. Clearly, in the case of vaccines, that was enormous because vaccine plants are extremely expensive; in the case of antibiotics, the expense would be less, but nevertheless significant. Then there is the agreement that, once a fixed amount of sales, in terms of numbers or value, has been reached, the manufacturer is contractually obliged to sell the drugs affordably in the markets or to license the technology. Let us be frank: these drugs are not going to make large sums of money for people. They have to be available at prices that everybody in the world, whether they get them through a health system or purchase them individually, can afford.
Theresa Villiers
Listening to my hon. Friend’s speech, it occurs to me that, in other areas of medical research, we see a hugely positive impact from the charitable sector. Should we be trying to read across the lessons from other areas of medical research and to get these fantastically successful charities involved in raising money for AMR research?
Jeremy Lefroy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I referred earlier to the involvement of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the setting up of MMV, but there are so many other medical charities putting millions and sometimes tens of millions of dollars into these areas. That is the beauty of partnerships such as MMV, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative and other partnerships: they take money from the commercial sector, charities, non-governmental organisations and from Government and everybody is working together—they are not in competition with each other over relatively scarce resources. The partnerships are using the benefits, in the case of companies, of their researchers and facilities; in the case of foundations, of their contacts, ability to deploy drugs on the ground and funding; and in the case of Governments, of the substantial funding that they can put in.
I want to conclude by saying that this is not pie in the sky—this is something we can do. We have proven in the case of malaria and other diseases that we can achieve tremendous results. We know there is a will. We know Government have a will. We know there is a will in other countries. It just needs a lot more urgency and more co-ordination. If the UK, through the Department of Health, and as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has said, through the co-ordination of the various Departments, were to take this by the scruff of the neck, we would have something by which the UK could again show world leadership not just in words, but in actions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the plans that we have in that area.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. At relatively short notice I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who is not very well. I am not certain of the cause of his illness, but I am sure that if he is seeking advice, he will rightly be following the guidance of the theme of World Antibiotics Awareness Week, which states:
“Seek advice from a qualified healthcare professional before taking antibiotics”.
He will also be taking the advice, as I am sure will everyone else, of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has been impressing on us the importance of the flu jab. I can testify to the medicinal qualities of a hot toddy, from time to time, but in the careful context of appropriate medication with appropriate medical advice.
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate, which gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the issue of antimicrobial resistance and the importance of being aware of the challenges. It is a timely debate, taking place during the World Antibiotics Awareness Week. Any kind of awareness week has a number of important consequences. In this context, improving the understanding of the risks faced, which we have heard clearly from other hon. Members, is key, as is presenting an opportunity to take action in response to the challenges presented.
The challenge is very clear and came through in all the speeches. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made it clear how difficult it is to overemphasise the scale of the challenge and the risk we face. Some 700,000 deaths a year are attributable to infections from superbugs that are resistant to antibiotics, and that figure is predicted, as we have heard, to rise to almost 10 million in total by 2050.
There are huge challenges in the livestock and veterinary sector as well. I was interested to hear that academics from the University of Glasgow in my constituency are among those taking the lead. I will say a wee bit more about what the university is doing shortly.
As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has said, the issue also has a big impact on developing countries, where people require access to medicines and the challenge of resistance is huge, and it threatens the progress made in health and tackling poverty. Being aware of the huge risks and then using that as a motivation to action is one of the key opportunities presented by awareness week.
I will reflect briefly on the Scottish Government’s actions. A large amount of health policy is devolved, but there are good examples and good practice on which we can reflect. In March the Scottish Government announced a £4.2 million research grant to investigate the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections, as well as to research new ways of using existing antibiotics more effectively and efficiently. Some of that funding was provided to a consortium of researchers led, as I have said, by the University of Glasgow in my constituency, working with other Scottish universities to establish a new Scottish Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Institute, which will conduct important research, bringing together a range of academics, researchers, practitioners and so on.
The Scottish Government have also established the Scottish antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections strategic framework for between 2016 and 2021. It has a number of aims to do with the containment of antimicrobial resistance; advancing scientific knowledge and innovation; improving efficiency, transparency and accountability; and improved workforce capability. That is important for all environments where healthcare is delivered, such as care homes, community pharmacies and primary care, and for everyone involved in the delivery of care.
There are a number of things we can all do at an individual level. There was a debate in March, I think on the broader issue of antimicrobial resistance, during which we were encouraged to become an antibiotic guardian. In fact, when the sitting was suspended for a Division in the House, many of us signed up online. The number of people signing up to that campaign continues to grow and this is another important opportunity to encourage others to do so. The Scottish Health Secretary, Shona Robison, has pledged to join the scheme and to encourage as many people as possible to do so in order to reach the target of 100,000 people becoming an antibiotic guardian.
This debate has shown that the Government have some challenges and opportunities. Are we ensuring that the right levels of investment are being channelled through the right Departments? The importance of joined-up government across Departments, including DEFRA, DFID and the NHS, has been made clear in this afternoon’s speeches. Towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Member for Stafford touched on the issue of a joined-up global response. There is a sense in some quarters that Brexit might represent some sort of retreat from the world stage. Yet the Government’s response to the O’Neill report in 2016 clearly stated that a global response, including “working closely with Europe”, is required. How do they see that relationship with European institutions in the context of Brexit? How can we be sure that the bonfire of red tape and regulation that so many Brexiteers have dreamed of for so many years will not weaken those efforts? We have already heard about the possibility of chlorine-washed chicken and so on coming into the United Kingdom as a result of potential trade deals with the United States. How can we make sure that meat that comes in as a result of new trade deals is not absolutely overloaded with antibiotics and other treatments that could lead to increased antimicrobial resistance?
In conclusion, this is a significant challenge and awareness is important. Awareness weeks, debates such as this, and the antibiotic guardian scheme play a very important role in tackling some of the challenges. I was interested to hear about the Swab and Send initiative and am keen to sign up to it. I can think of several dusty corners, not just in this Chamber but elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, where who knows what might be discovered. I think that is a challenge to us all.
We know that there are models out there that can work. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a number of them and some of the many positive actions taken to tackle malaria, as well as the challenges that remain in closing the final gap. The other day I attended an interesting meeting between DFID officials and the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all. We looked at the impact of the near eradication of polio and the challenges that will present for other schemes in the future. Some of the infrastructures that have been built up to deliver that historic achievement of the eradication of polio can perhaps be adapted to meet other healthcare challenges. I am not by any means an expert, but perhaps this is one of those areas.
It is clear from this debate that we can all play our part, and it is also important that the Government lead by example. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer on securing this debate and I look forward to the Government’s response.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for securing this debate on a really important subject during the week when we are focusing attention on the value of antibiotics and the challenges of antimicrobial resistance.
We have heard some interesting contributions, and I think there is widespread agreement across the Chamber. To reiterate some of the problems, we all agree that antimicrobial resistance is arguably the biggest challenge facing our health system. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on how fantastic antibiotics have been. We take so much for granted. Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin heralded a golden age in health. Penicillin was the first of many antibiotics; it alone has saved countless lives and was rightly hailed as a wonder drug. Wide-scale access to antibiotics changed the nature of medicine forever: wounds would heal and operating theatres became safe places where life-changing and, indeed, life-saving operations could be carried out without fear of deadly infection.
However, that was a long time ago and we now too often take antibiotics for granted. We have become blasé about their use. We have become careless and irresponsible. Too often at the first hint of an infection—a cough, a sneeze or a headache—GPs come under pressure from their patients to prescribe antibiotics. Too often antibiotics are the first port of call. Too often they are made available as a precaution. Through overuse and inappropriate use we have allowed the development of resistant bacteria on a global scale.
That is not just confined to their use on humans, as has been mentioned by several hon. Members. In fact, the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is widespread and is not just to treat infection, nor even to protect against infection. Until relatively recently it was permissible for sub-therapeutic doses to be added to animal feed to promote growth. That practice was banned globally in only January of this year. Even without that, 44% of all antibiotics used in the UK are used on animals and often inevitably find their way into the food chain and domestic water supplies. Cat McLaughlin, chief advisor to the National Farmers Union on animal health and welfare, stated:
“Arbitrary restrictions on the use of antibiotics…could have a detrimental impact on animal and plant health.”
That might be all well and good; however, the scientific consensus is that if we fail to place restrictions on the use of antibiotics, there will be a catastrophic effect on human health.
It is worth stressing that, as we have heard, antimicrobial resistance is the cause of 700,000 deaths globally each year, and that figure is predicted to rise significantly, to horrific levels, by 2050. Here in England, 5,000 people die every year from infections that have developed resistance to antibiotics. We must not underestimate the full impact of antimicrobial resistance. Let us be absolutely clear: without resort to effective antibiotics, there will be no treatment for complex infections, no chemotherapy for cancer and no treatment for cystic fibrosis, heart transplants or joint replacements. I recently visited the microbiology laboratory at the Royal Blackburn Hospital in Lancashire and the consultant microbiologist I spoke with said, “If you take one thing from your visit here today let it be this: we are so close to being unable to perform even the most minor, the most simple, operations, and so close to being unable to treat commonplace infections.” She impressed on me the need for urgent action.
The World Health Organisation identified the need for co-ordinated global action back in 2011. I am pleased to say that the UK has been a leader in responding and that at the time it published the five-year antimicrobial strategy and commissioned the O’Neill report, which has already been mentioned. It is clear that our focus should be two-fold.
First and foremost, we must raise awareness of the danger of overuse and focus on the reduction of demand. There is a lot that we can and must do. I agree with other hon. Members that we must start with a public education programme to manage expectations and to highlight the issues of inappropriate use and too frequent use. We should increase the use of diagnostic testing so that only efficacious targeted antibiotics are used.
In both those areas we should look to community pharmacists to lead. Qualified pharmacists are well placed to provide antimicrobial stewardship. Every day 1.6 million visits are made to community pharmacies in the UK, which provides ample opportunity to advise the public on appropriate treatments for ailments, to ensure full awareness of remedies other than antibiotics that may in many cases be more appropriate. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has offered to support its members to take on new and extended roles. Why not take it up on that offer? Why not make mandatory the roll-out of minor ailment schemes in community pharmacies? Why not support community pharmacists to carry out diagnostic testing to support GPs and other dispensing health professionals? Reducing the prescribing of antibiotics is not just the responsibility of GPs.
We must also regulate to reduce the amount of antibiotics used routinely on animals that are not sick. The National Office of Animal Health refutes the call for extended regulations and rejects the call to reduce antibiotic use in food products. However, we must act to promote a global reduction, because we are not talking about insignificant amounts of antibiotic use. Here in the UK, as I have mentioned, 44% of all antibiotic use is on animals. In the USA that figure is more than 70%. Many nations do not even record the figure and there is every reason to suppose that it is far higher. We must acknowledge that this is a global problem and play our part in identifying new incidences of antimicrobial resistance.
We must invest in research and development, promoting innovation to discover the next generation of antibiotics. At the moment, fewer than 100 scientists are working in the pharma industry to develop antibiotics, due mainly to a lack of adequate reimbursements. Not only would that ensure antibiotic protection for us in future, but investment in this sphere has the potential to make a significant contribution to the UK economy. We must see the challenges as opportunities.
The UK has an opportunity to be a world leader in life sciences and antibiotic development, but the reality is that, contrary to the O’Neill report’s recommendations, there has been insufficient progress, and incentives to promote this innovative work are not forthcoming. We should stop focusing on the cost of new antibiotics and focus on the cost of not developing them. The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy maintains that the UK has failed to address the issues in three main areas: education and public awareness; veterinary and agricultural use; and incentives for antibiotic discovery, research and development.
As we mark World Antibiotics Awareness Week, I ask the Minister to outline what steps the Government will take on three fronts. What steps will he take to reduce the inappropriate use of existing antibiotics in the treatment of human illness? What action will he take to regulate the use of antibiotics on healthy livestock? What action will he take to stimulate the research and development of new antibiotics? Will he demonstrate to us that the Department is determined to take this subject by the scruff of the neck? A world without antibiotics is unthinkable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
In a rare and welcome twist for a Westminster Hall debate, I think I will have time to cover pretty much all the points that colleagues have raised.
Let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on successfully securing this debate in World Antibiotics Awareness Week. As everyone has said, it gives us a great opportunity to draw attention to an important issue—or the important issue. On the way in, I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), “I didn’t know you were interested in this subject,” and she said, “This is a critical issue.” It has come on to her radar, so she has come to speak—brilliantly, I thought—in today’s debate. Say to many Members across the House, “We have a debate on AMR this afternoon,” and they would ask what that is. I do not think that will be the case for much longer, nor should it be, and I thank everyone for their contributions. Raising awareness of the importance of preserving antibiotics through their appropriate use and preventing infections in both humans and animals is part of the challenge.
Lord O’Neill has been rightly lauded and much mentioned this afternoon for his review of AMR, which was published last year. I agree that it is an excellent and accessible piece of work. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and David Cameron deserve great credit for having the foresight to ask him to do it. His review said that, by 2050, an estimated 10 million deaths a year could be caused globally by AMR if no action is taken. In comparison, cancer causes 8.2 million deaths per year—I am also the cancer Minister for England —and diabetes causes 1.5 million, to put that in context.
AMR is part of the Darwinian process of natural selection, as microbes adapt following exposure to antimicrobials. The problem is greatly amplified by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials—in particular, antibiotics. All Members who have spoken today mentioned public education. It was one of the four points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). While he spoke, I googled Swab and Send—I was listening at the same time; I can multitask, contrary to popular belief—which looks absolutely excellent. I look forward to finding out a bit more about Dr Adam Roberts’ project; he has done excellent work.
If any Members or constituents wish to find out more about the science of AMR, I heartily recommend the new “Superbugs” exhibition at the Science Museum in London. It explains both what AMR is and how we are using science to tackle it. The exhibition is an excellent example of the cross-sectoral collaboration that has enabled the UK to take such a leading role in tackling AMR.
While I am on the subject of science museums, may I give a shameless plug to my constituency—this does not happen often for a Minister? Public awareness is critical and that was a key point in the O’Neill report. A few weeks ago, I went to the Winchester Science Centre, which has just launched a new partnership with the University of Southampton. It has a brilliant new exhibit on AMR called, “The most dangerous game in the world”, which gives children—it is mostly children who visit the centre—the chance to understand what AMR is. They play an interactive game to try to understand the threat it poses to us and what we are doing to tackle it. Through the Association for Science and Discovery Centres—there are science centres all around the country; some will be in the constituencies of Members here today—we have the chance to raise the profile of the public education role that is needed for AMR. I suggest that raising awareness among our young people would be a brilliant place to start.
This debate is timely as it follows the publication last week of the all-party group’s antibiotics report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. The report made recommendations for us and others to consider in our development of future action plans to combat AMR. I thank the group for the report. Its recommendations will be useful as we develop the refreshed UK AMR strategy and the new action plan; the current one comes to the end of its five-year life at the end of 2018. In addition, the UK strategy makes the commitment to assess the effectiveness of the implementation plan at the end of the five-year period. The policy innovation research unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is undertaking a full evaluation of the current UK five-year strategy, looking at the evidence underpinning the key mechanisms of change across human and animal health sectors. Its work will further inform the development of the refreshed strategy.
It is World Antibiotics Awareness Week and European Antibiotics Awareness Day is on Saturday 18 November. The two events take a “one health” approach, with human and veterinary health professionals working closely to give a unified message on the subject. They provide opportunities to engage with healthcare professionals and the public on AMR and what we can all do to help to address it. As part of World Antibiotics Awareness Week, letters are sent from the chief professional officers for England and other national leaders inviting colleagues who are working in the NHS, local authorities, universities and professional organisations to support activities for the week. Links are provided to a wealth of AMR-related resources.
Our chief medical officer, the much mentioned—rightly so—Professor Dame Sally Davies, works closely with her opposite numbers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. She falls within my responsibility and I see her regularly. We always talk about this, and her book, “The Drugs Don’t Work”, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, is a brilliant piece of work. I recommend it to anybody with an interest in the subject.
The national Keep Antibiotics Working campaign was launched across the country last month by Public Health England, for which I have ministerial responsibility, to raise awareness of AMR and, using TV, radio and social media advertising, to reduce demand for antibiotics by the public. I hope that Members have seen, heard and watched that campaign.
In addition, the antibiotic guardian scheme, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), was launched in 2014, providing brilliant tools for healthcare professionals to raise awareness. That has now signed up more than 50,000 individuals, of whom I am one—people pledge personally to commit themselves to use antibiotics more prudently. When I signed up I did not see in the drop-down options a dram of whisky, but why not? The people behind that website are probably listening or watching, so surely it is only a matter of time.
The debate is also timely in that the Government are due to publish shortly the third annual progress report on implementation of the UK five-year AMR strategy. The report will set out the range of activity that went on through 2016—we look at the year before—to implement the strategy and points to the reduction in antimicrobial use in 2015 throughout the UK. Data for England in 2016, published just last month, show a continuing reduction in antimicrobial use in humans. Significantly, the annual sales data for antimicrobial use in animals, published last month, show a 27% drop in the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals since 2014. That meets the Government commitment two years ahead of target.
At this point I want to touch on colistin, which my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer referred to. Sales of colistin decreased by 83%—below the maximum target recommended by the European Medicines Agency—during the lifetime of the plan so far. On whether a review is looking into colistin use, I am not aware of any specific review, but its use is highly restricted and controlled now; it has dropped by 83%, as I said, and we continue to monitor it extremely closely, I am sure he will be pleased to hear.
This is just the beginning; our work is by no means complete. Last month, Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture launched a set of sector-specific reduction targets that we aim to and will deliver by 2020. The Government have also set challenging ambitions to halve the number of healthcare-associated gram-negative bloodstream infections and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in humans by 2020-21. Gram-negative infections are growing in incidence. Gram-negative bacteria are more resistant to antibiotics and are increasingly resistant to most available antibiotics.
E.coli infections, for example, make up the bulk of the healthcare-associated gram-negative bloodstream infections we aim to reduce. A report published by Public Health England last month revealed that four in 10 patients with an E. coli bloodstream infection in England cannot be treated with the antibiotic most commonly used in hospitals; that relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper). In 2017-18 we aim for a 10% reduction in all E.coli infections. Just two days ago, on Tuesday, the Secretary of State hosted an event with over 200 frontline staff from primary and secondary care to share good examples of actions to tackle such infections—I am sure that colleagues from Lancashire were there—and to develop improvement plans for 2018.
The consumption of antibiotics is a major driver of the development of antibiotic resistance. We have implemented a range of initiatives to help prescribers to improve their use of antibiotics, including the provision of guidance and tool kits and the use of behavioural change initiatives and financial incentives. AMR local indicators are provided in the Public Health England Fingertips portal, bringing together local information on prescribing and infection rates to allow local teams to benchmark their performance against others in similar areas so they can develop strategies for improvement that are appropriate for their local circumstances.
That gives me a chance to touch on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who mentioned sustainability and transformation partnerships. We absolutely expect AMR to be included, and it was included in the planning guidance for developing STPs. Take-up in local areas has been limited, but I suggest that MPs apply pressure to their local STPs by encouraging the STP leads to consider AMR. For the record, STPs that are in my good books—the apples of my eye—are Cheshire, Wider Devon and the Black Country. If Members wish, they can refer their STP leads to those as places to look for good practice that are involving AMR in their planning.
Most Members who have spoken have touched on new drugs; my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford certainly did so at great length. Although preventing infections and protecting the antibiotics that we have are the first two pillars of any approach to tackling AMR, the third is promoting the development of new drugs and alternative treatments. However, as has been said, no new treatments have been brought to market for many years. We fully support action to address this market failure through market incentives such as market entry rewards, championed by the O’Neill review, and other solutions, and we welcome the commitment made this year by G20 leaders to consider how such solutions could be implemented regionally and internationally. My hon. Friend’s ideas are welcome, and he is dead right in calling for a co-ordinated approach and for us to give them a bit of a push, to use the expression that he used.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend’s commitment to the subject shines through; it is great to see his leadership. I gently suggest that although global work and co-operation are extremely important and will, in the end, produce the kind of results that we need, we could take a step ourselves as the United Kingdom. The amount of money required to start something like, for instance, the Medicines for Malaria Venture is not great, particularly if it comes from a combination involving Government. The UK has provided 20% of the funding, as I said, alongside the Gates foundation. Sometimes it takes quite a time to get the world to work together. Perhaps we could consider doing something ourselves with as many co-operators as we can, and getting it going right now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, we could consider using the official development assistance budget, because this is for the benefit of everybody in the world, and it certainly is for poverty reduction.
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend is quite right. I have made a note and passed it back to the team. There are many pulls, of course, on the UK aid budget—that is a topical subject about which he knows far more than I do—but I will definitely take away that point and speak to our colleague, the new Secretary of State.
That point fits neatly into where I was going next. Although it will take time to develop an appropriate global model on the pull incentives, we are making significant progress on the push side. The UK has committed £50 million over the next five years to the global AMR innovation fund, which has been discussed in the House many times. The first tranche of £10 million will fund a bilateral UK-China AMR research collaboration, which we expect to open next spring.
At the same time, we are working with pharmaceutical companies through the joint Government-industry working group. A number of Members have said that this cannot all be left to the public sector, and it absolutely cannot. Through the working group, we are seeking to develop a NICE health technology assessment-based reimbursement model—another snappy title. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, that means that we would pay for antibiotics based on their value. A team at York University—I know that this will be of great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer—is working on the evaluation process and will report back to me in the spring. We will then decide on and announce the next steps. I hope that that is useful to Members.
To return to international issues, last week I attended the G7 in Milan—the presidency is held by Italy this year—to discuss international health matters. AMR was one of the three key items that we discussed, which shows the importance of taking a “one health” approach. It was a meeting with many challenging conversations as we attempted to produce a communiqué, which we did in the end, but I can report that the AMR discussion was not one of them. All attendees—the seven Governments, international bodies such as the World Health Organisation and other non-governmental organisations—were in complete alignment that AMR is an urgent global issue and the problems that it raises cannot be solved by individual countries. There was unanimity.
This was the third time that AMR had been prioritised on the G7 agenda, which shows our continued dedication to tackling it and the importance of countries working together. I had an interesting bilateral conversation with the Health Minister from Canada, which will assume the presidency next year in January. I urged her to keep the issue at the forefront of her mind; I hope that that went in. Each country needs to take action to tackle AMR, but we are obviously stronger together.
Our chief medical officer, to refer to Sally again, works tirelessly to raise the profile of AMR in the WHO and international circles. She travels far more than I, and ensures its place not just as a health and agricultural issue but as a political and financial one; a number of Members have mentioned the fiscal cost of AMR. The United Nations declaration secured in September last year made it clear that we will not be able to deliver the sustainable development goals if we do not tackle AMR. As a number of Members have been kind enough to mention, we have been at the forefront of shaping action on AMR through proactive engagement, and Dame Sally has an awfully big role to play in that.
Indeed, at the G7, the OECD recognised and acknowledged that the UK is leading the way in providing experience on how to tackle AMR. Although many challenges will come as a result of our decision to leave the European Union, in this area, as in so many others, we lead the world, and it is very much in the world’s interest to continue working closely with us and benefiting from our experience. The bottom line is: why wouldn’t they?
I will also mention the Japanese, who are passionate about tackling AMR and with whom I had conversations around the G7. I was pleased to learn that they are as dedicated as we are to addressing AMR. This week, our chief medical officer attended an AMR conference that they hosted in Tokyo with other Asian countries. I understand it went well and look forward to getting a formal readout when she returns.
Good global surveillance is essential to provide a co-ordinated global response, as underlined by last week’s G7 discussions. For that reason, we support low and middle-income countries through our £265 million Fleming fund to improve their surveillance capacity and capability. UK official development assistance will improve in-country laboratory capacity for AMR surveillance through a “one health” approach. It has already supported 31 countries worldwide to develop AMR national action plans that follow on closely from what we have done.
Many hon. Members have mentioned that a cross-Government approach is needed in Whitehall. That goes without saying. The officials advising me today are from the Department of Health and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We work closely with officials and Ministers across Departments. AMR is a global problem that will not be addressed in the lifetime of any single strategy. Although the UK has led the way and made significant progress at home and overseas, this is a long-term, serious and urgent problem. I welcome initiatives such as World Antibiotics Awareness Week that enable us to continue to discuss the issue, give us a media hook to hang it on, keep it high on the agenda for professionals across all sectors and, vitally, keep it in the minds of members of the public.
Julian Sturdy
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his response. From speaking to him previously and from what he has said today, I know he understands the task ahead not only for us in the UK but globally. It is important to remember and to pay tribute to the work that has already been done, which was ably led by David Cameron and the O’Neill review—one of the most important reviews that was set out by the then Prime Minister.
We have a job to do in this House. I have attended packed Westminster Hall debates on issues such as cycling and bee health—I am not decrying those important issues; I do not want my inbox full of emails on that tonight—but if we are not getting hon. Members from all sides of the House in for a debate on something as important as antibiotic resistance that affects us all, all our constituents, our country and the globe, that is quite worrying. If all hon. Members take that away from this debate, that will be encouraging.
We are an immensely fortunate generation to have been born and to have grown up in the world of the antibiotic age. I look at this issue for the sake of future generations. I have an interest in that because I have young children, and I think the Minister has children of a similar age. When the next generation hit their 30s and 40s and begin to start families of their own, there is a real possibility that their children will be born into a world without antibiotics—a post-antibiotic age. That is quite terrifying. It is essential that the required steps are taken for that next generation.
If we get that right, no medals will be handed out. No statues will be erected in the streets. If the Minister becomes the Minister with responsibility for antibiotic resistance and succeeds in his pledges, he will not be immortalised in a statue in the centre of London. The world will continue as it is, and many will not even know the threat that faced them. If we stand by and do nothing, however, history will be extremely unkind to our generation. It is essential that we act. The UK is making great steps forward, but there is so much more to do and it has to be done on a global stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Antibiotics Awareness Week.
Support for Care Leavers
(6 years, 5 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
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Department for Work and Pensions’ support for care leavers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I am extremely glad to have the opportunity to debate this important subject in Parliament. I have been interested in the care system, and the young people who grow up in it and move out of it into adult life, for the past 10 years. When I first came to Westminster, my main interest was in education, but I quickly became aware of the large number of young people in our society—approximately 70,000 of them—who are in care because life at home has gone wrong. Without a stable foundation, so many opportunities are diminished and hindered.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I believe that the most important work with young people in care, which is ultimately for the benefit of care leavers, is done in other Departments. Perhaps some of the most significant spends that are required are on matters that she can address with her colleagues and that fall within their budgets, such as early intervention for parents or children suffering from poor mental health or addiction problems. I am sure she has such conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Too often, we give the impression that the care system in our country is irretrievably broken. I do not believe it is. Some 60% of care leavers do not become NEET—not in education, employment or training—on leaving school, which is a sign that the care system has worked for them and has provided them with opportunities they might not have received if they had stayed at home. However, that is not to say that the system cannot be improved; it can be, and I believe it has been over the past 10 years. The Munro review of child protection and Martin Narey’s reviews of residential care and fostering for the DFE have contributed to the quality of care that young people in our country receive.
Obviously, the care system is extraordinarily varied. It is often said that England has not one care system, but 150—one for each of the local authorities that take in children. Those systems and the legal framework in which they operate remind us that young people in care are our children. Because the state has decided to take them away from their families and try to create a new family environment for them, the responsibility for their wellbeing, opportunities and success lies strongly with central and local government. We should always remember that when we consider the policy interventions we can make to improve their lives.
With that in mind, what can the Department for Work and Pensions do to help young people as they embark on adult life and look for the opportunities that everyone wants, such as a stable family, a job, a chance to prosper and decent accommodation? On work and training, one wonderful initiative in the past few years has been a bursary of about £2,000 for young care leavers to go to university. I know from having spoken to care leavers that it has created opportunity where there was none before. Young people also get help with accommodation and on-site help at their universities.
That is a great start, but relatively few care leavers go to university; the majority go straight into the world of work. Modern apprenticeships, which provide a new route into employment for our young people, have been a very successful Government initiative that is growing year on year, but they do not offer care leavers the same advantages as young people living at home with their families. Indeed, the system rather assumes that apprentices have a family home to live in. Having talked to care leavers who have to manage their household bills and finances on the very low initial income that new apprentices receive—about £3.50 an hour—I ask the Government to look again at the issue.
I know that the apprenticeships programme falls within the DFE’s purview, but it is also in the DWP’s interest to ensure that young people do not become unemployed. We know that young people who become long-term unemployed when they leave school are much more likely to be long-term unemployed later in life, so it is crucial for the system to help them to avoid that pitfall. I suggest to the Minister that a little upstream investment could save a lot of money in subsequent benefit payments. A few years ago, the DWP part-funded ThinkForward, a very interesting initiative to identify young people at risk of becoming NEET and support them with long-term mentoring in the years before they left school. It dramatically reduced the number of NEETs in the target group. The DWP has a good track record with this work, and I encourage it to do more.
Many care leavers start adult life on welfare, receiving help with their bills and the necessary support to have somewhere to live. It is important that we ensure that our welfare system is adapted to their needs, especially with respect to up-front accommodation costs. As hon. Members know, the shared accommodation rate gives young people in the benefits system money for a room rather than a flat, under the assumption that they live with others, but care leavers are subject to an exemption until the age of 22. That exemption is a good Government policy, but charities I have spoken to—including the Children’s Society, which gave me some very good advice before the debate—point out that it would be better to extend it to the age of 25, when a different benefit payment rate kicks in. I strongly encourage the Minister to consider such an extension, which would ensure that care leavers have no hiatus in pay to overcome. The Children’s Society estimates that it would cost about £5 million—a small cost that would be far outweighed by the good it would do.
When I was director of strategy at the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, I spent a lot of my time going around the country to talk to local authorities that had excellent care-leaving units. Some areas, particularly Trafford, had a very detailed local strategy to ensure that the personal advisers who helped care leavers worked with their colleagues in the local jobcentre. That is important for various reasons. First, a decent personal adviser will be there to give advice on how the complexities of all the new systems work. However, it should also be a two-way conversation. If a young person has left care and falls into trouble—and is perhaps trying to get their head around meeting appointments or making sure that they do the right things to be able to claim their benefits—their personal adviser will be there to walk them through the system. We have a good generation of new work coaches who are extremely helpful when someone gets into the jobcentre, but it is important for some care leavers to have advice outside of the jobcentre to make sure that they can follow the system without falling into difficulties and becoming sanctioned. They need to know what they are entitled to.
I know there is good practice going on in the country, but I also know it is not standardised. I welcome any attempt by DWP and DFE to bring together directors of children’s services and regional heads of jobcentres so that conversations can be held at a high managerial level and cascaded down to other parts of the country.
The Centre for Social Justice, for which I used to work, contacted me before this debate about a little glitch in the welfare system for care leavers taking apprenticeships. They have to wait a month for their first payment, and the CSJ suggested that those care leavers be enabled to retain their benefits for that month. Again, that bridges a gap so as to prevent young people from falling into debt when they have made the correct decision to get an apprenticeship, build their skills and move into work. Similarly, we should allow care leavers to retain housing benefit at the existing level when they move into an apprenticeship, again reducing the risk of their acquiring arrears and getting into debt.
As I wrap up, I want us to think about data. DWP, DFE and the Ministry of Justice have come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, plugging their different enormous datasets together. That means it is increasingly possible to see how children from certain backgrounds and with certain experiences go on to achieve certain outcomes. The value of that is obviously enormous. This country has very good national datasets, which means we will be able to identify which young people become long-term unemployed and what their experiences have been at school, in the care system and in childhood before that. Similarly, it will enable us to identify the young people who had poor experiences and who then went on to be successful. If we do that, we can dig down into what made the crucial difference for those people: what children’s services department, what charity, and what intervention helped change their lives. Then we can seek to extend that good practice to other areas, truly creating a wonderful learning environment.
Finally, I encourage the Minister to let her data analysts roam free over the extraordinary wealth of knowledge that is sitting in Government Departments.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this important debate. As I listened to him, I was pleased to note that he and I have quite a common view on many of the issues. He was very clear in his opening remarks; there is a danger that we might forget that when we use the term “care leavers” we are talking about young people who have already encountered more than their fair share of troubles. They have not usually enjoyed the benefits of a stable family life that are available to others. They may have had little or no contact with their natural parents and family members, or those relationships may have been abusive and traumatising, so we are talking about people who have not had the best of starts. They are significantly more likely to be classed as NEETs—not in education, employment or training—if we compare them with their non-care counterparts, which is an important point to bear in mind, and of course they are much more likely to be subject to benefit sanctions. I suspect that is because sufficient account is not taken of the other things happening in their lives in the way in which the benefits system sometimes processes those transactions.
Our starting point should be to say that these young people are full of potential, but they need something extra by way of support and encouragement from the welfare state, which needs to pick up some of the corporate parenting role every bit as much as the local authority to ensure that those young folk get the assistance necessary to achieve their full potential.
The Government, to their credit, have sought to identify their corporate parenting responsibilities. In 2016 they published “Keep on caring”, a cross-departmental strategy paper designed to provide better support to care leavers. It identified five key outcomes, two of which are particularly relevant to this debate. One was improved access to education, employment and training: encouraging supported internships, meeting training costs and providing employment opportunities for care leavers in Government Departments and their agencies. Another was to ensure that care leavers achieve financial stability. That involved a promise to exempt care leavers from cuts in housing support due to be applied to all other 18 to 21-year-olds. The strategy also promised a review of the case for extending the exemption to shared accommodation rates within universal credit up to the age of 25, which is something that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked the Minister to pursue. It also promised a further review of the personal adviser role to ensure that care leavers can get support to help them manage their finances.
As I have said, the Government deserve credit for the approach that “Keep on caring” set out. I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers on these issues, but there are doubts about implementation, especially against the backdrop of cash-strapped local authorities, worries over the roll-out of universal credit, and large funding cuts to other services. I am advised that care leavers not in education or training do not have access to a personal advisor until the age of 25, but I believe there is provision within the universal credit arrangements for work coaches to suspend work requirements during periods of particular hardship or difficulty, for example, if someone is homeless. Are such measures available to care leavers who find themselves in similar difficult, confused circumstances? If not, will the Minister consider adopting that approach?
Does the Minister have any information on how many care leavers are claiming universal credit and how many of them are currently in rent arrears? As I understand it, there is a DWP marker for care leavers, but only if they self-identify as a care leaver, and I am not clear that that arrangement will necessarily continue under universal credit. I should say that I do not think that what I am talking about is part of some grand conspiracy. I am merely asking whether it has been thought about; are things joined up? I say that because I recognise that “Keep on Caring” was a cross-departmental document, and I am kind of keen to know what work is going on to reduce the bureaucracy that care leavers experience as they try to negotiate local authorities and jobcentres in pursuit of such things as housing, housing benefit, training, job opportunities and other financial support. I recently visited a London jobcentre to look at the roll-out of universal credit, and I was impressed by the work coaches I met, but I was particularly interested to know whether there is any specific training for them on the issue of corporate parenting principles: how are we going to take that bit of “Keep on Caring” and translate it into the work that is done on the ground? It would be helpful to know that.
As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was saying, on the issue of apprenticeships, £3.50 per hour may be fairly meagre, but I suppose it is conceived on the basis that an 18-year-old living at home with one or both parents could get by on that sort of money. My question is how it incentivises a young care leaver to take up an apprenticeship, and, if we are being honest, how on earth we expect them to manage on that kind of money. I know that the Minister will not be able to help me too much, because as far as I understand it the Government freely admit that they have no idea how many care leavers start or complete apprenticeships; nor do they know how many employers receive the additional apprenticeship payment for taking on a care leaver. The hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks by discussing how much use we could make of data. If only the Government collected some of it. I was surprised when I tabled parliamentary questions to discover that that information was not collected. I should have thought it was a good opportunity for the Government to measure the progress they were trying to make.
I certainly endorse the suggestion of an apprenticeship bursary—I presume that that is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—to mirror the higher education bursary; it would be a good idea. From the figures that I have seen it does not look in any sense cost-prohibitive. If it is part of the aim of “Keep on Caring”—something that the Department for Work and Pensions can play a major role in delivering—to make it possible to get a job and a stable life, it seems that we should strive to provide good-quality apprenticeships.
I note that the 2016 care leavers strategy states that the DWP is willing to explore what more can be done in the benefits system to support those wishing to return to education between the ages of 21 and 25. Is the Minister in a position to update us on any progress being made in that area? A lot might be learned from organisations such as Become, whose Propel project supports care leavers into further and higher education.
Finally, as the chair of the all-party group on looked after children and care leavers, I am in the privileged position of getting to hear the views and experiences of quite a lot of young people who have been part of the care system. I note that there is a promise, in the corporate parenting consultation by the Department for Education, to incorporate young peoples’ understanding of corporate parenting responsibilities into the work that it is doing on the local offer. It would be a good idea if the DWP could say it was going to adopt the same approach. Perhaps I may conclude by inviting the Minister to attend a future meeting of the group, where she could listen first-hand to what some young care leavers say. It would make a real difference to them.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I have had a request to accommodate a colleague, and will therefore call Patricia Gibson and then Will Quince.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you, Mrs Gillan; I appreciate your calling me at this time. To clarify things for colleagues, I have made a request to leave a little early. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, as I would have been sad to miss it. I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for securing it, as the young people in question need as much support as we can provide for them.
Young people leaving care are in the unique position of having the state as their corporate parent, and their educational, health and employment outcomes, sadly, are significantly poorer than those of their peers. The support to which they have access should be monitored and reviewed periodically; it should be shaped by the lived experience of care leavers, to ensure that it is effective and responsive to their particular needs.
The facts in relation to DWP support for care leavers make uncomfortable reading. A disproportionate number of care leavers have support removed, or live with punitive sanctions that are imposed on them by the welfare system. Care leavers have reported problems such as having financial support removed. That affects them acutely—perhaps more acutely than it affects those in many other sections of the population—because often they do not have family support, or even social support, when financial support is withdrawn.
According to recent information uncovered by the Children’s Society, in England between 2013 and 2015 nearly 4,000 sanctions were applied to care leavers, representing one sanction for every 13 of them. Indeed, care leavers in England are three times more likely to have had a benefit sanction than members of the general working-age population, where the rate is one sanction for every 39 people. As has already been pointed out, we can be pretty sure that the true number of care leavers facing a sanction is likely to be far higher than the figures suggest.
The DWP currently collects information on self-reported care leavers, which means that if a care leaver does not identify their status, they are not included in the figures. Such practice has encouraged the First Minister of Scotland to announce a root-and-branch review of the care system in Scotland, which will be driven by the experience of those in care, taking into account the views of 1,000 young people who have experienced care.
Outcomes for care leavers trail quite badly behind those for their peers, so doing more to help them to achieve positive destinations will have a significant impact on their future, despite the many and varied challenges that they may have faced in the past. The past cannot be changed, but we can change what their future may look like.
The care experienced employability programme is a one-year pilot project in Scotland to help 270 young care leavers between the ages of 16 and 29 to move into appropriate work, training or educational opportunities. It will be led by the third sector Young People’s Consortium, which consists of Barnardo’s Scotland, Action for Children and the Prince’s Trust. It will enhance and add value to existing youth employment provision for those young people who are often excluded from attaining their full potential through education and employment. By supporting more young care leavers to access employment, training and educational opportunities, and by working to close the attainment gap with their peers, we can send a clear signal that improvement in supporting that group of young people is necessary.
I hope that the Minister will set out some clear actions to tackle the fact that in England 40% of care leavers are not in education, training or employment, compared with 14% of their peers. That is a very poor comparison. In Scotland 78% of care leavers reach positive destinations within three months of leaving secondary education, but that is still not good enough, given that the figure for their peers is 93%.
I also hope that the Minister will indicate how the Government will address the fact that their own figures show that nearly one in five care leavers between the ages of 19 and 21 were either in accommodation that is considered unsuitable or in accommodation whose suitability was not known.
The reoffending rates of care leavers in England are now four times higher than those of all other young people. A recent study by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that 27% of young people in the young offenders institutions it surveyed had previously been in care, but the figure for female young offenders was 45%. This situation represents a huge swathe of wasted opportunities and potential, but it is hoped that the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which came into force in April, will help to turn around the tragedies that lie behind those figures.
I ask the Minister to look carefully at some of the Children’s Society recommendations to help our care leavers to reach their true potential. The introduction of an apprenticeship bursary, which has been mentioned and which would support care leavers during the first year of their apprenticeship, would provide better financial support and ensure better long-term employment prospects for care leavers. The early warning system for care leavers at risk of sanction must be explored further by the DWP, to see whether it reduces the level of sanctioning. DWP staff should also ensure that universal credit is tailored to meet the particular circumstances of care leavers. Communication between Jobcentre Plus staff and care leavers should be more flexible. For example, if it is appropriate and will simplify communication, texting should be used.
A whole raft of measures have been proposed. Some of them would not cost very much at all, but they could have a significant and lasting impact on the lives and long-term prospects of care leavers. I ask the Minister to ensure that all of those measures are fully and carefully considered and explored by the Government, so that we can ensure that fewer of our care leavers fall through the cracks when they are young and consequently never catch up and reach their full potential. If they do not reach their full potential, that is bad not only for care leavers but for our society.
The DWP should always seek to make its support for care leavers more creative and innovative, and more responsive to the lived experience of our young care leavers, who are too important to be left behind.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Gillan, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this important debate.
This debate is ultimately about improving life chances, and the stats on care leavers are concerning. They are five times more likely to have been excluded from school and five times more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence or subject to a final warning or reprimand, and, as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, only about 6% of care leavers end up going to university. However, the most troubling statistic for me is that care leavers are at considerably higher risk of homelessness, which is an issue that I care passionately about and that is the perspective from which I want to contribute to the debate.
I serve as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, alongside the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). In July we produced a report that examined homelessness among three specific cohorts: victims of domestic violence, prison leavers and care leavers. Everyone in this Chamber would agree that care leavers, given that often they will have grown up in challenging circumstances, should have all aspects of their wellbeing taken care of, and yet their housing needs are sometimes overlooked, as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier. When our APPG held its inquiry, we were told that a third of care leavers become homeless in the first two years after leaving care.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being here earlier; I was at a suicide prevention conference in Belfast. I very much share his concerns. In Norfolk, when children being cared for by foster carers reach the age of 18, in many cases the carers’ payments go down significantly. Does he agree that we need to avoid creating perverse incentives that might end up with children having to leave home and therefore being at risk of homelessness?
Will Quince
Broadly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am pleased that the Minister has heard that point. I hope she will take it on board.
We also found that 25% of homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives. The Government’s care leavers’ charter states:
“We promise…To find you a home”.
We have to make sure that the benefits system supports that aim.
The APPG’s report recommends that care leavers should be exempt from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 25. To provide some background, in 2012 the Government extended the shared accommodation rate to everyone under 35. The rate is the maximum amount that an individual can claim in housing benefit for a private rented property, and it is based on the cost of a room in a shared property rather than the cost of self-contained accommodation.
The rationale for that change, which incidentally I agree with, was to
“ensure that Housing Benefit rules reflect the housing expectations of people of a similar age”,
meaning a similar cohort who are not on benefits. Yet it is often the case that care leavers have had a really challenging upbringing; they might have suffered traumas that other people of their age might never experience.
We already recognise that we should have different expectations of care leavers compared with those we have of their peers. We currently exempt care leavers from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 22. Nevertheless, most young people have the option of staying at home if they are unable to move out, but that choice is not available to care leavers. Furthermore, in our evidence sessions we heard from care leavers who said that they would feel unsafe in a shared home.
Exempting care leavers from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 25 would give them the space and security of their own home, which would make a tremendous difference to their transition into adulthood. That suggestion has actually been recognised by the Government. The 2016 “Keep on Caring” strategy stated that the Government would be
“reviewing the case to extend the exemption to the Shared Accommodation Rate…for care leavers to age 25”.
Obviously, such an extension would have a financial cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out earlier. Currently, we do not know the number of care leavers who are affected by the move to the shared accommodation rate. I found that out—or, rather, tried to find it out and failed—when I submitted a written parliamentary question. However, the Children’s Society estimates that the potential case load is about 3,300. With an average difference between the shared accommodation rate and the one-bedroom rate of about £1,600, the cost of exempting care leavers would be about £5.3 million. Given the potential difference that change could make to the lives of care leavers, that is not an unreasonable figure.
The state has a responsibility for care leavers, young adults who are often among the most vulnerable in our society. We need to ensure that their housing needs are looked after just as well as their other needs. By exempting them from the shared accommodation rate, we can give them safe and secure accommodation, and help them in that all-important transition to adulthood.
I know that the Minister is as passionate as I am about improving the life chances of care leavers and ensuring that we address and minimise the risk of homelessness. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation on board and look at it. I will send the Minister a copy of the APPG’s very good report and hope that the Government will also look at its other recommendations.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
We move to the winding-up speeches. I call Mr Alex Cunningham.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Gillan.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this debate. I am pleased that we are united in recognising that we can all do more to give care leavers the best possible start to their adult lives. If the hon. Gentleman never says anything important again in this House, he said something important today: “Young people in care are our children”. That is a very important statement. I find it quite difficult to find much to disagree with in his speech, although the Government’s success is perhaps not quite as rosy as he thinks. In fact, his speech offered real challenges to the Government and I will go on to offer some of my own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green—
Alex Cunningham
It says “Hall Green” here. I looked it up specially. I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct and I am wrong. He has spent a lot of his time championing looked-after children in this place, and I congratulate him on and thank him for that. He mentioned that these young people are full of potential. All young people are full of potential; we just need to give them the extra support they need to achieve that.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about services being developed with the knowledge of the young people involved. I agree with that, and it is something we tried to do when I was a councillor in Stockton. She went on to give shocking statistics on the number of former care leavers in the criminal justice system. That is all the more reason for us to do much better.
I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work with the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. The study it did focused on care leavers. I have spent a lot of my life trying to get people to focus more on care leavers, and it is great that we see that happening across the piece. He talked about the importance of them having the security of their own home, and I agree with that.
This subject is close to my heart. Although it is not my particular brief, I am pleased to be here today. I was the lead member for children’s services in Stockton. I very much enjoyed the time I spent with care leavers, even if I was left wondering how as a corporate parent I could do more for the likes of them, bearing in mind that they would be cast out into the wider world much younger than my own two sons, John and Andrew, who opted to leave home in their mid-20s. John and Andrew returned home, and I am always pleased to see them, but that is not an option for care leavers.
The situation that stuck out the most for me in recent years was not a young person from Stockton—it was when I met a young woman during a visit by the then Education Select Committee to deepest Kent. She was a care leaver and told of being all but abandoned in her room at a hostel and having to regularly put up with men braying at her door asking her to party with them. She was frightened. She felt at a loss as to what to do next, and she lacked the necessary support to get on with her life. As MPs, we are not formally corporate parents, but that does not mean we cannot recognise that, even though care leavers at 18 may be legally adults, there are many ways in which they need much more support than an average 18-year-old, who most likely has the support of a family. We can play our part in giving them that. We can start with the opportunity to move into high-quality training and employment opportunities—something we want for our own children and grandchildren. The rates of young people not in education, employment or training are too high, with care leavers almost three times less likely to be in education, employment or training at the age of 19. That figure can no doubt be associated with an often unstable journey through the care system. Other Members have described that.
Progress has been made over the past 20 years, and that is worth reflecting on. The Labour Government took the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 through Parliament, which created the role of the personal adviser. While it is fair to say that the provision is not perfect—local authorities still struggle to maintain this level of service with shrinking budgets—in its day it was a real innovation. In 2009, the Labour Government introduced a requirement for all care leavers at university to receive a £2,000 bursary from their local authority.
It is not just Labour that has improved provision. In 2014, the coalition Government created the role of the virtual school head, whose job it is to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children in each area. I welcomed that. It was something we had been doing in Stockton. I welcomed the decision by the last Government to extend the provision of local authority support from 21 to 25 through the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
My own borough council, Stockton, has an excellent reputation for delivering for vulnerable people. It has removed the requirement for care leavers to pay council tax for a period of time while they are adjusting to their new independent life. Others have followed suit, and I wonder whether the Minister could encourage more to do likewise.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Children’s Society. Members have spoken about it and other organisations, such as Barnardo’s, and thanked them for their work with care leavers and the briefings and statistics they provide us all with. Statistics have been in evidence in the debate. We know that 40% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 14% of all other 19 to 21-year-olds. Outcomes under the Work programme for care leavers were significantly worse than for others. They were around half as likely to spend the minimum amount of time doing work experience within a 12-month period than peers aged 18 to 24 claiming jobseeker’s allowance.
The Department for Work and Pensions could do a lot more to improve the way the social security system works for care leavers. That cohort is five times more likely to face benefit sanctions than their peer group. The system of personal advisers introduced by Labour was a positive step, but the Children’s Society has highlighted that there is often a lack of co-ordination between personal advisers and work coaches. It has called for early warnings to be used when considering a sanction for a care leaver and for no sanction to be imposed without the personal adviser being notified. Will the Government look at that, and innovative schemes such as the one in Trafford, where there is a protocol between the DWP and the local council that allows for two-way communication between a care leaver’s personal adviser and work coach on their claim?
The Children’s Society also argues that sanctions should be at a lower rate, as for 16 and 17-year-olds, and be for no more than four weeks. What is the Minister’s view on that? Another idea is that the DWP could send reminders of jobcentre appointments to young people by text or WhatsApp. The NHS does that already because of the cost of missed appointments. Care leavers do not have parents to prompt them to attend, so that might be something they could benefit from in particular.
For many who have recently left care, and those about to do so, their first experience of applying for benefits will be with universal credit. If the Government do not do something to help, they could face the same severe negative impact that universal credit is having on people and their wellbeing. In August 2017, the Children’s Society report on care leavers and the benefits system highlighted that the DWP introduced a marker to identify care leavers on the labour market system used by DWP staff to ensure that they received more tailored support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spoke about that. There does not appear to be any such marker for universal credit, so will the Minister tell us what plans there are to change that?
Universal credit has also had implications for 18 to 21-year-old care leavers who are subject to the youth obligation, which effectively means increased conditionality compared with legacy benefits. They receive intensive work-focused support from the start of their claim. That may be positive, as it is not a good thing for young people to start their adult life with a prolonged period of unemployment. However, care leavers may face more challenges at that stage in their lives than the vast majority of their peers, so will the Government look at how they can pause that intensive search for work if the young person needs more time to attend to the other issues in their lives?
Under universal credit, the leaving care team cannot begin to set up the claim until the young person has turned 18, so payment will not be received for at least five to six weeks. This afternoon in the main Chamber we have been talking about universal credit, and Conservative Members themselves were saying that the period needed to be much shorter. The Minister could help to support local authority leaving care teams carrying out the administrative work to set up a claim four to six weeks before the young person leaves care, so that they will receive payment without delay. Will the DWP also provide more training for jobcentre staff to support care leavers, and work with local authorities to provide training for personal advisers so that they can understand universal credit better and make care leavers in their charge aware that alternative arrangements are possible?
In its briefing, the Children’s Society also highlighted that care leavers might lose up to £45 from housing benefit when they turn 22 as a result of the existing rules on the shared accommodation rate of local housing allowance. Other Members covered that in detail. Finding affordable housing is already a severe problem for young people, so it is important that the impediments are addressed. A Centrepoint survey found that 26% of care leavers have sofa-surfed and 14% have slept rough. Stability in housing has to be one of the most fundamental needs in ensuring stability in people’s lives.
The cross-departmental leaving care strategy stated that the Government would look into extending the age at which young people switch from the single bedroom rate of local housing allowance to the shared accommodation rate when living in private rented accommodation, which is a reality for many, given the shortage of social rented properties. Local housing allowance rates have been frozen until 2020, so a delay to the age at which care leavers begin to receive the shared accommodation rate—which can be £30 less per week—is particularly urgent. That move to a lower rate of support does not occur in a vacuum. It happens at a time when young people are only entitled to a lower rate national living wage, and at an age when their entitlement under universal credit is noticeably lower. That cut in monthly housing support eats into already stretched budgets, putting tenancies at risk and causing stress and anxiety.
Can the Minister share with us her assessment of the case for delaying the cut in the move to the shared accommodation rate from 22 to 25? I also ask her how the DWP could ensure that care leavers get the meaningful financial education they need. Many of us want it to be universal for all young people, but I would suggest that care leavers could do with a bit of extra help to ensure that they do not get into debt. If they do get into debt, they need even more robust support. I would be interested in her view on the breathing space being proposed in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill for care leavers. That would halt creditors imposing interest charges and extra fees, which only worsen the debt.
I hope, and am sure, that the Government will listen to all the points made today, and act to show that we are all on the side of care leavers and want them to realise their full potential. I just hope that the Minister, like every individual who has spoken this afternoon, will become that real champion for care leavers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and congratulate him on securing this important debate on the support given by the Department for Work and Pensions to care leavers. I also thank hon. Members across the House for their valuable input to this important discussion. They have raised a number of really important issues on how the Government and, indeed, my Department support care leavers. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address all—or at least most of—the questions that have been raised, and to set out some of the actions that we are taking.
Let me start by reassuring my hon. Friend, and indeed all Members, that the Government are committed to improving the lives of, and outcomes for, care leavers. We recognise that care leavers are among the most vulnerable groups of young people. We of course understand that sadly many were taken into care because of neglect or abuse as children. We understand that as they leave care, they often have to make the transition to adulthood and independent living at a younger age than their peers, and usually without the support of a family network, as other Members have said.
The exceptionally difficult challenges that care leavers face mean that their educational, health and employment outcomes can be significantly worse than those of their peers. That is why we introduced the first ever cross-government care-leaver strategy in 2013, and updated that strategy in 2016. The strategy sets out the steps that the Government are taking—from housing to health services; from the justice system to educational institutions; and from financial support to work—to support care leavers to live happy, healthy and independent lives. The Department for Work and Pensions was proud to play a full and active role in supporting the Department for Education in developing that strategy. In the time available today, Members will forgive me if I focus as specifically as I can on the actions that the Department for Work and Pensions has taken, but it is important to remember, of course, that they are part of a cross-Government approach, which needs to be joined up as far as possible.
My Department has put in place a comprehensive package of support and protections for care leavers who need to claim benefits to make the transition from local authority care to independent living. That support ensures that they are offered the help that they need to take that important step, including the necessary assistance to find employment. That is where universal credit is an enormous benefit. The new work coach model means that each claimant stays with the same work coach throughout their claim, giving continuity of support for claimants. It also means that work coaches are able to identify very early a claim by someone who has complex needs—someone who may require individualised, tailored support. That, of course, includes care leavers.
A couple of hon. Friends and hon. Members mentioned that very important data collection exercise. My Department is working very hard to try to collect better data on claimants with complex needs, including care leavers. Information that someone is a care leaver is held on the claimant profile as part of the universal credit system. We are at the very early stages of the process, and we are still working through what data is being collected and what the data is telling us. We will, of course, keep a very close eye on that, and see if further markers are needed. That is why we have built into the universal credit system a pause-and-learn approach, which means that we can incorporate the benefits of our learning as we go. The Department for Education continues to publish valuable care leaver outcome data for 17 to 21-year-old care leavers. A data-share agreement is in place between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to explore the link between educational achievement and labour-market outcomes. They will also explore the quality of outcome information that the data-sharing provides for specific groups, such as care leavers.
In universal credit, work coaches can tailor interventions to the needs of the individual, and the support that they can offer is incredibly wide-ranging. It can address a variety of barriers to work, and might include improving job-search skills, referral to skills and other work-related training, and other types of support. The work-related training can include traineeships, apprenticeship places, and work experience. I will speak a little more about apprenticeship places later on.
Jobcentre Plus districts work closely with their local authority care leaving teams to put in place protocols and processes to support care leavers who need to claim benefits. There are some great examples across the country of effective working protocols between job centres and local leaving care teams. Barnet care leaver hub, for example, involves a Jobcentre Plus work coach, co-located in the local authority leaving care premises with the Drive Forward foundation, the care leaver charity that delivers intensive one-to-one work support. Jobcentre Plus partnership managers are working with their local authority leaving care teams to facilitate contracts and joint working protocols. We are working with the Department for Education to encourage local authority leaving care teams to contact Jobcentre Plus.
A key element of that is the facility to prepare a claim in advance of the claimant’s 18th birthday. With the support of their local authority leaving care adviser or a Jobcentre Plus work coach, a care leaver can begin preparing to make that benefit claim four weeks before their 18th birthday. That ensures that all the identification and evidence checks are completed before they leave care and prevents any unnecessary delays in benefit payments. It also provides the opportunity to arrange advances and to direct rent payments to landlords where appropriate.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister is describing lots of good practice, but I wonder how we can get to the stage where a young person can be asked at their first point of contact with the DWP whether they are a care leaver, so that identification can follow them through the system?
Caroline Dinenage
That is something that we have discussed at length, and we are looking in detail to see whether that proposal could be incorporated. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and other hon. Members across the House that we have worked hard, and are continuing to work hard, to ensure that universal credit works and is beneficial, not only for the majority of straightforward cases but for care leavers and those with complex needs too. That is why we have introduced a series of measures aimed at safeguarding and supporting care leavers.
I would like to go through a few examples, which people may or may not be aware of. We have exempted care leavers from waiting days in universal credit. Those who are under the age of 22 do not serve the seven waiting days and are entitled to universal credit from the very first day that they make their claim.
We have introduced the second chance learning initiative to enable care leavers up to the age of 22 to catch up on the education they may have missed out on when they were younger. That means income support or universal credit are available to care leavers who take up full-time study in non-advanced education. We have exempted care leavers from the removal of automatic housing support for 18 to 21-year-olds in universal credit.
The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) talked about exempting care leavers from council tax. The Government have given councils the flexibility to support vulnerable groups, including care leavers, to manage their council tax bills. The Department for Communities and Local Government wrote to all councils in 2016 to remind them of the powers they have under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to support vulnerable groups. A number of councils have already taken the decision to support care leavers through an exemption or discount in their council tax bills, as I think he said his local council was doing.
Steve McCabe
I do not get that many opportunities to praise Birmingham City Council, but it is one of the authorities that apply the exemption. Will the Minister consider writing to her colleagues at DCLG to ask them to publish a full list of the councils that exempt care leavers from council tax? Quite rightly, that is not something the Government can do, but it is a practice that almost all councils should follow unless there is a very good reason why they are not doing it.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman represents Birmingham beautifully—Selly Oak and also other parts of Birmingham, as we have learned today. He makes a good point.
Caroline Dinenage
He is clearly very talented. We would be very happy to do that, and I pay tribute to him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers. I would like very much to accept his offer to come and join that APPG for at least one of its meetings.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister talked about councils being written to, to remind them of their flexibility and how they can implement the council tax exemption. Is she willing to give some money from central Government to help local authorities absorb the exemption that they are willing to give? That has happened in Scotland, where between 6,000 and 7,000 care leavers will be exempted from council tax, up to the age of 26. Will any money from central Government be given to help local authorities, including those in Scotland and other parts of the UK, to fund that?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady tempts me to make spending commitments on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government. While I would, of course, be absolutely delighted to do so, it is a little bit beyond my job description. I am sure the Department will read with great interest her comments in Hansard.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. The former Minister Edward Timpson introduced a very good reform to enable payments to continue to children in foster care beyond their 18th birthday, which was widely welcomed. However, if the rate paid for the most complex children being looked after by very experienced foster carers goes down at their 18th birthday, it creates an incentive for the foster carer to encourage them to leave, which is the very last thing we should be doing. Does she agree that we should seek to find ways of ensuring we provide incentives for them to stay at home, as happens in every other family?
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to my former colleague, Edward Timpson, who was a most fantastic Minister in the Department for Education and a great advocate for care leavers. We are supporting the Staying Put arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, which mean that care leavers who remain with their ex-foster carer can claim means-tested benefit from their 18th birthday up to the age of 21, but I will look at everything he has said.
In addition, we have exempted care leavers from the shared accommodation rate until they are 22. The shared accommodation rate is normally paid to single people aged under 35. That means that care leavers can claim the higher local housing allowance one-bedroom rate of housing benefit until their 22nd birthday.
I have listened to the arguments made by hon. Members about the issue today. I particularly welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince); he gave an eloquent description. I also thank him for the significant contribution he has made as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness, where he does a sterling and very valuable job.
We have always said that this is something we would like to achieve, but at the moment we do not have plans to extend the exemption for care leavers from the shared accommodation rate to age 25. I assure my hon. Friend and other Members who have raised the issue today that we will continue to keep it under review and will consider evidence from stakeholders on the impact that the shared accommodation rate has on care leavers.
We have given care leavers priority access to personal budgeting support in universal credit. That includes benefit advances, rent paid direct to landlords, payments more frequent than monthly and budgeting advice, including debt advice, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North.
We have a fantastic “See Potential” campaign—I say fantastic as it falls under my ministerial portfolio. It encourages employers to recognise the benefits of recruiting people from all kinds of backgrounds, including care leavers. I was so pleased to celebrate the inspiring workplace and training achievements of young people, including care leavers and others, at the Land Securities Community Employment Awards recently—we saw the incredible growth, development and achievement of some very inspiring young people.
I am pleased that the Government are leading by example by setting up a cross-Government scheme to provide employment to care leavers. My Department’s own care leaver team includes a quite brilliant care leaver intern, who I have had the pleasure of meeting, and who is providing us with very valuable insights into issues that care leavers face and helping us improve our services for care leavers. She is very cool as well—she is in the room, which is why I am saying that!
In developing our support for care leavers, we have worked closely with stakeholders. I am particularly grateful for the input from the Children’s Society, representatives of which I met shortly after being appointed to the Department. When I met with them, I was made aware of the fact that in some cases care leavers have difficulty taking up apprenticeships and a number of hon. Members have raised that today. We know that without the support of a family, they struggle economically. Having had that meeting, I hotfooted it straight over to the Department for Education and met the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills to discuss the idea of an apprenticeship bursary, which would ensure that apprenticeships were an affordable option for care leavers, who do not have the family support that most apprentices can rely on.
The Department for Education are reviewing how the new apprenticeship funding approach is supporting all those who are disadvantaged, including care leavers, with the intention of improving how the system supports those individuals from 18 to 19, so that apprenticeships offer a more attractive opportunity to them and a greater chance of success. It has agreed to explore the proposal for an apprenticeship bursary.
The debate has raised some really important issues, and I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for the points they have made, which will continue to inform our work to support care leavers, alongside our discussions with our valuable stakeholders.
Alex Cunningham
Just before the Minister sits down, there were two further points raised during the debate—first, the imposition of sanctions at a lower rate and, secondly, the opportunity to develop a way in which local authorities can work with care leavers applying for universal credit ahead of reaching their 18th birthday.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me about the sanctions—I pulled that little bit of paper out, but had forgotten to pick it up—but I think that I covered applications in advance of the 18th birthday earlier in my speech.
With regard to sanctions, I would like to stress that the Department for Work and Pensions recognises the unique set of circumstances faced by care leavers. Therefore, we allow care leavers to apply for hardship payments of 60% of their normal benefit payment from day one of the sanctions. Sanctions are used in a very small minority of cases, when people fail to meet each of the requirements that they agreed in their claimant commitment without good reason. That said, conditionality and sanctions are part of a fair and effective system that supports and encourages claimants to move into work, towards work or to improve their earnings. Work coaches are very well trained to deal with vulnerable claimants, and have the flexibility to tailor the requirements according to each individual’s circumstances, and that includes the needs of care leavers.
We do not impose sanctions lightly. Claimants are given every opportunity to explain why they failed to meet their agreed conditionality requirements before a decision is made. A well-established system of hardship payments is available as a safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs, including accommodation, heating, food and hygiene, as a result of their sanction. UC claimants are able to apply for a hardship payment from the first accounting period in which the sanction reduction is applied.
I have spoken to care leavers, and we do not do them any favours by insulating them from the challenges of the day-to-day reality and responsibilities that their peers face. The care leavers I have spoken to tell me that they do not want to be wrapped in cotton wool. They want a little extra support and help, but they do not want to be entirely insulated from the challenges and responsibilities that their peers face.
I am pleased to have been able to put on the record our commitment to supporting care leavers and the action we are taking, but I hope I have made it clear that we are not complacent. I am passionate about improving the lives of care leavers. We are determined to ensure that the welfare system in general and universal credit in particular help care leavers make a successful transition to independent living and working life, and that we support them as best as we can.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Minister for her very interesting statement, and I thank all hon. Members who took the time to participate in this important debate. It is a real pleasure to speak in a debate in which there is a lot of cross-party agreement both about the challenges that young people face and about some of the solutions. I welcome that.
To our friends in the Public Gallery who are listening, I want to say that there are a lot of other Members who wanted to be part of this debate, but a debate in the main Chamber on welfare ran over. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for coming. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham in general—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for joining in.
I am particularly thankful to the hon. Member for Stockton North for acknowledging that Governments of all stripes have helped to improve the system as the years have gone by. He did not mention—neither did I—the important reform that Edward Timpson introduced, Staying Put, but we were put right by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I am also grateful to the Minister for detailing some more of the exemptions, opportunities and reforms that DWP has introduced to improve outcomes for care leavers.
There is, of course, more to do. I was very interested to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) about how we can help to prevent homelessness. I urge the Minister to look at the shared accommodation rate. I was pleased that she said that it is now possible for young people to set up their claim before they leave the care system. I hope that support is being given to work coaches and personal advisers to ensure that young people are aware of that opportunity and that they can get through it.
We have also had an interesting debate about how we help people in jobcentres to identify young people’s needs early on. One of the ways of doing that may be to ensure better engagement by personal advisers and to set up meetings between the people who run the jobcentres and those who run the local children’s services. As a number of Members said, that is being done well in Trafford.
I very much like the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that councils should publish whether they are offering council tax exemptions for care leavers. That would be a good way of nudging some councils into doing the right thing, and it would also give councils that have already made the change the credit they deserve.
Lastly, I am delighted to hear that the DFE and the DWP are looking together at the issue of apprenticeships, with which we started the debate. I know not only that they are a great route into employment but, as the hon. Member for Stockton North said, that there is enormous potential in our care leavers. The care leavers I meet are fizzing with ideas. I see in them future businesspeople, entrepreneurs, doctors, teachers and the like, but we must ensure that they fulfil that potential. I hope that this debate has brought to the fore a number of the ways in which DWP can play its part in ensuring that those young people get the best out of life.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Department for Work and Pensions’ support for care leavers.
Written Statements
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingency Liability: Mercator Ocean
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing the purchase of a shareholding in Mercator Ocean and the resulting contingent liability.
Copernicus is the EU earth observation programme that monitors the global health of the planet. Mercator Ocean is the “co-ordinating entity” for the Copernicus marine services which provides free and open access to constantly updated information about the global ocean and the seas of the European region. Mercator Ocean is currently owned by five French public institutions with an interest/obligation to deliver research aligned to operational oceanography. It is broadening its ownership structure to be more in line with other delegated authorities.
The Secretary of State, acting through the Met Office, intends on 29 November 2017 to buy a 5% (€100k) share of Mercator Ocean, alongside equivalent organisations from Norway, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
The organisation is a “société civile” (a not-for-profit organisation) under French law, meaning it has unlimited liability, and its shareholders are exposed to liability risk in proportion to their shareholding. A remote contingent liability will therefore exist as long as the Secretary of State retains a shareholding in Mercator Ocean.
The organisation protects its shareholders through contractual mechanisms and through insurance. Also any residual claim would first be met from the assets of the company. Any contingent liability is considered to be extremely remote. In addition any contingent liability will cease to exist should the Met Office dispose of the shares, which it is able to do so at cost at any point within the first three years of ownership, and with six months’ notice after this point.
Regrettably, on this occasion pressing commercial requirements to procure the shares have meant that it has not been possible to provide the full 14 sitting days prior to taking on the contingent liabilities.
[HCWS255]
Social Care Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Damian Green)
Today the Government are setting out plans to publish a Green Paper by summer recess 2018 presenting their proposals to reform care and support for older people. Reform of this vital sector has been a controversial issue for many years, but the realities of an ageing society mean that we must reach a sustainable settlement for the long term.
To achieve reform where previous attempts have failed, we must look more broadly than social care services alone, and not focus narrowly on questions of means-testing, important though these are. Our vision for care must also incorporate the wider networks of support and services which help older people to live independently, including the crucial role of housing and the interaction with other public services. It must consider how care is provided at present and challenge the system to embrace new technology, innovation and workforce models which can deliver better quality and value.
To deliver a lasting solution, it is right that we take the time needed to debate these complex issues and listen to a range of perspectives to build consensus. For this reason, over the coming months, we will work with experts, stakeholders and people using care and support services to shape the long-term reform which is urgently needed. The Government have already established an inter-ministerial group to oversee development of the Green Paper, and as part of this initial engagement we have asked a number of independent experts in this area to provide their views to the group. The Government will also engage closely with representatives from local government, the NHS, the voluntary sector and care providers, as well as with people who use care and support, to underpin development of the Green Paper. When the Green Paper is published, it will be subject to a full public consultation, providing a further opportunity for interested parties to give their views.
We recognise that many MPs and Peers are already engaging in the debate about the future of care and support, and we want to hear their views. I am therefore writing today to invite the chairs of relevant all-party parliamentary groups to meet me in the coming weeks to listen to their perspectives and priorities for the reform agenda.
While the Green Paper will focus on care for older people, the Government recognise both the challenges faced by people of working age with care needs and the many common questions about the sustainability of the care system. Many of the discussions on the Green Paper reforms will impact on care and support for adults of all ages. However, to ensure that issues for working-age adults with care needs are considered in their own right, the Government will take forward a parallel programme of work, led jointly by the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which will focus on this group. This work will also be overseen by the inter-ministerial group to ensure alignment with the Green Paper.
The Green Paper presents a unique opportunity to build consensus around reforms which can last. There is no escaping that building a sustainable care and support system will require choices about what that system should provide and how it is paid for. But getting this right promises a better system that everyone can have confidence in, where people understand their responsibilities, can prepare for the future, and know that the care they receive will be to a high standard and help them maintain their independence and wellbeing.
[HCWS258]
Local Plans
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
On 7 February we published our Housing White Paper in which we made clear that the housing market in this country is broken, and the cause is very simple: for too long, we have not built enough homes. We have identified three systemic problems: not enough local authorities planning for the homes they need; house building that is simply too slow; and a construction industry that is too reliant on a small number of big players.
Up-to-date plans, including local plans, are essential because they provide clarity to communities and developers about where homes should be built and where not, so that development is planned rather than the result of speculative applications. At present too few places have an up-to-date plan.
On 21 July 2015 we made a written ministerial statement to the House on this same subject. At that point 82% of authorities had published a local plan under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 regime. Today that figure stands at 92%.
In the 13 years that have passed since the 2004 Act received Royal Assent, over 70 local planning authorities have yet to adopt a plan and, of those, 27 authorities still have failed to reach the publication stage. I am particularly concerned about the 15 local planning authorities that have recently either failed the duty to co-operate or failed to meet the deadlines set out in their local development schemes, the public timetable that all local planning authorities are required to put in place.
I am therefore writing today to the local planning authorities of:
Basildon, Brentwood, Bolsover, Calderdale, Castle Point, Eastleigh, Liverpool, Mansfield, North East Derbyshire, Northumberland, Runnymede, St Albans, Thanet, Wirral and York.
These letters will start the formal process of intervention we set out in the Housing White Paper. We set out that we will prioritise intervention where:
the least progress in plan-making has been made;
policies in plans had not been kept up to date;
there was higher housing pressure; and
intervention would have the greatest impact in accelerating local plan production.
We also made clear that decisions on intervention will also be informed by the wider planning context in each area (specifically, the extent to which authorities are working co-operatively to put strategic plans in place, and the potential impact that not having a plan has on neighbourhood planning activity).
I am writing today to give the local authorities the opportunity to put forward any exceptional circumstances, by 31 January 2018, which, in their view, justify their failure to produce a local plan under the 2004 Act regime. I will take responses received into account before any final decisions on intervention are taken.
The remaining authorities who are not making progress on their plan-making and fail to publish a plan for consultation, submit a plan to examination or to keep policies in plans up to date are on notice that consistent failure to make sufficient progress will no longer be tolerated. My Department will begin formally considering the case for intervention as deadlines are missed.
We will also bring forward the important provisions we legislated for earlier in the year through the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. I will shortly lay the regulations under section 12 to prescribe that local planning authorities must review their plans every five years.
We will also shortly be commencing Section 8 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 which will place a requirement on all local planning authorities to have plans in place for their area which set out their strategic policies. Those strategic priorities are set out at paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
As we set out in July 2015 we recognise that production of local plans is resource intensive. On 19 October 2017 we laid the regulations which, subject to approval of both Houses, will bring forward our White Paper commitment to increase planning fees by 20%. This delivers on our commitment to increase resources for local planning authorities where they commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department. All local planning authorities in England have given this commitment. We will shortly announce details of the £25 million of funding to help local authorities plan for new homes and infrastructure in their area that we announced in the White Paper.
We have supported and we will continue to support, local planning authorities in plan-making, through the planning advisory service, with support from officials of my Department and the planning inspectorate.
Where local planning authorities continue to fail to produce a plan to provide certainty to their community on where future development will be brought forward, we will use our intervention powers to ensure plans are put in place.
[HCWS254]
Civil Society Strategy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I wish to inform the House today of the Government’s intention to develop a civil society strategy.
Civil society plays a vital role in the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities across our country, and in helping to address some burning injustices.
This strategy will provide an opportunity to explore ways to build new partnerships within and between sectors and communities, so that we can better mobilise resources and expertise and find practical new solutions to the problems we face. It will reaffirm the value that Government places on civil society. It will explore what more Government can do to support its work.
Civil society in England is broad. It encompasses the work of individuals, charities, youth organisations and communities. Civil society is increasingly diverse, with growing numbers of social enterprises, mission-led businesses and public service mutuals, as well as many more private businesses and investors that want to make a meaningful contribution.
I would like the strategy to help shape the future direction for our work with and for civil society, and encompass all who have a role to play in building a stronger and fairer society.
It will be developed through dialogue and debate with people, groups, and organisations across government, businesses and wider civil society. It will build on engagements to date, including work with young people and youth organisations, as well as work to grow social impact investing, among others.
The Office for Civil Society, in the Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport, will lead this work, with input from the Department for Communities and Local Government and other Departments. A listening exercise will be launched in the new year and findings reported later in the year.
[HCWS252]
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (EYCS) Council will take place in Brussels on 20 and 21 November 2017. The UK’s deputy permanent representative to the EU will represent the interests of the UK at the Youth, Culture and Sport sessions of this Council.
Youth
The Council will seek to gain a general approach among EU member states on the proposals laying down the framework for the European solidarity corps. The UK is proposing to vote in favour, subject to scrutiny. Also tabled is the adoption of draft Council conclusions on smart youth work, which the UK supports. This will be followed by a policy debate as proposed by the presidency. The Commission will also provide information on a new narrative for Europe.
Culture and audiovisual
The Council will begin by presenting, for adoption, draft Council conclusions on promoting access to culture via digital means, which will have a focus on audience development. The UK intends to support the adoption of these conclusions. This will be followed by a policy debate on the role of culture in building cohesive societies in Europe, as proposed by the presidency.
On audiovisual, the presidency is expected to provide an update on the audiovisual media services directive (AVMSD). This update will act as the first reading since the general approach was achieved at the last EYCS Council in May 2017. The discussion is expected to focus on the progress, thus far, of trilogue discussions between the Council and the European Parliament.
In addition to these files, the German delegation will provide information pertaining to the file on the regulation of the import of cultural goods. This file is at an early discussion stage. However it is anticipated that it will be implemented by January 2019, DCMS and HMRC are engaging with the member states in developing this policy.
Additional agenda items include for information items on international cultural relations, offences relating to cultural property, defence of cultural heritage, re-establishing Europe through culture and the mobility of artists.
Sport
There will be two non-legislative activities tabled regarding sport. Firstly, the adoption of the draft Council conclusions on the role of coaches in society. Secondly, adoption of the Council resolution on the EU structured dialogue on sport. The UK intends to support the adoption of both sets of conclusions. These will be followed by a policy debate on the main challenges facing sport in the 21st century and co-operation between the EU, Governments and sport movement, as proposed by the presidency in accordance with the Council rules of procedure.
Information will be provided from the EU member states representatives in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA foundation board). This will act as a follow up to WADA meetings in Seoul on 15 and 16 November 2017. The Greek delegation will also provide information to the Council on supporting the Olympic truce during the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
Other
The Council will be receiving information from the Bulgarian delegation, as the incoming presidency in the first half of 2018, to set out their work programme for the next six months.
[HCWS250]
Schools and Early Years Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Children and Families (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Today the Government are launching a public consultation on their proposed approach to revising the entitlement criteria for free school meals and the early years pupil premium, in light of the national roll out of universal credit.
Universal credit is replacing a number of qualifying benefits for free school meals, such as job seeker’s allowance, child’s tax credit and income support.
Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we propose to introduce a net earned income threshold of £7,400 per annum for those in receipt of universal credit. A typical family earning around £7,400 per annum would, depending on their exact circumstances, have a total household income between £18,000 and £24,000 once benefits are taken into account. A threshold of £7,400 will increase the free school meals cohort by approximately 5% once universal credit is fully rolled out and in steady state. This equates to approximately 50,000 additional pupils being eligible to receive a nutritious free school meal than currently.
Furthermore, to ensure that no child who currently benefits from a free school meal loses this entitlement as a result of this criteria change, we aim to protect current beneficiaries’ eligibility up until the end of the roll-out of universal credit. from that point on, all children should retain this protection for the rest of their current phase of education.
The economic eligibility criteria for the early years pupil premium are the same as for free school meals. We believe that this consistency is important so that the most disadvantaged families benefit from this additional funding across the whole age range. As such, we propose to apply the same threshold as mentioned above for free school meals to the early years pupil premium, and to mirror the protection arrangements for current beneficiaries during the UC roll-out period.
If, following the public consultation and subject to the will of the House, the Government decide to take forward their proposals, we expect the revised regulations to come into force in April 2018.
The “Eligibility for free school meals and early years pupil premium under universal credit” consultation will commence today and run for eight weeks. The consultation document containing full details of the proposals and inviting responses will be published on the Department for Education’s website. Copies of the consultation document will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-11-16/HCWS260/.
[HCWS260]
Water Protocol: England and Wales
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
In conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales I will today lay before the House a water protocol for England and Wales, agreed between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. The protocol, which the Welsh Ministers are laying in the National Assembly for Wales in parallel, is made under Section 50 of the Wales Act 2017.
The protocol reaffirms the close working between the two Governments on matters relating to water resources, water supply and water quality. It underlines our commitment that no action or inaction by either Administration should have any serious adverse impact on either England or Wales and crucially, that the interests of water consumers on both sides of our borders are safeguarded.
Agreement of the protocol paves the way for the Secretary of State’s powers of intervention in relation to water to be repealed. These powers, in the Government of Wales Act 2006, enable the Secretary of State to intervene if they believe an Assembly Bill, or the exercise of a devolved function, risks having a serious adverse impact on water resources, water supply or water quality in England.
The protocol replaces these intervention powers with a reciprocal agreement. The intervention powers will be repealed when the new reserved powers model of Welsh devolution come into effect on 1 April 2018.
[HCWS251]
General Affairs Council
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
My hon. Friend Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I will be attending the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 20 November 2017 to represent the UK’s interests. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member.
The provisional agenda includes:
Preparation of the European Council, 14 and 15 December 2017
There will be a discussion on the agenda for the December European Council. This includes: defence, focusing on the launch of PESCO (permanent structured co-operation) and a review of EU-NATO co-operation; social, education and culture, which includes a follow up to the November Gothenburg social summit; migration, involving a leaders’ debate on both the internal and external dimensions of migration as part of Donald Tusk’s leader’s agenda; and external relations.
European Council follow-up
The presidency will give an update on the implementation of the October European Council conclusions on migration, digital Europe, security and defence, and external relations.
Legislative programming—Commission’s work programme for 2018 (CWP 2018)
Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans will present the CWP 2018, which sets out the legislation and other initiatives that the Commission intends to present to the Council of Ministers and European Parliament over the coming year.
Interinstitutional agreements (IIA) implementation
The presidency will lay out what progress has been made on the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (IIA), signed by the Presidents of the European Council, Commission and Parliament in April 2016. The IIA set out the commitments of these institutions regarding better regulation, interinstitutional relations and the legislative process.
European semester 2018
The presidency will introduce the timetable for the European semester 2018, which will provide a framework for the co-ordination of economic policies across the EU.
[HCWS248]
Disclosure and Barring Service: Annual Report
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The 2016-17 Annual Report and Accounts for the Disclosure and Barring Service (HC178) is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS256]
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Codes of Practice
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today publishing three revised codes of practice for consultation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The consultation is in relation to the following codes:
The covert surveillance and property interference code of practice
The covert human intelligence sources code of practice
These codes provide guidance on the authorisation of directed surveillance, intrusive surveillance and covert human intelligence sources under part 2 of RIPA, as well as property interference under the Police Act 1997 and Intelligence Services Act 1994. These powers are available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as a number of other public authorities specified under RIPA, for use where necessary and proportionate for purposes such as the prevention or detection of crime, and the protection of national security. The codes reinforce the safeguards provided by the Acts, for the careful and lawful deployment, management and oversight of the powers.
The investigation of protected information code of practice
This code sets out guidance on the use of powers under part 3 of RIPA governing the investigation of protected electronic information, usually in pursuance of a criminal investigation.
The three codes are being updated to reflect changes in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 which will impact on the use of the powers covered by the codes. In particular the codes reflect the creation of the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who has replaced the three existing oversight bodies, the requirement for public authorities to report errors to the commissioner, and the new arrangements for authorisation of equipment interference which will apply in future to some techniques currently authorised under property interference provisions, and be relevant for use of the power under part 3 of RIPA. At the same time the guidance in the codes under part 2 of RIPA are being updated to reflect best practice in authorisation and management of the powers, to strengthen the safeguards relating to handling of confidential or legally privileged material, and to clarify the application of the RIPA framework to online investigation and research.
The consultation will last for six weeks. Copies of the consultation document and draft codes will be placed in the Library of the House. Online versions will be available on the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS257]
Universal Credit: Northern Ireland Implementation
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chloe Smith)
In the light of recent questions in the House, I wish to set out the policy and respective responsibilities regarding the non-consensual conception exception to the policy to provide additional support in child tax credit and universal credit, and its interaction with Northern Ireland criminal law.
There has been particular focus on Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Nl) 1967. This provides that where a relevant offence has been committed, it shall be the duty of every other person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that has information which is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for that offence, to give the information, otherwise they shall be guilty of an offence, unless they have a reasonable excuse. This provision is not new, nor has it been affected in any way by the implementation of universal credit in Northern Ireland. Its implications for those who are victims of crime, including rape, date back to 1967. And as criminal law is a devolved matter, the UK Government have no role in determining the appropriateness of this particular provision, nor in proposing any amendment to it. What is more, we understand that there has not been a single prosecution of a victim of rape under section 5 of the 1967 Act in 50 years. That means that there is no recorded case where it has been considered that those limbs of the prosecutorial test have been met since 1967.
As to the non-consensual conception exception more broadly, it is an important part of the two-child limit policy. It is in place to protect those who are not always able to make choices about the number of children in their family. But given its complex and sensitive nature, great care is taken in its application right across the United Kingdom. We have worked with the Department for Communities, given that the administration of universal credit is a devolved matter, to ensure the same is true in Northern Ireland.
In particular, the legal position is made very clear on the forms and guidance for child tax credits and universal credit, so that both the claimant and the third party professional are clear before any disclosure is made:
“Please be aware, that in Northern Ireland, if the third party knows or believes that a relevant offence (such as rape) has been committed, the third party will normally have a duty to inform the police of any information that is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for that offence”.
In addition, claimants applying for this exception will be told that they do not have to tell the third party professional the name of the child’s other biological parent. Nor is there a requirement on the approved third party professional to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances around the conception of the child beyond what the claimant has described to them. The role of a third party professional will simply be to confirm, by ticking boxes on a form, that the claimant has made a declaration to them which is consistent with the criteria for the non-consensual conception exception in relation to their child. No officials of either the UK Government or the Northern Ireland Civil Service will question a claimant about an incident. You can find details of the guidance and the forms online (https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/publications/form-ncc1niis-support-child-conceived-without-your-consent).
Taken as a whole, therefore, the implementation of universal credit in Northern Ireland has been undertaken in a way that reflects the interests of claimants on the one hand, and the interests of those taxpayers who support themselves solely through work on the other. Ultimately, however, given the devolution settlement, the questions raised are properly for a restored Northern Ireland Executive.
[HCWS259]
Machinery of Government Change: Gender Recognition Act
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This written statement confirms that responsibility for the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will transfer from the Ministry of Justice to the Government Equalities Office. This change will be effective immediately.
[HCWS253]
Pensions
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government have now completed the examination of the cap that applies to member-borne charges in default investment funds within defined contribution (DC) pension schemes used for automatic enrolment (AE).w
After seeking a range of industry and consumer views and considering the findings of the recent pension charges survey, which captures data from providers covering 14.4 million scheme members, we do not feel that now is the right time to change the level or scope of the cap.
The cap is working broadly as intended, helping to drive down member-borne costs, while allowing flexibility to allow asset diversity or tailored services for members and employers. It appears some small schemes are less able to take advantage of the most competitive market rates, and we have launched proposals to simplify the scheme consolidation process. This will allow smaller schemes who cannot secure value for money in the long term to exit the market and secure a better deal for their members elsewhere.
There continues to be a lack of transparency on transaction costs, which is hindering trustees and independent governance committees’ (IGC) attempts to monitor and evaluate whether these represent value. We believe that it is vital to get disclosure right before deciding on whether a cap on transaction costs is appropriate. Recently announced DWP legislative proposals will ensure trustees have sight of these costs and can give that information to members. The FCA is developing similar rules for providers.
The Government remain committed to ensuring AE members are protected from unreasonable and unfair charges, and recognise that there is ongoing concern among consumers.
We will actively monitor the situation, by reviewing the information which trustees of DC schemes will be required to publish from April 2018, and which providers will publish in due course, to monitor whether the downward trend in charges is continuing.
That will also inform our next review. In 2020 we intend to examine the level and scope of the charge cap, as well as permitted charging structures, to see whether a change is needed to protect members. This will also allow us to evaluate the effects of the next stage of AE and the new master trust and transaction costs regimes.
While we are not pre-judging the decision, we expect there to be a much clearer case for change in 2020.
[HCWS249]
Grand Committee
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Schools
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird (CB)
I have met many noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the Corridor who would love to fill these seats, because they were all very excited about the idea of talking about education. Unfortunately, they are not here because they have other things to do. But it is so interesting that everybody, whoever you talk to, is incredibly occupied with our education system. That is because it does not really do very well. It does not reach the parts we expect it to. With a fourth industrial revolution on the way, are we preparing our children and our young for tomorrow, today?
Unfortunately, we are not. The pedagogy offered in schools does not quite fit with the kind of profound shift in thinking necessary to move into this new age. For instance, when Mr Gove was Secretary of State for Education he took a personal dislike and disdain for anybody who studied media studies. Actually, if you go to the City and talk to Schroders and all that, they want people who have picked up those kinds of analytical skills from analysing films and stuff like that. They want people who can imagine a new world in which entertainment and the digital revolution have arrived. People such as Schroders are looking for the opportunity to make money out of the new industrial revolution.
We have this weird world where we are preparing our children for 1972 when we are not in 1972. That is pretty typical of our education system, because when I was at a secondary modern school down the road in Chelsea in the 1950s, they were preparing us ordinary, working-class people who had failed the cherry-picking opportunities presented by the grammar school system, for 1932. They were preparing us back then for work that was gradually disappearing. Margaret Thatcher came along and swept away all these industries, only one of which was post war, which had existed on subsidies—that was the only way they could live—since 1914. So, you had this weird world where our education system never quite fitted in with the occupational requirements of, largely, the uneducated working class, because it was necessary to educate people only to a certain level. Then, it was necessary to hope that some of them would climb on and become managers through cherry-picking.
When the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raises the question of the fourth industrial revolution, as he did in Oral Questions yesterday, I want to know when we are going to get the intellectual pedagogy that will enable us to embrace the new thinking. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, there does not seem to be much evidence of that now. I would include the universities in this paucity of new thinking. We need an intellectual revolution now, or sometime. That is my first point.
My second point is on the education system. I am sorry; I have not come here to argue over whether this Government or the next Government or the previous Government are spending the right amount of money. We know darn well—sorry, we know well—that the Treasury will deal only with money and not with the effects of not spending that money. If we do not spend the money at the right time, we have to spend it at the wrong time, when it costs too much. I am an example of one of those who was educated through the present system only because a shedload of money had to be spent later, because it was not spent in the earlier stages of my life.
We know that we are controlled by the Treasury. Perhaps somebody should go along to the Treasury and ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested, if it has worked out the cost of not investing in our prisons and people in poverty. If noble Lords look at the education system they will see that we are failing 37% of our children—one in three. That one in three becomes 80% of the prison population; it becomes people who are caught by mental health problems and all those things. In our local hospitals, lots of people who are depressed are using the A&E department as a place to drop in. A lot of those people will have failed at school—they are part of that 37%.
If noble Lords look at the long-term unemployed they will see that this group is riddled with those who have failed at school. Look at the people on social security, who we pay to go to work—we have to top up their wages with tax credits because they earn £6 an hour. What did they do at school? They did not do very well. I have to say that I cannot get very hyperventilated about the failure of this Government to spend the right amount of money on education, because I know that the last Government failed and that the next Government will fail. I also have to ask: is it not time to alert the world that we need to reinvent the way that we govern, particularly the way that we run the education system? The system needs root-and-branch transformation. We need the intellectual tools to engage in the fourth industrial revolution. At the same time, we must find the methodology and means for a much deeper and more profoundly philosophical move toward education—one that fits the new world we live in.
There is only one way to get a person out of poverty and that is to change their relationship to the market. When you are a person who has no education and, through that lack of education, you also have a problem with how you see yourself in the world and are depressed with those feelings, and when the world looks hostile to you because you have no investment in it, there is only one way—and that is to change your relationship to the market and to ask yourself how you can sell yourself and your skills in the marketplace. This is because in the early stages of their lives such people picked up coping skills and—what is that word?—bounce-back-ability. We need to address those issues.
The reason I came into the House of Lords was to dismantle poverty. I cannot do it on my own. I do not want to be part of a system that is more of the same. I want the House of Lords, the Government and the other place to lead a revolution where we step back and ask what is or is not working. I had a brilliant meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, yesterday in which he told me about his academies in Norfolk. It was brilliant. All the answers are there. We do not have to reinvent anything, we just have to converge the energies created by all the best things. I am now going to sit down. Thank you and God bless you all.
Lord Fellowes of West Stafford (Con)
I have to use a board like this because I suffer from something called an essential tremor. It is very irritating because nothing could be less essential. Anyway, that is why I am using it. I am not shaking in terror. I just have a tremor.
Access to good schools is a goal shared fiercely by all our political parties and indeed the entire population, because it is axiomatic that good schools are the foundation of professional and personal satisfaction in later life. As a part of that, they are also actuators of social mobility; and as we all know, social mobility is the essential adjunct to a free market economy. It is the shared sense of the possible that allows us to live together in peace. While some may jib at the concept of the free market, for most of us it has been the greatest force for social change and improvement in living conditions for the working class since history began. But the question is, are our schools good enough to qualify as “good”?
Certainly over the past 50 years various fashions in teaching have intermittently impeded progress. Unusually, perhaps, for someone of my age, I spent a year in a mixed-ability class when Ampleforth decided to explore this area in the 1960s. It is an idea still much praised by theoreticians but never, in my experience, by anyone who has suffered through it. For me, it was the worst year of my youth—with the able pupils bored to death and the less gifted academically struggling—until finally, in a fit of abject misery, I ran away from school and was only apprehended by the police in Grantham, a town I later gave a measure of fame to in the series “Downton Abbey”.
There is little point in denying that our social mobility was dealt a considerable blow by the condemnation of the grammar schools by Tony Crosland. Those schools did provide a ladder for the talented which has never been effectively replaced. Alan Johnson made the telling comment that his journey from a council estate to the Cabinet by the age of 54 was no longer possible in modern Britain. No doubt David Davis would say much the same. But I am not a fan of the grammar school system. Much of what it offered may have been good, but not the junking of millions of young lives in the process. Personally, I would have abolished the secondary moderns and put all children into grammars, with a setting system to allow them to develop at different speeds so that they might grow up together and no one need suffer the stigma of attending the “stupid school”.
But since the reduction of grammar schools, various Governments have tried everything in their power to re-create ladders and, more than that, to find different ways for children to get in touch with their own gifts and progress their lives. What interests me is how similar their efforts have been. For example, New Vocationalism and the youth opportunities programme, both initiated by the Labour Government of James Callaghan, were vastly expanded under Margaret Thatcher, eventually becoming the youth training scheme. This was in tandem with the changes introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988, bringing the national curriculum, formula funding, and grant-maintained schools with, all the while, extra money being found for apprenticeships based on frameworks devised by the sector skills councils.
Labour came to power in 1997 with the mantra of “Education, Education, Education”, and introduced many similar measures, creating specialist schools with a rather Conservative emphasis on achievement. The beacon schools programme was to identify high performance; a new grade of advanced skills teaching was introduced, and so were city academies, with education action zones designed to encourage a forum of people to drive up the standards of the schools in their area. The education maintenance allowance was to pay young people to stay in school long enough to gain A-levels and a performance threshold arrived, rewarding teachers with higher pay for the standard of their pupils’ attainments. David Cameron’s Government continued in exactly the same vein: the Academies Act 2010 and the Education Act 2011 both concentrated on driving up standards, while the Education and Skills Act 2008 kept students in school for longer.
And yet here’s the rub—in the international league tables, recorded in 2015 and published in 2017, the United Kingdom ranked 27th for maths and 22nd for reading. Overall we are 15th, behind Estonia, Finland, Vietnam and Korea, not that I have anything against any of those places. Scotland, which once had an educational system that was the envy of Europe, is doing even worse than England.
As for the whole issue of the public schools, we seem to suffer from a kind of schizophrenia when dealing with them. In one way they are an unreasonable privilege, but then again, nothing can be worse than to be the product of a private school. We are told that no pupil there can have any understanding of normal life or normal values. A statement made by the present Government cheerfully asserts that there are now few reasons for preferring private education. I would like to believe that all this is true, but the fact remains that a recent study by researchers at Durham University found that the “private school effect” was evident in every subject at GCSE and that private pupils out- performed their state-schooled counterparts at each stage of assessment at the ages of four, nine, 11 and 16.
The truth is that this country offers a choice of state-funded and privately funded education, as does more or less every other country in the developed world. Would it not be better to find a way for every child to benefit from the advantages these schools have to offer? The Labour Government abolished the assisted places scheme, and maybe they were right to do so, but there must be a way to stimulate co-operation instead of hostility between the systems: in teaching, the use of facilities, voluntary activities, drama, art, debating and sport, not only for the academic advantage that this would bring, but for the social benefits of allowing children to mix freely and get to know those who have grown up in different spheres. In short, would not co-operation be a more productive, more attractive and more adult option?
What seems clear to me from all this is that the political parties have a great deal in common when it comes to educational reform. Neither has been anxious, at least until recently, to revive the unforgiving Rubicon of the 11-plus, but both have sought to compensate for the opportunities that have been lost with the grammar schools. Both parties have taken steps not only to improve vocational training, but to improve the standards of academic achievement available to the state-educated child. If I were to generalise, it would appear that the emphasis in Conservative policy has been to provide the opportunity for excellence while the chief goal of Labour Governments has been social justice.
But these are both noble aims, both worthy and honourable goals for the good of the country at large, which begs the question: why can the parties not collaborate in this all-important area? Is it really impossible that a group of sentient men and women whose ambitions in education often seem harmonious and even interchangeable, are incapable of working together to find solutions to the issues that are driving down our standards and holding us back in the international league tables? What could be more inspiring for children to witness than for them to see that when it comes to educating the next generation, we really are capable, for once, of pulling together as a nation?
The Lord Bishop of Ely
Follow that! My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for having made this debate possible and for providing the opportunity for us to focus not only on a fair distribution of funding for our schools and the children in their care but on fair access to good teaching in good and imaginative schools.
The Church has, down the centuries, provided a constant yet adaptable force in education. The Church of England recently produced a new vision for education, two pillars of which are dignity and hope. As the ultimate aim of our schools is to promote human flourishing, we are particularly concerned—particularly in our emphasis on supporting schools in areas of disadvantage—to enable every child to fulfil his or her aspirations, and indeed to be given the opportunity to have any aspirations in the first place.
While a “good school” can be defined to a certain extent by its Ofsted results, schools must remember to embrace excellence and academic rigour within a wider framework. A good school must educate the whole person so that one day our school pupils will become successful members of our society as adults in their roles as citizens, neighbours, parents and people committed to the public good, as well as those who are called to be economically productive. One way in which this access to equal education is to be served better than it is at the moment is by thinking about how we allow children and young people to access technical education alongside academic prowess. In the diocese of Ely, we have won a new secondary school where academic and technical education will be provided in parallel on the same campus alongside a special school.
Fundamentally, however, we must seek out areas where there is particular disadvantage and strive to bring children living in these places on to an equal footing with their more advantaged counterparts. The Secretary of State has effectively identified parts of the country where we need focus and change through the means of education. One of these “opportunity areas” happens to be Fenland in east Cambridgeshire in my diocese of Ely. Along with our local MPs, the Church is keen to engage further with the initiative to support local communities and as a means of improving attainment and aspiration in the area. I look forward to seeing how all the elements, such as the life skills programme and work experience opportunities, tie together to ensure that every child receives the best education possible. As these new resources and strategies continue to be developed, we must also ensure that education is funded with future economic and industrial needs in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has already said.
In the same vein, I hope that the national funding formula, announced in September, will go some way to ensuring that schools receive what they need in order to cater for the local demographic. Indeed, the formula has resulted in more funding for each of the schools in the diocese of Ely, although there is a slight concern that, due to the increase in pension payments for teaching and non-teaching staff, over 40% of the extra proceeds will go towards addressing funding concerns in the pension schemes as opposed to flowing through to the front line. As such, I emphasise the importance of resources and strategies that allow funding to go directly to solving the issues which the Secretary of State herself has identified.
In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said about pedagogy, it is very important that we train our teachers to prepare their pupils for a very different future, and this requires both rigour and imagination. However, I would still like to stick up for our teaching profession and for the imagination and commitment they apply to their vocation. I particularly pay tribute to teachers who commit themselves to working in very difficult schools where there is acute disadvantage and problems with discipline and even violence. These teachers persist in their vocation for the sake of the children and with a vision for the future which those children might have.
To go back to 1811, which is even further back than 1972, this ties in with Joshua Watson, who founded the national society which I now chair. The aim, long before state education was conceived, was to give the poorest children access to education to enable them to flourish, and ultimately to give them worth as citizens.
New resources, strategies and fair funding for school education are components of a much larger drive to improve social mobility. One of the most important things about social mobility is that it is not conceived simply as moving to London. We need to equip and empower young people, through a variety of points of access to education, to be contributors with vigour and energy in the places where they already live, so that those places are also regenerated. By supporting the most disadvantaged children at the earliest stages, we can help to build character and in turn produce generous and adaptable contributors to their communities and to wider society, whatever economic and industrial developments the future may bring.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for initiating this debate and introducing it in his inimitable way. What a wonderful addition he is to your Lordships’ House.
First, we must address the discrepancy between the concepts of fairer funding and sufficient funding. It can only be through sufficient funding that we can hope to ensure for our children the opportunities to attend good schools. Under the fairer funding formula announced by the Government, historic inconsistencies in funding allocations across schools and regions are to be addressed—funding will be more transparent. This sounds fair and, while widely welcomed, it is ensuring a sufficient level of funding for schools and mitigating the damaging consequences of historic funding insufficiencies, which may be the legacy of this Government.
While some schools may benefit from the new formula and see their funding per pupil increase, others will undeniably see their funding per pupil cut—I have seen this in my own area of Cheltenham. Since 2015, those schools have also faced historic budget cuts, with figures reported to be £2.8 billion. This has been in part due to budget freezes as well as increases to national insurance and teachers’ pensions contributions, the national living wage, the pressures of annual pay rises, the impact of inflation and the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. Therefore, there are schools that, on the back of hard-felt cuts since 2015, are facing more cuts still. Although the Government have promised to plug the interim gap with transitional funding, head teachers expecting cuts are anxious about the impact they will feel when this protection barrier is set to run out in April 2020.
This is an intensely nerve-racking time for the teaching profession. The announcement of an extra £1.3 billion for the core school and high-needs budget across 2018-19 and 2019-20 has been declared by heads as insufficient in the face of future and historic losses. Steadily, many schools have reported the long-lasting impact of historic and impending cuts: a narrowing curriculum in which the arts are sidelined; less funding for extracurricular pursuits; non-specialist teachers forced to deliver lessons in core subjects; budget cuts for resources and teacher career progression; inability to replace staff who have left; ever-rising class and tutor-group sizes; inability to offer careers advisers and counsellors; and a reduction in numbers of staff, especially support staff. Teachers are under immense pressure not just to maintain standards but to significantly improve them against tougher assessment criteria, with less and less resource to do so.
The Government, of course, maintain laudable aims. In his Statement in July 2017 on the schools update, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that the Government want to give all children an,
“education that unlocks their potential and allows them to go as far as their talent and hard work will take them”.—[Official Report, 17/7/17; col. 1429.]
As the catalyst for social mobility that this Government desire, it is long-term security, rather than short-term fixes, that is needed. To unlock a child’s potential and to enable social mobility what is needed is: manageable class sizes; excellent teaching staff who are trained in their subject area and given the resources to inspire and engage; consistency in teaching staff; a vibrant and innovative curriculum that meets the needs of individuals and is not squeezed by the external pressure of fitting what best aligns with national measurements; an enriching extracurricular programme and access to opportunities outside the school environment; excellent careers and post-16 study advice provision that, when offered early on, instils a sense of determination and drive; superb pastoral and emotional support and access to an in-house counsellor, to avoid the NHS waiting lists; and, of course, a well-resourced school library and ICT provision.
All of these aspects have been, and continue to be, threatened in schools across our country that will not benefit under the fair funding formula. This situation cannot improve unless historic cuts are reversed and future insecurities addressed. The aims of the DfE and the Government are indeed worthy, but the question remains at the bottom line of this debate: can fairer funding also mean sufficient funding?
The Conservative manifesto promised an extra £4 billion in the schools budget by 2022. It seems that this promise is being broken. Only £1.3 billion has been provided so far and none of it is new money. The NAO estimated last year that it would cost £6.7 billion to return all school buildings to a satisfactory condition. The Government, however, are cutting £420 million from the capital budget, partly to fund this new core spending commitment.
My party, the Liberal Democrats, wants to protect per pupil funding in real terms; that must involve new money from the Treasury. Our party’s election manifesto also included calls for additional capital investment in schools to support capacity increases and modernisation.
So here are a few questions for the Minister. In view of the National Audit Office estimate of £6.7 billion to return all school buildings to a satisfactory condition, why are the Government, instead of finding new money from the Treasury, cutting the capital budget to fund this new core budget spending commitment? The Government have ended the pay cap by awarding police and prison officers pay rises of above 1%. Will they now look again at giving teachers a pay rise above 1% too, with the Secretary of State increasing the schools budget accordingly?
The Government have abolished plans to make private schools help neighbouring state schools or lose their charitable status. This comes at a time when many state schools are increasingly unable to afford building repairs and are forced to cut back on resources for their students. Will the Government reconsider these plans?
What impact on children’s health do the Government believe funding the core schools budget by cutting capital funding for PE facilities will have, particularly when childhood obesity rates are continuing to rise?
Per pupil funding for 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth forms and FE colleges has been frozen since the 2015 Spending Review. Now that the Government are pledging that per pupil funding for school pupils will increase with inflation, will this be extended to 16 to 19 year-olds?
Education is about empowering each individual. Schools should be about encouraging each young person to discover something they like—something they can become good at and maybe make a career out of. That is the way to give each individual some self-esteem: to feel good about themselves. I am reminded of the young mother who was concerned that her 10 year-old daughter was not making sufficient progress with maths and English. She went to see the class teacher to explain her worries. The teacher told the girl he was going to show her mother something for a few minutes. The teacher and the mother left the room, but as he left the teacher turned on the radio. He then turned and asked the mother to look through the little glass window in the classroom door. She saw her daughter dancing to the music on the radio. The teacher explained that she was a dancer—perhaps she was not the greatest academic in the world, but she liked dancing. He suggested dancing lessons. That young girl turned into one of the most successful choreographers ever to work in the West End.
A good school is one which enables each child to make that kind of discovery. Thank goodness for the wisdom and vision of that teacher. At the end of the day any school is only as good as its staff. We should treasure them and make them feel valued.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I too join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on securing this important debate and for focusing on a topic that has been a major concern to anyone with an interest in school education for quite some time now.
A major factor that swayed the way in which many people voted in the general election earlier this year was school funding. At the start of the campaign in April, polling showed that education was the fifth most important issue when people in England were deciding how to vote. By election day, following the campaign work of the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the education trade unions, which produced much positive media coverage, education had risen to be the third most important issue in the minds of voters. I like to think that was in part due to the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to not just reversing the cuts of the past seven years but properly funding schools in the years ahead. The election outcome meant that a Government shorn of their majority had to confront the force of that argument. Pressure from many of their own MPs led to the announcement by the Secretary of State in July of an additional £1.3 billion, to be redirected within the DfE’s budget for schools for the two years from April next year.
However, the real-terms cuts that I mentioned schools have suffered since 2010 are not being reversed. Far from it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, has just said, there is not a penny of new money being allocated. There has been a tacit acceptance that the current funding settlement is insufficient, which is of course welcome, although that leaves much pain still to be suffered by schools. That is not just a party-political point because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that all the £1.3 billion will do is reduce what would have been a 6.5% real-terms cut between now and 2020 to one of 4.6%. The National Audit Office and the Education Policy Institute have produced similar figures.
Despite an £8.4 billion DfE underspend in 2016-17 the Government still defend their projected funding levels, saying that more resources than ever are going into schools. But that is a meaningless soundbite; of course more than ever is being spent, because there are more pupils than ever. What matters is the funding per pupil. In her Statements in July and September, the Secretary of State said that the new version of the formula was about fairness. How can funding ever be fair if it is not sufficient? It needs to be emphasised that the Government are not ensuring that all schools are fairly funded, as 88% of schools are facing real-terms budget cuts per pupil between 2015-16 and 2019-20. On average, this equates to £52,500 in cuts to primary schools and £178,000 in cuts to secondary schools.
I had intended asking the Minister for some additional information on the thus far unidentified sources of the £1.3 billion announced as additional investment by the Secretary of State in July. But I will leave that for now because the last two days have graphically demonstrated that the Government’s rose-tinted view of the future funding of our schools is not shared by others. On Tuesday, a delegation of school leaders delivered a letter to the Prime Minister seeking a radical rethink on school funding. On the same day, in her role as chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier MP sent a strongly worded four-page letter to Jonathan Slater, Permanent Secretary at the DfE. She pulled few punches in deconstructing his defence of the national funding formula. I will select from her comments to give a flavour of the committee’s very real concerns.
In response to the additional £1.3 billion being allocated over the next two years, Ms Hiller said:
“We pointed out that this additional funding when balanced against £3 billion of efficiency savings the Department expects to be delivered by 2019-20 was not a net gain for schools”.
This puts the additional funding in perspective because it means that £1.7 billion is required merely to stand still. Ms Hillier also queried whether the DfE has plans and the capacity to help schools which cannot meet efficiency targets, saying that the Public Accounts Committee was,
“hearing of schools restricting their curricula and teaching hours”,
which of course is not by any description efficiency savings. The Public Accounts Committee’s concerns were summarised by Ms Hillier stating bluntly:
“We remain concerned about the support the department and the ESFA can realistically provide to schools whose budgets cannot stand up to the savings demanded of them”.
Of course, I am sure that I do not need to state to noble Lords that that is a cross-party committee.
The case was further enhanced yesterday with the shocking news from the Prime Minister’s own constituency of a school writing to parents asking for a daily donation of £1 per day to help pay for teaching materials, including books. The head teacher’s letter says that,
“we would like to suggest that parents donate £1 per school day for each child to help the schools through this funding crisis. This equates to £190 per year”.
The head teacher received a response from the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb MP, although it sounded more like a rebuke. We know that Mr Gibb is prone to get rather tetchy on the subject of school funding. Just two weeks ago, he had to be restrained at the end of a debate on school funding in Westminster Hall, when he aimed a tirade at my colleague and shadow Schools Minister, Mike Kane MP. His response to the head teacher’s letter was that the school in question, Robert Piggott Church of England school in Wargrave, Berkshire, would receive around £10,000 a year extra in 2018 under the new funding formula. The parents of children at the school probably chorused in unison, “Big deal!”, because that will go only a fraction of the way towards meeting the shortfall that the head teacher is trying to make up. Robert Piggott school has 311 pupils; if the parents of each were able to pay the annual £190, it would produce a figure in excess of £60,000, which is very close to the average figure that I mentioned earlier. Yet Mr Gibb expects them to be able to make do with a paltry £10,000 extra. What world does he live in? The whole affair was put into sharp context by one parent, who said:
“I've got two children at the school so that’s around £400 a year, but my salary hasn’t gone up to cover that”.
Nor is that an isolated case—would that it were. The Minister will have seen what I thought was a worrying, even depressing, report in the Times Educational Supplement last week. It concerned a survey carried out for the Academies Show by an independent research consultant which showed that nine in 10 school leaders expect their school’s finances to get worse over the next two years, despite the new funding announced, and almost half of school leaders think the quality of education in England will decline during the next four years.
These are the men and women in the top positions, intimately involved day to day in running our schools. It is not just head teachers but chief executives, business managers and vice-principals. They are the experts; they know the situation on the ground far better than anyone—with all due to respect to those in the Box—sitting in the DfE’s Great Smith Street offices. When school leaders speak, they do so with authority and the Government should listen. I hope they will.
Another body that the Government should listen to is the Local Government Association. Again, that is not a partisan body, unless you regard wanting to defend services for local communities as partisan. Noble Lords will have received a chilling briefing for this debate from London Councils, the local government association for the capital. The proposed national funding formula allocations would mean only 27% of London schools receiving funding that adequately meets the cost pressures they are facing, compared to 56% in the rest of England. London Councils’ analysis of the provisional allocations show that London’s schools will receive a significantly lower proportion of the new money than any other region in the country. Fourteen London boroughs will see more than 90% of their schools receive just the floor of 0.5% per pupil in 2018-19.
Local authorities should be seen by the DfE as improvement partners in ensuring that every child has access to a place in a good school. Research undertaken on behalf of the Local Government Association highlights the strong role of councils in providing good school places, with 91% of maintained schools rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted compared with 85% of academies and 84% of free schools. In case the Minister or his officials deem the research—which was undertaken by independent education consultants called Angel Solutions—biased, it should be noted that they used Ofsted’s methodology and published data to assess the performance of both maintained schools and academies.
With next week’s Budget Statement in mind, I hope that the Secretary of State has impressed on the Chancellor the need to allocate new money for the education budget in general. Can the Minister reveal to noble Lords whether the Secretary of State has specifically asked for new money for schools funding? This is more than justified in order to take account of the fact that impartial organisations such as the National Audit Office and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have highlighted the need for at least £2 billion more each year just to maintain funding in real terms in the face of inflation, additional costs such as national insurance contributions and staff pensions, plus the apprenticeship levy—which is another issue that should not even apply to schools—and of course rising pupil numbers.
The Minister comes into government with a clear understanding of how the Department for Education works, having been an executive board member, and of the need for real-terms increased school funding, not just recycled resources, having established and chaired a multi-academy trust. He needs to fuse those two and ensure that he fights education’s corner to end the constant uphill struggle being faced by our underfunded state schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for initiating it. We want fair access to a good school place for every pupil, regardless of their background. Over the past seven years, we have made significant progress: more schools than ever are rated good or outstanding and, since 2011, the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils has decreased by approximately 7%. However, that progress has been made against a backdrop of unfair and arbitrary funding which has, for too long, acted as a brake on the progress. That is why we are delivering on our promise to reform the unfair and opaque school and high-needs funding systems.
At the heart of the Government’s ambition to provide good school places is the aim to drive up social mobility, as referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Fellowes and Lord Bird. This is the route out of poverty. We want to lift up those areas that have historically been left behind and ensure that pupils can reach their full potential. Beyond the core schools budget and the national funding formula, the Government will invest a total of £72 million in 12 opportunity areas over the next three years. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely recognises the importance of helping some of the most disadvantaged areas in the country, which is what we are trying to do. Opportunity areas will also receive a share of the £75 million teaching and leadership innovation fund to support high-quality professional development for teachers and leaders, and a share of the £280 million strategic school improvement fund for schools most in need of support.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, refers to the dismantling of poverty. We recognise the impact that living in poverty has on a child’s start in life and that education plays a key role in ensuring that every child can access the same opportunities. That is why this Government are focused on tackling the root causes of poverty by building a strong economy and getting people into work. The noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, used a term for which I am grateful, saying that education is an actuator of social mobility. That is better written than what I have written down here, and I could not agree more. That is why we are dramatically increasing access to childcare at the early stages of a child’s life and driving higher standards in further and technical education at the other end of childhood.
The noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, also refers to technical education. We know that education goes beyond our schools. Post-16 education plays a crucial part in supporting future economic growth. We will protect the national base rate of £4,000 per student for the duration of the Parliament, and have announced an additional investment in technical education rising to a further £500 million. In October, we set out our plans on how we will implement T-levels, the 15 new technical education routes to skilled employment for 16 to 19 year-olds. These reforms will build on the changes already made to secure a streamlined and sustainable technical education system which, importantly, is supported by employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the right reverend Prelate referred to fair funding. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Government have recently responded to the consultation on the national funding formula. This represents the biggest improvement to our system for funding schools in over a decade. Together with the additional £1.3 billion of schools revenue funding across the next two years, announced in July, this will help to ensure that schools get the resources needed. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the new formula will allocate a cash increase of at least 1% per pupil to every school by 2019-20, with higher gains for some of the underfunded schools.
We recently published full details of both the school and high-needs national funding formulae, and the impact that they will have for every local authority. This includes notional school-level allocations, showing what each school would attract through the formula. I can send the link to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, if he would like more information on that.
Responses to our consultation stressed the importance of funding for children with additional needs, such as those suffering deprivation and low prior attainment. Nationally, the formula will allocate £5.9 billion in additional needs funding, with a further £2.5 billion delivered through the pupil premium, which was introduced in 2011. The intention of the pupil premium was to encourage schools to recruit pupils from less well-off backgrounds and to then create an added-value learning environment for less advantaged pupils to benefit from.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Jones, referred to proper funding. The department has been working hard to identify efficiency savings, which will ultimately result in the £1.3 billion cash boost for schools. Making savings and efficiencies allows us to maximise the funding directly allocated to head teachers. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that the additional investment of £1.3 billion will mean that funding per pupil across the country is maintained in real terms over the next two years. I know that it is unfashionable to say it but the IFS has also shown that per pupil spending in schools in 2020 is set to be at least 70% higher in real terms than it was in 1990.
To remain slightly unfashionable, we have to look at school efficiencies. We are clear that overall funding for schools and the distribution of that funding is important, but how the funding is used in practice is also vital. School efficiency must start with, and be led by, schools and school leaders. The department will continue to provide practical support, deals and tools. For example, the risk protection arrangement has already saved over £150 million as of August this year.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about remoteness in the department compared with the front line. I have come from the front line. I know that it is difficult but I will bring the expertise that I have gained on the front line to help the department to do more.
The noble Lord also asked whether we have identified the savings. I think that noble Lords are probably aware of most of them, but we will save £420 million on the department’s capital budget, which includes £315 million from the healthy pupils capital funding. We will also save £280 million on the free schools programme and £600 million from the Department for Education’s resource budget.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
With respect, those are the figures that were given by the Secretary of State in July. I was asking for some of the gaps to be filled in. We knew that much; I was asking about the shortfall between those accumulated figures and the £1.3 billion.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I will write to the noble Lord after the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, raised the issue of capital funding. Between 2010 and 2016, we invested over £28 billion in schools capital programmes, including £6 billion on basic need, £8 billion on condition and £1.4 billion on the priority schools building programme, dealing with some of the oldest schools on the estate. Since then, the Government have committed to invest over £23 billion in the school estate between 2016-17 and 2020-21.
The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Fellowes, asked about our relationship with independent schools. We know that different parts of our education system can work in partnership to help deliver more good school places. We are close to reaching an agreement with the Independent Schools Council on what we can expect independent schools to do and how we can help them overcome the barriers that can get in the way of cross-sector working.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, raised the issue of teacher pay. Of course we recognise that good schools are about good teaching as well as fair and proper funding. Decisions about teachers’ pay are based on recommendations from the independent School Teachers’ Review Body, and last year we accepted the recommendation of a 2% rise to the main pay range for teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, talked about cross-party collaboration. I certainly give credit to the previous Labour Government for the initiation of the academies programme, which is something that we have tried to build on, and for the London Challenge. I think that we agree on much. I accept that we will agree on some things but it is clear to me that we have things to learn from one another.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, raised the question of pedagogy and the relevance of the existing curriculum for the modern world; the fourth industrial revolution, as he described it. We are making progress, certainly in two areas. Take maths, which is an essential underpinning if one hopes to go into any technology-based career. In 2010, only 22% of children in the state system were studying maths at GCSE, and that has increased to 38%. We also now have 62,000 pupils entering computer science GCSE, which has gone up year on year.
I again thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Many important points have been raised and I will write to address those that I have not had the time to respond to fully. I want to emphasise that for this Government social mobility and good education are high priorities. I met the noble Lord, Lord Bird, yesterday and he said that he sees the approach to poverty as being based on four categories: prevention, emergency, coping and care. His assertion is that not enough emphasis is placed on prevention. I wholeheartedly agree with him and believe that education is the best form of effective prevention against the mire of poverty.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Is he aware that in Blackpool, one of the opportunity areas to which he referred, there is a pupil referral unit with almost 400 pupils? That is by far the largest concentration of excluded pupils in any pupil referral unit in the country. Does he agree that this is a social crisis? Would he be happy to meet me to discuss how this urgent situation can be addressed?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I would be delighted to meet the noble Lord to discuss the matter further.
Farm Support
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for future farm support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to those who till the land and battle the elements to put food on our tables. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. I have the honour of chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place and, as well as being an MEP, I practised European law in Brussels.
In preparation for the debate, I have consulted widely with farm organisations, other NGOs and environmental groups. I thank them for all they do to support farmers in the rural community. The hills are alive with the sight of lambs and calves, sheep and cattle, many of which are tended by tenant farmers, some on common land. They lie at the heart of the rural economy yet they face many challenges, not least the weather and a lack of good broadband access. Market towns and rural communities thrive when farmers prosper, yet farming confidence has fallen in the past two years. European Union membership currently provides a market of 505 million consumers as well as support for British farmers. The UK exported more than £13 billion-worth of food and non-alcoholic drinks in 2016, 71% of which went to the EU and 28% to non-EU countries. Farming is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, generating £109 billion in value for the UK economy, while our farmers maintain over 70% of the UK land mass.
Support for farmers currently takes the form of direct farm payments and environmental stewardship schemes. Brexit means changes on a scale we have not seen for over 40 years. There could arguably be put forward a scheme similar to that of deficiency payments which existed before 1973. Alternatively, the Government could look to loosen the link between support and food production, and reward farmers for environmental schemes that benefit the local community such as planting trees, temporarily storing water on their land or improving the natural habitat and soil.
I took the title of Pickering not least because Pickering’s “Slow the Flow” scheme could be the model for such schemes providing public good. Work is ongoing to set a price on certain activities by recognising and putting a value on the natural capital of the countryside. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to his place and I look forward to his summing up. I ask him that when the natural capital may eventually lead to payments for ecosystem services, those will have been properly tried, tested and piloted before being rolled out. What is certain, and I am sure that my noble friend will agree, is that hill farmers and others farming in the uplands and less favoured areas will continue to need support or to be encouraged to produce more food to stimulate greater consumption at home, substituting imports where possible.
Currently, the UK has a negative agri-food trade balance of £22.4 billion and is a net importer of food. Surely the emphasis must be on greater self-sufficiency at home and generating more exports as well as food security. Going forward, a key factor will be continuing to have access to a regular supply of EU workers post Brexit. In terms of the sustainability of food production at home, we must ensure that a large raft of land will not be lost to a massive housebuilding programme, thus taking it out of food production.
The most obvious support is cost free: boosting trade and learning from our near neighbours how to export more. Denmark, with a population of under 6 million, has an export level far higher than ours and has long been exporting to emerging markets such as China, which we are only beginning to enter seriously now. We can also learn from the Danish Co-operative Movements, specifically Arla and other such models. I pay tribute to the role of the agricultural attaché working out of Beijing, which has substantially boosted exports of food to China. I am delighted to be associated with the export from Malton of pigs’ trotters and other pig parts which we do not currently enjoy in this country, but are a major delicacy in China.
Live animal exports are important to north Yorkshire and elsewhere, contributing significantly to the local economy and ensuring vibrant futures and steady incomes for hill farmers, yet the agriculture Secretary has stated that he wants to ban the export of live animals. These exports are currently small in number and highly regulated compared with the trade in carcasses. Lambs from north Yorkshire and other upland areas are fattened and finished in France every spring. Around 70% of UK pigmeat exports go to the EU. These are predominantly cull sow carcasses as there is no market for them in the UK. World Trade Organization tariffs would render such exports unviable, so the prospect of no-deal Brexit would leave pig producers and others very exposed to being treated like any other third country as exporters to the EU.
The ability to move fresh produce unhindered across European borders after Brexit is essential to prevent the loss of perishable goods because of hold-ups at customs, but regulations have yet to be put in place to ensure that imports meet our high animal health and welfare standards. Increased prices of imported machinery and tariffs on pork imports could jeopardise the sale of pork. Post-Brexit there will also be a need to ensure that animals can travel to other EU countries for breeding, horse-racing and other purposes—not to forget pets, which currently benefit from pet passports.
Today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to update noble Lords on the Government’s current thinking on future farm support, their policy on live animal exports, and specifically the status of the tripartite agreement between Britain, France and Ireland for racing purposes. The lead-in time for farm products, including livestock, cereals and dairy, is a minimum of 12 to 18 months. Decisions for 2019, therefore, must be made by March 2018 at the latest. The Grocery Code Adjudicator must be given more powers to investigate breaches in the supply chain before we reach Brexit and should apply to the indirect as well as the direct supply chain, such as dairy. After Brexit, I hope that the Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, who is rightly committed to maintaining our high levels of animal health and welfare standards when we leave the EU, will ensure that these measures are not entered into unilaterally but in step with other producer countries. It is also hoped that the farm-assured Red Tractor scheme should also apply to all food sold in the UK and that food sold through retailers here should carry mandatory country-of-origin labelling.
We must learn from the sow stall and tether ban in the 1990s when, regrettably, the UK unilaterally imposed tough new production standards on home pig producers yet allowed imports from other countries producing pigs to lower welfare standards. As a result, more than half of UK pig producers went out of business. Equally, post-Brexit imports under new trade deals must also meet high British standards of animal health and welfare. There should be no place for substandard imported poultry from Brazil or chicken and beef from the USA and elsewhere. Alternatives to securing more exports are challenging in different ways. I believe that it was a mistake to drop the idea of remaining in the single market and customs union before starting negotiations. The 40-plus existing free trade agreements that we currently enjoy through membership of the EU will no longer apply to the UK post-Brexit. New agreements to replace them will take years to negotiate.
Farmers are looking to export to new markets outside the EU free trade agreements through relationships with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and with new countries such as Vietnam. These markets, however, do not compare in size with the current EU market of 505 million consumers. The World Trade Organization’s most-favoured nation arrangement would be dire for farmers. In any event, the principle of applying equivalent standards must remain. There must be arrangements for new entrants and the trading arrangement with the UK must become apparent now.
In conclusion, any new arrangement must be based on equivalence and reciprocity, and we must know, in the event of disputes—I hope the Minister will explain this today—what the dispute resolution mechanism will be if it is not to be the European Court of Justice. What will the UK’s future relationship with the EU be? What will farm support look like from 2022 when the annual £3 billion ceases? These are real issues that are causing great concern in the uplands and elsewhere. The Minister is in the right place to respond to them today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. It is so good that agriculture has been debated more regularly in this Session than, I think, during the combined past three Sessions. It will continue to be debated because it is a key industry—probably the most affected industry, for those involved with it, when we exit through Brexit.
Although I voted to remain in the EU, Brexit cannot come soon enough for our environment and our farmers. The sooner it comes, the better. The common agricultural policy has been bad for the environment: birdlife on farms has halved since we have been in the CAP, and biodiversity is in constant decline. The common agricultural policy also made the fundamental mistake of separating farming from the rest of the environment, and it has been bad for taxpayers’ money because that has been untargeted. It has been bad for farmers because it has given them the wrong sort of support, restricting their ability to innovate and their opportunities. It has also kept bad farmers in a living when they should have gone, and put the future of our grandchildren at risk.
I say that because farmers need three key ingredients; air, water and, most importantly, soil. It is soil that has not had enough attention. In the UK, we have lost 84% of our soil since 1850. There are, at the most, 100 harvests left. We are losing at the moment between one and three centimetres of topsoil every year, and it takes 1,000 years to create three centimetres of topsoil. If we continue with the way we have been farming under the CAP, there will be no farmers—not even, I say to my noble friend, in Yorkshire. There will not be any in Caithness even with global warming, which is not going to help them. We will have to look at other models.
The recent Chatham House report, published earlier this month, sets out four models. The first is the sector protection model, which has trade barriers and subsidies. This is the model employed by Japan, Norway and Switzerland. The second is the decoupled subsidy model, which is the disastrous EU model that I have referred to. The third is the insurance model, where payments are made to farmers if prices or incomes fall below a certain level, which is the policy employed by the US and Canada. The fourth is the market-oriented model, which is low in subsidies and in barriers to imports. That is the one employed by New Zealand and Australia.
I do not advocate fully that last model, although it has been touted by some. My reason is that it does not take long for the farmer to go from being the hero to becoming the villain. That is the case in New Zealand, where the mistake the New Zealanders made—which I hope we will not make—was to divorce farming from the rest of the environment. The farmers, who were widely praised for improving their productivity, as we need to do, and for competing on the world stage, as we need to do, forgot the environment. The pollution from the farmers has now made them the enemy of the people.
We are hugely lucky in this country that we are 75% self-sufficient in our indigenous foods, which is a great bonus. My noble friend is lucky to have that as the backdrop to producing the 25-year environment plan. I would say to him: please tell us that the plan will include farming and other rural matters. The whole lot is integrated and farmers cannot be looked at on their own any more.
The big question my noble friend and the department are facing is the balance that is needed to have an agricultural sector which operates at world-class standards of productivity and world-class standards of animal welfare and transport, as well as protecting the environment. Behind all that is the old adage coined in 1906 by Alfred Henry Lewis, which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the other day:
“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy”.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for initiating this debate. I have five minutes in which to make five points. Contrary to the noble Earl, my first point is: do not rush this. Broadly speaking, the Government have already committed themselves to paying under the present system until 2020, although I think that we should take a little longer going into the transition period. That is because it takes time for farmers to adjust and we can phase it in over a longer period once we know what we are doing.
Secondly, let us remember the inexorable relationship between the nature of our agricultural industry, trade and the pattern of support which is desirable. As has been said, 70% of our trade is with the EU, so we need a new relationship with the Union. If it works, that is fine, but if it does not, we will have a different form of agriculture in this country. If there are barriers between ourselves and the EU, substantial parts of our upland livestock will disappear because the EU is the main market. On the other hand, if we have, as some advocate, a global free trade area with virtually no barriers to the world, we will have very cheap and less-well-regulated imports from Brazil, the US and Australia. Again, significant parts of our agricultural sector would be eliminated and much of our consumer protection would be challenged, to say the least. We could opt for an autarkic “Fortress Britain” structure, which Mr Chris Grayling MP seems to think will lead to quadrupling our agricultural output. It certainly would do wonders for self-sufficiency, but unfortunately it would also increase costs and ensure that consumers have less choice. It would almost certainly drive lower regulatory standards and would probably stop us doing any deals whatever with anyone else in the world. So a support system that is appropriate will depend on the trade system that we have adopted.
Thirdly, we should remember that there were originally multiple objectives in the CAP which we are attempting to replace. The original treaty of Rome effectively saw protection and uprating the productivity of agriculture plus increasing the income of farming communities as its objectives. Added to those over time have been environmental objectives, although quite often they are seen as constraints rather than objectives. I will applaud Michael Gove for trying to ensure that whatever form of agricultural support eventually comes out of all this will in effect be a greener Brexit. We need more detail about the objectives in order to be clear.
The key inputs to agricultural production are the quality of the land, particularly of the soil, as the noble Earl said, and the quality of the labour applied. Unfortunately, the quality of both have rather suffered over the 50 years of the common agricultural policy in one way or another. Yes, productivity has increased through better breeding and more science being applied, but it has also led to the over-application of chemically based fertilisers and pesticides, and of course we have suffered the effects of development and therefore our soil has been degraded over time. It has also polluted our rivers and threatened our biodiversity, some of which the industry itself is dependent on, most obviously the bee population.
We also need to look at the quality of labour. The system needs a modernised, land-based workforce. We need to change from the overdependence of some our agricultural sectors on migrant labour and, at its most extreme, seriously exploited labour in a way that gives the whole of the industry a bad name. We need to eliminate extreme exploitation and control and reduce the dependence on gangmasters. Where imported seasonal labour is still needed, we need a properly regulated replacement for what was once the SAWS system.
I believe that most of our labour could be recruited from the settled population here, but we need to ensure that those workers are better paid and better trained. On the latter, it is unfortunate that agriculture spends less money on training than any other sector in the economy. On the pay and conditions side, since the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, wages in agriculture have fallen relative to average wages in the economy, even in a period of low or negative growth in real wages generally.
On the management of land, we need to develop a holistic system of managing land, soil, water, wildlife and forestry. I think that is the way Michael Gove is moving but we need to be clearer about it. This cannot simply apply at the individual holding area level. We need co-operation between landowners and land managers. I see that the CLA is proposing a new land contract, but that has to be mandatory in form and not voluntary, although it may have voluntary elements. It needs also to be less bureaucratic, not more, than the worst features of the CAP.
We need to have clear sight of our objectives and to determine the quantum and not be dominated by the Treasury. We need to allow for a period of engagement, not only of farmers and the rural community but of the whole of the food chain and the rest of us. We have an opportunity, but let us get it right.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government’s plans for future farm support? I am already beginning to hear things that I had not really thought about. I hear a great deal from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because we are both on the European Select Committee, which has good cross-party coverage. I will not talk again on the points he raised so as to give everybody a bit more time.
I start by saying that my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who was a bit worried about making her speech today, should not have worried. It was an excellent speech which set us off on the right way. My noble friend Lord Caithness frightened me to death, as he often does. However, he talked about other models entirely and reminded us of the ways in which we are lucky. What the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said was quite worrying too. I feel I must cheer us all up a bit, because we have lots to do.
I serve on the European Select Committee, where everything is done on a cross-party basis and we all get on with everybody very well. For this particular piece of work, we realised that there was a lot for us to learn. We submitted our Brexit: Agriculture report to the Government, and no doubt the Minister will speak to that when he gets up to put everybody at ease. He will respond today on the Government’s plans for the future, and so I felt that the best thing I could do was to take some recommendations from our European Select Committee report and remind us exactly what was said on your behalf.
Many farmers rely on Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 funding to keep their businesses viable. Any substantial reductions in the level of support would have a significant impact on both the agricultural sector and the wider rural economy. We felt that the Government should clarify as much as possible their intention regarding financial support post 2020 to provide the certainty required to make the investment decisions that are needed.
Brexit provides an opportunity for the Government to evaluate not only the level but the objectives and structure of financial support to farmers, and to design simpler support schemes which are effective in the context of UK agriculture. This could include support for the rural economy or those in less-favoured areas, such as hill farms; investment in technology; the improvement of productivity, as we have heard about today; environmental protection; or ensuring that UK farmers are not at a competitive disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts. We encourage the Government carefully to review the needs of the agricultural sectors across the UK and consult with the industry to ensure that any future support is targeted and effective.
There is a case for continuing to provide financial support to farmers after 2020 to correct market failures and deliver public goods, such as environmental protection and ecosystem services that would not otherwise be paid for. We recognise that agriculture will be competing with many other sectors for public expenditure. The agricultural sector will have to make a strong case to maintain financial support at the same or similar levels to those provided under the CAP. WTO rules may hinder the design of support schemes tailored to UK objectives. The Government should factor these constraints into their post-Brexit agricultural policy and negotiate a share of the EU’s amber box allowance to maximise their options for designing an effective post-CAP support scheme. They should also consider how to support the provision of public goods through agriculture in the event they do not secure such a share.
There we are. I believe we are on our way to a much better life. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, trying to frighten us, but in among it all we could hear that he too is excited about where we can go when we come out of the common agricultural policy. The Government have a manifesto commitment to maintain the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament. That commitment should help to provide stability for farmers over time as we develop a new agricultural policy working closely with the devolved Administrations and those affected. The decision to leave the European Union provides an opportunity to design a new agricultural policy from first principles most effectively to support the agricultural sector.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this short debate, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner. We will undoubtedly see much change in agriculture over the next 10 years. In that context, I have four points to make.
First—here noble Lords will see I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rather than that of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—we should change the current system slowly. Anyone looking to alter their customer base or marketplace knows that the first requirement is to ensure that you do not lose your old customers before you have properly embedded your new sales programme. So if farmers are reckoned to become new customers of Defra on Brexit, providing a variety of services, it is important they are given time to change and understand where they might fit into this new marketplace. In other words, the current system of single farm payment should be gradually diminished over, say, five or eight years. It has never been a good system and provides little reward to society, but we do not want a cliff edge.
Secondly, farmers are unlikely to come out of Brexit well. The Brexit discussions will involve multifaceted trade negotiations of all sorts—financial services, cars, steel, whisky and wine, et cetera—with agriculture somewhere at the bottom of the heap. I suspect that France, Germany and Italy will be keener to protect their farmers than the UK Treasury. On the basis that non-EU countries currently have to pay 40% to 50% tariffs on food coming into Europe, this could be seriously bad for UK farmers, most of whose current exports go to the EU. Our only hope is that we can achieve some form of import quotas into the EU—even if on only a temporary basis—as near as possible to our current trading quantities.
Thirdly, post-Brexit trade deals are unlikely to improve matters. Again, these deals will be multifaceted and multicommodity and UK agriculture will be only a small pawn on the chessboard. Bear in mind that cheap food is usually a good vote winner for any Government, so cheap Australian and US beef or even chicken will be knocking on the door along with other products from hotter climes where labour is cheaper and the regulatory regime looser. Our farmers will not be able to compete. Our only hope is to ensure we impose high standards on all food from whatever source and, above all, retain very good traceability on both domestic and international products.
My fourth point is about the opportunities presented by Brexit. It amounts to a question of how much and for what the Government are prepared to pay land managers for services to society. Bill Bryson once said that apart from producing good, healthy food, the unique feature of the English countryside is that the English people love it to death. Indeed, they have much to be grateful for to our farmers and landowners, and I believe that they—the taxpayers—will not mind paying for environmental land services of all sorts. But there must be profits allowable in the scheme or schemes. Cost-price services, as at present, simply will not do. As I have explained, there will not be many other profits around for farmers, so the state must ensure that farmers are properly rewarded for what they do.
My main point, in summary, is that by hook or by crook we must ensure that our farmers can survive on the land. My last speech on this subject focused on harnessing an improved and diversified economy to keep farming households in place in all parts of our countryside. If we lose those households, we risk losing that hugely important and well-loved heritage asset that is the English countryside, created and nurtured by our forebears from Roman times to modern day and, as I say, still greatly loved by our nation. Of course, it changes and will continue to change, but it will always need nurturing by those who know and love its every fold and stream.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the honour of appearing in this particular location. I am very pleased to be here to support my noble friend in her debate. I have nothing relevant to declare on the register or elsewhere, other than my deep respect and support for our farmers and the rural communities that support the enterprises around farming. There is a bit of a Yorkshire mafia here today. I had the pleasure and privilege of representing Yorkshire in the other place and in the European Parliament for getting on for nearly 30 years before I came here. The importance of farming to the economy of Yorkshire, as to the rest of the United Kingdom, should never be underestimated.
I have two things to say. First, planning is essential in most of the things that we are involved in, but it is particularly important for farming communities. While, of course, five-year, 10-year and 25-year plans are more likely to be seen in socialist state-controlled economies, nevertheless the Government a little while ago was talking about a 25-year plan for agriculture. That is a long time; it is an awful lot longer than the plan we have in place, or are putting in place, for leaving the European Union. That just underlines a simple fact—that farming cannot plan for two or even five years, because it is all about things such as crop rotation, inheritance, viability, diversity, food prices, volatility in marketplaces, and trying to determine how to invest to keep your farming successful. It is a profession; it requires the adoption of interest in farming by young people, through the education system as well as through their families. Keeping young people on farms is now a particularly difficult problem. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Cameron speaking about communities and keeping farming on the land—and enough farmers. I fear that that will be an even greater problem if we cannot give sufficient certainty to farming communities that they will continue to receive not only financial but political support in the years ahead.
In that sense, I mention a social aspect. Farming is a highly pressured occupation, even without some of the uncertainties to which I refer. I pay tribute to the National Farmers’ Union for its support of the farming community, but I pay tribute too to the Farming Community Network, a charity set up to support farmers who have such pressures. Interestingly, mental illness and those sorts of things are much more prevalent in rural communities than in urban ones, and therefore that support seems very worthy, as is the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, which has stepped in on many occasions to give good and useful advice to farmers when they have had pressures—mostly of a financial nature but nevertheless pressures. The Addington Fund and other organisations have been involved as well. I hope that a similarly friendly and beneficent approach can be continually adopted by our banks. I hope that it can also be adopted and maintained by our Governments.
Great challenges lie ahead. One is simply to make sure that the children in our cities start to know that when they eat meat, it has something to do with farming and animals. Surprisingly few do. Support for farming has to come from an understanding of it and its contribution to our economy both by the Government, as I have said, and by society as a whole. I hope that in our debate we will make that quite clear and that my noble friend will be able to respond to those social aspects of farming, which, in many ways, are just as important as the financial ones.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling this important debate. I am sure that we will have more debates on agriculture as we go through the transitional period.
I have worked in agriculture for more than 30 years and I understand how important it is to the economy. I was out walking with Daisy and Ted, my two dogs, at the weekend, enjoying the countryside while listening to the gaggle of geese flying over in their distinctive V shape towards the Trent Valley, and looking at the very diverse farming around me, recognising how much it contributes to the welfare of our communities and business sectors. Therefore, regarding future farming support, I am pleased that the Government have already responded to the period of withdrawal from the EU and I welcome their commitment to continuing to guarantee CAP Pillar 1 until 2020 with a future guarantee of CAP Pillar 2 funding to include agri-environment schemes. I hope that Defra will bring forward as quickly as possible further policy options to reassure the farming and agricultural communities about the need for continued clarity and certainty as the Government go through the process.
It is very important that the agriculture Bill sets out a clear framework, not only with a sustainable direction accompanied by agreed timescales, particularly in the early stages, but with a commitment to continuity and certainty while giving confidence to farm businesses. When we leave the EU, we need to avoid costly and disruptive customs checks for our export markets, as delays will have a significant negative impact on the agri-food sector, in which products are often perishable and food supply chains are highly integrated.
It is important to stress the need to present as an opportunity the securing of a decisive break from the CAP and to establish our own ambitious and environmentally responsible policies so that we can achieve a sustainable future for agriculture. Unfortunately, experience in the past has shown that bold CAP reform decisions have often been implemented in a rush, or in the absence of policy certainty, creating significant delivery problems for agencies and delaying payments for farmers. The ambition for the sector would be to focus on restoring our natural heritage while building resilience and supporting production that is sustainable, innovative and humane.
There is no doubt that the CAP is outdated and very complicated, with about £2.5 billion per year used for direct subsidies based on land acreage. Unfortunately, the decline in biodiversity has affected many farmland birds and wildlife—in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, bees and other pollinators, which play an important role in natural habitats and feed supply by pollinating crops and wild plants. This area needs to be supported and to play an integral part in the future agriculture Bill.
The goal for the UK is to create a world-leading food and farming industry which supports farmers in adapting to climate change, increases energy efficiency and helps reduce farmers’ exposure to volatility in prices of fertilisers, pesticides, labour and energy. Investment in IT and digital solutions will help them to drive competitiveness. Whether directly or indirectly, we have a unique opportunity to include as many organisations as possible in discussions during the implementation of the 25-year environment plan and to consult widely.
Families and young people wanting to settle, work and grow in rural settings are being priced out of areas they have known all their lives because of the lack of affordable housing. That puts a huge strain on rural economies, populations and vital community services. We have witnessed village pubs, post offices and rural schools closing because of ageing and dwindling populations. Evidence tells us that high-quality and affordable new homes can transform rural communities.
At this moment, the UK has a negative agri-food trade balance of £22.4 billion, making it a net importer of food with a self-sufficiency ratio of 61%. The question is how we can grow better, sell better and export better in supporting the UK to lead the way. With our reputation for high animal welfare, we must ensure that imports meet these high standards so that UK farmers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. It is imperative that welfare standards are embedded in any future trade agreement
Farming matters to the UK. Farmers are the stewards of our lovely countryside.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing this timely debate. She has set its parameters excellently. I also thank all other noble Lords who have contributed today. Time may preclude me being able to mention them by name, but I hope that I will echo many of their remarks. The debate will perhaps underline for the Minister what he has got right in the Government’s forthcoming agriculture Bill, what he may be doing ill-advisedly, and what he may have forgotten about. I declare my interests as a farmer in receipt of EU funds and having been involved in food businesses beyond the farm gate.
There is universal approval for the view that farm support involving public money must be given only in exchange for public benefit. Bearing in mind how fundamental to the well-being of many sections of agriculture is farm support, we wish the approach to be consistent and stable in securing farming’s future according a long-term economic plan. This is not what the farming community is hearing from the Government at the moment. Admittedly, agricultural policy, like most other policies, is not easy when the Government have many competing objectives. I trust that the Minister will outline which of his department’s priorities and choices the Government will commit to undertake in the agriculture Bill, and assure us that they will not be undermined by another Minister in the Brexit negotiations.
As part of public benefit, future farm support should reward responsible land use. With this being undertaken by farmers, it is recognised that stable support is needed against the rising volatility of market returns. Responsible land use also includes stewardship of the countryside and the environment and the welfare of animals. Fundamentally, responsible land use means protecting and enhancing our soils for future generations and for healthy foods. Measures are needed to improve soil nutrients and soil structures. The science around glyphosates needs careful attention so as to promote minimum tillage and least soil compaction from modern heavy machinery. Hedges, wildlife corridors and the biodiversity of songbirds and pollinators need significant measures in this respect. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how this formulates into land management contracts and targeted stewardship schemes. What it must translate into is a strategic food policy that takes account of the diverse food chain to produce stable prices for consumers and enables the market to support the delivery of good food. I urge the Minister to look at policy measures that reward the value-added element of food products throughout the food chain. That should include the farmer and not merely reward the farmer as an ingredients supplier. I urge the Minister to insist on fair practices that will outlaw the transfer of risk down the food chain being borne by the farmer. These are elements key to lessen the dependency of agriculture on safety net measures.
The competitiveness of UK agriculture and a level playing field of food standards and regulation has been underlined by many noble Lords today. In this regard, support measures are needed to encourage food innovation, including innovation of processing, in the food chain. Research as well as knowledge transfer involved in training are consequentially important. However, we must not lose sight of the fundamental approach of maintaining a level playing field of food and environmental standards. Any industry is rightfully aggrieved to have to compete against lower standards that are cheaper or competition that is structured unfairly. I have a fundamental question for the Minister: post-Brexit, will the Government maintain parity of food standards between food imports and the standards that have to be maintained by the UK supply chain? This is of importance to both consumers and farmers.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke well and convincingly about the labour situation on farms and I echo his remarks. Your Lordships’ EU sub-committee has highlighted that agriculture is a devolved matter whereas trade policy is a reserved matter. Can the Minister update the House on aspects of trade tariff splits and support measures between the Government and the devolved Administrations in a still-to-be-determined amount of post-transition period farm support? Will the split between the nations in the UK be satisfactory to their farming characteristics and on a continuing percentage division? On governance issues, time prevents me from asking anything other than: have the Government firm plans to set up UK structures to replicate the EU institutions that currently underpin the regulatory system?
Outside the EU, the UK Government will still need to be mindful of WTO oversight of trade policy in relation to whether or not aspects of trade are distorting. They must be mindful of the long decision-making horizons of agriculture, food production and trade. My experience of re-engineering businesses tells me that two years for a transition period is likely to be very inadequate for changes in trade and agriculture practices to be made. I urge the Government to make incremental and progressive changes to safeguard jobs, communities and businesses.
We must keep two other key elements in mind. First, we must address the challenge of climate change and do all that we can to reduce and lessen its impact. Secondly, antimicrobial resistance—
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
With respect, we need to make sure that the Minister has time to respond.
Lord Grantchester
I understand. I am sorry to go over by a minute. I was trying to close my remarks by saying that antimicrobial resistance is also a long-term issue to which we must pay attention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with your Lordships that we should congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on securing this debate on agriculture and farm support. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
As we leave the European Union, the Government are clear on establishing a strong and productive agriculture and food industry which promotes great British food, strengthens rural communities and maintains high animal welfare standards—all while enhancing our environment. As your Lordships have said, we have a world-class food and farming industry generating more than £100 billion a year for our economy. More than 70% of UK land is farmed. The production-to-supply ratio of indigenous food is 76%, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Caithness. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that farming and food production are the very backbone of the countryside—and in my view of the country. Farmers have an essential role in ensuring that we leave our environment in a better state than we found it. After all, earlier generations of farmers and landowners, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, were the architects of our extraordinarily beautiful landscape. A vibrant agricultural sector and the enhancement of our natural environment are entirely complementary. Given the salutary lessons from New Zealand, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness, I need not say much more. So leaving the common agricultural policy provides us with an opportunity to ensure that future agricultural policy supports farmers to grow, sell and export more great British food, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Redfern.
We are actively engaged with farmers and farming organisations as we develop policies that we believe will provide support more effectively than the CAP does. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we must ensure that we have a system of agricultural support that respects the work of farmers and rewards environmental protection and enhancement. That means support for natural capital and ecosystem services, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lady Wilcox, such as woodland creation and tree planting, encouraging biodiversity, and high standards of animal welfare. By using public money to reward environmentally responsible land use and activities that enhance the countryside and protect landscapes, we provide the taxpayer with better value for money.
The Government absolutely understand that clarity is required in the farming sector at this time of great change. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly raises the importance of how a smooth transition for farmer is required. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. We have therefore made a commitment to maintain the same cash total in funds for farm support until 2022 and to honour agri-environment agreements made while in the EU, provided that they align with domestic priorities and our future farming vision.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and a number of your Lordships mentioned labour. Defra is considering the latest data and working closely with the industry and across government to monitor labour demand and supply, including the seasonal workforce. We want to enable farmers to develop new markets and provide vital public services. We must therefore support the adoption of new technologies and techniques to improve productivity in food production. In 2013, the UK Government agri-tech strategy was launched, with £80 million invested in four world-class centres of agricultural innovation to support the adoption of innovation and technology in the food and farming supply chain, while improving biosecurity. Last week, at Harper Adams I observed the benefits of precision farming and the importance of such centres in bolstering young farmers’ expertise. In response to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, the enthusiasm of this next generation of farmers, and their appreciation of the intrinsic interdependence of food production, the environment and animal welfare, was one of the most evident features of my visit. Further to this, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced, the Government have allocated £40 million to the countryside productivity scheme to help farmers improve productivity through investment in innovative technology. Indeed, the Government’s industrial strategy further commits to boosting the adoption of technical precision farming.
When we leave the EU, we will remain global leaders in environmental protection and animal welfare standards, maintaining our high-quality produce for British and international consumers. Noble Lords have rightly raised the importance of trade. We are a trading nation; we always have been and always will be. I was most grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for referring to the work we are undertaking with our food counsellor in China and the other work going on overseas.
For the first time in more than 40 years, whatever our views on last June’s result, we have a golden opportunity to negotiate trade deals with the world. Around 60% of UK agricultural exports currently go the EU, as noble Lords have mentioned. Therefore, our focus is on securing the best deal for farmers in our negotiations, transition and readiness for day one as we leave. We are conducting a rigorous analysis of the full range of trade scenarios on UK agriculture to ensure the best possible trading future for our farmers. My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked about the WTO arrangements. We are currently considering what tariff rate quotas and amber box allocation the UK should create as part of our detailed work in preparation for the draft of the UK’s independent WTO schedule. My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked dispute resolution in regard to which conflict resolution procedure will apply when we leave the EU. This issue will form part of our negotiation with the EU, as one would expect.
We should be proud that we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Let me be clear to your Lordships: there will be no reduction in our welfare standards, our food security standards or our environmental protections as we leave the EU. The Government have committed direct funding to research programmes with the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Animal and Horticultural Development Board and research councils. Only this morning, I was having a discussion with the chairs of those boards and that committee about advancing knowledge on welfare.
I should clarify my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s remarks regarding the live export of animals. Once we leave the EU, and in line with our manifesto commitment, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. This has been widely welcomed but I want to clarify that traditionally we have also exported live animals because their breeding standard is of the best. I particularly want to refer in the short time that I have to equines. I am fully seized of the importance of this, as the passports currently used for the travel of thoroughbreds used in racing and breeding, as well as other sport horses in the tripartite agreement, is tremendously important. The TPA will be the subject of negotiations when the UK leaves the EU and the Government will seek the best deal possible, as exemplified in the new TPA that was signed off in 2013. Indeed, I have been in correspondence only this morning on these matters.
Our partnership and ongoing engagement with a wide range of stakeholders will ensure that we have a farming and environmental land management policy which supports current and future generations of farmers to follow the best approaches to soil health management. A number of your Lordships raised this crucial point. The policy will also support them to adopt advances in agri-tech, produce quality food and enhance our natural environment. We recognise that future policy must work effectively for all UK agriculture—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lady Wilcox spoke of this. The Secretary of State meets devolved Administration Ministers regularly to discuss the importance of co-operative working and future frameworks. We are committed to continued flexibility in how the devolved nations manage their future farm support subject, we believe correctly, to preserving a single internal market and compliance with our international obligations.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will convert the existing body of EU agriculture law into UK law. We will introduce an agriculture Bill and we intend to consult widely with interested stakeholders ahead of publishing plans for that Bill. The Secretary of State has signalled his intention to consult in the new year and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and all of your Lordships will participate. Our proposals for the future agricultural policy will reflect the Government’s aim of securing a better future for agriculture and food production, while enhancing the environment and rural communities. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned, we must support farmers across the UK, from the uplands to the lowlands. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and, as a member of the NFU and a supporter of the RABI, I share his remarks as to the social pressures and challenges of farming. I also know and understand that farming is exposed to great degrees of volatility, so we must develop a system that helps farmers to face the future.
Our vision for British agriculture is based on a sustainable, productive and competitive industry. This will be set out in our 25-year environment plan, which I hope will please my noble friend Lord Caithness. A great deal of work is under way on what our future farming policy will look like. This is being undertaken through active engagement with all farming interests. We are committed to supporting agriculture, food security, high- quality food and, essentially, the British farmer.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the success of the Beijing consultant. Will the Government be minded to look at other such in other countries?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we are looking at a global trade situation, so I am sure we will be looking at all parts of the world.
HS2: Economic and Environmental Impact
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Framlingham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the economy and environment of HS2.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have this debate, which is an opportunity to examine further the vexed question of HS2. I am grateful also to the Minister, who kindly arranged a meeting with me to discuss the issue.
Your Lordships may wonder what purpose this debate serves, given how far this ridiculous scheme has got. First, it is never too late to correct mistakes. Although considerable sums of money have already been spent, they pale into insignificance when compared with the eye-watering sums to come. We should not throw good money after bad. Although many lives, homes and businesses have already been damaged, many have not, and the environment is still as yet relatively unharmed. My first reason is to ask the Secretary of State, even at this stage, to undertake an urgent review of the scheme, its costs and benefits.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I firmly believe that this is going to be the infrastructure horror of the 21st century and, along with others, have sought in vain to explain clearly why this is the case to those responsible, from the Prime Minister downward. I am determined that those who sanction HS2 should confirm that they understand all its ramifications, put their names to it and bear the responsibility as the horror unfolds.
I am sorry to burden the new Minister with this enormous responsibility, but I want to task her with one thing above any other. I do not expect her today to commit to a review or, better still, to halt the project. Quite simply, I ask her to read carefully the package of papers that I have given her and to make sure that her civil servants read it too, then to satisfy herself that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State understand the position as she will then understand it. If she will undertake to do that, I can for the moment do no more. I believe that from the very beginning a scheme as nonsensical and deeply damaging, economically and environmentally, as HS2, could not possibly have got off the ground if those responsible for giving it the go-ahead had taken the trouble—as all the experts opposed to it have done—to understand fully how little benefit it will bring, how much it will cost and how much damage it will do.
This is the biggest infrastructure project ever in this country. There is widespread awareness of it and almost total opposition, combined with a sad acceptance and a resignation that it will happen anyway. It is topical today to think about the gap—the dislocation between government and the people. Nothing could better reinforce the people’s view that government is completely out of step with reality than HS2. Last January, I gave your Lordships’ House the opportunity to stop HS2 by tabling what was described as a fatal amendment at Third Reading of the HS2 Bill. The majority of your Lordships failed to support my amendment, many telling me privately that they agreed with it, but 25 brave souls supported me and will go down in history as having done so. Significantly, two of them are ex-Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, under Gordon Brown and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, under David Cameron, saw at first hand and in the closest possible detail the shortcomings of HS2. Both voted to put a stop to it just a few months ago and have spoken against it since.
The crucial point here—this is the most important point I want the Minister to take away from the debate—is that anyone who takes the time and trouble really to understand this project and see all its shortcomings simply finds that they cannot support it. I believe the Prime Minister and perhaps even the Secretary of State have been badly advised. For them not to fully understand the ramifications of a scheme as huge as this, if this proved to be the case, is truly frightening.
This mad scheme, the pipe dream of originally just two people, was based on the idea of speed, as seen in France and Japan, cutting the travelling time between London and Birmingham with speeds of 250 mph. The case for speed has been heavily and effectively criticised and is no longer deployed. The fallback position has been capacity, but this too does not hold water since, although some new capacity may be introduced, it creates other problems. In any case, extra capacity is needed much more in other areas. Some 83% of London’s rail passenger traffic comes from the south and east of London, not the north.
Any serious justification for the scheme no longer exists, except perhaps just job creation—we now have two HS2 colleges. I am all for creating more employment, but not for spending £100 billion for so little advantage. The NHS needs only £4 billion to see its way ahead. We need homes and ships. I am told you could rebuild every hospital in the country with this money. It is generally agreed that any money spent on the railway system should be on improving existing lines, trains and stations, along with the links between our northern cities and the east-west links in the north.
When it comes to cost we really do enter Alice in Wonderland territory. At £400 million per mile it will certainly be far and away the most expensive railway in the world. Unbelievably, HS2 has still not produced detailed estimates. The Government say the total scheme will cost £55.7 billion. Mr Michael Bing, the expert who devised the standard method used by Network Rail to cost its projects and who has advised the Government on these matters, says £104 billion. Mr Bing’s costings have never been challenged.
What about the environment? Let us not pretend: the effect of HS2 on the environment was always going to be deeply damaging. Remember, a brand-new high-speed railway line is being driven through the middle of the country, where, incidentally, a functioning railway line already exists. Speed need straightness and straightness means you cannot avoid precious sites. Ten thousand acres of land will be affected. The Woodland Trust says that, as currently mapped, HS2 will destroy or damage 98 irreplaceable woodlands. Ancient woodlands really are irreplaceable; no amount of money will compensate for their loss. There are already reports of some 60 mature London planes being taken down in Camden to make way for a temporary taxi rank. In the Colne valley there are reports of unregulated clearance work taking place already. If that is true, it is very serious. The law and conditions laid down have to be strictly adhered to, otherwise not only does the environment suffer but so does Parliament’s reputation and credibility. Perhaps the Minister will let us know what arrangements are in place for monitoring these works.
This is the gravy train to end all gravy trains. Millions upon millions have already been spent on lawyers, accountants and planners. One firm is reported as having been paid £280,000 to extol the virtues of HS2 to primary schoolchildren along the route. Unauthorised enhanced redundancy payments have been paid to HS2 staff, against the direct instructions of the Secretary of State. The impression given is that HS2 is arrogant and sees itself as bombproof. Perhaps that it is not surprising. The Secretary of State himself, when asked on the “Today” programme what it might cost to complete HS2, replied, “What it takes”. As a separate matter, some concerns have been expressed about the role of members of the board of the National Infrastructure Commission, and its interest in and involvement with companies dealing with HS2. Perhaps the Minister could look into that for us.
The list of those opposed to HS2 is huge. A few days ago, Dame Margaret Hodge MP, former chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, said that the PAC could no longer keep a proper check on problems such as HS2, which she called a vanity project unlikely to help the north. Perhaps the most damaging critique of HS2 comes from a group of professional railway experts led by Tony May and Jonathan Tyler. That can be found in the Lords’ Library briefing—I do not have time to spell it out now. Even more damning is that fact that this group, which sought a meeting first with the Secretary of State and then with a junior Minister, were told, quite simply, that both were too busy.
I have with me a sheaf of quotations. I am not going to read them all out but I will read out two. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, a former Chancellor, says that:
“HS2 is a huge mistake. The fact is, it is a crazy grandiose vanity project which doesn’t stack up economically at all”.
The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, perhaps tellingly, that:
“In 2010, when the then Labour government decided to back HS2 … We were focusing on the coming electoral battle, not on the detailed facts and figures of an investment that did not present us with any immediate spending choices … I now fear HS2 could be an expensive mistake”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Time is up.
Lord Framlingham
In conclusion, speed has always been important to railways. On 3 July 1938, a beautiful steam engine called the “Mallard” set a world record speed of 126 miles an hour—a triumph of engineering and something for the nation to be proud of. HS2 is not a “Mallard”; it is an albatross that will hang around the necks of the British people until 2033, costing over £100 billion. The Budget is just one week away and the NHS needs just £4 billion. We surely desperately need a review.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, for two reasons. First, I have heard most of the arguments that he marshalled today previously. Secondly, I remind him of the guide to procedure in your Lordships’ House. I object to people reading out every word, particularly when, by and large, those words have been written by somebody else.
The noble Lord mentioned costs and benefits.
Lord Snape
He mentioned costs and benefits but talked solely about the costs and not about the benefits. If the noble Lord is going to intervene with something impromptu, rather than something he has read somewhere else, I will give way.
Lord Framlingham
My Lords, I am intervening on the noble Lord simply because of the word he used: “impromptu”. Every word I write and speak is my own. The noble Lord needs to understand that. I would be grateful for an apology, or at least an acknowledgement that what he said is not entirely accurate.
Lord Snape
Then I acknowledge that and apologise, if the noble Lord wrote it all himself. However, I stick by the words I said. It is surely not necessary, either in Grand Committee or on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, to read every word in the way that he just did.
To go back to what I was saying, the noble Lord talked about costs and benefits but mentioned only the costs and none of the benefits. When it comes to the costs, my noble friend beside me will bring his analytical mind to bear and give the Grand Committee some proper information. I might not always agree with him but I respect the fact that he knows what he is talking about as far as the railway industry is concerned. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham.
The benefits of HS2 are manifold, and I will give one or two examples to your Lordships in a moment. First, let us look at any alternatives to HS2. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, skipped merrily past the situation of the existing railway lines because, like most of the opponents of this scheme, he has no alternative. He says that money would be better spent on upgrading existing railway lines but does not tell us how. As a former railway signalman, I can tell him that you cannot run the sort of service that we currently have on the west coast main line while carrying out modernisation of that line. In the 1960s—the last time the line was modernised, when it was electrified—there were numerous alternative routes between, for example, London and Manchester, London and Liverpool and London and Scotland. Because of the short-sighted nature of Governments of both political hues, most of those routes have since been closed. You cannot run 50 trains an hour in and out of Euston on an average day and spend time upgrading that line, It would be impossible.
I repeat: there are currently 50 trains an hour in and out of Euston for much of the day. Those trains are joined at Willesden by freight trains of the North London line and further north at Nuneaton by freight trains from Felixstowe on various cross-country routes. For much of the day, the west coast main line is operating at pretty near capacity. I say to noble Lords who glibly suggest that we can spend a few billion pounds modernising that line to stop HS2 going ahead: that is nonsense.
As far as the benefits are concerned, again, the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, skipped blithely over the fact that about 25,000 new jobs—many of them in the West Midlands and north of England—will be created by this scheme. Representing parts of East Anglia, as he did in the other place, perhaps he is not really interested in such benefits. If we are to create all the skilled jobs that HS2 will bring about, however, the project really must go ahead. Again, he mentioned in passing that two new apprentice colleges—one in Doncaster, one in Birmingham—are opening as a direct result of HS2. Do the future prospects of young people in the Midlands and north of England have no interest for the opponents of HS2—the noble Lord and the other 34 Luddites that joined him in the Lobby against this project a few months ago—a project perhaps uniquely supported by both parties in government? There really is no alternative.
I appreciate that there are problems and difficulties, but having served on committees that eventually gave the go-ahead for the Channel Tunnel and HS1, nobody appreciates more than me the damage suffered and concern felt by people who have to lose their homes because of these projects. They must be properly treated and compensated. It is impossible, however, to build such a vital project without people being adversely affected.
The fact is that we are talking about a two-track railway line. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, one would think it was the fifth horseman of the apocalypse descending on middle England, rather than a twin-track railway. Are there no motorways in the parts of England he once represented? Did he not find motorways to be more intrusive on daily life than a railway line? By and large, people living alongside railway lines hear nothing—no matter how intensive the service—for about 45 minutes in every hour, because the train passes quickly, while people living along motorways suffer noise for 24 hours. That obviously does not bother the noble Lord or his supporters. This is a great project. It is needed in the West Midlands and the north of England. It is an attempt, at last, to tilt the economic axis slightly away from London and the south-east towards the rest of the country, which will not easily forgive those who try to block it.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Framlingham on raising this issue. I do not agree with him, but it is important that your Lordships not only debate it again today but on an annual basis—I do not know what the necessary procedure would be—to consider the progress made on the project in terms of controlling costs and analysing the benefits to come, which I will briefly touch on.
The arguments for the project are economic. I will not touch on the environmental issues that my noble friend has raised, because last year’s Select Committee—on which a number of colleagues here participated directly or indirectly—undertook the long process of considering more than 1,000 petitions. I believe, however, that it is important to concentrate on the issue of cost and that there should be a mechanism—which if necessary I will institute—that enables this House to look at the progress of the project and the control of its costs.
This is a long-term project, and it is very difficult to measure and estimate the total costs over a great number of years. As the Rail Minister responsible for HS1, I know that there was considerable concern at the outset about the project cost and about the impact on households affected on the route from central London to the tunnel. But that process worked extremely well. It is a long-term project that has proved outstandingly successful, and it makes one of the key points that I wish to make. The regeneration around that railway line, particularly just outside London, across the river but also right down to the Channel Tunnel, is beyond all estimates that were made about the benefits of HS1. We need to bear in mind—and I shall come on to the benefits to the north of England in this regard—that it is very difficult to make an estimate of what those benefits are, but they have certainly outstripped the early estimates that were made by the Department for Transport.
I have read the report from KPMG, which estimates £15 billion of productivity gains over 20 years. That is to some extent a heroic estimate; it is very difficult for even a distinguished firm like KPMG to make the kinds of estimates that have been bandied around. But for London to Birmingham, there is an overwhelming case for the high-speed line. Not only is the west coast main line pretty much at capacity but, looking forward even 10 years, let alone 50 years, we will need greater capacity, which means faster trains to connect London with the major city of Birmingham. Beyond Birmingham, in the second phase, the same applies. A number of local authorities, particularly in Manchester, Crewe, Wigan, Sheffield and Leeds—as well as with the trans-Pennine connection, HS3—have expressed their views about the future of this project, and they have all been positive, because it will bring a greater and faster connectivity between those great conurbations and the capital. That is an extremely important point. It is very difficult to forecast the actual environmental and economic consequences, but the initial reactions, particularly from Manchester, which I warmly welcome, should be taken into account.
I shall mention one aspect of the proposal that may not have been fully understood. The initial construction of the line is planned to call at Old Oak Common. That is quite important because of its connectivity to Heathrow. I am told and believe that trains will stop for only two minutes for those who wish to get out there before proceeding into Euston. That seems to me to be a real benefit.
Finally, HS1 has turned out to be a tremendous success, and the capacity provided seems to be improving and increasing all the time. It has done a great deal for tourism and business, and I believe that this new project, HS2, and, ultimately, HS3 across the Pennines, will make a tremendous contribution to the productivity and prosperity of this country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I start by making it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity from the Back Benches and that I am not speaking, as I often can do, from the Front Bench. That is to reassure my noble friend sitting in front of me because he might otherwise be a little concerned. I also need to declare an interest as a soon-to-be former resident of a house very close to the line, which is in a tunnel going past where I live. I am not going to address the main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, although I agree absolutely with much of what he said. The questions that he put to the Minister are ones that need to be answered. I shall look at a point that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman.
Given that there are members here of the Lords Select Committee who toiled for a long time over the hot summer, I should say that some of what I am going to say bears on their work, which I salute and acknowledge as being fantastic and a great service to the House. I do this because I know from discussions outside this place that we are about to engage in a revision of the Standing Orders for hybrid Bills, which I think was called for by the chairman at the end of his period as chair of the Select Committee. The revision is to be done jointly with the other place. It is a long and cumbersome process to be done in two stages. The first stage is very much the low-hanging fruit and will result in some good changes that I will allude to, although more things will need to be done. In addition, both Houses need to think carefully about what we are doing when we get involved in this process.
When citizens or external organisations engage with a hybrid Bill, they are engaging with Parliament in a very unusual way. We do not do this very often, and it is important to bear that in mind. We have to make sure that our systems and processes, whether in writing or in person, are not archaic, devised as they were in Victorian times. The jargon and the procedures need to be thoroughly revised. The idea that someone who wishes to raise a point with the hybrid Bill Committee has to do so by praying in a strange way is the sort of thing I am talking about here. It is also important that the two Houses establish without any doubt that they have co-equal powers, as they do on everything else except, apparently, on hybrid Bills, in order that both Houses can act as they see fit in the pursuance of public issues. At the moment it is sort of assumed that the second House has lesser powers. That is unacceptable and we must look at it.
The primary purpose of having a hybrid Bill process has moved on from when it was invented in Victorian times, when largely it seemed to serve the interests and rights of the owners of large plots of land who were being affected by the railway revolution. Nowadays it is effectively a public planning inquiry, so we have to think hard about how we handle it. We should not be doing it as we currently do for all the reasons that everyone understands. I have suggested to the Bill team that is looking at how we deal with these Bills that the fact that this is a planning inquiry means that there is a good case for saying that it should be dealt with as if it were a planning inquiry, with all that means in terms of status, appearance, the right to representation and so on. It is very important that the system allows those who are affected by a project to be heard and that it is more accepting of the various modes of address that individuals who wish to be heard would use. We have to think electronically and digitally as well as people appearing in private.
It is up to the individual to propose how they make their representations. More effort should also be made to ensure there is equality of arms actually in the hearings themselves, should there be the need for public hearings in the form that we have had them in the past. I think that a lot could be done by correspondence and would not involve any public appearance. If there are to be appearances, they have to be grouped, marshalled and conducted in a way that brings out the key points without disadvantaging those who wish to make them in the form they choose. The corollary of that is that where a committee in either House finds that there is an issue that needs redress, the systems under which these redresses are documented, logged and approved must be looked at carefully.
Finally, there is a wider issue here about how we deal with what is called property blight. I do not think there is any doubt that the HS1 Bill team did as much as they could do within the existing law, but I wonder whether that is sufficient. We can all be affected by blight, in whatever form it comes, as can our infrastructure, whether it is gas pipelines, water, a road or a railway. There is merit in a case that was presented to me during the process of the Bill, but I was unable to get any address. I hope the Minister will take this away: if there was a thing called a property blight bond—attached to a property, not a person—it could build up a sort of mutual fund, like national insurance, which could be available to and drawn down by anybody affected by blight. That may sound like a very odd arrangement, but the proposal has come from the insurance industry, which thinks that there is some concern about how one might want to take that forward. I do not expect a positive response to this today from the Minister, although I raised it with her predecessor and did not get a response, so I know that it has been lodged in the department. That applies not only to the Department for Transport but to others as well. I hope that somebody will look at it and take it forward.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the points made by my noble friend Lord Stevenson about the hybrid Bill process are very interesting. I will not speak about them today but I think they need further debate, starting from the basis of why building a new railway is so different from building a new road. It needs modernising; we have talked about it before but we will return to it some time, no doubt.
As has been suggested by a few noble Lords, I will talk about the costs of HS2, because my noble friend Lord Snape talked about a lot of the benefits. I support the scheme—I have said it before, on the record, and I still say it—but I worry about the amount of money that has been committed and will be committed, whether it is good value and what can be done about it. It is interesting to reflect that the recent settlement of about £45 billion for Network Rail for the next five-year control period is to keep the whole of the network operational and safe, not including enhancements. Compare that with the cost of HS1 phase 1: £24 billion, which is about half that figure, or £48 billion if you include phases 2A and 2B, once the five-year period is over. In the Government’s figures, the cost of phase 1 is 50% of all the money given to Network Rail to keep the network going. We can debate whether that is a good balance, but the problem is that very few people outside the Government believe that £24 billion is the likely outturn cost of phase 1, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham.
I have spoken about working on useful alternatives before; I will not repeat them, but there are issues with Wendover, such as the cost of the trains and the speed of the line. The estimate that we came up with, which started off in the appearance of a friend of mine before the House of Lords Select Committee, suggested that the costs, if aggregated for the whole of phase 1, would come out at about double the cost that the Government were estimating for phase 1 of HS2—about £48 billion. Adding phases 2A and 2B would take us up to £100 billion. In the committee, we were never challenged by those at HS2; they said they did not agree, but I asked them where the evidence of their disagreement is and we still do not have it. I am still in discussion with Paul Maynard, the Minister responsible—I will come back to that—and I would like an answer on how the department came up with the cost estimate and where we differ. We must discuss that. It is surprising that the Government have spent £1 billion on consultants for HS2 so far, but cannot come up with a cost that can be looked at.
Compare that with Crossrail and HS1, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said. Crossrail is on time and on budget, as far as I know; it is a very successful project. HS1 was pretty successful too, so there are ways to get the cost right. Since public money is being spent, it is reasonable to suggest that we should get that.
I have suggested to Ministers and officials ways of reducing the costs of HS2 without cancelling it. I do not want to see it cancelled but the costs need looking at. It is a bit of a vanity project. Initially it was said that trains would run at 400 kilometres an hour. They do not run anywhere in Europe at 400 kilometres an hour, and I do not think they do in Japan either. There is an argument for high speed in big countries—such as France, Germany and Italy—but we are not big. The cost increase of the technology needed to go up from the standard 320 kph to 400 is dramatic. Train manufacturers and the people who design and build the track are talking about something like 30% or 40% on costs to achieve that because it takes more power, the tracks have to be straighter and the tunnels have to be bigger, and we must not forget the extra maintenance cost. Once the trains are there and working, the track and train maintenance is much more expensive.
To be fair, the latest HS2 spec has brought the speed down to 360, which is an improvement. However, there are other ways of saving money, such as stopping at Old Oak Common in phase 1. We have all looked at that and agree it would work. Local people have come up with an alternative for the Wendover tunnel which will work very well. It is cheaper and would reduce the environmental impact. There are many other things which I have not got time to go into.
My real worry—I have had discussions with the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord , Lord Ahmad, on this—is whether it is acceptable for so many billions to be spent before there is a firm cost estimate. Demolition has started in Camden—people have been moved out and the ball and chains are starting to fly. We know that this is the kind of estimate at which the MoD is very good when it comes to aeroplanes and battleships and so on, but I am a civil engineer and I expect to get a reasonably firm estimate of a cost before there is a go-ahead to spending so much money.
I hope the Minister will be able to give me some comfort that this can be resolved. Perhaps we can have a meeting. I am due to have a meeting with the Minister, Paul Maynard. The cost needs nailing before it gets to the stage when Ministers say—this may well be after Ministers have changed and so they will no longer be responsible—“Well, it has started and it is too late to stop”.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, for initiating this debate on the biggest infrastructure project in the United Kingdom.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I served on the Select Committee, which sat for many months hearing petitioners who believe they have an issue with the project. In the end, under the extraordinarily patient chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, we did a decent job within the limited powers that we had. I recall one petitioner who was so delighted with our decision that he declared, “It is what I have always said: the Lords do a wonderful job”. My favourite petitioner was an upright, well-dressed gentleman with a magnificent moustache—probably a retired military officer—who told us: “My Lords, my Lady, we do not want these things rattling past our homes”. I asked the sound expert, Rupert Thornely-Taylor, one of the top experts in the world, whether the trains were really going to rattle. He thought for a moment and then replied: “Lord Jones, if they rattle, they are in desperate need of maintenance”. Of course, these trains will go “Whoosh”, and when they are travelling at 330 kilometres an hour they will pass in seconds.
The shortening of journey times is staggering. I will give just three examples: Birmingham to Manchester in just 40 minutes compared to one hour 28 minutes; Leeds to London in one hour 21 minutes, saving 50 minutes; the Manchester-to-London journey time cut almost in half to just over an hour.
One of the greatest problems our country has is lack of productivity. Part of the problem is that businesses, with some notable exceptions, do not invest enough in technology and training. Another part of the problem is our transport system. We spend too much time stuck in traffic jams or travelling on slow-moving, overcrowded and often bumpy trains before we get to our workplace. By making it easier, faster and more reliable for people to move around the country, HS2 will allow individuals to achieve their full potential and give the regions and areas in which they live access to the critical mass of skills, professional services and markets they need to thrive and develop.
HS2 is already acting as a catalyst for change regionally and locally. The West Midlands Combined Authority estimates HS2 could boost the region’s economy by £14 billion and support 100,000 jobs. The east Midlands estimates £4 billion and 74,000 jobs. Manchester believes HS2 could bring 180,000 new jobs and 4,500 new homes are planned for near the station.
The current rail network is nearing capacity. Too many passengers have to stand when travelling by train. Not so long ago I caught a train from Euston to Milton Keynes to attend a Russ Ballard concert at the Stables. It was the Glasgow train, which was absolutely packed, with many passengers forced to stand. When we got to Milton Keynes it felt as though half the passengers got off the train. It took 20 minutes to exit the station.
The same is true in the opposite direction. I travelled from Birmingham to London and could not find a seat until we stopped at Coventry and many passengers alighted. Commuters are using trains aimed at long-distance travellers, resulting in an uncomfortable journey until the commuters get off. HS2 will put an end to that. More commuter trains will use the classic track, meaning all passengers should be able to find a seat. Long-distance passengers will get to their destination much quicker by travelling on the high-speed line.
The environment will benefit too. HS2 will create a new “green corridor” that will connect wildlife habitats through the spine of the country. This network of green spaces, spanning woodland, wetland, ponds, hedgerows, heathland, meadow and farmland, will stretch alongside much of the 345 miles of track from London to the West Midlands, through to the east Midlands, Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds. Some 1,350 hectares—that is 3,340 acres in old money—of wildlife habitats, ranging from woodland and meadow to hedgerows and wetland, will be created. This equates to the size of 4,676 football pitches and is a 33% increase in wildlife habitats along the line route. Some 7 million trees and shrubs will be planted—40 different species covering over 900 hectares. The Select Committee was keen to ensure that there would be no net loss of biodiversity.
Phase 1 of HS2 will emit seven times less carbon than the equivalent intercity car journey and 20 times less than the equivalent domestic flight. In 2030, carbon emissions from the operation of HS2 will form just 0.06% of the projected total of the UK’s transport emissions.
HS2 will create lots of jobs: 25,000 to build the railway, 3,000 to operate and maintain it and over 2,000 apprentices. More than 70% of the jobs will be outside London. Eventually, over 100 million people a year are expected to use HS2 trains when the network is fully completed. I shall follow HS2’s progress with interest.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, for providing us with this opportunity to discuss the progress being made with HS2. I appreciate that the noble Lord has a certain lack of enthusiasm for the project, but our policy, with which I know he does not agree, is to support completion of HS2 from London through Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester, then into Scotland. HS2 was initiated by the last Labour Government and neither the coalition Government in 2010, the Conservative Government in 2015 nor the present Conservative Government cosying up to the DUP have decided to do anything other than continue to make the case for HS2 and proceed with the project. The present Prime Minister may have had her doubts about Hinkley Point when she came into office, but she did not to the best of my knowledge demand a review of the case for HS2. Work on phase 1 of HS2 from Euston to Birmingham has already started, and a year ago the majority of the preferred route for phase 2B of HS2 was confirmed by the Government. Passenger services are planned to commence on phase 1 in 2026 and, subject to approval of the hybrid Bills, on phase 2A between the West Midlands and Crewe in 2027 and on phase 2B in 2033.
The strategic objectives of HS2 are to improve capacity and connectivity and, through that, to stimulate economic growth. A new high-speed network will also provide faster journey times and improved reliability. There is a need to ensure that our rail network has the capacity to meet the long-term demand which will arise not least from economic growth, an increasing population, and the continuing expansion of the UK as a major tourist destination. Our main north-south intercity rail routes are already facing capacity issues, primarily but not solely on the west coast main line. Further incremental improvements will not be sufficient to address those capacity issues, certainly not beyond the mid-2020s. On top of that, there is the reality that significant incremental upgrades result in prolonged and extensive disruption to the quality and speed of services on the parts of the current network being upgraded, which in itself has an economic and social cost.
Alternatives to HS2 have been considered but the conclusion has been reached that building new standard or classic rail lines would not be significantly cheaper than new high-speed lines, nor would their effects on the environment be significantly less than those of high-speed rail. They would also not deliver the same level of benefits as high-speed lines would through improved connectivity, bringing people and businesses together, and enhancing long-term economic growth.
Construction of the line will of course bring significant disruption to the communities affected, including where I live, in just the same way as the construction of our motorway network did or as additional runway capacity in the south-east would, assuming that the Government ever get round to making a final decision on that issue. The disruption from the construction of HS2 is all the worse for communities on the line of route because nearly all of them will get no future direct benefit from HS2 as there will be no stations on the new high-speed route anywhere near them.
The subject of this debate is the impact of HS2 on the economy and the environment. I am not quite clear where the Government now stand on rail improvements and the environment. One argument used by the Secretary of State recently when announcing the largest ever government programme for abandoning or delaying rail electrification schemes, to which that Government had previously been committed or supported, was that the overhead electrification infrastructure was unsightly, unpopular and a blot on the landscape. Will that same consideration, which seems to trouble the mind of the Government in general and the Secretary of State in particular, apply in the case of HS2?
The Chilterns, for example, is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Is the Secretary of State now going to say, consistent with his newly found distaste for overhead electrification infrastructure, that the fleet of new HS2 trains will be bimodal, with no wires or supporting electrification infrastructure, on the new line as it passes through the Chilterns? Is he about to announce that the line will now be in a tunnel right the way from West Ruislip through the Chilterns? That would presumably satisfy those advocating the Wendover short-mined tunnel proposal, as well as addressing the issue of visible, unsightly overhead electrification structures which now appears to be a matter troubling the mind of the Secretary of State.
In our previous debates on HS2, reference has been made to those who have pressed for a link line in west London to enable HS2 services to connect with HS1 via existing south London lines. I am aware that there has been correspondence between advocates of this step and the Department for Transport; there may even have been a meeting. Perhaps the Minister could provide us with an update on what is happening on this issue. There are those who think it rather odd that we have managed to build HS1, running from the south into a terminal on the north side of London, and are about to build HS2, running from the north into an adjacent terminal, but have not managed to provide a connecting link between the two high-speed routes or make any provision for through-running of services.
In reiterating our support for HS2, I hope that the Government will be able to provide some firm assurances today that close attention will be paid throughout the construction process to the need to listen to the communities being adversely affected and to do everything possible to minimise the inevitable negative impacts on them that the construction process will involve. Indeed, along with the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government intend to be actively involved in ensuring that this actually happens and that they do not simply intend to wait for problems to arise before doing anything.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions, and in particular my noble friend Lord Framlingham for giving us the opportunity to discuss this most important issue, the largest infrastructure project in Europe.
Your Lordships will know that I am a relative newcomer to this subject. I recognise the extensive knowledge and experience of noble Lords here today. I have listened to the criticisms of the project by many and welcome the expressions of support. I do not expect my response to satisfy my noble friend Lord Framlingham, as I am well aware of his long-standing views, but I hope to set out the Government’s assessment of the impacts of HS2 on the economy and the environment.
HS2 will transform the railways in this country, but of course I recognise its significant cost. The duty of this Government, and indeed this Parliament, is to ensure that we deliver good value for money for the British taxpayer. HS2 is not just about speed; it is about capacity, connectivity and supporting economic growth.
Our trains are becoming increasingly crowded. HS2 will form the new backbone of our national rail network, providing new capacity and better connecting our major cities. Good rail links bring our country closer together, and HS2 will help improve productivity and lead to a stronger, more balanced economy capable of delivering lasting economic growth and prosperity. Furthermore, people will not need to travel on HS2 to feel the benefits. Moving intercity services on to HS2 will free up space on our existing railways for new commuter, regional and freight services. This will create better connections and thousands more seats for passengers, and of course it will allow more goods to be moved by rail, helping to reduce congestion on the roads.
I turn to the impact on the economy of HS2 and will refer, first, to the important issue of jobs, referred to by many noble Lords. Around 25,000 jobs will be created during the construction, as well as 2,000 apprenticeships. Three thousand people will be employed on maintaining and operating the railway, and the investment around HS2 stations is expected to support 100,000 jobs. This is not just about when the new railway opens; jobs and skills are being created now. Several major contracts, worth over £7 billion, have already been awarded for the enabling and civil engineering works required to build phase 1. These contracts alone are expected to support 16,000 jobs and to generate thousands of indirect contract opportunities for the supply chain. HS2 is working with businesses, trade associations and local stakeholders across the UK, including many small and medium-sized firms, to ensure that they are ready to be involved.
HS2 is also about upskilling. A more skilled workforce is vital for the country. The National College for High Speed Rail, based in Doncaster and Birmingham, will open its doors later this year. The college will train young people to build HS2 and to work on other world-leading rail projects.
I now turn to the question of costs, which, understandably, is of concern to your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, raised the possibility of alternative schemes. At an earlier stage in the process, a number of strategic options were considered, but the decision was then made that none of the alternatives presented a better outcome—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, acknowledged. They would not deliver the same scale of benefits as HS2. We are already upgrading the existing network, but this alone would never deliver the same level of capacity or journey time savings as HS2. As the noble Lord, Lord Snape, explained, it would be extremely disruptive to rail passengers, effectively closing key parts of the rail network for many years.
The current approach was decided and agreed by Parliament, and we must progress it. The Government’s responsibility is now to ensure that the project is delivered on budget and that it represents good value for money. The 2015 spending review reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to HS2, setting a long-term funding envelope of £55.7 billion. The Government are determined, and are on course, to deliver HS2 within this.
We have set HS2 Ltd ambitious targets which would see the programme delivered below the total funding envelope. For example, the Secretary of State has set target design costs reflecting internationally efficient benchmarks to incentivise HS2 Ltd and its contractors to deliver phase 2 below budget.
Many noble Lords have raised the issue of proper scrutiny. I share their desire to ensure that all our costings are accurate. The cost estimates are determined by industry experts, informed by international standards. We expect public scrutiny and have invited independent assurance and examination of HS2 Ltd’s cost estimates. They are examined periodically by the Commons Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, and are regularly reviewed by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a number of points on the importance of clarifying the costs. We have recently published the financial costs as part of the HS2 business case, which I believe is an uncommon step. I know that the Rail Minister will come back to the noble Lord on the points that he has raised with him.
My noble friend Lord Framlingham asked about an independent Treasury review, but as he would expect, the project is already subject to an ongoing rigorous programme of external assurance reviews. The terms of reference for each assurance review are developed with the Treasury and the infrastructure and project authority, with reviews conducted by independent project delivery experts. Given this ongoing scrutiny by the Treasury, the Government do not believe that an independent review is necessary.
Many noble Lords have raised the benefits that HS2 will bring to the north. Economic growth in the north has been constrained by poor connectivity between cities. HS2 will help address this, making it easier for businesses to choose to locate in our great northern and Midlands cities. The majority of benefits from HS2 will be enjoyed in these places, outside of London. HS2 improves journey times between London and the north, but also transforms connectivity between many of our largest cities in the Midlands, the north and in Scotland. We are also committed to northern powerhouse rail—our vision for improving even further journey times and service frequencies between major cities in the north of England. Far from competing with it, HS2 is essential to delivering this vision. The Chancellor announced at conference £300 million of funding to future proof HS2 to accommodate northern powerhouse rail junctions. The Government have also provided Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, the east Midlands and Crewe with funding to develop HS2 growth strategies. They should act as a catalyst for growth and aim to maximise opportunities for new homes and employment.
We want HS2 to be more environmentally responsible than any other major infrastructure project in UK history. Despite it being one of the largest construction projects in Europe, we are committed to reducing its effects on the countryside and on communities. HS2 will play a key part in the UK’s future low-carbon transport system and support the Government’s overall carbon objectives. Noble Lords will be aware that in comparison with most other transport modes high-speed rail offers some of the lowest carbon emissions per passenger kilometre, significantly less than cars and planes. Of course, such a major project requires significant works—a point that many of your Lordships have raised today. We are fully aware of the potential detrimental effect this can have on the environment, so are doing all we can to mitigate it.
The route was designed to minimise environmental impacts wherever possible—the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, highlighted the environmental work that we are doing. We will create a network of new wildlife habitats along the HS2 route. This includes around 7 million new trees and shrubs in the first phase of the railway. We expect to plant the first of these trees this winter, with more than 100,000 new trees in the West Midlands area. In phase 1, we are creating nearly three times as much new woodland as the non-ancient woodland affected by HS2. Of course, ancient woodland is irreplaceable. Although we cannot fully compensate all impacts, we have committed to using best-practice measures such as enhancing linkages between woodlands, reusing ancient woodland soils and creating new mixed deciduous woodland. Over time, we will create a green corridor of connected wildlife habitats which will blend the railway into the landscape and support local species. In addition, we are keen to go beyond the immediate boundaries of the railway and take this opportunity to improve the wider natural environment, in partnership with local people. For example, we have introduced the £5 million HS2 woodland fund to help local landowners create new native, broadleaf woodlands and restore existing ancient woodland sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a number of points on hybrid Bills and the property bond scheme. I will have to read them carefully in Hansard and come back to him.
My noble friend Lord Framlingham asked about monitoring construction activity. HS2 Ltd has an extensive monitoring programme, and a code of construction practice for the scheme will set clear requirements for meeting environmental targets and minimising impacts.
Moving on to the effect this will have on communities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we recognise that the construction of HS2 is not always welcome. We have, however, tried to design the route as far as possible to avoid or reduce negative impacts such as the demolition of properties, excessive noise and impacts on our landscape and natural environments. The Government are committed to ensuring that people feel the widest benefits of the new railway and to compensating those directly impacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asks whether the Government will be taking a keen interest in having conversations with communities throughout the project, and I can assure him that we will do that. The noble Lord also asked about electrification. As the Secretary of State explained at the time, the decision to cancel the planned electrification schemes, including on the midland main line between Kettering and Sheffield, was made to deliver benefits to passengers sooner than would otherwise be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, asked about the departmental response to the report from the group of academics. I understand that some of the report’s authors have written to the DfT over the years and Ministers have responded to their queries and concerns, including many of the issues raised in the report.
I have endeavoured to address as many of the points raised as I can, but where I have not been able to do so I will write to noble Lords. More people are travelling on our railways than ever: since privatisation the number of passenger journeys has more than doubled, almost tripling in key intercity corridors. That is why we need HS2. While alternatives have been extensively considered, they do not provide the required capacity and would be too disruptive to the existing rail network.
I am sure that my response has not satisfied my noble friend Lord Framlingham, but the approach to HS2 has been decided and agreed by Parliament. Our job is now to ensure the successful delivery and cost effectiveness of phase 1. Your Lordships will, of course, have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the phase 2A Bill after its passage through the Commons.
Our plan is to build a stronger, fairer country with an economy that works for everyone—one in which wealth and opportunity are spread across the country. Investment in economic infrastructure, in which HS2 plays an integral role, is a key part of this long-term vision.
Brexit: Least Developed Countries
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Sandwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they intend to provide to the least developed countries in relation to any adverse effects resulting from Brexit.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering this debate at a difficult time for DfID, and I can only wish the new Secretary of State well. I also look forward to hearing from old friends and campaigners today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who is just off an aeroplane, who has wide and continuing experience, especially in Africa.
There are several levels of discussion when it comes to the LDCs and Brexit. I shall focus on trade because it is widely understood that trade can be an effective form of aid. Changes in UK trade policy as a result of Brexit will have profound effects on all developing countries. There are existing concessionary arrangements such as the Everything but Arms agreement, which specifically helps the LDCs. I know that the Minister will not rest his case on the EBA alone, but a fairly strong press release this summer reassured us that the EBA will stay in place. Will it really stay? How can it? It is an EU initiative and there can be no absolute guarantee about anything unless and until we actually leave the European Union.
However, the new White Paper on trade promises duty-free, quota-free access for 49 LDCs, presumably under another form of EBA. It provides for full or partial Generalised Scheme of Preferences for 13 other developing countries and GSP+ for nine countries that are committed to implementing human rights and good governance. So will the Government establish a new category of vulnerable least-developed countries, “VDCs”, and offer them non-reciprocal, tariff-free access with more flexible rules of origin?
EU concessions currently help only about one-third of imports from the poorest countries. I remain concerned about the possible direct effects of withdrawal on the ACP group—the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—which derived from the Lomé Convention and the Cotonou agreement. We will have to sign new economic partnership agreements and FTAs with these countries. Some are cushioned by minerals and cash crops that help to inflate their national GDP while doing little for their population. Commodity prices can appear to make all the difference to a country that, while remaining poor, may not qualify for any concessions. Corruption, the power of elites, and of course conflict can and do distort the economic profile. Highly indebted LDCs are in a category of their own and even potentially wealthy ones like Mozambique are still in default. A country such as South Sudan, the newest of the LDCs, is hardly in a state to be measured at all, yet we must and do make every effort to support it. Zimbabwe will now become another priority.
Some of the poorest countries that are not technically LDCs may suffer from Brexit if they are currently benefiting from an EPA with the EU. Exports to the EU from some middle income developing countries can account for half of their total exports, such as 57% in the case of Seychelles and 47% for Cameroon. Through tariff elimination, young industries in these countries could be exposed to competition. I expect the Minister will say something about EPAs and how we can continue or improve on the present EU arrangements, which are far from ideal, when we are outside the EU. The word “partnership” is used increasingly by the Government as though there will still have to be close trading arrangements with Europe, which must mean with the EU as well. If we are to end up close offshore like Norway we will still be associated with the existing EPAs and other EU trading arrangements.
Then there is the uncertainty factor. No one can yet accurately forecast what Brexit will mean even to citizens of the UK and Europe, let alone to the rest of the world, so this debate may seem premature. Changes are unlikely to occur until the UK is effectively out of the EU and beyond transition, but the same dilemma affects all departments. People directly affected by our decisions, whether they are EU citizens here or small farmers in poorer countries, need to have the answers as soon as possible.
It seems that many who voted for Brexit are now seeing the downside, although it is unlikely they will have the chance to vote again, short of a general election. What we do know is that currency fluctuations have not spared the poorest countries. The 10% fall in the pound in the week post Brexit, for example, along with the UK’s lower GDP, would have led to lower exports from the LDCs. Sterling has suffered again this week. I do not deny there will be opportunities ahead, but we must admit that the present UK economic climate is discouraging.
What of aid? What relationship will the UK have with the EU’s aid programme in the future? Priti Patel said on 18 October:
“An important part of the UK’s future development strategy will be to continue working closely with our European partners”.
Will the Minister spell this out a little? Will he say whether there will be a relationship with the European Development Fund and ECHO, the humanitarian agency? Will the EU become our preferred or most favoured partner in aid and development, as will need to happen in the fields of justice, security and defence?
Returning to trade, I know that the Government are strong supporters of free and fair trade and of the concept of aid for trade. Priti Patel has also said:
“Britain will lead the world in free trade, but, importantly, we will also help the poorest countries to invest in skills, technical assistance and capacity building and create new markets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/17; cols. 825.]
We can all agree with that.
The CDC, for all its failings—it is still monitored in Private Eye—will need to adapt its own style of investment to join DfID in reaching the poorest communities, not from the top down but from the needs of those communities upwards. This is something it still has to learn and we may hear more about that later. We should encourage DfID, through the various watchdogs and committees, to continue this trend and show that CDC can create new jobs directly.
One pathway frequently talked about at the UN, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who could not be here today, is the focus on sustainable development goals. The whole point of sustainability is that whatever scheme is involved, it has to belong to the community and be viable and sustainable or it will simply fail like so many aid programmes. Trade can and should be an essential means of achieving some of the SDGs—notably numbers 8, 9 and 10—and the primary goals of eradicating poverty and hunger. Fair trade is an example which has already proved its own success. Microcredit, when it is properly anchored in loan and credit schemes, is another effective way of reaching the poorest.
Climate change—SDG 13—presents a serious challenge for the LDCs because natural disasters, both sudden and insidious, can overturn years of economic development. Both aid and trade are important because of the need to prevent these disasters through aid and subsidised input, sometimes through large-scale infrastructure and the control of carbon emissions, and targeted action at the micro level. This subject, including the need to implement the Paris agreement, is under urgent discussion in Bonn at the moment.
A question arises about the Sahel and Francophone Africa. Are we saying goodbye to countries such as Mali and Niger, currently an aid and security concern of ours through the EU, simply by pursuing Brexit?
The Commonwealth is, I am glad to say, gaining a higher profile because of the CHOGM in London next April. The Commonwealth is increasingly being mentioned as an alternative for Brexit, a vision of the wider world we need to embrace, but I am not sure that this vision goes very far when you look at the data. The Financial Times recently pointed out that the EU and the Commonwealth are not comparable if you consider the supply chain, for example, in the car-making, aerospace and machinery industries, where the UK is embedded in the EU network. Even countries such as Canada and Australia cannot make up for the components currently being supplied to industries in the UK at competitive prices. Brexit requires radical changes and some of these will impact on all the UK’s present trading partners, including those in the Commonwealth that may enjoy preferences. I look forward to the Minister’s assessment.
In closing, I would briefly like to mention two good friends we have lost who made huge contributions to international development—Lord Joffe, who was well known to this House, a former chair of Oxfam and a hero of South Africa, whose memorial service took place yesterday, and Andrew Hutchinson, head of education at Save the Children, another person of great integrity and moral purpose, who died last week and whose funeral is taking place at this moment in Southwark Cathedral. They will be missed by many.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for tabling this important debate. I endorse practically every word he said. I shall refer briefly to the EU work in the Sahel. It is no good leaving that critical work uninfluenced by British foreign policy. This issue is not often debated in this House or another place and I hope that DfID will look with great care at what we can do to continue to support the work that the EU is currently doing in the Sahel.
I declare my interests as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. As colleagues know, I continue to be involved in matters in Africa—more so on the finance, trade and business side than on development. I too have always believed that the best way to help African countries, and indeed those LDCs in the rest of the world, is to help them into business, production and employment rather than give them handouts. I of course support the work that goes on in health, education and many other areas, but I believe it is critical to include the work on economic development. That is why I was glad to read the previous Secretary of State’s commitment on 24 June this year to help the world’s poorest by securing existing duty-free access to UK markets, as well as providing new opportunities to increase trade links. This will apply to the 48 countries that continue to benefit from duty-free exports to the UK on all goods, other than arms and ammunition.
It is worth reading DfID’s Economic Development Strategy. More than £20 billion-worth of goods per annum is shipped from these countries to the UK and, with that strategy, outlined by DfID earlier this year, that sum should increase steadily provided that the funding arrangements for training and business development in the LDCs continue. That has to underpin the national programmes for skills development, in which the EU—and other member states in the EU—have been much involved. They continue to help one another in this respect.
The serious co-ordination of cross-country assistance to the LDCs has to extend beyond Britain’s boundaries and we have to maximise the improving use of development assistance. I know that the UK has been a very positive contributor to the better use of funds with many of our development partners, and this needs to continue beyond March 2019. I hope that the new Secretary of State, Penny Mordaunt, will continue Priti Patel’s important focus on job-creating growth in our own development programmes, regardless of who originated the programmes. With a very much better budget than I ever enjoyed as the Minister for Development, it may be possible for us to put money into programmes paralleling those in the EU when we are no longer a member. Economic development and the training and skills from which so many LDCs benefit at present have to be protected if we are to be honest with ourselves in relation to what development is about. Thus, I urge colleagues to see that we continue the good things in the EU development programme beyond March 2019.
We also need to make sure that this sad departure of the UK from the EU will not be used as an excuse not to do things. I hear far too many pretty ignorant comments about what we will not do in the future. One thing that we will be doing is good development assistance. I am very glad to learn that Rory Stewart, who is a Minister for both the Foreign Office and DfID—something that I enjoyed on the Africa score for many years—has just set up a special review of development assistance in the event of our exit, which seems likely. I hope that this debate will be able to contribute to Foreign Office and DfID thinking on the changed situation that we will face.
I should like to say one word on Mozambique. It desperately needs our help. It is trying to find a way out of its debt situation but it is in some considerable difficulty. I hope that Britain will be able to help.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Sandwich on bringing forward this very important subject. The noble Baroness and I shared many happy hours in the other place and, even then, more united us than divided us, and I am glad that that is still the case. We are talking about dealing with what we now call lesser developed countries. We used to call them underdeveloped countries; the jargon has changed quite a bit. I hope noble Lords realise that this is an extremely important issue.
People tend to speak about gross domestic product, the average wage and so on. I am going to take a slightly different approach. On 11 November, the Economist published a couple of very useful articles about Africa and the lack of capacity for people there to access electricity. That is a different approach but nevertheless quite useful. Some of the figures are astonishing. For example, in South Africa, which is arguably the most highly industrialised country in Africa, 28% of people still have no access to electricity. In Nigeria, the figure is between 25% and 49%. In Mozambique, it is between 50% and 70%. The astonishing thing is that the Cahora Bassa dam in Mozambique, which is a major power supplier, sends most of its electricity to South Africa. It does not stay within the country itself.
There is a conundrum as far as the future is concerned. Everyone wants industry to grow but it cannot grow without electricity, and the electricity supply cannot expand without businesses to buy the product. In Kenya in particular, a lot of work has been done on solar panels and innovative pricing methods for the product. Nevertheless, there will still be a need for large energy suppliers. We know from our own experience how difficult it is to arrive at a decision about when to build a new power station. If it is bad for us, how difficult must it be for countries without the capacity to do so? We have to grow these economies. Although the Kenyan experiment is useful, without large energy suppliers they cannot have the business. How are we going to square the circle and resolve that conundrum?
There is much to be done, possibly by the World Bank and other agencies, to take a risk and build the electricity supply before the demand is there; otherwise, things will never move. Unless we act soon and properly on the energy supply in what we call the lesser developed countries, we are in very great danger that in 10, 20 or 30 years from now, we will be in the same place, arguing the same questions but in a slightly different way. This is an extremely important issue and one which the Government need to take account of. When we go into the post-Brexit talks, a lot of technical matters will be involved. But much more important are the matters of principle and practice that need to be addressed. I unfortunately see no signs at the moment that the Government have any idea of how they are going to proceed. I hope that this debate helps to clear their mind.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandwich on organising this debate. Much debate on Brexit is about what will happen over the next 21 months or so, and it is good to be able to look a bit beyond that. Indeed, it is good to look at some aspects of Brexit that might conceivably even be of some advantage to the United Kingdom, rather unusually.
The size and structure of the British aid programme has been rightly admired around the world, if, alas, not always in this country. The focus on aid to the least developed countries has been a key part of that, together with the very good work of NGOs, which has not been mentioned so far today and which deserves great praise. It has made a real difference to the lives of some very poor people around the world. I hope that the emphasis in the aid programme on the least developed countries will continue after Brexit. I cannot see why it should not; indeed, I can see every reason why it should. It would be good to have confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case.
Less than perfect administrative capacity is inevitable in the least developed countries, which means that the misuse of aid must be minimised. However, it will never be eliminated. We have to accept that, from time to time, there will inevitably be complaints about the way in which aid has been used; alas, that will not always go down well in the papers here, but it is an inevitable consequence of a focus on the least developed countries. There will always be tensions too between the wish to support the poorest people in poor countries and real concerns about supporting countries with questionable political systems.
The key here—I very much agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—is that the FCO and DfID should work closely together and complement one another. I am sure that they will do that in future, after the adventures of the past few weeks. For the avoidance of doubt, and as a Cross-Bencher, I should say that poor relationships between the FCO and DfID are not new and not a prerogative of any one particular political party. As Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, I remember calling on Prime Minister Meles in Addis Ababa to pass on the rather firm message from Prime Minister Blair and the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that locking up the opposition was not the best way to burnish his social democratic credentials—only to find that the DfID representative in Addis Ababa had called on the Financial Minister the very same day and promised him a rather large sum of money. I did not feel that that enhanced the message I was trying to give. However, I am quite sure that that will not happen in the future.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, trade is important. I am glad that the Government have said that after Brexit they will, as a minimum, provide the same level of access to developing countries as the current EU trade preference schemes. That is a very important commitment. The EU has not been as generous as it might have been in its trade policy to developing countries. I hope that the Government, outside the European Union, may be able to devise more generous policies, especially to the poorest countries. I welcome anything the Minister can say about that too.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I should remind myself and the Committee that I was in development for a long time, working for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I am historical because I became its chief executive about 30 years ago. Subsequently, of course, my noble friend Lady Chalker was my boss, so I had to pay very careful attention. If I may make a personal remark, I much preferred it then. It would be better today if DfID were part of the Foreign Office; making it a separate department was a mistake, and remains so.
I will duck Brexit because I do not have the slightest idea what will happen after it, and in the life of CDC, it will not make any significant difference, whatever the agreement or whichever way it goes. We are in long-term economic development. We will have investments at the time and will be making more, so I do not think it will make any difference. Co-operation with our European and United States partners, such as the IFC, DEG in Germany and FMO in Holland, goes on all the time and will undoubtedly continue. We will have joint investments and so we will have to talk to each other in a quiet and friendly way, otherwise things will not go well.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that for the 70 years of its history, CDC has been investing in power stations and electricity distribution, using hydroelectric as well as conventional electricity. It is still doing that; at the moment, it is working very hard in Sierra Leone on power generation and distribution. Of course that is tremendously important. You cannot have economic development and you cannot increase trade unless you have things to sell—and you do not have things to sell unless you create the companies to produce things that people want to buy. In the long term, it is economic development that tells the story.
I want to illustrate that point by talking about three countries. The Comoros have 800,000 people who are Sunni Muslim and $1,500 of income per capita. They were French—there are three islands and the French kept the fourth one, presumably because it was the best—and 300,000 Comorans live in France. How do you do long-term development for those islands? They export vanilla, which you can synthesise—but still, they export natural vanilla—and they have a tourist trade, with very good snorkelling. They also have political instability.
Then we go to the other end of the scale and the countries that are the least developed. Ethiopia has $1,900 dollars per capita and 105 million people. It has a difficult history, but it is the country from which coffee came. Coffee has not been mentioned specifically, but the way in which the European Union behaves about coffee is scandalous. It debars the least developed countries effectively from processing their own coffee; it tells them, “You can send us beans”. So there are things that might get better after Brexit. In Ethiopia, 45% of the population are Ethiopian orthodox Christians—rather different from 98% Sunni. In the middle, you have Tanzania with 50 million people. It was German but then it became British.
When you are thinking about aid, trade and economic development, it is incredibly important to understand the complexity of what you are engaged in and the amount of information that you have to collect. The banners that are put up to say that we are going to do the same thing everywhere just do not work.
It is incredibly important that we continue with a development finance institution such as the CDC, which puts people on the ground and has technology, electricity generation and distribution, and mobile telephones, for example. It used to have—and I hope it will have again—a lot of sophisticated agricultural technology, and will continue with the business of long-term economic development. Please may we cease to argue about the relative benefits of aid, trade and economic development? They all have their place but, if you want to solve the problems, it is economic development that will do it.
Viscount Craigavon (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandwich for raising this debate and focusing our minds on this aspect of international development. For what it is worth, and as a fellow strong Brexit supporter, I hope that I may congratulate Penny Mordaunt on becoming the new Secretary of State, and wish her well.
One positive result of Brexit will be that we, this country, will be forced to address more carefully the merits and advantages of how we spend taxpayers’ money, which in the past we left to the EU, rather than handing over large sums and leaving it to the EU largely to decide the best way in which to disburse it. In theory, in the longer term, that should lead to the need for more parliamentary debate and input on this subject. However, in contributing to this debate, I realise that the immediate bridging on departure from the EU will lead to some difficult consequences, particularly in trade, that need to be addressed. Obviously, we should continue to co-operate closely with EU countries on the ground but, at the end of the day, crucial decisions will be ours. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, we can be more generous.
Usually, and rightly, underpinning debates such as this are the sustainable development goals—and I shall come back later to what I believe to be important about that, if I have time.
We should congratulate the department on already having announced, as other Lords have noted—that on leaving the EU it intends to continue the EBA—Everything But Arms—scheme that provides the least developed countries with duty-free market access. The announcement went further, without many details, to the effect that improved market access would be offered to the next tier of countries. We should also be grateful to the NGOs that have been prompting DfID in this direction. For many countries, their narrow range of products, such as sugar or coffee, would not be competitive in our market unless such preferences were given. We understand that there is also a commitment to trade in a way that protects human rights and the health and safety of workers. Existing agreements and preferences could be improved in negotiating the new arrangements. However, given the pressures we will now be under in other areas to safeguard our own general position and interests, we will need to rely on the relevant countries to come forward, with their allies in this country—the NGOs and businesses affected here.
I come to the subject of support—the word in the title of this debate—that is given by DfID other than through trade, in financial assistance. For example, in the Government’s paper, Foreign Policy, Defence and Development—a Future Partnership Paper, mention was made of the positive leadership of the UK in calling a family planning summit in London earlier this year, along with seven other EU member states, in the build-up to 2020. In her introductory speech at the summit the then Secretary of State said that the UK would boost its support for family planning around the world by 25%, and that that commitment would last until 2022. We have been trying to lead other EU countries in this field for some time and I hope that we may continue to do that.
After the worrying withdrawal of the American contribution in this field, we are now the lead donor to the United Nations Population Fund, and it is vital that this continues, along with the contributions of other EU countries. In the opinion of many, and as stated in the SDGs, successful reproductive health programmes are one of the keys to sustainable development. It is accepted that such investment in that field yields a benefit to that society many times over. The Sahel, which has been mentioned by two noble Lords, is a region that needs much encouragement in the area of reproductive health.
I hope that, even in the uncertain times to come, DfID will find it desirable to prioritise such investment in reproductive health. In this field, and in much of what we have heard today, many fine words and good intentions have been expressed. I hope that we and the department can live up to them and deliver what we all hope for.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for initiating this important debate. During my 25 years in Parliament, I have devoted some of my time to understanding and supporting the work carried out by the Department for International Development.
I also have an interest in spreading democracy, and have been to several countries in Africa, including Mozambique and Sierra Leone—two of the countries mentioned today as being most in need of help—and to the Palestinian territories, as an observer of their elections. Observing elections is always a fascinating and uplifting experience. The UK uses its international development policy to address a number of global challenges, including poverty, diseases, climate change, migration and state fragility. While we are a highly generous donor, we cannot hope to solve these problems alone and need to work with other donors and to mobilise them to pursue similar goals.
It is possible—indeed likely—that, as a result of Brexit, the EU’s development focuses will shift. The central and eastern European countries are keen on diverting EU aid from the poorest countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, towards the EU’s eastern neighbourhood, something which the UK—quite rightly —has so far resisted. The migration crisis has also strengthened calls for diverting EU aid.
A potentially long and painful Brexit-induced recession may force the Government to make cuts and abandon the 0.7% overseas aid target. In September this year, the UK Government published a policy paper, Foreign Policy, Defence and Development—a Future Partnership Paper, which stated that,
“the UK will continue to use its international development budget through its international development partnerships, to advance global development impact or to tackle specific country problems”.
I was encouraged by that. However, the former Secretary of State, Priti Patel, said in October that leaving the EU would allow the Government to reclaim billions of pounds of annual aid funding currently diverted via Brussels. It could then be used not only for “humanitarian” work, but for,
“prosperity, Britain post Brexit, trade and economic development”.
She said this to the Commons International Development Committee. She added:
“There are a whole raft of opportunities”,
where we can use that money for,
“our national interest, global Britain’s interest, as well as helping to alleviate poverty around the world”.
The primary purpose of development should be lifting the poorest people in the world out of poverty, not serving the Government’s post-Brexit trade strategy.
When Hurricanes Irma and Maria tore through the Caribbean in September, the UK Government came under sharp criticism for a slow and seemingly reluctant effort—although they got there eventually—in the recovery of its Overseas Territories, including the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands. One of the excuses used by DfID was that, under international rules, those islands are too wealthy to be eligible for official development assistance. That may be so, but these are UK Overseas Territories. They are not independent countries; they each have a UK governor. They are our responsibility and we carry any liability caused by unusual and devastating events such as hurricanes. Frankly, neither France nor the Netherlands had any hesitation in getting support to their overseas territories.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What discussions have the Government had with the Department for Exiting the European Union to ensure that funding for British Overseas Territories is protected in real terms if and when the UK leaves the EU? What assessment have they made of the UK’s ability to commit to spending 0.7% of the UK’s GNI on overseas development assistance after we have left the EU?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for initiating the debate. Over the weeks and months ahead we will have plenty of opportunity to debate even further. We will have more time.
A cliff-edge Brexit will have catastrophic consequences. As we heard yesterday in your Lordships’ EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, JP Morgan’s contingency plans include beefing up its operations in Ireland, Germany and Luxembourg in preparation for a hard Brexit. We see from reports this afternoon that that seems quite possible. There is no doubt that many in the development community fear the consequences of a cliff edge and face the need to make contingency plans. What discussions have DfID had with NGOs to address such fears? What will be the position of INGOs receiving funds from DfID on funding from DfID and the EU post Brexit? Will British NGOs have to register elsewhere, such as in Scandinavian countries, to secure and obtain EU funding?
According to the Minister, in Hansard vol. 783,
“the UK contributed £935 million in overseas development assistance to the EU budget in 2015 through core funding. In addition, DfID contributed £392 million to the European Development Fund”.—[Official Report, 4/7/17; col. 783.]
That is significant, and in DfID’s multilateral development review the EDF was deemed among the most effective of any multilateral organisations. The noble Lord argued that decisions on whether we want to contribute or stay out of the EDF will be made as part of the process of exiting the EU, asserting,
“at least we have a choice”.—[Official Report, 4/7/17; col. 783.]
Does that mean a choice not to support the most effective programmes—a choice not to augment our priorities through partnership in the EU?
I welcome the Government’s approach to trade policy towards developing countries, released by DfID, but it is not as generous as it may appear. As we have heard, the strategy addresses everything but arms agreements, which allows for the UK to negotiate agreements unilaterally, but it does not address the economic partnership agreements which are vital to many developing countries in terms of trade going into the UK and the EU. How are the Government going to address this issue in negotiating Brexit? Are we meant to be satisfied by the assertion that they will continue until Brexit? What about the requirement for planning, the longer term commitments, the 10-year plans? All we hear from the Government is that the details will be handled as part of the exiting EU strategy. We are told the UK strategy is a cross-government, cross-Whitehall approach about where our priorities should be. Is DfID there when crucial decisions are being made?
Under EU law, it is required that trade policy promotes sustainable development. Liam Fox commented that the Government are committed to helping developing countries grow their economies and reduce poverty through trade. However, the recently published Trade Bill has been described as a missed opportunity by the Fairtrade Foundation for the Government to place poverty reduction at the heart of future trade deals and to ensure open and democratic scrutiny of future trade negotiations.
We are told that the UK is committed to ensuring that when companies source from developing countries they do so in a way that protects the human rights of workers and their health and safety—we heard this in the debate from the noble Viscount—but I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure that forthcoming deals being negotiated by his colleagues in the Cabinet are properly assessed to avoid unintended knock-on damage to poverty reduction and human rights.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in paying tribute to the noble Earl for securing this debate and for the way he has set the scene. I particularly thank him for his good wishes to the new Secretary of State, Penny Mordaunt. She has already addressed staff at DfID stressing her priorities, one of which will resonate with many in this Room—disability. She was Minister for Disabilities at DWP, an area I know well and on which we are already doing a great deal of work. We can look for that to be enhanced in the future.
The focus of this debate is on the implications of exiting the European Union; our trading relationships with developing countries; our future development partnership with the EU; and annual UK development assistance. On the sums referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, this morning we had the timely publication of Statistics on International Development 2017, which gives the latest figures for 2016. These show that the annual development assistance channelled through the EU was £1.5 billion in 2016. This comprises 15% of the EU development funding and consists of contributions to EU Budget Heading IV instruments of £1.031 billion and to the European Development Fund of £473 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what arrangements there might be going forward. We will continue to work closely and in parallel with the EU in many areas. I will come on to these later and particularly touch on the Sahel. However, there are structural changes that the EU will need to make. For example, the European Development Fund would not allow a non-member state to be a member. Although I accept that it is a well-performing fund, it would need to be opened up and made available to non-members if the UK was to continue to be part of it.
The EU’s development priorities are closely aligned with the UK’s—indeed, they have to a considerable extent been shaped by the UK during our EU membership. However, where the EU currently provides development assistance to more than 140 countries, UK aid is focused on 32 priority countries—the noble Earl referred to this, saying that where aid is needed most is in the difficult areas, in the tough areas. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to the mission of CDC as being to work in the most difficult and challenging areas. That is where we focus our effort.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in paying tribute to the work done by British NGOs around the world. One of the most shocking statistics we see is that for the deaths of humanitarian workers. Sadly, in many conflicts humanitarian workers are targeted for delivering humanitarian aid. We should honour the sacrifice that so many of those NGOs make. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, whether I had met the NGOs. I had a round table recently with the major NGOs that work with DfID, including Bond, where we discussed this very issue. I have relayed its concerns and we are working with the Department for Exiting the European Union to ensure that our world-class NGOs are not disadvantaged by any changes.
The question of how much will be reallocated to DfID is subject to agreement with the Treasury. DfID has a tried-and-tested resource allocation process that has enabled us to deliver the Government’s target of 0.7% of GNI for five consecutive years. I am confident that we would be able to absorb any additional funds allocated to us. Of course, it would be premature to announce detailed spending plans, not least because there are significant areas of uncertainty, such as the point at which the UK will stop making contributions to the EU—the noble Lord mentioned that many such contracts are long-term engagements. That needs to be fully clarified. Another area is how the EU will respond once UK funding ceases; specifically, whether member states will increase their ODA contributions to compensate for a 15% reduction in the EU’s development budgets. Finally, it is uncertain what the UK’s ODA budget will be in future years, as it is linked by law to gross national income, which by its nature fluctuates.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, touched on power supply, which is a crucial element. Just as with economic development in this country the maxim is that investment follows infrastructure, so it is true everywhere else. Where there is investment in infrastructure, it acts as a catalyst for investment. As my noble friend Lord Eccles mentioned, it is a prime reason why we are increasing the resource available to CDC. In some of the areas I work on, I am struck by how many incredible solutions—in education, for example—can come through use of tablets and computers, yet the absence of electricity makes them a non-starter. In economic development, mobile payment technology is liberating parts of east Africa through the TradeMark East Africa project, but some people are missing out simply because they do not have electricity. Therefore, the advance of solar power, particularly small-scale solar power, is revolutionising what we can do in those areas.
I remind noble Lords of our recent commitment to remain the largest donor to the International Development Association, which in its next cycle will double the resources going to fragile states, as well as of our decision significantly to scale up our contribution to CDC to support its job-creating investment activities. Together with our multilateral reform efforts, this will deliver a higher volume and quality of resources to the least developed countries.
We have incredible expertise here, including former Permanent Secretaries—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was at the Foreign Office at the time of the incredible Gleneagles agreement, which was certainly a landmark under the previous Labour Government. Our longest-serving Overseas Development Minister, my noble friend Lady Chalker, talked about close working between the FCO and DfID—a number of noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, mentioned this as well. For the first time, we now have joint Ministers between departments in Rory Stewart and Alistair Burt. We have new cross-Whitehall funds: the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund; the prosperity fund; and the empowerment fund. They are distributing aid and, together, forcing that effort of co-ordination. I would like to be able to say, hand on heart, that the Addis Ababa experience will not be repeated, but I think the chances are reduced, especially now that when you visit a lot of these missions, we are co-located with the Foreign Office in buildings. That seems a very sensible way forward.
Turning to the future, it is in the UK’s interest that the EU remains a strong development partner after we have left, and that we work coherently on helping the world’s most vulnerable. On 12 September we published the future partnership paper referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins. In it, we expressed our desire for future co-operation with the EU that goes beyond existing third country arrangements, building on our shared interests and values. We look forward to formal discussions in phase 2 of the negotiations. In the meantime, as a member state, we are engaged in discussions with the European Commission and other member states on a successor to the Cotonou agreement. Through those discussions, we are pushing for more flexible EU development instruments after 2020 to allow greater co-operation with non-member states.
I turn now to a point made by my noble friend Lady Chalker and the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Jones—the situation in the Sahel. The UK is one of the largest donors to humanitarian relief in the Sahel. Between 2015 and 2018, the UK will provide nearly £190 million of humanitarian assistance to support over 2.3 million people affected by conflict. To the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who spoke on this, perhaps the most encouraging part of this update is that, given the ongoing development of the humanitarian political challenges faced by the region, it is significant that the UK will have a new, permanent office in Chad before the end of the year, comprising a DfID/FCO joint mission. I hope noble Lords will be encouraged by that.
I want to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on overseas territories. Of the £62 million that we provided immediately for those who suffered Hurricanes Irma and Maria, only £5 million was ODA-eligible, but that did not stop us—quite rightly, as the noble Lord urged—from recognising our responsibilities under law and under the UN charter to care for and protect those important citizens in the overseas territories. The UK Government share a responsibility with overseas Governments to ensure the security and prosperity of British citizens living in those territories. Part of the UK’s support to overseas territories is provided through the EU. The European Commission has already assured our overseas territories that they will receive their full allocation from the EDF.
I am conscious that time is running out, but I know this issue is of great concern. Perhaps I can close with some good news that I have heard through the usual channels: an additional debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Nicholson on the economic development strategy of the Department for International Development has been secured next week; on Wednesday, I think.
Lord Bates
The usual channels are working in their wonderful way. It may indeed be on Monday the following week—yes, the usual channels have just informed me that it will be on the 27th. I hope that will be another opportunity to follow up on this, but I thank the noble Earl again for an informed, interesting and helpful debate.
Arts: Government Support
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the contemporary practice of the arts, including music, drama, dance and the visual arts.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, UNESCO in 2015 summarised its 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist, which refers to the legislation and public policies that a member state should have, by describing their two objectives: first, acknowledging the important role that artists play in society; and secondly, encouraging creative expression and ensuring equitable treatment for professional artists by developing appropriate measures which respond to their unique circumstances and the atypical manner in which they work.
As I will endeavour to show, these are fundamental objectives that we are in danger of losing sight of. As UNESCO recognises, the work of the artist is a contribution to society. That is its value. The arts as a project of contemporary work should not have to justify themselves economically, despite the money spent over the years at the behest of successive Governments in doing so and despite whatever the results of such surveys are. The artist, in whatever medium, needs living costs, time, resources and space to develop their own particular practice, often over a long period of time; and space, too, for display or performance.
What I am not sure about is where exactly in government the responsibility for support for this work lies. One of the reasons I wanted to have this debate was to pull the work of artists out from the position where it has sat uncomfortably within the creative industries grouping, which emphasises economic success—although, since the departmental reorganisation earlier this year, it appears to straddle that and a policy area that stresses the importance of tourism, including our national museums and galleries. Where precisely within the department does the responsibility for enabling the UNESCO objectives lie?
This is a vital question. If we went by the headline news, the success of the creative industries—remarkable capital projects such as the St Ives Tate extension, and the outstanding work that is produced—one might, as a consumer of the arts, particularly if you live in London, be led to believe that everything in the garden is rosy. The reality is different. The great majority of practitioners—whether in fine art, music, writing, theatre or dance—are finding it increasingly difficult to carry out their work properly.
From 2010 to 2015, Arts Council funding fell by 36% and in real terms is set to drop further. Local authority investment in arts and culture is down 17% since 2010. By and large, these moneys are not replaceable, despite government exhortation to find alternative methods of funding. This is proved through the reduced budgets of theatres, orchestras and dance companies. Local museums, galleries and performance spaces have had to reduce access or close their doors, while art centres have had to cut back significantly on mounting innovative work. This is exemplified too by the decreasing income amongst the majority of creators. The visual artists support organisation a-n, in its new survey, shows that 41% of its membership has a total income from any source of less than £10,000 a year. According to the London mayor office’s briefing, shockingly, most professional dancers earn less than £5,000 a year.
A concern for artists and musicians is fair remuneration for their work. In 2016, 28% of openly offered opportunities for visual artists offered no payment. A working group on paying artists has been set up by a-n to tackle the issue, yet clearly public spaces, the main target of the campaign, also need to receive the funding from central government to offer properly paid opportunities.
Many artists are self-employed and their incomes will fluctuate significantly throughout the year. As Artists’ Union England points out, the rollout of universal credit and loss of tax credits, as discussed earlier today in the Chamber, will have a hugely damaging effect on livelihoods. As Artists’ Union England says,
“the DWP should not penalise artists for being poor”.
The cuts have adversely affected women, especially those with family commitments. There needs to be greater encouragement of women as arts project leaders, something that the Arts Council can take a lead in. The more there is gender equality in the arts, including in hierarchical situations, the healthier our arts will be, and I ask the Minister to comment on this.
A particular concern is the increasing threat to spaces for the arts in our towns and cities—concerns flagged up by both a-n and Equity. In London, 30% of affordable artist studios are set to be lost in the next two years, while 40% of small-scale live music venues have been lost in the last 10. For artists, this adds on even more financial pressure. The problems are growing gentrification, cash-strapped councils, which are selling buildings for development, and now the problem of the loosening of planning regulations. Zoning is, in the end, not an ideal answer. A properly holistic approach to community development from our city governments and local authorities is desperately needed, and that requires a radical approach which must include rent capping. The effect in London is that many artists are leaving the city altogether. This is not a desirable outcome.
One of the more oddly disturbing effects of the cuts is the extent to which the use of new media in arts projects has stalled, as noted in this year’s report on digital culture by the Arts Council. This has, for example, been true for both the Norwich Theatre Royal and the Hull Truck Theatre, which say that they,
“often have creative ideas for digital projects which might support or enhance ... work on stage, but fail to realise them for reasons such as capacity, resource … or funding”.
In the current circumstances, the Arts Council has, rightly, this year got money to the regions, where it is needed, although by doing so one feels that it is moving into territory that should be covered by local authorities. It is high time that the damaging cuts to local authorities and the Arts Council were reversed, enabling artists throughout the whole country to carry out their work.
On a related funding matter, there is some concern over the future of the lottery. I ask the Minister whether the department is keeping an eye on this and in what way?
I will talk briefly about arts education in schools, not least because every area of the arts I have spoken to raises this as a major concern. Many of us would implore the department to have serious talks with the DfE about an education policy that is already being destructive not only to the arts but to all of the creative industries. As NESTA has said, the pipeline needs to be fixed for STEAM talent. From the point of view of arts practice, my fears are, first, that it will affect diversity, and we are seeing this already in the acting profession. Secondly, by turning those who study the arts into second-class citizens, we will be producing in a generation a less sympathetic environment into which new artists launch themselves. The effect of the EBacc is now significantly reducing take-up of many arts subjects, and there is anecdotal evidence in schools that this unsympathetic environment is already developing.
I end by saying a few words about Brexit. Many of the arts, including, for example, dance companies, share with the creative industries a huge concern over the potential loss of workers from the EEA. This is not just the loss of an employment pool; it is also about innovative collaboration and cultural exchange between artists. However, the particular concern of artists and companies is about movement the other way—into Europe. The loss of free movement would be disastrous for those often young British artists starting out on their career and wanting to develop their practice in other environments, often in a work situation. It will be disastrous too for those who make multiple visits abroad as part of their professional commitments. The Incorporated Society of Musicians notes that musicians may travel to Europe over 40 times a year. Dance companies too may give dozens of performances a year within Europe. Visas will be simply unrealistic. One Dance UK also points out concerns about possible increased freight costs, such as those involving the movement of sets and costumes.
The phrase that terrifies me most is “attracting the brightest and the best”, because if we leave the EEA and this is to be the reciprocated policy, then only the privileged—that is, the established and the salaried—will be able to move freely between the UK and the rest of Europe. We will need a workable non-bureaucratic solution that does not penalise the less well-off.
The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society makes the point that continuing concerns about copyright, transparency, contracts and fair pay for authors, which are bound up with the EU draft directive on the digital single market, are still to be resolved, and we need to grasp that opportunity to create a fairer deal. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, has displayed sympathy over those Brexit concerns. What we have not had from government, however, is any response that allays these fears.
On a more general note, the voices of artists need to be heard more clearly within government. What round-table talks has the Secretary of State had with artists and practitioners? Perhaps they should have membership on the Creative Industries Council; currently, there is no direct representation from creators, the council being made up of industry, grant-funding bodies and the commercial end of the sector.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate. I want to concentrate on museums and their possible role in relation to contemporary practitioners of art and craft. It may be time to have a bit of a policy think about this subject.
As we know, museums are rather arbitrarily divided between national museums and local government or provincial museums. I think that the division has probably got more to do with visitors to this country than anything intrinsic to museums. I want to give one example of funding. There is a small, very good national museum in London which has 120,000 visitors a year. It gets from the DCMS in core funding £1,750,000. In the north-east, in County Durham, is the largest provincial museum in the country, with arguably the finest collections of any provincial museum—the Bowes Museum. It is funded by a small county under great pressure, which has lost its coalmines and steelworks—not an easy place for local government to operate. The museum has £350,000 of core funding, and 120,000 visitors. So the finest provincial museum has the same visitor numbers as a small national museum in London—a very good museum, but I am not going to name it—but that London museum is getting five times the core grant that the Bowes Museum is getting. That does not seem to me easily defensible, with regard to a national policy towards museums. I would be most grateful if the DCMS and my noble friend on the Front Bench could take account of that matter. Perhaps I could suggest that we have a meeting to discuss this issue in more depth and detail, because it is a very serious one.
Another point about museums is that, when funding is tight, it is quite difficult for them to keep up with contemporary art, which is expanding at a rapid pace and in many different directions—digital was mentioned by the noble Earl. For example, if you go to the Ashmolean, a very fine museum, and look at its collection of 20th and early 21st-century studio pottery, you will see some very fine pottery, including pieces by Lucy Rie, a pot by whom sold for £125,000 in Christie’s about a fortnight ago. But it is a very small collection, absolutely nothing like the size of its 18th-century collection or 19th-century ceramics. How are those museums going to keep up? Frankly, with the funding situation and the challenge, I do not think they are.
Another serious policy position is around where museums have got to and where they are going. Will they have closed collections, like the Wallace Collection, never acquiring, lending or disposing anything? Those are big issues, and I think that they should be considered in some depth, which is not happening at the moment.
Museums need to think about life differently. We have started that at the Bowes Museum. We have created a centre for contemporary art, craft and design. Incidentally, it is currently privately funded. Its purpose is to work with practitioners in the north of England to see how we can support them and how they can relate to a museum and the collections we have. It is becoming more difficult to relate today’s generation to museums than it used to be because, again, of the way things have moved on. A minimalist approach to living is prevalent, but there are all sorts of other reasons.
I hope the DCMS will review the situation because it will not get any better. The fact of the matter is, however much we appeal for it, there is no more money available to be distributed. We have to find other ways. Surely they must include a policy approach, self-help and a functioning of the funding system, such as it is, that is more appropriate to the needs of today than the one that exists at present.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who made an excellent summary of the issues facing artists and the difficulties placed on them following the Brexit referendum, with a squeeze on funding and a rise in the cost of living. In the time I have I will concentrate my attention on the visual arts. In doing so, I declare my experience as a fine artist.
As the noble Earl said, probably the most critical issue facing the visual arts is the shrinking of arts provision in state schools due to curriculum changes and the concentration on STEM. This, coupled with the Government’s doctrinaire support of the EBacc and the absence of arts subjects within its metric, is steadily eroding the number of students who might wish to consider a career in the arts as the opportunities to be exposed to creative and arts subjects decline.
Given the extraordinary success of our creative industries, our world-class art colleges, the international calibre of our visual artists and London being the second-largest art market in the world, you would have thought it an astonishing own goal not to fund creative arts subjects to a level that reflects their importance to our economy. Yet that is exactly what the Government are doing. Aside from the cultural benefits of the arts there are direct economic benefits for this country. We must act to defend them and safeguard the next generation of workers for our creative industries. It would therefore be good to know what steps the Government are taking to support arts provision at primary and secondary level.
When thinking about this debate, I was particularly struck by a stark statistic provided in a parliamentary briefing by a-n, the Artists Information Company, in its 2017 survey. This is, as the noble Earl mentioned, that 41% of visual artists have a total income from all sources of less than £10,000 and only 27% achieved a total income of more than £20,000. In reality, the majority of artists in the visual arts are scarcely getting by, despite 80% of them being qualified to degree level and above. Consequently, for many of the 35,000 graduates who leave art and design colleges every year, the high cost of living in cities, particularly London, and the lack of affordable workspaces is a real and growing problem. A constant theme I heard during my research for this speech is the drain or loss of talent, as more and more artists can no longer afford to spend time on their creative practice because they have to work on whatever they need to do to pay for their workspace and materials. This is particularly wasteful given the huge resources and effort we put into their training.
Investment in glamorous venues, such as Tate Modern and the V&A, where audiences can see new work has overshadowed a lack of investment in the building blocks of artistic research—the workspaces where artists create their work. If workspace for creative people is considered important and we wish to retain our position as a beacon of artistic practice, we need to address how we support this. But time is running out. A 2014 GLA report on artists’ workspaces in London, for example, stated that some 28% of artists’ studios are under threat within the next five years,
“as operators do not expect to be able to renew leasehold/rental agreements to secure their premises, demonstrating the precarious nature of affordable artists’ workspace”.
That helps explain why lately a steady stream of artists has been leaving London for towns on the south coast.
The experience of other cities, such as New York and Berlin, in addressing this problem has been one of tactical interventions, such as planning protection, direct investment in under-occupied buildings, reductions in business rates and core funding to subsidise rent. Similarly, many councils, such as Hackney, are trying hard to set policy to deliver affordable workspace. It would therefore be useful to hear what plans the Government are putting in place to protect these workspaces, especially when in recent years there has been a great deal of commissioned research yet as of today, it is still not clear what action has been taken to deal with the problem.
London’s escalating rents and increasing land values have had other knock-on effects. The rise of commercial rents has squeezed many small and emerging commercial galleries out of business. In recent years cutting-edge galleries such as Nettie Horn, Carroll/Fletcher, Vilma Gold and Limoncello have all closed, which makes it increasingly difficult for UK-based artists to enter the commercial gallery world. International galleries such as the Gagosian, Hauser & Wirth, David Zwirner and the Pace Gallery all tend to take on artists who have already established themselves. So we have a conundrum in that as cultural consumers, London has never given us more access to the world of contemporary art through these extraordinary international art spaces but, for artists, there appear to be fewer routes for our home-grown talent and, by extension, for our gallerists and curators. It would be good to know whether this has been recognised and understood as a concern by organisations such as the Arts Council and, if so, whether there are any strategies in place to address this, as they are a vital part of the arts ecology.
National museums and organisations funded by the Arts Council also need to play their part. Too often, publicly-funded galleries pay artists almost nothing as a fee when they have spent months making work for an exhibition and borne many of the costs, such as studio rent. In some cases, the galleries pocket the entry fees from the public to visit such exhibitions. This effectively keeps many artists in poverty. As the noble Earl said, galleries should pay artists proper fees for their work as set out by organisations such as Artists’ Union England. I hope the DCMS and Arts Council England will look to formalise these payments as a condition of receiving funding. At the same time, artists who have benefited from the publicity and acclaim of showing in public galleries should expect to contribute a percentage of the sale of any exhibited artworks to reimburse some of the gallery’s exhibition costs.
The other big issue is Brexit. There appear to have been few discussions about what impact Brexit will have on our access to culture, specifically museum exhibitions, and how this may inhibit European international opportunities for UK artists, as well as for incoming artists’ shows. There is a real danger that we will become inward looking, not only in terms of visual arts. Related to that is the issue of visas, both for museums and galleries wanting to attract international artists and for art schools wishing to continue to attract large numbers of international students, as well as international artists who can enrich their programmes. Although welcome, yesterday’s announcement of the doubling of exceptional talent visas from 1,000 to 2,000 is merely a sticking plaster. It remains to be seen whether that will have any impact on artists, but it does not begin to answer how we maintain Britain’s reputation as an open and welcoming cultural hub. It would be good to know what the Government’s plans are in response to that.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for securing time for this important debate. I am delighted that the noble Earl is so assiduous in reminding the Government that there are issues other than Brexit worth discussing, and particularly in reminding them of the importance of looking after the nation’s cultural well-being as well as its economic needs.
The noble Earl has a well-known track record in this regard. Almost six years ago, on 3 February 2011, I had the honour of delivering my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House in a debate that he introduced, “to call attention to public funding for the arts”. Since then, the noble Earl has introduced a large number of debates on public funding for the arts, and I hope that he will go on doing so for a long time to come.
In that speech almost six years ago, I said:
“We are very privileged in this country to have access to a world-class arts scene: theatre, opera, dance, music, museums, galleries and much more”,
and that this was made possible,
“through a combination of state funding and the generosity of a relatively small number of public-spirited individuals and corporations”.—[Official Report, 3/2/11; col. 1527.]
I pointed out that while it was normal practice in this country for supporters of the arts to complain vociferously about how little support the Government provides to the arts compared with other European countries, the truth is that compared with the United States, for example, the level of government funding for the arts is very generous. For this reason, I do not want to use today’s debate to argue for more public money for the arts. Instead, I want to make a modest yet practical proposal for how a small amount of government money might be used to achieve a number of important national artistic, cultural and social objectives.
To cut to the chase, there is an immediate and well-documented case for at least one, and preferably more than one, specialist school where boys and girls of secondary school age can receive high-quality professional training in an art form which is particularly attractive to them—contemporary dance. I have come to this conclusion as a result of a performance I attended a few weeks ago of BalletBoyz, a contemporary dance company founded by two former members of the Royal Ballet. This extraordinary company, which combines high-quality live performances with TV films, has reached more than 10 million people since it was set up in 2000. It is worth mentioning that while BalletBoyz receives funding from the Arts Council, it has earned an equal sum from ticket sales and has received a slightly larger sum from other sources, including fees and general support from private donors.
What struck me most forcibly about that performance was the composition of the audience. Unlike the Wigmore Hall, which is my favourite venue in London for music, the audience that evening in Sadler’s Wells included large numbers of young people and members of the BAME community. Discussing this after the performance with Michael Nunn, the company’s dynamic director and joint founder, I learned that the BalletBoyz audiences on their tours outside London and overseas were similarly diverse and that many of those watching the performance were attending a live dance performance for the very first time. Michael Nunn also told me that the members of the company, too, come from a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds.
This is not surprising because, when one comes to think about it, contemporary dance is perfect for athletic young men and women whose background makes classical ballet unfamiliar and unattractive but who simply love dancing. Sadly, however, there is at present no school in this country where young people of secondary school age—that is under 18—can learn this art form. There are good higher education colleges where contemporary dance is taught but there is no equivalent of the Royal Ballet School for those aged 11 to 12 who wish to pursue a career in contemporary dance at that early age. It is largely for this reason that of the 11 dancers in BalletBoyz, three were trained in Europe.
Contemporary dance is the most accessible art form for those who live in our inner cities and who come from the most deprived backgrounds. It opens an entirely new career opportunity to those who are not exposed to classical music or classical ballet but who love contemporary music and adore dancing. It is almost impossible to make a living as a dancer if one has not started training seriously until age 16 or 18. That is why I urge the Government to give serious consideration to establishing at least one specialist contemporary dance academy which would accept pupils of secondary school age. I say at least one such school because I believe that if we are to attract talented young people from across the country rather than focusing on one or two cities in some arbitrary way, we must establish a number of such institutions—for example, one in each of three or four of the largest metropolitan areas. These schools would open new career opportunities to hundreds of young people who have the talent for and the love of dancing but who would never consider classical ballet as something for them. These schools would significantly widen the pool of available trained contemporary dancers and thus enrich our national cultural life and enhance our already world-renowned reputation for this art form—an art form which can be enjoyed by people of all ages and all backgrounds.
I believe that the contribution of these schools to our society would extend well beyond the arts. They would make a major contribution to fulfilling the Government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate. He is a true champion of the arts and I agreed with every word he said. I also thank my good friend Robert Henrit, who many—including the late John Lennon—regard to be the greatest drummer of the rock and roll era. He has given me valuable advice on how things used to be and how they have changed for the current generation.
The music industry is in trouble, simply because, by and large, the general public do not want to pay for music. The knock-on effect is that musicians and entertainers do not earn enough to keep going. People cannot afford to go to shows as they used to because of ticket prices, so they cherry-pick and do not expect to pay for music in a pub. Therefore, publicans do not want to pay for music at all, so you cannot blame young bands for doing gigs for nothing. This lack of bums on seats has meant that venues and some theatres are being forced to go dark for some of the week, or, worse still, to close completely.
It is now possible to make records on relatively unsophisticated laptop computers in a bedroom without the need to visit an expensive recording studio. This has meant, as we have heard, that our famous and cherished recording studios have been forced to close. It has also helped to devalue our music, because a band can make a record for the price of a few cups of coffee, not pay out as much as £100,000, as the Beatles did. The band does not need to get that money back any more, so if they are offered a pittance for their product they might as well just accept it.
Downloads have also devalued music. I understand that Pharrell Williams had 43 million plays of his record “Happy” but he earned and received only $2,700, because the going rate was less than $0.001 per download. Songwriters today are often paid pennies for successful tracks. As a result, for example, Nashville has lost more than 80% of its songwriters since 2000. The great British songwriter Russ Ballard tells me that his first royalties—I think it was for Hot Chocolate’s recording of his “So You Win Again”—resulted in a cheque for $99,000. He was very disappointed that it was not for £1,000 more, but he bought a house with it anyway. How times have changed.
Another issue that worries musicians, indeed artists across the entire sector—we have heard about it already—is Brexit. According to the Creative Industries Federation, 96% of its members support remaining in the EU. This is Gibraltarian proportions. The issue that exercises them most is freedom of movement. Robert Henrit described it to me thus: “In pre-EU days you needed permission to take away the livelihoods of the indigenous musical population in foreign countries—close neighbours or otherwise. If you were young and going to Germany in the early 1960s to play a minimum of nine shows a night—like the Beatles, me and countless others—and you were underage, you had to report to Bow Street magistrates’ court to formalise the affair. After the dreaded Brexit, what will be the situation regarding taking away jobs from the French, Germans or Italians? Will we be expected to pay a premium on our vehicle and other insurance policies every time we go there, as we were forced to do before we were in the EU?”.
Henrit goes on to say: “We musicians were simply too young and healthy prior to the EU, so never gave a thought to taking out insurance to cover our wellbeing. But what will happen to us now with the E111 card after we have been cast adrift from mainland Europe?”.
Henrit also talks about the trouble and hassle of crossing national borders. “Being musicians, we often ran late, and this trouble could take the form of prolonged interrogation and intense scrutiny of paperwork, to slow us up even more. Even though we were obliged to invest in a carnet in those days, if customs officers were feeling particularly malicious they would order us to unload our drums, amplifiers, guitars, Hammond organs and even stage suits, sometimes into the snow, as they ticked off the contents listed on that form. If they really did not like you they would dismantle the amplifiers or drums to bite-size pieces and leave you to put the equipment back together at your leisure. Oh how we laughed at their subtle sense of humour. The carnet was simply a list of the equipment you were exporting out of the UK, including drumsticks, and everything needed to be imported back within a year or there would be trouble. Fines would be levied and lots of duty would be payable. The carnet wasn’t exactly free and worse still you couldn’t easily add to it if you broke any of your instruments while you were away. The Who’s road crew must have had a difficult time since, for a while, it seems the band’s raison d’être was breaking as much equipment as possible. Speaking of fiscal issues, in those halcyon days it was easily possible to be taxed in the country we were working in and then again on the now considerably depleted ‘net’ earnings once we got home”.
Robert Henrit summarised the situation by saying, “It was something of a nightmare before we joined the EU. It was bliss after we joined. And I have a sneaking suspicion it will be a much more expensive nightmare after we leave”. So will the Government please address the issue of freedom of movement for our artists and their equipment?
Another of Russ Ballard’s songs, the anthem “God Gave Rock and Roll to You”, contains the words:
“If you wanna be a singer or play guitar
Man you’ve gotta sweat or you won’t get far”.
Somehow we need to get over to young people that the raison d’être for a musician is not making lots of money quickly, as Simon Cowell and his “The X Factor” friends would have us believe; it is about being in it for the long haul and enjoying it for as long as possible. Perhaps the Government could ask—and indeed remunerate—experienced musicians like Robert Henrit to go into schools and introduce youngsters to the real nuts and bolts of music.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this debate and, like others, I congratulate the noble Earl on bringing these matters to our attention, although not for the first time. I expect that during my time in your Lordships’ House I shall hear him bring them to our attention again.
In speaking at this moment it is not my intention to make the obvious points, as they have already been made. Of course the arts are important. Why do we have to say that? Of course they are underfunded. Why do we have to say that? Of course they are fragile at the moment. Space is difficult and so on, and we draw attention to that. Of course our museums need extra attention. I ran a museum until earlier this year, with two completely professional curators, 100 volunteers and a throughput of thousands and thousands of people per annum. I know what it is like to market. I know what it is like to change the exhibitions and attract new people or people who come a second time. So I do not want to state the obvious, because others who are far more qualified than I am have drawn attention to those facts.
We meet on a day when our news is dominated by two things that I heard about this morning. First, $400 million has been paid for a painting by Leonardo, and, secondly, fewer and fewer young people are going to football matches because they have been priced out. I speak as an Arsenal fan, and of course that is top of the range. While young people feel that it is too expensive to go to matches, the players they are going to watch, who get £200,000 per week, are pressing for half as much again. In a monetised economy where these aesthetic matters are quantified and measured in this way, we pitch our little debate into a context which we must not ignore.
A young Ghanean boy with good A-levels who did not want to go to university was asked, “Why, Kevin, don’t you want to go to university?”. The answer came back, “Because you’re going to tell me that I can become a barrister, a journalist, an accountant or something like that, but it takes time to do that. We know of five ways on the street to make quick money: crime, drugs, music, fame or football”. That was 15 years ago; he is now a tennis coach, although he did cut one or two CDs.
We must remember the context in which we are arguing this case. Fifty years ago, Jennie Lee was appointed by Harold Wilson as the first Minister for the Arts. She and Aneurin Bevan, her husband, were both the children of miners. How I remember working men’s institutes, the annual opera put on in the little town I came from, and all the other things done out of voluntary effort and by people who had sensed, somewhere, something that they would like to have a go at themselves. Jennie Lee was on to that. Is it not fantastic that she and Aneurin Bevan were husband and wife, one looking after a system for the bodily well-being and the other a system for the spiritual well-being of the nation?
Jennie Lee published a White Paper, like the one I have been reading in preparation for this debate, but she was also instrumental with Harold Wilson in setting up the Open University. My angle of view in this debate is from the bottom up, because all my life has been spent on the streets and in communities. If I have any expertise, or at least experience, that is where it is. However, I was a trustee for many years of Art and Christianity Enquiry, which I think we might know something about, and was involved in commissioning quite a number of works of art—and, with a Roman Catholic priest friend, several more. I could dilate on those; I see that your Lordships are a captive audience and I am very tempted. For all that, it is not in that area that I wish to make my point.
I must declare my interest. I am the chair of trustees of two secondary schools that come under the aegis of the Central Foundation Schools of London: a girls’ school in Tower Hamlets and a boys’ school in Islington. One of them specialises in drama and the other specialises in music. I have seen the boys’ school head teacher, because of the relationships that he has fostered at the Wellcome foundation at the Barbican, get his boys to exhibit their work in those prestigious places. Once a child has exhibited his efforts, he gets an idea of what the thing is all about. Similarly, I can never forget watching the girls at the Shaw Theatre on the Euston Road. Eighty-five per cent of the girls at our school are Muslim and wear the hijab. Of all the plays they might have done, they chose “Macbeth”—just imagine a macho play like that with Muslim girls. Their mothers were in the audience alongside me, whooping with joy when they saw their daughters coming on either as witches or as tyrants. It was most instructive.
We can do that because, as beneficiaries of the Dulwich Estate—we do not get as much as the big Dulwich schools, let me tell you; if I were a true subversive, I would want to do something about that—we have money that we can disburse to the two schools to help them foster their small group. We have just bought 10 pianos to help people learn to play, to form small groups and to help with the choral music and the rest of it. If you had seen our two schools at the Mansion House celebrating their 150th anniversary just last year, you would realise that you can tap into the energies and imagination of young people, and that is the prime task. It is important that this debate must relate to that. Of course we must have our institutions; of course we must take our kids to museums, artistic experiences, exhibitions, concerts and all the rest of it, because only when things happen like that can they relate what they are doing to a bigger and wider horizon.
I have been rather personal in this little speech of mine. Let me end personally too. I have a little grandson who is eight—or he will be in March, although he thinks he is now. I take him for a walk and he says to me, very simply, “Grandpa, you know I’m a chatterbox, but I’m going to be quiet for a minute or two and I don’t want you to be worried”. “Oh, Thomas, why?” “Well, you see, Grandpa, it’s like this. My head just at the moment is bursting with imagination”. We must have an educational system that is not merely utilitarian and functional. It is not only about measuring results through league tables and all the rest; it is about firing the imagination by helping a child to see the wider world.
This is my final remark. I used to live across the road from the grave of William Blake. I want all children to be able, as he put it, to see the universe in a wild flower, heaven in a grain of sand and eternity in a single hour, and to hold infinity in the palm of the hand. That is the challenge and our grand schemes must be seen to be organically related to the fundamental task of opening the minds of children and young people.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate. He has been a champion of the arts for many years and we enjoy listening to his expertise and wisdom in this area. The arts, including music, drama, dance and the visual arts, make a huge contribution to our national life. I should like to assure the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other noble Lords who have spoken that through their investment in the Arts Council, tax reliefs and capital investments, the Government are committed to supporting the continued development of this country’s arts and culture.
The 2015 spending review committed to continued Arts Council funding at its current level until 2020. Between 2015 and 2018, the Arts Council will invest £1.1 billion of public money from government in the arts as well as an estimated £700 million of lottery funding. Leading on from that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, mentioned in his speech about rural museums, the Mendoza review, an independent review of museums in England, gives the key priorities for the sector and commits an action plan to be published by September 2018, setting out how DCMS, Arts Council England and the Heritage Lottery Fund will work together more strategically to use public funding more effectively to address problems. Of course, I am more than happy to meet the noble Viscount to talk further on these subjects.
An additional £170 million will be invested outside London from April 2018. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide how to prioritise their spending. Many local authorities continue to invest in arts and culture. The Government have incentivised local authorities to support culture through programmes such as the Great Place Scheme. By investing in arts and culture, we are supporting our communities and our creativity, as well as our economy. This was clearly demonstrated in the recent report published by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which found that, in 2015, the arts and culture industry grew by 10% and contributed £8.5 billion to the UK economy.
The performing arts are also a key part of the creative industry, and as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, we are working with the Creative Industries Council as it creates a creative industries sector deal. We strongly welcome interest in the great work of the council. However, all final decisions on membership are rightly made by the industry to ensure that it stays representative.
The Government are committed to supporting a wide range of art forms, including music, drama, dance and the visual arts. Orchestras and large musical groups are supported by orchestra tax relief, which commenced last year, as well as regular Arts Council funding. The Government’s theatre tax relief continues to be embraced by the sector and, in 2016-17, some £46 million was paid out to 1,570 productions. The Arts Council invests in theatre companies across the country, including the award-winning Sheffield Theatres among many others. It also invested £69 million in 2016-17 to support dance. The Government have provided £5 million to support the creation of a new dance hub in Birmingham.
The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, talked about dance education. In 2012, the Government and the Arts Council jointly created the National Youth Dance Company. It provides talented performers aged 16 to 19 with intensive training and performance opportunities led by world-leading choreographers. Over 80% of its former dancers have gone on to further dance studies, vocational training or professional work. In the summer of 2016, the company held 18 experience workshops and young people could engage with and audition for the NYDC.
Arts Council national portfolio organisations reached nearly 600,000 young people in 2015-16 through its outreach work, and the 2018-22 portfolio includes a strengthened offer for children and young people. In addition, the Creative Case for Diversity invests in programmes across the sector and holds to account the organisations that it invests in.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised concerns regarding visual arts. As has been said, it is important that there are studios and facilities that allow our artists to develop and create new work. The Arts Council continues to support visual and combined arts organisations, including the AA2A Ltd and East Street Arts, which play a proactive role in supporting artist-led spaces. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to buildings, and the Arts Council’s capacity funding supports resilience in the sector so that artists can have the right buildings and equipment to deliver their work. At the moment, the Government are exploring a range of issues with industry and planning to make it easier for spaces to operate.
Attendances of visual arts organisations in the Arts Council’s national portfolio have increased from 15 million in 2007 to 35 million, demonstrating a growing appetite for this art form. Of course, ensuring suitable remuneration and conditions for artists is a vital part of developing and showcasing great British talent. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about income. As far as wages are concerned, Arts Council England’s policy is that individuals classed as workers must, in accordance with the law, be paid at least the full national minimum wage for their age range In its guidance for organisations applying to the national portfolio and grants for the arts, ACE makes clear its position on paying artists, interns and other workers fairly.
Education was mentioned by several noble Lords. Art and design and music are compulsory national curriculum subjects for five to 14 year-olds in maintained schools and, between 2012 and 2017, the Government have invested more than £580 million in a range of music and cultural education programmes. Pupils at state schools enter on average nine GCSEs, and taking the EBacc will mean taking seven GCSEs, which means that there will continue to be room for other subjects. However, this is a very important area and as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said so eloquently, it is among this age group that we have enormous enthusiasm for it. It is essential that we tap in to this enthusiasm of the young. The Government continue to support music education hubs and cultural education programmes that are designed to improve access to the arts for all children, regardless of their background, and to develop talent across the country.
Many noble Lords mentioned Brexit and the worries that they have on this subject. On Brexit, DCMS will continue to work closely with all of its sectors to ensure that they have a voice as the country now prepares to leave the EU. To this end, the Secretary of State has held two round tables with leading art sector stakeholders to discuss Brexit. She will continue having these round tables, to ensure that the arts are considered when it comes to Brexit.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, referred to the digital arts. The Government have demonstrated their clear support for the use of digital within the arts through the digital cultural project, which is currently under way and bringing the worlds of the arts and technology closer together.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. Arts and culture remind us of where we have come from and where we are going. They bring incredible stories to life, help us to step into someone else’s shoes and see the world through someone else’s eyes. Innovative, challenging and exciting arts and culture improves people’s lives, strengthens local communities, brings people together, benefits our economy and helps support local tourism. This country is a world leader in culture. It intends to stay that way and the Government are committed to supporting it.
House of Lords
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Geidt
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Hogan-Howe
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royal Assent
Thursday 16th November 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 58-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 62KB) - (23 Oct 2017)
Bilateral Trade: Sudan
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Sudan.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare that I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Department for International Trade has a dedicated presence in east Africa to promote trade and investment, and works with DfID and the FCO to support UK businesses there. We welcome the lifting of US economic sanctions, and are tracking emergent opportunities. However, political and economic factors make Sudan a challenging place to do business. The need for reform is central in our engagement with the Government of Sudan.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. In the light of current preparations for Brexit, and given the US revocation of sanctions on Sudan, I hope that we can now consider Sudan as a valuable potential trade partner. What support are the FCO and the Department for International Trade rendering the UK-Sudan trade and investment forum to be held in London in December? What are the Minister’s views about areas which British companies and businesses can look into in order to undertake bilateral trade with Sudan?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, FCO and DIT officials are in contact with the Sudanese Government and providing relevant support ahead of the event in December. Following the lifting of sanctions, we are monitoring opportunities as they develop across a number of sectors including agriculture, tech, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, mining, manufacturing and oil and gas, while continuing to encourage reform across the whole business environment.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Sudanese and women activists have played a central role in the national dialogue of Sudan, and I welcome Sudan’s steady efforts towards addressing the many obstacles beset by the prophets of doom. Can the Minister say how Her Majesty’s Government will ensure that Sudanese women are a central part of the whole bilateral decision-making process?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. Part of the dialogue between the UK Government and Sudan involves the promotion of employment and rights with women and with children.
Baroness Cox (CB)
Is the Minister aware that there are reliable reports of a build-up of Government of Sudan military forces in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, causing great concern at the possibility of renewed military offences? What is the position of Her Majesty’s Government with regard to the promotion of trade in the context of renewed offences against civilians and violations of conditions for lifting of sanctions?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government keep a continual watch on activities in Sudan. Noble Lords will realise that actually carrying out a dialogue with Sudan enables us to make continued representations against human rights abuse.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, Transparency International ranks Sudan as 170th out of 176 countries in its global corruption index. It says that:
“Corruption is present in all sectors and across all branches and all levels of government”,
and that patronage and cronyism prevent the growth dividend associated with increased trade from reaching the average Sudanese person. What confidence does the Minister have that the economic growth and prosperity generated by increased bilateral trade will not be lost to a corrupt elite?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord made some very interesting points. At the fourth round of the strategic dialogue in October, we discussed a range of issues including the peace process, human rights, development, migration, trade and counterterrorism. We urge the Government of Sudan to engage in the macroeconomic reforms necessary to ensure that all Sudanese citizens can benefit from the lifting of US economic sanctions.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in response to a similar Question in January, the previous Minister mentioned that,
“current conflicts, human rights abuses and business environment remain obstacles to a sizeable increase in interest from British companies”.—[Official Report, 23/1/17; col. 423.]
The noble Earl has mentioned all those already today. Can he be a bit more specific and say what actions the Government have taken to deliver better human rights conditions, for instance, and do they include the implementation of the Ruggie principles?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are helping to consider all opportunities for trade. At every opportunity in our conversations with the Sudanese Government, human rights are brought up. One must remember that President al-Bashir is subject to an indictment from the ICC; that must not be far from our minds at any point. The noble Lord mentioned certain principles, and I will write to him on that issue.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the noble Earl referred to US sanctions in his initial response. To what extent is future UK trade policy going to be beholden to extraterritorial legislation from the United States?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, we have to promote the right conditions in Sudan for trade to be carried out. When inquiries come to the department from companies wishing to export to Sudan, they are put in contact with the high commission, which outlines the challenges and possibilities in that country.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, part of my question has already been answered, but I just want to make sure. Following the lifting of US sanctions on Sudan, which used to be the main obstacle in the way of doing trade and business with Sudan, could any UK laws or regulations be impeding the flow of trade and investment between the two countries?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord asks how regulations in this country can be made available for finance for exporting to Sudan. There are issues at the moment as far as UKEF is concerned. We are unable to support UK exports to Sudan, as that is against OECD principles due to its unsustainable debt burden. Once Sudan has exited HIPC, UKEF would be able to consider its position in other areas.
Young Women: Self-Harm
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to reduce the number of young women who are self-harming.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, in recent years there has been an increase in self-harming among young women. This is a worrying trend that the Government are committed to addressing. That is why we updated the cross-government suicide prevention strategy and expanded its key areas for action to include self-harm. We are also committed to implementing a community-based care pathway for self-harm by 2019 and to making sure that every acute hospital has mental health liaison services in place by 2020-21.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for acknowledging the shocking 68% increase in the number of young girls being admitted to hospital for self-harm over the last decade. Does he agree that school counsellors can be a very valuable resource in helping to tackle this terrible epidemic of emotional distress among young people, because they are non-stigmatising and easily accessible? However, I visited an area yesterday where I was told that all the school counsellors have had to be sacked because the schools cannot afford to pay them. Will the Minister work with the Department for Education to ensure that by the end of this Parliament every secondary state school in this country has a school counsellor, so that we can tackle the welfare requirements of young people as well as their academic requirements?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the importance of schools in dealing with this. It is not just a health issue. Indeed it is not just about education either, but involves a cross-government approach. I would be very keen for her to write to me with the specific details of what she is describing—it does not sound like a positive development. Much more positively, more than 1,000 secondary schools have now had mental health first aid training for at least one teacher in the school, and the ambition is to extend that to all secondary schools. She will also know that there will very shortly be a children and young people mental health Green Paper, which I think will have quite ambitious actions for both schools and the health service to support young people with mental health problems.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, building on the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, does the noble Lord agree with me that bullying in schools can start very early, well before secondary school, and can give rise to very severe mental health issues among those who are bullied? Does he also agree with me that schools struggle to deal with this issue, partly because they are unclear about how to balance their duties of care to victims and to perpetrators, who often have issues of their own? Can he say in what way he is working with his colleagues in the Department for Education to make sure that primary schools have access to good resources to meet this, including programmes such as Place2Be?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness picks up on a particular interest of mine. She may know that I was involved in setting up three primary schools. It is important to start these lessons early. In the end it comes down to behaviour policies and what is expected from children. Schools with fair and robust behaviour policies do not tend to see bullying. Those which are more lax do. First, it is about making sure that teachers have training and resources and the support they need from the leadership, governors and parents to crack down on it. Bullying now has moved into different domains, particularly online. I think it is very encouraging today—the noble Baroness may have seen it—that His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge is launching some actions on cyberbullying. Dealing with bullying is a big part of that and I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of starting early.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s own research, most notably that commissioned by the DWP from Professor Gordon Harold, conclusively showed a causal link between young people internalising problems, such as self-harm, and conflict and breakdown in their parents’ relationships. Will this evidence be acted on in the forthcoming Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I know this area is of great interest to my noble friend and he has done very good research on it. He is quite right to highlight the impact that, unfortunately, parental conflict and breakdown has on children. The Department for Work and Pensions, in a cross-government approach, is doing particular work on supporting parents. I also know that the best schools and community health services work to provide that kind of parenting support. There are a number of parenting programmes out there. I assure my noble friend that that evidence takes a proper place in the mental health strategy that we will be publishing for children and young people.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Brent Centre for Young People—a mental health service for adolescents which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Does the Minister agree that adolescence is a hugely challenging part of human development and that we put far too much pressure, far too often, on adolescents and interfere with their successful development, with the outcomes described in this Question? Will he look at Lucy Crehan’s work Cleverlands, an international comparison of the best performing schools, and her criticisms of the British and American systems? She finds that we put far too much pressure on head teachers through Ofsted inspections. It is a punitive, rather than a supportive, act and we should review it to see whether we could be more supportive of head teachers and get a better, supportive atmosphere for children in our schools.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I congratulate the centre the noble Earl works for on its anniversary. He is absolutely right about the pressures of adolescence. Unfortunately, the causes of self-harm are not well understood. One of the hypotheses is that the motivation appears to be stress relief, which is an incredibly disturbing idea. I am aware of Lucy Crehan’s work from my previous work in schools. I do not think you can link school accountability with the kind of pressures we are describing today and how they manifest in self-harm. We want schools to be successful. It is vital that children are well educated. It is also true that that can be done in a number of ways. The best schools, including ones that I have been involved with in the past, practise something called positive education which emphasises not only the academic aspect but also character and well-being. I think that is the approach that we need to follow.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, if I may bring the Minister back to his area of responsibility, is he aware of recent research indicating that at primary level, references by doctors to mental health services are least in the deprived areas in the country and those are the areas where the self-harming is rising most of all? Can he tell the House what steps he is taking to halt that and move it in the other direction?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I would be interested to see that evidence. It is not something that I have seen. All I can say is that mental health funding has increased by more than 8% in the last couple of years so there is more money going into it but clearly it is vital that it is properly spread.
Brexit: Data Transfer
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the European Commission on an adequacy decision for data transfers between the United Kingdom and the European Union after Brexit.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government set out their approach to our future data relationship with the EU in our paper published in August. The paper examines the UK’s unprecedented point of alignment to the point of exit with the EU’s data framework and explores a future EU-UK model for exchanging and protecting personal data, which could build on the existing adequacy model.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in preparation for Brexit, this House is currently engaged in the process of enshrining European law on data protection into UK law—copying and pasting European legal language that is alien to the UK legal system in many cases. So much for taking back control. As the UK is rejecting all European redress systems, how does the UK expect to secure permission to continue exchanging data once we have left the European Union?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, the deep and special partnership that we wish to negotiate will provide sufficient stability for businesses, public authorities and individuals, and will enable the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office and partner EU regulators to maintain effective regulatory co-operation and dialogue for the benefit of those living and working in the EU.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the disturbing reports in the media today that the Russian Government have been using data transfer through social media to influence the outcome of the EU referendum in favour of the leave side? Does this not now cast doubts on the legitimacy and credibility of that referendum? I understand that it is to be investigated by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does the Minister not now agree that that referendum can no longer be considered to represent the will of the British people?
Lord Callanan
Unsurprisingly, the noble Lord will find that in fact I do not agree with him. He should not necessarily believe everything he reads in the press and the media—particularly those bits for which he is responsible.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am sorry to do this, but I had hoped that the Minister was going to make a statement. The last time he was at the Dispatch Box he will recall that I rose to correct something that he had said. I am loath to do this in front of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who knows this better than me. The Minister was requested by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to,
“confirm that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case brought by Gina Miller confirms in precise terms that Article 50 is irreversible”.—[Official Report, 13/11/17; col. 1845.]
The Minister said, “I can confirm that”—but it is clearly not the case. Paragraph 26 of the judgment makes it clear that, although the Government asserted as a matter of law and not just of policy that it was irreversible, the Supreme Court judges ruled that they took no view on that. They did not express a view at that point on the legal assertion that the Government made. Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify from the Dispatch Box the position that, when the Government made the legal claim that it was irrevocable, it was not what the Supreme Court found—it made no view on it?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am happy to confirm that, as a matter of firm policy, our notification of Article 50 will not be withdrawn. This was the position the Government put forward—
Lord Callanan
Perhaps noble Lords could wait for the rest of the answer, please. This was the position that the Government put forward in the Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court proceeded on this basis and decided that it was not necessary for it to consider the legal position on this specific point any further. We have laid a letter in the Library of the House to the same effect.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is high time that the Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches and others accepted the decision of the British people and joined Team UK and started arguing for the interests of our country rather than against them?
Lord Callanan
As usual, the noble Lord is correct. It would be nice to think that Members opposite would be in favour of getting a good deal on behalf of the UK. I assume that they are all democrats and would therefore want to respect the result of the referendum.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister said earlier that there will continue to be full co-operation between this country and the EU in relation to data. Can he please explain how that will occur if this country does not follow the judgments of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg on that issue, and if the laws of this country therefore diverge from those of the EU?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, we have said that, in exiting the European Union, we will bring to an end the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the UK. This is without prejudice to the final details of the negotiations and the implementation period—but we are very clear on that point.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for correcting the record of what he inadvertently said on Monday when he affirmed that the Supreme Court expressed no view on the question of revocability—on which I have a clear view. Perhaps he might suggest to his noble friend Lord Ridley, who misled him into misleading the House, that it would be appropriate also for him to withdraw his remarks.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord has a widely expressed opinion on Article 50, but I think he will find that 17.4 million of our fellow citizens also had an opinion.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, before we get into too tetchy an argument, and further to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said a few moments ago, would my noble friend acknowledge that to state the facts and to question how we are tackling the European negotiations is not to be unpatriotic?
Lord Callanan
I am very happy to agree with my noble friend that of course questioning matters of policy, tabling amendments and debating the important legislation that is going through this House and another place is not unpatriotic. It is a duty of parliamentarians.
Lord Callanan
As we are not contemplating getting a bad deal, I do not think that the question applies.
Permanent Structured Cooperation
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation process agreed by 23 European Union member states on 13 November.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Howe affirmed to our EU partners at Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council with Defence Ministers, we welcome Permanent Structured Cooperation as a useful tool to support the development of the capabilities that Europe needs for its security, provided it remains complementary to NATO and encourages EU-NATO co-operation. The United Kingdom’s approach reflects our continuing commitment to European defence and security and to protecting the interests of UK industry.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I have to say that it does not really reassure me. Since 1945, the United Kingdom—until recently, when we started decimating our Armed Forces—and the United States have ensured the defence and security of Europe. The security of the continent of Europe is crucial to the United Kingdom. The Permanent Structured Cooperation process, which involves troops, procurement and a whole raft of defence issues is very misguided. There is no doubt whatever that the heirs to Marshal Zhukov in Russia understand hard combat power. They are not impressed by talking shops, headquarters and posturing. The co-operation process is full of all those. Could the Minister ensure that the United Kingdom is fully involved in this process and at the heart of Europe in defence terms, because we cannot let Europe go running off, not achieving anything and not looking after its security? We are good at this and we need to be fully involved.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Let me assure the noble Lord that we continue to partake in discussions about this. I agree with his points about the cornerstone of the alliance and particularly the work of NATO to ensure not just peace and security across Europe but its benefits further afield as well. It is essential that, as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, whatever partnership its remaining members choose to take forward, opportunities remain for co-operation directly with NATO of which the United Kingdom is an important and pivotal part.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall the position paper published only a couple of months ago on our constructive and useful co-operation with the EU in foreign policy and defence during the last 40 years, which left open the question of how we shall continue it? Does this development not make it more urgent for the Government to spell out how they will do this? Does he not agree that the Foreign Secretary’s response that we welcome it, we wish to co-operate and our relationship will be like that of a flying buttress to a cathedral—a very overused phrase intended to confuse us all—was inadequate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was reiterating the importance of our continued relationship with the European Union while we remain a member of it, but also that we want a different but strong partnership with it once we leave. That includes these two important areas of defence and security, which we have just touched on and in which the UK has led the way. We are making our view known that an option should remain within Permanent Structured Cooperation in those areas of defence and security for third countries to join at an appropriate time for whatever projects are perceived to be of mutual importance to both—be it NATO and, say, this new organisation, in whatever shape or form it takes. This would allow the UK to continue to co-operate with European partners after we leave the EU.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, may I endorse what the Minister says about the importance of continuing co-operation with the EU? If this initiative leads to improved European defence capacity, it would be a good thing for this country and we ought to be looking to continue working in European military missions around the world, as we have been doing, where they are in our interests.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord. When we look at the detail of some of the projects—not just in defence and security; it could be, for example, hospitals that have been created through defence interventions in certain parts of the world—it is our view that projects that resonate with the common objectives of the United Kingdom and, importantly, those of NATO should continue to provide the opportunity for continued co-operation after the UK leaves the European Union.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, given the less than clear commitment of the US to NATO, and given that we, after Brexit, will be looking for a new role in the world, surely that role in defence should be pivotal in Europe. What Europe needs is combat power and, as my noble friend the Admiral has pointed out, this is an area in which we are uniquely able to assist. This is no time to be stepping away from Europe. Why were the Government not more involved in the development of PESCO and do they intend to put more effort into getting closer to Europe so that we may play a proper role in the future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As has been said numerous times, first and foremost, yes. I refer back to our discussions on the previous Oral Question about where we stand: the UK is leaving the European Union but, as I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, we are not in any way stepping away from our obligations. There will be co-operation, particularly in the areas of defence and security, which are important not just to the remaining members of the European Union but to the United Kingdom as a member of the European continent and a member of NATO. Co-operation and partnership are key, and we look forward to a renewed but different style of partnership with our European Union partners. We will continue to co-operate in areas of common interest.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in reference to the previous Question and this one, is it not worth bearing in mind that, in modern warfare, algorithms are as relevant and powerful as armouries? We are now moving into a stage where the very high level of technology, communications, connections and cyberwarfare is just as important as manpower on the ground and hard-power equipment. Can my noble friend assure us that, in all areas of technology relating to cyberwarfare, we will keep extremely close to our neighbours and our allies in NATO, and that this is the most important area of co-operation of all? Without it, we are lost.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises the very important point that the challenges that we face in the modern age are very different from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. I agree with him on the principles that he raises and reassure him that, as we discuss it with our American allies and our European allies, there will remain strong co-operation on ensuring that we work on cyberdefences collaboratively.
Business of the House
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Hollis of Heigham set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock to two hours.
Universal Credit
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That this House takes note of the impact of Universal Credit on claimants.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that we all want—wanted—universal credit to succeed, so in opening this debate I first pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who has heroically sought to build UC. It has been badly battered by HMT, but his architecture is still there. Secondly, I thank our Lords Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who has been so helpful and approachable. It is a pleasure to work with her.
With so much early good will, why is UC in so much trouble, its effects on so many claimants catastrophic? People newly claiming UC from today on will not get their first payment until after Christmas. How will they cope? The story of UC is now a story of broken promises. During the Second Reading debates of 2011, Mr Duncan Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in good faith made three core promises to us all.
On 9 March 2011, Mr Duncan Smith said,
“work will always and must always be made to pay”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/11; col. 921.]
The second promise, by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, was made on 13 September 2011, when he claimed that UC would lift,
“600,000 adults and 350,000 children out of poverty”.—[Official Report, 13/9/11; col. 629.]
Thirdly, Mr Duncan Smith said that UC would be,
“a regime that is easy to understand”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/11; col. 923.]
The noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that a single UC benefit would be simple to claim and access.
Three promises: work would always pay; families would be lifted out of poverty; and a single benefit would ensure a simple structure. UC would, we hoped, be transformational. Three core promises, and every one broken. Why? HMT’s cuts and, to some extent, DWP delivery. The DWP fought Treasury cuts and lost. Now that UC is far meaner in its payments, nastier in its sanctions and harsher in its delivery than tax credits, HMT is suddenly anxious to roll it out ever faster—10 times faster, laying waste to DWP promises and our fellow citizens’ lives.
My examples come mainly from the deeply distressing 650 pages or so of last month’s written evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee. One claimant wrote that UC can transform lives,
“that is certainly true, by catapulting the ‘only just managing’ into poverty and debt”.
That is in UCR 0019.
Broken promises: let me count the ways. Promise one was that work would always pay. No. The IFS says that 3 million working families will, on average, be £2,500 a year worse off. The work allowance, which is taper free, before UC withdrawal kicks in, has been cut by up to £2,000 for a lone parent, and for single people, scrapped. A lone parent with one child now has to work 25 hours a week on UC to get the same income as working 16 hours a week under tax credits—60% more hours for the same income. Would we?
Second earners, mostly partnered women, are even worse hit, with no work allowance, so 63p in the pound taper from the first pound, tax and NI, childcare and loss of council tax support can take some 93% of her earnings. Why work when, with travel costs, you can be worse off? Would we?
The self-employed are especially exposed, as are disabled families. One client told the charity, Turn2us, “I will be better off giving up work because with the new UC I will be £200 worse off … so contemplating unemployment in 2018”. That first promise that work always pays is not for him, nor in future, when UC reaches 7 million people, for many thousands of others, so the DWP uses the whip of unbelievably harsh sanctions to get people into work that for too many does not pay. The first core promise is therefore broken. The second core promise was that UC would lift 350,000 children out of poverty. Instead, says CPAG, drawing on DWP and IFS stats a fortnight ago, HMT’s repeated cuts to UC will send 1 million more children into poverty by 2021, their lives blighted. How in all decency can we defend this even to ourselves? Promise number two is therefore broken.
I come to the third broken promise on smooth delivery. Where to begin? There are missed payments, delayed payments, wrong payments, cases lost or closed, making late appeals impossible, staff unable to handle contributory benefits, claimants lacking acceptable ID, reputable advisers such as CAB unable to act for clients in hospital because they lack explicit consent, staff asking for the wrong information, documents getting lost, keeping incomplete records and giving conflicting advice. Claimants have informed the DWP that they could not attend an appointment as their employer refused them time off. They were sanctioned. They were in hospital: sanctioned. An appointment posted by the DWP to the wrong address: a three-month sanction.
Take IT. Parts of rural Norfolk lack internet access; in any case struggling claimants, especially older or disabled people, cannot afford dial up or smart phones, nor can they always get to jobcentres, 87 of which, unbelievably, are closing just at the time when we should be boosting jobcentre support. What can they do? A claimant had an appointment for 10 am. He notified the DWP that his first local bus arrived at noon: he was sanctioned. One man—reference: UCR 0065—with a traumatic brain injury affecting his memory, was late for his appointment. He was sanctioned and lost several hundred pounds. He self-harmed, and, unable to afford the bus fare to hospital, he closed his wound himself with super glue.
Tribunal judges are scathing. The greatest problem, however, is the six-week or more waiting period, and then monthly payments in arrears—supposed, if I may say so, to moralise some of the most marginal in society into behaving like middle-class salaried professionals resilient with savings. The Government must know the stats: 58% of those on UC are paid weekly or fortnightly, not monthly. Plymouth Community Homes has 14,000 tenants; 75% of its claimants are paid weekly, fortnightly, or have limited hours, so payment delays sink those claimants deeper into the quagmire of debt. In Gateshead, 221 of 231 tenants on UC have arrears over £800; in Halton, 920 of its 1,000 tenants have these arrears. Croydon, Southwark and Tower Hamlets have an average debt for all UC payments of about £1,000. Many, I fear, will never get out of the debt we have constructed for them. Family members, themselves struggling, are trying to support other family members. As one sister said, it is “the poor that are supporting the poorest”.
More than a quarter of claimants are waiting more than six weeks for their initial payment; one in 10 is waiting for more than 10 weeks—without earnings, benefits, or savings. They are pawning their belongings and missing meals. Charity workers are finding fivers out of their own pockets to put the meter back on for some lighting and heating. All these people are facing Christmas.
Half of new UC claimants now claim advance payments, which is surely evidence that the six-week model was flawed from its very beginning. But, unlike the low cap in tax credits debt recovery, for the next six months DWP takes up to 40%—often far more with other debts—from your UC standard allowance for advance payments, council tax and utilities arrears. Each month, your personal, private debt rises to cover the shortfall from your public debt, as handled by DWP.
The second largest delivery issue is that UC is not paid directly to landlords on request. Some 79% of UC claimants are in rent arrears. Some have already been evicted by social landlords. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, at tenants’ request, UC can be paid fortnightly rather than monthly in arrears and the housing element paid directly to the landlord. If it can be done in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, why not in England?
DWP is extending its trusted partner and landlord portal scheme, but not to the private sector. Private landlords need their rents to finance their mortgages. Some tenants are waiting for 10 or 12 weeks—yet eight weeks of arrears are mandatory grounds for re-possession.
So what changes might, in my view, help to rescue UC? What might begin to redeem those broken promises: that work should always pay; that people would be lifted out of poverty; and that delivery would be simple? Of course, I would like a reinstatement of the cuts, from benefit freeze to second child policy—those are big ticket items. But, in particular, we hope to see a four-week rather than a six-week initial payment period in the Budget.
We want, at tenants’ request, fortnightly payments of UC and direct payments of the housing elements to landlords, as in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We should cap and slow down DWP debt recovery to avoid even deeper debt.
We should raise the work allowance; pilot some second earners to see whether their own work allowance would bring them into work. Two-thirds of children in poverty have a working parent. If work really paid, a second earner could lift her children out of poverty—and that must matter, I am sure, to us all.
Here is a proposal from someone who knows how UC works. Most UC problems hit and hurt claimants within the first three or four months. A fortnight’s UC grant at the beginning of a UC claim—with no clawback, just a fortnight’s grant until first full payment as now—would keep so many families afloat.
This would be a grant that does not need be repaid. But how much would it be? By 2021, it is calculated, total social security cuts and welfare reforms will be “saving” HMT £37 billion per year—86% of that falling on women, of course. A two-week grant, costing between £400 million to £600 million, combined with four weeks until first payment, could indeed transform lives for the better. It could be a grant financed, perhaps, by last year’s £680 million underspend on tax credits, as pointed out by the OBR. People are so scared out there. The work and pensions evidence that I have here is completely draining in its wretchedness.
Two people are facing Christmas. Donna—UCR 0060—is a lone parent with three children, who has been working zero-hour contracts, on UC, for 18 months. When her hours were cut as a ZHC worker, as little work was available, she tried to get an advance payment but was told—correctly, according to the rules—that it was too late. It was her fault, they said—she should have budgeted better. She says, “I wanted to say, ‘You don’t know my situation. I work, I work, 40 hours a week if I can get it. You don’t know how hard this has been. I’m a person!’”.
Steve, a 55 year-old maintenance engineer, was made redundant in April 2016. After four visits and three months, he got his first payment. The stress and fear led to angina and he was hospitalised, so he missed an interview and was sanctioned for two months. The resulting rent arrears of £1,000 meant that he lost his home. He did everything right. We did everything wrong. We broke our promises—and we broke him with it. What Christmas is there for Donna or Steve? We can and must do better than this. Sir John Major said last month that UC was,
“operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.
Was he wrong? I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this debate is very well subscribed and is taking place within a tight timetable. I urge all noble Lords to stick within the five-minute limit.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, which affects so many lives, both directly and indirectly, in terms of the confidence the general public has in our welfare system. It is vital to stand back and assess what universal credit—UC—is trying to achieve.
If we had not, with our coalition partners, invented and implemented UC, the ineffectiveness of the legacy welfare system would have been a running sore in political debate that would have become a dangerous fault line as we approach Brexit. It would have been far too late to make any meaningful reform, but there would have been urgent calls for it, given the acute labour shortages we would be facing as the number of migrant workers willing to do jobs left vacant by British workers reduced.
Related to this, and before Brexit became an issue, the high unemployment rates that welfare reform has helped us to avoid would have undermined the whole of society. Human dignity is deeply affected by lack of work. For example, while it is a complex picture, Understanding Society data suggests that longer-term unemployment is associated with obesity. This badly affects confidence and employability and thereby further traps someone in a pernicious cycle of poor health and unpromising life chances.
Writing about the legacy benefit system, one of our foremost experts, Nick Timmins, said,
“Like many others, I had come by the mid-to-late 2000s to recognise that it had become horrendously complicated—both in the way it handled the absence of work and in the support it offered once people were in low-paid jobs”.
He notes its incomprehensibility to claimants and administration staff alike, the billions of pounds-worth of unintended error every year, and how it “almost actively encouraged fraud”. Substantial reform was particularly important because moving into low-paid work for those out of it for any length of time felt very risky. It could take weeks to sort out a fresh claim for benefit if the job failed, hence unemployment existing alongside high vacancy rates. He and Professor Roy Sainsbury, an early proponent of a “single working-age benefit”, saw UC as,
“essentially a technocratic change … an apolitical idea that was not rooted in any ideology at all”.
Thus, my concern is that UC has become unhelpfully politicised—a stick with which to beat the Government regardless of the broad sweep of positive outcomes, and the subject of inaccurate and shameful scaremongering.
For example, during Prime Minister’s Question Time in the other place on 11 October, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Gloucester City Homes had evicted “one in eight” of their tenants—650 in total—due to UC. However, in actuality eight people, all of whom had significant debt arrears before UC was introduced, were evicted. Richard Graham, Conservative MP for Gloucester, flagged up as a point of order that,
“the picture painted by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was a long way from the true situation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/17; col. 497.]
The impression has also been given that there will be a big bang in UC rollout just before Christmas, when most families already feel nervous about their finances. However, the pace of the test, learn and rectify process is staying steady and the proportion of the forecast claimant population receiving UC will reach 10% by the end of January, as preannounced. On the subject of test and learn, can the Minister inform the House what progress has been made in developing universal support, which will help people with debt and other disadvantages as they become used to the new system?
Finally, there will be a projected £70 billion in savings to the public purse as a result of the shift away from the legacy benefit system, not because of parsimony, but because of people moving into work. Have the Government modelled if and how savings might be improved by lowering taper rates still further than the recent drop from 65% to 63%, albeit at an up-front cost of £1 billion over five years? There would be a similar cost in reducing the taper rates from 63% to 60%. But what would be the likely return to the Exchequer, given that lower taper rates—and of course improved work allowances—increase work incentives?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for holding this debate today. She is a consistently powerful voice for those who too often have no voice of their own, and I admire her greatly for it.
During 10 years working in the Treasury, I was privileged to play a small part in the introduction of the tax credit system. The principles underpinning those reforms remain relevant and right: to ensure work always pays more than welfare, to prioritise support for children, and in so doing to reduce child poverty.
Tax credits boosted the incomes of the poorest families, lifted millions of children out of poverty and helped many, including many lone parents, into work. Originally, universal credit looked to build upon the principles of these reforms. One benefit rather than six should help improve the visibility of rewards for work, boost take-up, and ensure claimants receive the money they are entitled to. Most importantly, the single taper is the embodiment of the “making work pay” goal, which should in theory greatly strengthen work incentives. Such a bold and far-reaching reform would, I think, have appealed to the Treasury I knew and the Chancellor I served. Unfortunately, under this Government a number of serious flaws now put the original aims at risk.
With relatively few working families currently on universal credit, the six-week lack of income is right now the most visible problem. But, in time, the consequences of the very significant cuts made to in-work support since the reforms were first announced will do even greater damage to the lives of the very families universal credit was created to help. The steady accumulation of cuts means universal credit will now be £3 billion a year less generous than the tax credit system it replaces. Some 3.2 million working families will be worse off, with an average loss of £48 a week. Some 600,000 of these will no longer be entitled to any support at all. Families with children will be hardest hit, with lone parents losing an average of £26 a week. Why, then, given the damage they will do, have these cuts been made?
The first reason is the previous Chancellor’s decision not just to reduce the deficit, which was of course a necessity after the financial crisis, but to tighten his fiscal rules still further, aiming to run a surplus. He made this not just an economic priority but an ideological goal, claiming that not doing so would be more than an economic failing: it would be a moral failing. Yet the Government have failed to meet a single one of the fiscal targets, and Britain now faces a third consecutive Parliament of austerity.
The second reason for these cuts is the choices the Government made about how to allocate resources within this fiscal straitjacket. At the same time as the previous Chancellor chose to cut working-age benefits in 2015, the Government also chose to cut £8 billion from inheritance tax. Indeed, since David Cameron introduced what he called “the age of austerity” in 2010, a cumulative total of £78 billion will have been spent by this Government cutting inheritance tax, all the while cutting £3 billion a year from low-income and middle-income families.
The IFS has calculated the distributional impact of changes to tax and benefits since 2015. The entire bottom half of the income distribution will see their incomes fall. The second-poorest decile will lose over £1,600 a year, while the second-richest will gain £400 a year. While the second decile will see an 8% fall in their income, the ninth decile will see a 2% rise. These are quite some choices the Government have made. They are not the inevitable consequences of reducing the deficit, nor the necessary result of living within our means, but deliberate policy choices reflecting their values: the choice to cut ever deeper into working families’ incomes, not out of economic necessity but ideological determination; the choice to cut £3 billion a year from the very poorest in society, while finding nearly £80 billion for the very richest; and the choice to see not meeting deficit targets as a moral failure, while failing to even measure child poverty targets.
You can see why. By cutting support for working families with children, the introduction of universal credit, far from reducing child poverty, will now increase it by over 1 million to 5.2 million, the highest ever level since records began. With 68% of children in poverty living in working households, universal credit should be tackling the problem of low pay, yet in fact it now does almost nothing to improve financial incentives. Working 25 hours a week will now leave a lone parent only £2 better off than working 16 hours under tax credits. Second earners will now keep only 37% of their pay. A family paying for childcare for two pre-school-age children will now keep only 6p in the pound, an effective marginal tax rate of 94%.
These reforms break the Government’s promise that work would always pay more than benefits, they betray a generation of children, and they expose a Government systematically targeting the poorest in our society while handing billions back to the better-off.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for enabling us to have this debate and for her forensic examination of the problems of universal credit. This debate is important for two reasons: first, the evidence is now conclusive that there is a major problem with the rollout of universal credit and, secondly, there is an opportunity for the Chancellor to do something about it in the Budget next week.
The evidence shows that the way universal credit is working is forcing more and more poor people into rent arrears and into greater use of food banks. The Trussell Trust has demonstrated that in those areas where universal credit has been introduced, the use of food banks has increased by nearly one-third compared with just over 10% in those places it has not been introduced. As we get closer to Christmas, those pressures will worsen.
The principles behind universal credit remain important. We need a simplified benefit system, and work should pay. However, the problems that have arisen suggest that the rollout of universal credit should be paused until those problems have been resolved. First, we have to shorten the period that recipients have to wait for their payment. It is unreasonable to make people wait for six weeks, given that they are inevitably people with few resources. Secondly, monthly payments are intended to replicate the world of work, but how many monthly-paid employees would be happy to wait for their money until at least seven days into the next month? Anyway, 10% of all employees are actually paid weekly. Why should universal credit claimants be treated differently from weekly wage earners? Thirdly, around 20% of those entitled to a full payment face delays caused by forms being incorrectly completed. Many of these people need help completing forms, and the Government have to do more by building in the availability of personal help to their standard procedures. They should not assume that everyone has the capacity to fill in the forms themselves.
I am grateful to Thirteen Housing Group, which manages nearly 33,000 properties, mostly in Tees Valley, for its advice on universal credit in Hartlepool, where full service went live last December. Its figures on housing debt are disturbing. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that the level of debt caused by universal credit is real and not scaremongering. At the end of August this year, the average debt of universal credit recipients who were tenants of Thirteen Housing Group was £722.66, compared to an average debt of £418.92 for all Thirteen Housing Group tenants. As for the numbers of individuals affected by debt caused by universal credit, 1,008 out of 1,229 in Hartlepool—that is 82% of all those in receipt of universal credit—were in debt in August. This compares with 11,524 tenants out of more than 32,000 customers across the whole of the Thirteen Housing Group—that is 36%—who were in debt at that time.
The evidence that the operation of universal credit is causing rising debt and increasing worries to tenants is now clear for all to see. Surely the basic principle should be this: tenants need to receive the right amount of money at the right time to pay their rent and not get into arrears. I hope that the Minister will agree, when she comes to sum up, that the time has come for the Government to make reform of universal credit a priority. I hope very much that the Chancellor will do that next week.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, universal credit is an essential element in the Government’s amazingly successful strategy of getting more people into work or back to work. The latest unemployment statistics are the lowest since 1975; since 2010, more than 3 million more people are working in this country. Sadly, this great advance is decried or forgotten by those who look for every opportunity to belittle the universal credit project. As I said, it is work in progress.
For many years, I saw long lines of unemployed people standing in the rain outside jobcentres, and it should never happen again. How many of us here remember the poster in the winter of discontent prior to the 1979 general election saying, “Labour isn’t working”? Of course, I am as concerned as anyone else in this Chamber that there are glitches in the workings of the system involved. That is nothing to be amazed at, although it is certainly worrying. However, the glitches we have had in the IT systems throughout Parliament and throughout this Government are being tackled. These glitches are being tackled, and they will be overcome. The system is much more transparent than previous benefit systems. I have heard of most encouraging attitudes prevailing among the job coaches in the jobcentres.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that 87 jobcentres are closed or closing. That does not meet the point that more and more jobs are being filled. That is ongoing at the same time as the jobcentres are closing. Perhaps they are becoming much more efficient, or perhaps they have the answer to the digital works that are going on at the moment. The people in the jobcentres would certainly not like to hear what we have heard already today: they are dedicated and working very hard. They believe, as I believe and as everybody round here should believe, that everybody should have the right to work. It increases people’s self-esteem—the benefits, including fewer mental health problems, are well known—and pride. Pride is supposed to be a mortal sin—I am looking at the right reverend Prelate—but I am sure that it is not. If you have pride in your work and pride in your ability to get a job, it is not a sin at all, I think it is a case of “Hoorah”.
These projects are being tackled and what we really need to know from the Minister is the plan for dealing with all these universal credit glitches. Will it take six months, 12 months, two years? It is a massive task. We have only to listen to all the contributions from the other side to realise how massively complicated and important it is. Nothing is perfect, but let us give people encouragement, not discouragement. Reading Hansard would be a real disaster for people who are working their socks off. Let us be fair: every effort is being made to introduce the system without delays. I am sure that there is nobody in the jobcentres, no job coach, who says, “Let us delay this by six months” or eight or 10 months. I just do not believe that British people would be doing that. Every effort is being made to introduce the system without delays, I am sure of that.
The project has a large learning curve for those who are not exactly financially literate. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the problems that applicants have with form filling, et cetera. That can cause endless delays. You only had to be in the Moses Room when we were all trying to grapple with the new system on digital skills to realise that even we can have difficulty grasping such an issue. Financial literacy is a problem but it can be overcome. In discussion with a colleague earlier today—I will not mention their name—my attention was drawn to the Bill setting up financial guidance, the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, which has all-party agreement and will have its Third Reading shortly. The Government have proved that they can restore feelings of self-worth by helping the out of work back into work; let us give them a fair wind.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the rollout of universal credit must be rooted in the claimants’ real world of squeezed wages, job insecurity and household incomes under pressure. Evidence consistently identifies people’s low financial resilience and rising indebtedness: 17.3 million working-age adults do not have £100 saved; £200 billion is owed in consumer credit, excluding mortgages; and 4.1 million people have failed to pay domestic bills or meet credit commitments in three or more of the last six months.
The majority of universal credit claimants arrive with pre-existing debt and no financial resilience. As the Secretary of State said: “We are able to make an estimate” of a UC payment “particularly given that it is likely that a lot of those people seeking advances will not have any alternative income over that first assessment period”. Citizens Advice confirms that claimants risk serious debt from delayed payments, that 79% have priority debts such as rent or council tax and that two in five have no money to pay creditors. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, it is not the concept of universal credit but the compromise on the essential design feature that it will make work pay that is the fundamental concern here.
The accumulation of benefit cuts is a major drag on the living standards of families on low and middle incomes. The Rowntree Foundation predicts that the four-year benefit freeze will increase poverty more than any other policy.
Universal credit was designed to focus on reducing worklessness, which is now at an all-time low. In-work poverty is now the increasing challenge. The wait of six weeks or more from claim to payment is a design flaw baked into the system and can be punitive, however nice the jobcentre staff are. Over 50% of claimants claim an advance because they simply cannot cope with that delay. Its stated purpose—to reflect a world of work where wages are paid monthly in arrears—does not reflect the world of the claimants. As has been said, they are paid weekly or fortnightly. As rollout increases, identified problems just become more pervasive and extensive.
The Government look to mitigate by increasing take-up of advance payments, asserting that such a system is the best way of spreading out their income. In reality, it has limited efficiency. The six weeks is still unmanageable for the majority without incurring debt to the state or a private lender. An advance has to be paid back in six months when claimants also face deductions for debts from council tax, utility bills and rent arrears. For the Government to rely so heavily on advance payments defers the problem and embeds debt as the default for claimants as a matter of public policy. It would be far better if the six-week period were reduced and the benefit freeze reappraised. The Government need to pause the rollout and reassess.
Finally, the Government introduced the two-child limit on the payment of child tax credit and the child element of universal credit to deter people from having more children and to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child. Noble Lords argued that this limit should not apply to kinship carers—who often have their own children—who take on the care of vulnerable children to whom they have not given birth. There are more than 200,000 such children, saving the taxpayer the £40,000 cost of placing each child in foster care. The two-child limit was a non sequitur for kinship carers. The need was not for them to reflect carefully on their readiness to support a vulnerable child; the need was to support their readiness to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, reflected and accepted this, stating:
“I am pleased to announce … that in recognition of the important role which family and close friends can play in caring long term for children who are unable to live with their parents and could otherwise be at risk of entering the care system, we are in favour of an exemption for children in such circumstances”.—[Official Report, 27/1/16; col. 1295.]
That concession is, shamefully, not being honoured. It is applied only if kinship carers had their own birth children before taking on the kinship children. If they take on the care first, then have a birth child, the exemption does not apply. Alyssa Vessey, who was 18 when her mother died suddenly, went to social services and told them she would raise her three young siblings on her own, to protect them from going into care. Four years later she had a partner, and had her own birth child. Alyssa was refused tax credits and a Sure Start maternity grant because she had breached the two-child limit. The DWP is reported as saying that the decision ensured fairness between the claimants and taxpayers. I say that Alyssa saved the taxpayer around £40,000 for each child not going into the care system— £120,000 per annum—plus £25,000 of care proceedings costs, together with the miserable saving of not paying her a maternity grant. A similarly affected pregnant kinship carer was advised by her local office that if she gave up caring for the kinship children, had her baby, then took them back at a later date, she would be eligible for benefits for both her birth child and the cared-for children. On any analysis of public policy, that is not honourable.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for obtaining this very important debate. I recognise that the aim of universal credit was indeed to improve incentives to work and, along with others, I strongly support that objective—if only the policy would deliver it as originally planned. The only tool now left to the Government to drive people into work is the cruel application of sanctions to these incredibly vulnerable people. The huge problem for claimants is that the new system, good though it originally was, is being rolled out in the context of an extraordinary level of cuts to welfare benefits. The net effect of these cuts for disabled people, carers and single parents—the most vulnerable citizens in this country—is quite simply devastating. They face inevitable soaring debts completely outside their control, the risk of homelessness, acute anxiety and distress. These benefit cuts include, as most noble Lords here know, the benefit cap, the bedroom tax, the cut to council tax benefit, the failure to meet the whole of a claimant’s rent, the working-age benefits freeze and cuts to work allowances—to name just a few.
Let us focus for a minute on disabled people, who are affected by all the above cuts and more. The Government rightly announced their intention to halve the employment gap between able-bodied and disabled people. Well, sadly, universal credit is destroying this ambition—not the intention of the original designers, no doubt. There will in fact be reduced support for working people with disabilities, particularly for those with children. Many are being shifted from the higher employment support allowance to the lower-level benefit of jobseeker’s allowance. Working tax credit includes a disability element worth £54 a week, which is a lot of money for somebody on a very low income. Universal credit reduces that substantially for some of those people and eliminates it altogether for others.
Another devastating cut for disabled people is the severe disability premium, which has been an additional sum added to the employment support allowance for a subset of severely disabled people. This benefit is being scrapped under universal credit—a loss to these severely disabled people of £62 per week or £3,200 per year. It is almost difficult to believe these sums. The whole point of these disability additions was to cover the extra costs of working for very severely or severely disabled people, thus enabling them to get to work.
If the Minister would be interested to see the full impact for claimants of the rollout of universal credit, she may be interested in a recently published book by Sam Royston, Broken Benefits: What’s Gone Wrong with Welfare Reform. It is in the context of these swingeing cuts that the minimum wait of six weeks is utterly devastating for people, and we know from the DWP’s own data that 20% of people wait longer than six weeks for their first payment. Some wait for up to 10 weeks. Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need to expand universal support to help people reduce the waiting period? I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on this point.
Another issue which I implore the Minister to look into and rectify—this is absolutely appalling for some people—is that claimants whose most recent employer just happens to make a final payment, maybe of statutory sick pay, a day or so after the claimant’s assessment period begins will receive precisely zero in their first so-called “universal credit payment”. They will get nothing at the end of six or even 10 weeks. It is a very specific problem for certain people whose employer just happens to do something that is just devastating for them.
The Government point to advance payments as a solution for claimants, but these payments cover only two weeks’ costs and are just another debt which is later deducted from benefit. Claimants are then left with almost nothing to live on week after week and month after month as their rent arrears, council tax, other debts and advance payments are being repaid.
Another problem is that universal credit is paid monthly, as other noble Lords have mentioned, when 58% of these claimants are just not used to that. They have never lived like that. They were paid fortnightly or weekly. Will the Minister please look into the possibility of reversing that system?
Finally, will the Minister think again about the Government’s resistance to paying rent direct to landlords? Again, other noble Lords have mentioned this point. It sounds simple, but if you have, for example, learning difficulties, it is incredibly difficult to manage a chunk of money that has got to last for a month and to find your rent at the end of the day.
Before ending, I want to pay tribute to the CAB, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others for their helpful briefings. In reality, rising debt, huge levels of stress and parents choosing not to eat in order to try to pay their bills are the result of this government policy. Universal credit and its accompanying cuts are generating a humanitarian crisis that ill befits this very rich country. Along with colleagues on all sides of the House, I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the universal credit rollout will be halted while some of the worst features are rectified. If not, will the Minister explain how this policy tallies with his commitment to help those who are only just managing?
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the attention of Members to my interests in the register. I also congratulate my colleague and noble friend Lady Hollis on getting this debate. I want to raise two practical problems that I know, from my experience, are already happening with early claimants of universal credit.
First, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the problems arising with the two-child limit and its effect on kinship carers. I hope that the Minister has been well briefed on the debates that we had in this House on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, when we were told that kinship carers would be exempt from the two-child rule. Unfortunately, the regulations subsequently issued have left a loophole, which my noble friend Lady Drake explained well. A kinship carer is unable to claim child tax credit for any baby to which they give birth if there are already two or more children in the household—even if they are looking after those children because the natural parents are not able to do so. This is not in the spirit of the debates that we had during the passage of the Bill or in the spirit of the speech—the gracious speech, I might say—made by the Minister in conceding on this issue. I hope that this is a mistake and that the Minister will be able to reassure those of us who were active around this issue that the regulations will be corrected to get back to the promise made. Children from the extended family whose natural parents are not able to care for them should not be part of the two-child rule in any circumstances.
I ask the Government to link this to the knowledge that, other than in some boroughs in London, the north-east has the highest proportion of kinship carers in the country, as well as having among the lowest wage rates in the country and the highest number of children in poverty. These things come together and the Government need to pay attention to these people, who really have been left behind.
Secondly, I chair a charity called Changing Lives, which is based in the north-east but also works across Yorkshire, in Merseyside, in other parts of the north-west and in the West Midlands. We work with people with multiple and complex needs—women as well as men. We run the Fulfilling Lives project, funded by the Big Lottery, in Newcastle and Gateshead. It is a long-term project, working with service deliverers on seeking a more holistic response for people with complex needs. Newcastle was nominated as a “test and learn” city for the rollout of universal credit. That means we have been helping some of our clients navigate their way through the new system. For the most vulnerable clients, universal credit is a real problem. In the Fulfilling Lives programme we use a navigator, who works one-to-one with individual service users.
The whole programme is proving exceptionally difficult. Many of the people we are working with are still a long way away from the labour market. As an organisation, Changing Lives has an unrivalled record in getting many of our clients work-fit and into work, but it is often a very long and difficult process. With the most vulnerable, universal credit is, ironically, making it more difficult, not more straightforward, to get them job-ready and into whatever jobs are available. I do not have time to raise the case studies today, but if the Minister would find it useful, I will send her more details.
In the main charity, we have been innovative both with Housing First and with bringing empty properties back into use for homeless people. We have done more than any other organisation in the country on these programmes. In Newcastle, with full rollout of universal credit, we are now seeing arrears of 23% compared to arrears in the rest of the country, in programmes that we are working with, of only 6%. Every universal credit claimant whom we are working with is in arrears. The level of arrears for the charity from universal credit claimants is £51,620.13 as of yesterday. In Home Life, 22 out of 27 tenancies have arrears of over £1,000. People who fall into arrears generally do not get back out. We as a charity are having to budget for increased arrears as universal credit is rolled out. I simply ask the Minister to reflect on this and to consider the devastating effect on those individuals who are trying to put their lives back together.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the five-minute margin that we had in the bank has already been eroded. I urge noble Lords to try to stick within the five-minute limit.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will do my best. I begin by adding my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing the debate and doing so in a speech that was both powerful and elegant.
It is not just the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. I often thought of that when, as a constituency Member of Parliament, I was besieged by constituents who fell victim to another good idea, the CSA. Any Member of Parliament who remembers that knows it is difficult to get it right. I do not doubt for a moment the good intentions of those who brought in universal credit, but they have not got it right. Last week, I entertained to lunch a godson of mine, who is the vicar of two parishes in a very deprived urban area of Lancashire. We talked about some of his problems. I asked him to give me a few examples for this debate—something specific from the coalface. He has done so. He says:
“To manage the flow of clients, each person is given a day and time to sign on. They are sanctioned”—
we have heard about that already—
“if they don’t sign in, or try to sign in at a different time. In August, the DWP computer went down for about an hour. All the claimants who should have signed on during that period clearly could not do so. Each was sanctioned … About a year ago, every claimant on one particular day was sent a letter with the wrong signing-in date (the times were correct). All clients arrived at the correct time but one day late. The staff openly admitted the error but … every person … was sanctioned … There are countless cases of people being sanctioned for missing appointments, and probably they received their appointment letter after the date of the appointment. Staff at the Job Centre receive a bonus if they can move people off Universal Credit. The intended method is clearly for them to help clients to move on to gainful employment”—
which is very good, but—
“the staff … have targets and … we have evidence of people being sanctioned and/or denied Universal Credit with no apparent reason because ‘They can always appeal afterwards’ ... which can represent months with no money whatsoever. A young lady moved to a different address. The Job Centre Plus was informed of the move. Initially her post was sent to the new address. ‘Inexplicably’, the young lady was sanctioned”,
because they had been sending things to the old address.
This is a catalogue of human errors but it is also a catalogue of human misery. He told me of another very bad case:
“A man in his mid-forties who suffers from learning difficulties, and mental and physical illnesses, was homeless but still in receipt of benefits (not Universal Credit). He found a private landlord who was willing to offer him a property with no deposit. Upon applying for housing benefit, he was told that he was deemed to be changing his circumstances and had to make a claim for Universal Credit. This took fourteen weeks for processing. The landlord was unwilling to wait that long for rent so the man became homeless again”.
He goes on. This is something we really should not accept in a civilised age. I do not question the integrity or good intentions of any Minister or any worker in any office, but we should remember that old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This is broke and it needs fixing and I appeal to the Chancellor next week to set about the task of fixing it.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and it is a privilege to take part in this debate. What a tour de force we have had. We would have expected nothing else from my noble friend.
In Wales since April this year, jobcentres in five local authorities have gone into full service. Swansea will follow in December. By 2022, 400,000 households will be on UC, including 13% of the population of Wales. All the problems that we have heard about around the House today have already surfaced in Wales—and quite acutely. Wales remains an exceptionally poor country, despite much effort. The design flaws of universal credit are making life utterly desolate for many people in the post-industrial belt of south-east Wales, the remote rural north and west and in the very poor coastal communities of the north. They are communities that want nothing more than decent work and decent prospects but they want to be sure that work really does pay. They are the communities worst hit by austerity and worst hit now by the failures of universal credit.
When a family in Tredegar or Wrexham finds itself waiting six or seven weeks for money there is nobody they can call on, but the doorstep sharks will be there within seconds. When a young woman in Pembrokeshire tells her Assembly Member how scared she is that she is about to lose 63 pence in every pound once UC is rolled out, it should be clear that this not an incentive to work but a real threat. The CABs in Wales have no doubt that the system is failing. It is driving up debt and despair, as we have heard. There is incorrect information, the sanctions—as we have just heard from the noble Lord—a steady increase in the number of people using food banks and a doubling of food vouchers. I am very grateful to the CABs in Torfaen and Flintshire for this sort of information.
What makes this so tragic and intolerable is that it was avoidable. The Government were warned time and again by their own experts, the Social Security Advisory Committee, and even by the Secondary Legislation Committee of this House, which does not use strong language lightly, that they did not have the evidence to determine full social impact, especially about waiting times, and that they might do great damage. Did they listen? They did not. I really hope that the Minister—for whom we have great respect—will not take refuge in the fact that a proportion of people in the greatest distress are now managing because they have received an advance payment. We are concerned with the many people who are not receiving, and are not likely to receive, advance payments. The consequences for them are cumulative and, indeed, catastrophic.
I hope we will not hear the Minister say that these are rare cases. They are not. They should not come as a surprise. They are the predictable result of a system that has been flawed from the beginning for all the reasons we have heard. The problems come when human error and a systems failure collide. For example, in Flintshire, one of the poorest coastal areas of Wales, the CAB has kept a diary: 76 people came in August—four people a day; 24% needed help with the calculation of benefit and 16% with the housing element. Half already had a long-term health condition or disability. For example, a young woman of 18 with a child, and therefore eligible for UC, tried several times to apply online but her claim was not accepted. When she answered no to the question, “Are you over 18?”, it would not let her continue with her application.
The CAB phoned the helpline and was kept on hold for 40 minutes. Staff were uncertain what to do—flummoxed, in fact—then recommended that she made a special circumstances case in person at the Jobcentre. In the meantime, she has been living on £20.70 a week child benefit to survive. I could not live on that for a day and I doubt that the Minister could.
There is another case of a lady who is disabled and uses a wheelchair. She moved from income support to UC in June. She was previously getting full housing benefit paid directly to her landlord, Flintshire County Council. She is now having real problems getting the housing element paid, has rent arrears and is at risk of eviction. We could multiply these cases all over the country.
We know the prescription, and the Minister has already been told. The CAB has a shortlist of three items: remove the seven waiting days at the start of a claim; allow people to adjust to universal credit by offering everyone a choice of how they would like the benefit to be paid; and ensure that the people who need it get a first payment within two weeks, which they do not pay back. That is straightforward. We know that we have a weak Government and we know they are a discredited Government, but they are not so weak that they cannot address social injustice.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on securing this debate and on her introduction.
Universal credit originally set out to simplify a fragmented, complex system and to reduce poverty through the simple, noble philosophy of making work pay. While it still has the potential to transform this broken system, its current shape risks undermining these two core objectives for the neediest in the nation and thus failing British families. Almost every week, I receive heart-breaking stories about how the transition to UC is devastating the lives of claimants. What does the five or six-week waiting period, which is often longer, actually look like for a family or single parent with young children?
One young mum visits St Aidan’s church kitchen in Hartlepool with her disabled son. She was moved on to universal credit and waited seven weeks for her money. She told one of my clergy that she took paper napkins from McDonald’s because she was unable to afford toilet paper. Her son’s condition means that he wears nappies, which she was also unable to afford. Can any of us here imagine the stress and indignity of such a situation? Despite now receiving her money, the majority of her payments go towards her rent arrears, so she is still dependent on St Aidan’s for a meal and food each week. Her story is one of many I hear of families and individuals falling down a slippery slope of rent arrears, personal debt, eviction and homelessness.
It is too simplistic, however, to say that UC alone pushes families into debt. In many cases it exacerbates existing personal debt, and makes that debt almost impossible to escape. This is particularly acute in the north-east. In Hartlepool, Gateshead and County Durham, more than 30% of adults are indebted and at least three months behind with their bills, compared to a national average of 18%. This will only intensify as payday loan sharks and doorstep lenders increase their work and their profits.
Advance payments are designed to give financial support through the waiting period. The fact that over half of all claimants on universal credit are now asking for these payments, however, shows a system that is flawed. These payments are loans that must be repaid. Citizens Advice Newcastle reports that one in three of the claimants they meet waits more than six weeks, and one in 10 waits more than 10 weeks, for their first payment, forcing over half of claimants to borrow money. Such arrangements perpetuate a cycle of household debt and dependency—the very thing that UC set out to combat. Something must be done to ensure that during this time claimants can meet the basic costs of rent, childcare and food for their family.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned, a specific problem which causes further delays for many new claimants is when they lose their job and receive their final pay in arrears. If this final payment comes in during the assessment period, their first UC payment is reduced accordingly, so they will have to wait another four weeks—at least 10 weeks in total—before getting their full UC entitlement. It is ironic that a system based on paying people in arrears is unable to deal with people being paid their wages or salaries in arrears. Will the Minister say whether and when this problem will be rectified?
By focusing on the short-term impacts of UC, we risk missing the longer-term picture. The decision not to uprate the main elements of UC in line with inflation means that around 400,000 more children will be in poverty, according to estimates by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Had I more time, I would also have discussed the cuts to work allowance and why the taper should be not at 63% but at the original proposed 55%. These cuts are further undermining the most fundamental objective of universal credit: to make work pay.
Finally, I draw your Lordships’ attention to another longer-term facet of UC: the two-child limit. I believe that this will not reduce poverty or make work pay but will be responsible for another 200,000 children living in poverty. Larger families stand to lose almost £3,000 annually for each child beyond the first two. The majority affected are working families, many of whom had children before the policy came into being. What kind of message about the rewards of work does this send to British families? I speak both from my own Christian tradition and also on behalf of the Jewish and Muslim communities, who recognise that children are a blessing and not a burden. We hold that the third, fourth or fifth child is no less precious than the first.
Recent IFS projections anticipate that, in the next five years, the north-east will witness the biggest rise in child poverty of all UK regions—from 28.2% to 39.7%. That is a rise of 11.5%, compared with the UK average of 6.8%. A gulf appears to exist between those of us who make policy decisions and those for whom they are designed. I beseech the Minister to listen not necessarily to us but to the claimants and to some of the staff in the jobcentres, who tell us that we are not succeeding with the original intent. Please keep and return to the original intent of UC—to make work pay and reduce poverty—and recognise that its current rollout is not producing the desired results for the most needy in this country.
Baroness Howells of St Davids (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis. We met in the corridor and, within 10 minutes, I found myself putting my name down to speak—something I had had no intention of doing when I started my journey. When I began to read and to receive information on this subject, I realised that I was living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It was devastating for me, who thought that I cared about people.
So far, we have heard about the impact that universal credit is having both in broad terms and on different and often vulnerable groups. I should like to add a few words about how this policy is affecting claimants from black and ethnic minority backgrounds in particular. They are being told by workers in the social security offices, “You blacks should go out and work like the rest of us”. When you are hungry, you never need to hear words like those—but they were repeated to me on more than one occasion.
Research from the Race Equality Foundation has found that the black and ethnic minority community is likely to be disproportionately impacted by universal credit. The Government’s own figures project that 16% of universal credit claimants will be from BME backgrounds. This is a higher proportion than in the population as a whole. It is not because they do not want to work but because they are dealing daily with the myth of white superiority. That there are people in those offices creating that sort of feeling in people who are desperate should frighten us all. It certainly frightens me.
There are a few reasons why universal credit may have more of a severe impact on BME claimants. First, BME families are more likely to be living in poverty and receiving benefits in the first place, so any delays in universal credit payments will hit their ability to pay harder than most and force them into debt. Having to choose between heating and eating has no place in a country like Britain, which is richer than most.
Secondly, BME claimants have higher rates of digital exclusion, making it harder for them to engage with universal credit in the first place. The language barriers that exist within some BME communities also make it harder for these communities to claim—however good universal credit is—and push them into further hardship.
Lastly, because BME families are usually larger, they will be harder hit by reducing payments and having to wait a very long time to receive them. This reduces the incentive to work and BME children are being pushed into poverty as a result of this programme. Imagine for one moment that you have to decide, “Do I give my children breakfast or do I save it for the evening meal?”. This happens in our wonderful Britain.
There is a need to review many aspects of universal credit—not least due to the disproportionate impact on many British citizens, whatever their colour or status. I hope that the Minister will take note and listen—as I saw her doing earlier to everyone who has had something to say. There is quite a lot that is good about universal credit, but it has to be distributed fairly and quickly. The calls today have all been for dealing with universal credit in a humane way.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for this important opportunity to focus on the sustainability of the welfare system. As a Conservative committed to social justice, I am proud that a Conservative Government have had the courage, vision and political will to introduce universal credit. This is a monumental step change which is putting our welfare system on to a sustainable footing for the future.
I come to this issue as someone who is a benefit claimant. In the past I have claimed incapacity benefit and I claim disability living allowance now to help meet the extra costs of my disability, so I declare a vested interest. Indeed, I depend on a welfare system that is sustainable. I have no vested interest in patronising either disabled or non-disabled claimants of universal credit by implying that somehow it does not really matter whether the welfare system is sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, mentioned ideology. I do not subscribe to the ideology that digging ourselves, as a country, ever deeper into debt will somehow not have painful repercussions further down the line, especially for those who most depend on the welfare state and who can therefore least afford for it to be unsustainable.
Reforming the benefits system of the past so that it is fit for purpose for the future is a huge undertaking, as we have already heard. Indeed, how could it not be? What systemic change process does not generate situations from which we can learn? We have heard of such situations. That is why I welcome the Government’s emphasis on a gradual introduction of universal credit. It is also why I welcome their renewed efforts to make people aware that advances of universal credit are available for those who need it—either within five working days or, if a person is in immediate need, on the same day—and that the rent of people who need extra support with managing their budget can be paid directly to their landlords.
What I cannot welcome is how, in the cut and thrust of Prime Minister’s Questions recently, some on the hard left have risked exacerbating vulnerable people’s fears. Of course it is entirely legitimate to highlight individual cases, but the scaremongering that we have seen in the other place—for example, the suggestion that the universal credit inquiry line is a premium-rate number, when everyone knows that it never has been—helps no one. I thank the Government for countering the scaremongering by making it a freephone number.
A number of disability organisations contacted me rather late in the day about this debate. Time does not allow me to go into the detail, but would my noble friend the Minister be willing to meet me to discuss some of the points that they have made?
In the meantime, and in conclusion, I do not question any noble Lord’s integrity, but there is a fine balance to be struck between highlighting individual cases and misrepresenting universal credit as a whole, as has happened in the other place—as my noble friend Lord Famer highlighted earlier in this important debate. We all know that no one gains if people in real need are frightened off from making a claim when what they need to hear is reassurance that the impact of universal credit is overwhelmingly positive; that it is helping to make the welfare system sustainable for the future, for both the claimant and the taxpayer; that it is being introduced gradually and carefully over the next five years; and that prompt help for those in real difficulty is available.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on this debate and for opening it so eloquently but, I have to say, I take no pleasure in taking part in it. I wish it was a debate that we did not have to have. I wish that universal credit was working and that it was indeed fit for purpose.
It helps absolutely no one to say that universal credit is being politicised. This is not about party politics; it is about people who are suffering, who are in need and in debt and who need intervention. These people do not have a voice. I wish that I could agree with the right reverend Prelate that the Minister should listen to the claimants, but the claimants are not being heard. The Minister smiles, somewhat surprisingly, when I say that, but if they were being heard, we would not be having this debate now.
The problems are not imagined. It is almost like a parallel universe where the Government reside in one country and the rest of us reside in another. Is what we have heard today imagined? No, it is not, but do not take my word for it—let me use the words of others. I raised the negative consequences of universal credit in a debate in your Lordships’ House on housing and affordability. I was surprised by the range of concerns that I received from organisations prior to this debate: Crisis, the NUS, the LGA, Scope, disability groups and many others including, yesterday, the Residential Landlords Association, which says that it is,
“concerned about the impact that Universal Credit is having on private sector tenants …Such a situation is not sustainable for either tenants or landlords. Many landlords are becoming concerned about renting to tenants on Universal Credit as a result”.
It calls for the waiting times to apply for and receive universal credit to be addressed swiftly and asks that,
“claimants … be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves by giving them the ability to choose, where they want to, to have the housing element of UC paid directly to the landlord”.
Crisis is calling for the Government to provide £31 million for help-to-rent projects, which will help to improve the functionality of universal credit. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that:
“Universal Credit … has the potential to dramatically improve the welfare system”,
but then goes on to say that it is calling for three priority actions:
“Reduce the 6-week wait at the beginning of a Universal Credit claim by getting rid of 7 waiting days and giving claimants choice over payment frequency. Enable people to keep more of what they earn under Universal Credit by restoring … Work Allowances. Lift the freeze on working age benefits so incomes keep up with prices”.
Is that imagined? No, it is not. What about Centrepoint, Homeless Link, Shelter and St Mungo’s? They say:
“As four leading homelessness and housing charities, we support the principles behind Universal Credit. Yet we are concerned that Universal Credit in its current form is not working for people who have experienced, or are at risk of, homelessness”.
Yes, it is painful to listen to and perhaps in my delivery it is even more painful for the Minister to hear, but I make no excuses for describing the despair that people are facing day in, day out. It may come as a surprise to some Members that people who are deep in debt or homeless do not sit down and worry about what they read in Hansard. It is a million miles away from the lives they have to lead.
These homelessness charities recommend that:
“A money management package, including exemption from the seven day waiting period, should be developed for individuals identified as homeless or at risk of homelessness at the beginning of a Universal Credit claim”.
Their second recommendation is that:
“All individuals identified as homeless should be granted Alternative Payment Arrangements … as standard, from the beginning of their claim”.
I turn to the casework of my constituency MP, Jim Fitzpatrick—I do not receive such casework. A person was referred for help by the carers’ centre but no assistance was given. He returned to the carers’ centre, which claimed for him, but he will require long-term support to manage his claim. Another person, with poor literacy and no computer, had three separate visits but lacked support and help. For another working claimant, the payments were varied and wrong for three months before being corrected. One claimant had mental health problems that were not being taken into account by the work coach. And there are many others. These are the cases that we know of—what of the others who have slipped through the net, have faced eviction and are now homeless on the streets and dispossessed?
It takes courage and leadership to change one’s mind. I urge the Government to show such courage and leadership.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cashman. Like everybody else who has spoken, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on securing this debate and on the typically forensic manner in which she introduced it. Like many people, I have supported the stated aims of universal credit—to simplify the benefit system and to strengthen incentives to work. There were hopes, too, that it would build on a social security safety net leading to lifting 350,000 children and 600,000 adults out of poverty. Its inheritance was that child poverty was at a 13-year low and there was cross-party support for further poverty reduction.
But we are a long way from all that today, and from the confidence of the coalition Government’s November 2010 White Paper. One of its paragraphs demonstrates the poor judgment involved in implementing such a major change, and why it has run into so many difficulties. Paragraph 12 of the executive summary states that universal credit,
“would involve an IT development of moderate scale, which the Department for Work and Pensions and its suppliers are confident of handling within budget and timescale”.
So much for confidence, with the programme having to be pushed back several times and a complete reset in 2013. But this has still not avoided the problems faced today, which is why we call for a pause in ramping up the full service rollout, so that some of its problems can be sorted out.
Many of the problems have been well aired this morning, and we have received a plethora of briefings for this debate, which are remarkably consistent. Some of the problems are design issues, some are problems with the administration of UC, and some are made worse by the fact that the changes are being implemented in a period of severe austerity. We heard some of the data from my noble friend Lord Livermore.
It is worth reflecting on the scale of this austerity. Let us remind ourselves that, as the CPAG analysis sets out, cuts to social security during the period of the coalition Government amounted to some £14.5 billion a year. The subsequent squeeze under the Conservative Government added further cuts of £13 billion. The OBR has confirmed that universal credit is now less generous than the tax credit and benefit system it replaces. Rather than reduce child poverty, the cuts will mean 1 million more children in poverty compared with the original design. The cuts will also reduce the rewards from work.
We will doubtless hear from the Minister that these cuts are countered by measures to boost family incomes, such as the increase in the personal allowance, the national living wage and childcare support. However, as the IFS points out, not only are these gains much smaller than the loss in benefits but they do not in general accrue to poorer households. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
On matters of design, much attention has rightly been focused on the monthly payment cycle and the initial six-week wait for payment. But there are other issues, perhaps not of such wide application, which have already been aired. Is the Minister aware of the difficulties arising from the late payment of final earnings, which can deny the initial period of a universal credit claim? Does she consider that the treatment of mixed-age couples who are denied pension credit is fair, and if so, why? What justification can she offer for the scrapping of the severe disability premium?
We know that the payment of housing costs through the housing element of universal credit is a significant problem, and the build-up of debt is hurting landlords and tenants alike. It is known that more landlords are joining those who are already reluctant to accommodate tenants on universal credit. The National Housing Federation includes in its representations concerns over mistakes being made by the system, and the lack of information, particularly when transitioning from legacy benefits. We have enough of a housing crisis, without adding to it by procedures which put tenants at risk of eviction and homelessness.
We should acknowledge that the Government have been generous with their time in holding briefings. But there is a total mismatch between what Ministers seem to hear and the furore raging in the country about how universal credit is being applied. It is to be hoped that today’s debate will reach those who currently have the power to change this.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on securing this debate at such a timely juncture, and on introducing it with her customary authority. Everybody says that universal credit is a good idea in theory. If successfully implemented as originally conceived, it would bring six existing benefits together in a single system and ensure that work always paid. But in practice it has been dogged by nothing but problems. Implementation has been subject to severe delays, and it is now running some five years behind. It has been beset by IT problems, cost overruns and write-offs, and the Treasury has substantially eroded the value of the new benefit by cutting costs, in particular by raising the taper rate—the rate at which earnings are clawed back—from 55p to 65p in the pound; it was only slightly reduced, to 63p, in last year’s Autumn Statement. As is plain to see, rollout, and the time people have to wait before payment, is giving rise to major problems.
I want to talk about the impact on disabled people. I suspect I shall be making a good many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, did not have time to make, so if he has discussions later with the Minister, I wonder whether I might possibly join those discussions.
To begin with, a number of design and implementation faults have caused problems for disabled people in accessing payments. There are concerns that processes and systems are inaccessible. Universal credit is normally claimed online, and Citizens Advice has found that people are struggling with the application process, including difficulties with the online system. The online application process must be made accessible, including the provision of information that is easy to understand. Disabled people should also be given the opportunity to make their claim in person and have access to appropriate support.
As for the financial impact, Citizens Advice estimates that 68% of households claiming universal credit will have an adult with a disability or long-term health condition. In her 2012 report Holes in the Safety Net, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, found that 450,000 disabled people would be worse off under universal credit. Certain groups would be particularly affected: 100,000 disabled children would lose up to £28 a week, and 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to assist them could lose between £28 and £58 a week. Up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing £40 a week.
The reality was made clear by a disability activist who wrote to me saying:
“One aspect of the universal credit system which to date no one has mentioned is the fact that when making a new claim for universal credit, severely disabled people lose £78.35 a week. This is due to the fact that two of the three disability premiums that were available under employment and support allowance are no longer available under universal credit. Under ESA there were three disability premiums. A basic disability premium of £32.55 a week is still available, but a severe disability premium, currently £62.45 a week payable to people receiving the mid or high-care component of DLA or PIP, and an enhanced disability premium, currently £15.90 a week payable to those in receipt of the highest rate of care component, are no longer available.”
She cited the case of a disabled man with severe mental health problems who stood to lose £77.75 a week. The stress occasioned by this potential reduction in his income, together with the hassle of the application process, had led him to make two attempts on his life.
The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 also saw a £30 a week cut in employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. That was a particularly controversial cut. Despite much urging from the disability community, there is no sign of it being reversed. This cut is mirrored in universal credit by the removal of the limited capability for work component, also worth £30 a week. In many cases, this is likely to mean that for those disabled people in low-paid jobs, work will no longer pay, while for those not in work, it will be increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents 80 disability charities, is urging the Government to halt the rollout of universal credit for any further disabled claimants and urgently engage with disability organisations and disabled people to see how the dire consequences of universal credit for disabled people can be ameliorated. I earnestly beg the Government to heed its call.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, there is, as exemplified by today’s debate, widespread concern about the way universal credit has developed. I shall outline some of the problems that have emerged in Newcastle, as reported by the city council, of which I am a member, and the citizens advice bureaux.
The system has been implemented locally in stages since May 2016 and the process will be complete by May 2019. There are now in Newcastle 10,826 people on universal credit, and by 2022 working-age benefits will be cut by £123 million. Already there have been serious problems. The controversial six-week wait—this has been referred to many times today—before the first payment is made has led the council to make 327 crisis support scheme awards, totalling just over £29,000, to people awaiting payment or receiving an incorrect amount. As if that was not bad enough, the DWP has been found to be deducting fines from payments, often by as much as 40%, without considering the individual circumstances and hardship that might ensue.
There are also problems around the impact on council tax reduction. Hitherto, housing benefit and council tax reduction were applied for at the same time. Now only those universal credit claimants who indicate an intention to the DWP to claim separately for council tax reduction benefit will have information about their entitlement to universal credit sent to the council. The council has processed 3,723 claims for council tax reduction, which is many fewer than anticipated, and is working with Jobcentre Plus and Your Homes Newcastle to maximise the number of universal credit claimants claiming council tax benefits at the earliest stage. What will the Government do to facilitate this process?
There are particular problems for those residents for whom English is not a first language. Library staff, with the aid of interpreters, have helped over 100 households to obtain their entitlement, but there must be concern about those who have not sought that aid. Currently, Your Homes Newcastle has rent arrears attributable solely to universal credit of nearly £1.4 million.
There are some sad cases among those struggling with the new system. There is the single 25 year-old woman who lost her job, had no income for five weeks and faces eviction from her private rented property. Another woman, suffering from depression and with a baby daughter not yet a year old, was left entirely without income and had to be provided with food and supplies by the council. A 61 year-old man, unable to read or write, was booked into an assisted digital support session at the city library by Jobcentre Plus. The library staff managed to help him through the application, but how is he going to manage his email account in the future?
Newcastle’s citizens advice bureau has helped 357 people since July, and, in the last two years, 11.2% of all households on universal credit in the city. It relates some staggering statistics: 30% of the people it has helped had made 10 or more calls to the helpline and 40% were unaware of the possibility of obtaining an advance payment while waiting the six or seven weeks before the first payment was made. Even the likely reduction to a four-week delay is still going to cause problems.
There are problems with free school meals because of delays in proving the universal credit claim is successful until two days before the first payment. Any money paid for dinners before then is not reimbursed, with parents having to have recourse to the food bank.
There are also problems with people being persuaded to move from jobseeker’s allowance to universal credit. One man lost £100 a month in housing benefit which had included a disabled living allowance and the disability and severe disability premium which came with jobseeker’s allowance, but not with universal credit.
One woman was transferred to universal credit from jobseeker’s allowance where she had a disability and severe disability payment of £728 a month and lost £410 a month, so is left with some £317 a month in total and could lose her home because she cannot keep up her mortgage payments.
Whatever the good intentions, it is apparent that this transformation of welfare provision has been little short of a disaster for far too many people. It is taking much longer than estimated to roll out, leaves too many people struggling to make meagre ends meet and adds to the huge pressure on local councils and advice centres struggling to help those people navigate the uncharted waters of social security reform. It is not so much universal credit as near universal discredit.
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on securing this debate, which provides an opportunity to remind ourselves how universal credit can help its recipients. I echo some of the concerns that have been raised today.
I stress that universal credit has definitely created clear incentives to work by removing the poverty traps at all levels which in the past often made paid work uneconomic. Indeed, the existence of universal credit probably helped mitigate the unemployment rise in the wake of the last recession so that the numbers of unemployed were below all known forecasts. As others have remarked, we should remind ourselves of those years, and of what universal credit is here to replace. Before universal credit, we had a complex system that failed the very people who needed the support and opportunity the most—an incredibly complicated administrative system, which, as my noble friend Lord Farmer said, often trapped people in a cycle of vulnerability, dependency, immobility and poverty.
Since the introduction of universal credit, we have a system where work actually pays at all levels, whether part-time or full-time, compared with not working, and not just financially. I am a passionate believer in the pride and dignity that work provides, how it gives a sense of self-worth and a feeling of belonging, and how even an initially less well-paid job or a part-time job can lead to promotion or help enhance a CV, whereas a long period of unemployment blights it.
Despite hearing many examples today of individual cases where UC has caused real problems, overall since universal credit was brought in, more people are able to get work than under the previous benefit system. We know that universal credit claimants are four percentage points more likely to be in work within six months compared with people on the previous jobseeker’s allowance. Like my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, I stress that above all the system must be sustainable.
Figures show that the number of children living in workless households is at the lowest level since records began and unemployment is at the lowest level since 1975, as my noble friend Lady O’Cathain said. Furthermore, by the end of the rollout, it is estimated that universal credit will boost employment by 250,000. Behind all those statistics are hard-working people making this happen and universal credit supports them in that.
Like others, however, I wish to raise concerns with my noble friend the Minister. I acknowledge that while being paid monthly possibly helps the recipient to prepare for the monthly salary that is most common in work, and becoming more so—I see the logic of that—I am aware that people who receive universal credit are often out of work and have little or no savings to fall back on. Like many noble Lords, I would like my noble friend to explain how the Government currently mitigate the slightly longer time it takes for a claimant to receive universal credit, and whether there are any plans to improve the situation if we see more claimants experience real cash-flow problems. Furthermore, I understand that, at the time they apply, some claimants who find themselves entering universal credit will have existing rent arrears, debts and possibly payday loans. Does the Minister agree that we need to do more on personal financial education in the UK—at all levels, including schools? Are new universal credit claimants with pre-existing debts either referred to Citizens’ Advice automatically or given the information they need to get their debts down? Will they get assistance in accessing products that can help them to do this, such as IVAs or other programmes for managing debt?
While it is easy to categorise the unemployment level as a number, I try never to forget that behind every claimant count there is a human being wanting to work—to provide a better life for themselves and possibly their family. There is a human being feeling the frustration of not seeing job vacancies that fit their skills, financial needs or family commitments, and probably enduring endless interviews and the bureaucracy of repeated claims.
After years of tinkering with a failing system with so many layers and complexities, replacing it with universal credit provides the best chance to help that person back into the world of work. Therefore, despite the real issues raised—I hope the Minister can address some of them—I believe it provides the best chance of that person leading a self-fulfilled and purposeful life.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, on the face of it, universal credit seems a good idea. We were told that it would simplify the system; it would make work pay and, as a result, recipients would enjoy higher living standards. Why is it then that an astonishing mass of experts have provided evidence that has led them to urge a temporary halt to the rollout of the system until it can be more effectively and efficiently put in place?
Why, we may ask, was it necessary for the Joseph Rowntree trust to point out that the majority of people experiencing poverty already live in working households? In 2013, claimants in Warrington were among the first to experience universal credit. Their biggest social landlord quickly found that the haphazard payments system did not fall in with its accounting procedures and processes—92% of its tenants using the new system went into rent arrears.
Some problems—such as the six-week wait for benefit—were known about four years ago. The majority of in-work claimants get paid weekly and those on zero-hours contracts and in other forms of the gig economy have no certainty over when they will be paid. Not surprisingly, few have money in the bank to finance delays. We are entitled to ask, was it the Government, a Minister, or the DWP who thought claimants could wait six weeks or longer before receiving any money? Did they think unfriendly landlords would wait six weeks for their rent?
Who would doubt that the six-week wait was incorporated purely as a saving device? It is known that, from the outset, universal credit has been dogged with problems—processing errors, computers malfunctioning and poor management. The Guardian reported irregular payments to claimants, claims being closed without explanation, difficulties in contacting benefit officials, and lengthy waits for errors to be corrected. The CAB found that local jobcentres had no reliable access to the system to sort out problems. Local authority staff brought in to help were unable to reach anyone with responsibility for universal credit, or who had the will or, indeed, the authority to investigate.
Do the Government really think a rollout to the whole country will improve the system, which is unable to cope with existing numbers? It will be like trying to run a marathon backwards. A variety of individuals and organisations predicted, and indeed warned, that the rollout would result in chaos. To date, the evidence shows that what we have is not just chaos but, for many people, social disaster.
The Peabody Trust estimates that the mandatory six-week wait for a first payment will put more than 23,000 low-income families at risk of destitution. The Trussell Trust predicts that in the run-up to Christmas, when the number of food banks in areas of full universal credit will triple, there will be a massive increase in demand for its services. Already, it has seen a 30% average increase in use among universal credit claimants. New analysis by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Public Policy Research predicts that the cuts to benefits under universal credit will put 1 million children into poverty, while the Institute for Fiscal Studies states that the number of children living in poverty will soar to a record 5.2 million over the next five years—and so the problem increases. Organisation after organisation questions the sense of expanding the system. Shelter warns of a massive increase in homelessness. Last month, Frank Field MP, chair of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, accused the Government of withholding bad news. I do not question their motives—if I had such a bad story to tell, I would keep it to myself.
With the crisis getting worse by the day, common sense demands a pause to sort out the administration and the structural problems of universal credit, otherwise the cost to the next generation will be extreme poverty and futures lost forever. In summary, the verdict across the country on this policy is simple: good intention, poor execution.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. My other interests are as listed in the register.
Universal credit stands as an almost perfect example of what the French call “the politics of the stiff neck”—a stubborn, haughty refusal to change one’s mind in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. The consequence of this stubbornness is to cause quite unnecessary misery for a large number of very vulnerable people.
I hope that today’s debate, which I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on organising, will go some way to persuading the Government to change their minds. There can be few—there are none in this Chamber—who disagree with the aims of universal credit: to simplify the benefits system and make work pay. The key problem lies not in the aims but the execution.
It is a complex project that has to take account of a lot of different individual circumstances. If you are really going to make work pay, there is a cost, which goes against the relentless reduction in welfare spending. No one expected this project to be easy. Indeed, when it ran into trouble during the coalition Government, there were big issues to resolve. They were largely internal problems, however, and the pain, such as it was, was confined to Ministers and officials responsible for that implementation. The crucial difference between then and the current crisis is that the pain now will be felt by thousands of claimants and that number will grow dramatically to some 7 million people as the project is rolled out.
If anybody doubts the malign impact that universal credit in its current form is having, I would refer them to the Smith Institute Report Safe as Houses: The impact of Universal Credit on Tenants and Their Rent Payment Behaviour, commissioned by the London Boroughs of Croydon and Southwark, and Peabody. Seven hundred and seventy-five rent payment accounts of tenants starting universal credit in August and October 2016 were analysed and compared with 249 tenants starting on housing benefits at the same time—a control sample. In addition, 36 in-depth interviews and four focus groups were held. The results are absolutely clear cut: growing rent arrears, with high arrears at the start that are never fully recovered; delayed payments and consequential financial hardship; a one-size-fits-all approach that does not take account of the individual circumstances of tenants; and severe impacts on those tenants who are the most vulnerable. The statistics tell a story but the individual cases, as we have heard today, are heart-rending. What is particularly sad is that the feelings claimants now have about universal credit—which was intended to help them—are generally, if not universally, negative.
Claimants really do not want to be in debt. They do not want to rely on friends or, even worse, on loan sharks. Our research at Peabody has calculated that without change, 41,000 children in the UK are at risk of being in penniless homes over this Christmas due to the wait for universal credit. I think Members on all sides of the House will see this as utterly intolerable.
What can be done? Some good practical steps can be taken now: remove the seven-day wait at the start of a new claim; reduce the waiting period to two weeks, as with housing benefit; offer everyone alternative payment arrangements—let the claimant make the decision on whether they want their rent paid direct, not have the state decide what is good for them; inform everyone moving on to universal credit that advance payments arrangements exist; and put in place a comprehensive support package to help with the application process. These measures will not deal with all the deep issues with universal credit at the moment, but they would be an incredibly good start. I add that the Government, if they are serious, should also establish an independent body to review the progress and impact of universal credit at each stage of the rollout. I say to Ministers that these are not big asks; they do not threaten the future of the project. Why on earth do the Government not agree them now?
Good government is not easy. We make mistakes; we learn from them. But to press on with this project without amendment when there is such clear evidence of the distress and hardship it will cause is not just bad government—it is cruel. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the situation is becoming critical. More and more questions are being asked of the Minister but she has less and less time in which to answer them. I urge noble Lords to make sure that their speeches end by the time the clock hits five minutes.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I too was stopped in the corridor by my noble friend Lady Hollis, who urged me to take part in this debate. I will not go into any detail about our conversation, but she could teach my noble friend Lord McAvoy—a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other House—a thing or two about effective persuasion.
In July 2012, in a report, Disability and Universal Credit, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, wrote:
“No group will be more affected than disabled people”.
She was right. It is estimated that half a million disabled people will be financially worse off through the removal of the disability premiums, as well as cuts in child disability payments affecting 100,000 children. The Government say that support will be provided through personal independence payments and social care from local councils, and that “transitional protection” will be available when disabled people are moved from ESA to universal credit. But cash-strapped local authorities have no obligation to provide this support. Can the Minister confirm that this is the case?
The removal of the severe disability premium and the £30 cuts to the limited capability for work component, as well as cuts to working allowances, will hit disabled people both in and out of work. There have been a number of problems, causing difficulties in accessing the system. I raised this in a series of questions in November 2012. I wanted to know what assistance would be available to people receiving UC if their payments were wrong as a result of their employer failing to notify HMRC of their pay and tax details. I was told:
“If earnings are not reported … claimants will be requested to declare their earnings … through the universal credit interface”.
I asked how the UC interface would operate and was told:
“The UC ... will allow claimants to provide ... details via a self-reporting tool”.
I then asked what a self-reporting tool was and was told that it was the telephone. If it took me three questions to get that answer, what hope does anybody else have who is seeking to access information on how to get into this system? How else will claimants be able to get information? The online application process must be made more accessible, including the provision of easy-to-understand information. Does the Minister agree? Disabled people should be given the opportunity to make claims in person and should have access to appropriate support. Does the Minister agree with that?
The Government have sought to reassure people with the promise of work coaches who be responsible for guiding the claims of disabled people and advising them on returns to work. We are told they will work up the “claimant commitment”, but if people fail to comply they face sanctions. So far the Disability Benefits Consortium has seen no evidence that universal credit processes, systems and work coaches will be able to appropriately assess and support disabled people and those with complex health conditions. Will the Minister agree to look at this urgently?
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mr David Gauke, said:
“The fundamental purpose of universal credit is to assist people into work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/17; col. 866.]
But if you have a disability you will be among the millions of people without work and with little prospect of work. Despite the Government pledging to get 1 million more disabled people into work, the disability employment gap remains frozen. Just 30% of people with a disability are working compared with 80% of non-disabled people. In the 2015 election manifesto the Conservatives said that,
“we will aim to halve the disability employment gap”.
Was this meant to be by the end of Parliament? Can the Minister enlighten us on that pledge? The Government now appear to be talking of a 10-year strategy. Is that now the policy? We need clarity, because at the current rate of providing opportunities for disabled people to get into work it will take half a century to cut the numbers in half.
I turn briefly to the issue of people with autism. The disability employment gap is wide but the autism employment gap is even wider. The National Autistic Society, of which I am a vice-president, believes that only 16% of people on the autism spectrum are in full-time work. If you add the numbers of autistic people in part-time work, you get an overall autism employment rate of 32%. This is despite 75% of autistic people wanting to work. The National Autistic Society is concerned that work coaches will not have the knowledge or understanding of autism and that they will be unable to recognise the potential impact they may have on a person’s ability to work. The barriers an autistic person faces in finding and keeping jobs are often different from those with other disabilities, and work coaches will need a thorough knowledge and understanding of how their advice can impact upon people with autism. To tackle the autism employment gap, the National Autistic Society wants all work coaches fully trained and the Government to produce an autism-specific employment pathway with end-to-end specialist support. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at this.
Universal credit is a good idea. It was meant to help people into work. In fact, it is helping people into poverty.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who has made sure that this Motion is debated here, for it appears to be one of the most contentious government programmes being rolled out at the moment and a real opposition attack line. I must admit that I am surprised that it is actually being proposed. When my friend the current Member for Chingford presented the initial White Paper in the other place, I thought it would be too difficult for any Government, purely on an administrative level. It is testament to the indefatigability and competence of the current Secretary of State and his predecessors that we are finally moving to a full rollout.
I state at the outset that I am in favour of the principles of universal credit. To simplify benefits into a consolidated payment makes sense on every level. Lower processing costs and greater ease of use create gains for the recipient and the administrator, as well as making it easier for new entrants to avoid paperwork. Some take the general view that monthly payment is wrong because it means that funds can be spent more quickly. Let me be clear: I am a Conservative. I believe in personal responsibility and sound fiscal management. In the workplace, one is expected to manage spending such that it tallies with the inflow of wages. If we have a benefits system that does not prepare people for the workplace, what is the point? It is precisely because the way people are paid requires management skills that we must structure our benefits system to mirror it. We teach our young people what they need to manoeuvre in the modern economy in school, and it makes sense that the various other arms of the British state ought to as well.
I will keep my criticism of the scheme brief, mainly because one of my key concerns has already been addressed. Forcing claimants to pay to call up, especially with the complexities of a new system, was mean-spirited and unfair. I am glad this has been reversed. My other criticism—and I worry—is that the relatively simple cases that the scheme currently deals with can create complacency. Single people with few complications are the easiest cases, so some of the evident success of the scheme could fall away as more people are brought on. Let no illusions be entertained: there will be more bumps in the road ahead.
There is one area I would like the Government to rethink. I was concerned to read about the data collected from Croydon, Hounslow and Southwark in the Work and Pensions Select Committee report last month. The data indicates that 2,500 tenants in London claiming UC stand at risk of eviction from their homes as a result. I do not think that this is entirely government failure. As the National Federation of ALMOs report made clear, three-quarters of claimants were already struggling. However, we ought to make every exertion to not exacerbate that issue, especially as the taper rate is already being lowered and people are receiving smaller cheques.
I was pleased to read that the Secretary of State was open minded to increasing the share of advance payments to more than 50% of the estimated first UC payment. I would like more flexibility to let that rate be raised or banded for different kinds of claimants. Will my noble friend consider this policy in light of the data that we received last month?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is an extraordinarily timely debate in terms of the rollout of universal credit and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on securing it. Her powerful opening speech was a catalogue of good policies eroded by Treasury pressure, now creating misery for thousands.
I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation representing housing associations. Many thousands of their tenants are eligible for universal credit. I have seen at first hand the awful impact on families and individuals of both the six-week wait and the poor administration of the scheme. The federation I chair has worked with the department to design a portal that enables landlords to see the status of tenants in the system and avoid moving to eviction.
I want to focus on some of the immediate problems that housing associations have encountered. It is clear that the six-week waiting time for the first payment is not working. It is causing unnecessary hardship for low-income families who struggle to make ends meet while waiting for their very first payment. I know that the Government have increased the availability of advance payments, but these are loans that must be paid back. This leaves people with already very limited funds with another financial burden to manage while they try to keep a roof over their head and put food on the table.
The six-week wait is not fundamental to the operation of universal credit. It has been built into the system by government and—yes—by pressure from the Treasury. Reducing this period to two weeks or to a very maximum of four weeks would save even more people from falling into unnecessary financial hardship and building up rent arrears. Will the Minister acknowledge the evidence and deal with this as a matter of urgency?
Then there is the way universal credit is being paid. Claimants are paid on a monthly basis in arrears. The Government argue that this is designed to mirror the world of work, smoothing the transition into paid employment. The Resolution Foundation found that this was not realistic for many of those eligible for universal credit. Many other noble Lords have mentioned this, but 58% of new claimants moving on to universal credit after leaving a job were not paid monthly. They relied on weekly or fortnightly pay cheques. So the move means more juggling of costs, or borrowing money while they wait for their UC to arrive. We should have learned; the same problems arose when weekly cash payments were changed to monthly bank payments. The response then was phasing and it worked. Will the Minister consider that option before UC is rolled out any further?
I have one final point. As many noble Lords have highlighted, universal credit is a huge change for everyone involved. It should be no surprise that many people need help navigating and managing it. All sorts of problems need to be sorted out. But the department has not allowed implicit consent for sharing information with third parties in UC full service areas—except for MPs. This is a different system from live service and has hamstrung housing associations and agencies such as Citizens Advice as they try to help people manage their claims and sustain their tenancies.
In full service, housing associations now have to seek explicit consent from tenants to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to share more detailed information about a claim. This consent can last for the period of the assessment, or sometimes staff are asked to provide consent each time they contact the DWP on the tenant’s behalf. This is just not practical, especially in rural areas where support is often provided remotely. It leads to unnecessary delays in sorting out problems and, in the worst circumstances, can result in associations and tenants incurring legal costs because a problem with a claim cannot be sorted out in time. I urge the Minister to resolve this issue as soon as possible. I urge her to look again now at waiting times, payment cycle and the rules around consent.
There was widespread support for the principle and aims of universal credit. Speakers today on all sides of the House have shown that we do not yet have a system that meets those aims. As the rollout of universal credit speeds up, affecting more and more people, these issues will pose real challenges to the very people universal credit was set up to help. This is one of the biggest welfare changes in a generation. I do not believe that the Government want their legacy to be thousands of families pushed further into debt and hardship.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for bringing this debate to the House at such a timely moment. I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute on such an important matter. Due to time constraints I will restrict my remarks to the intended impact of universal credit on claimants and how it would be possible to ensure that universal credit was universally positive for claimants.
When the concept of universal credit was created, it was designed to address a welfare system—as we have heard—that disincentivised both work and progression in work, penalising those who worked more or less than, say, 16 hours per week, and that made the transition into work a complicated and illogical step to take. The vision therefore for universal credit was for a system that reversed those dynamics. Fundamentally, universal credit was designed to be a simpler system, combining, as we have heard, six separate benefits into a single payment, paid in arrears to mirror the world of work—a system that incentivises work and assists people as they move into and progress in work, and that makes work pay. Universal credit is designed to ensure that work is the logical choice.
It is a system that is proven to have a positive impact on claimants as they take and progress in work. Universal credit claimants invest more time looking for jobs—around 50% more than someone on jobseeker's allowance. Universal credit claimants move faster into work. Claimants who are unemployed are 4% more likely to be in work within the first six months of their claim than someone on jobseeker's allowance. Universal credit claimants work more hours, and they earn more. Universal credit claimants work, on average, 12 days more than JSA claimants in the first nine months of their claim.
It was for these reasons and with this vision that many on both sides of this House supported universal credit, and it is for these reasons that universal credit is having a positive impact on the lives of claimants. To repeat, as it is, universal credit is enabling claimants to move into work faster, earn more and progress further. These are the positive impacts of universal credit.
However, major reforms are never undertaken in a vacuum and, as we know, universal credit was introduced at a time of austerity. It was also launched with a “test and learn” approach at its heart and at a pace where it was possible to continually make adjustments to ensure that its original intent was delivered. It is for this reason that, as the Minister keeps her vigilant eye on delivery, I ask that she considers the following matters.
First, the fact that universal credit is paid in arrears is a feature of the legacy system. What is not a feature of the legacy system is the waiting period before someone is eligible to claim universal credit, which has become known as “waiting days”. This is not a design feature of universal credit, and should be separated in concept from it. In terms of claimant experience, I recommend that Her Majesty’s Government use each and every Budget to eliminate it completely. I do not think it should just be reduced; I think it should be abolished.
Secondly, I encourage the Government to use this Budget and each spending review to continue investing in the work allowances and taper in the same way as they restored the investment in tax credits, as it is the best way to support those who are just about managing.
Lastly, once these issues are addressed, there is one other item that would benefit the user experience of universal credit. With regard to childcare, if you are on a higher income outside universal credit, you can claim the tax-free childcare offer for as many children as you have. That is not the case for universal credit claimants. An investment of around £50 million could change that.
The Prime Minister has reiterated her commitment to both mental health and skills development, and I hope that this is reflected in a strong and continued commitment to universal support, extended beyond financial and digital inclusion to include family, mental health and skills support. I thank the Minister for ensuring that universal credit can continue to support claimants to earn more, move into work faster and progress in work, and I ask her to ensure that as she turns her mind towards the Budget—I understand that she cannot say anything now—under her department’s “test and learn” approach the issue of waiting days at least will be addressed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, universal credit does not fit the needs of the self-employed. It adds to complexity of their lives and acts as a disincentive to genuine self-employment. Because of the gulf between the DWP and HMRC, the self-employed have to cope with different systems, whether cash-based or accrual-based, whether pension contributions can or cannot be offset, and whether reporting is monthly, quarterly or annually. Even within HMRC, you will get a different answer depending on whether it is about tax or tax credit.
The Government have adopted a broad-brush approach and devised a system that discriminates against those doing the right thing. The Government’s concern about so-called hobby traders is skewing the whole system; they would be better dealt with under anti-abuse processes. If someone is designated as gainfully self-employed, they will already have satisfied certain criteria, and it is unlikely that they would be hobby traders. The self-employed are discriminated against if they earn the same as an employed person but have fluctuating earnings. They include farmers and actors, among a whole host of different groups. They can lose up to £2,600 a year because of the clunky system known as the minimum income floor.
The minimum income floor applies only to those designated as gainfully self-employed. They are subject to monthly assessments, which in themselves are an unnecessary burden. In any month in which a self-employed claimant’s profits fall below the minimum income floor, their universal credit award is assessed as if they had profits at least equal to the MIF. The discrimination kicks in when there are fluctuating earnings. If a claimant then feels that their gainfully self-employed status is not worth it because of the loss of significant financial support, they might push for reclassification as not being gainfully self-employed, accepting that work conditionality would apply. This is an unclear area as it is not dealt with in the legislation, although the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that people had a choice. It is not much of a choice, by the way.
The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation has suggested a number of measures that would help to mitigate the worst impacts of the current system, and I am grateful to Robin Williamson, Victoria Todd and Claire Thackaberry for their briefing and excellent report, which was published last month, entitled Self-employed Claimants of Universal Credit—Lifting the Burdens. Of course I accept that people should not be allowed to manipulate the system, be it those mentioned in the Paradise papers or universal benefit claimants, and failing small businesses should not be supported by the taxpayer.
Time does not allow me to cover all the suggested changes proposed by the LITRG but I have selected key points. The first is specially trained jobcentre staff so that all new self-employed claimants would have an interview and be given ongoing support. We are not criticising jobcentre staff; we are saying that they are drowning. Secondly, the start-up period for the gainfully self-employed should be extended to two years so they can establish themselves and demonstrate their viability. Thirdly, claimants with fluctuating incomes or profits should be able to average them over a period greater than one month for universal credit; then, they would not suffer the cosh of the highly complex surplus earnings rules or be penalised by the minimum income floor regulations. Lastly, the calculation of gross profit should follow the HMRC cash accounting rules to align the systems, resulting in fewer errors as well as allowing the DWP to use tax returns to verify universal credit where necessary. There would need to be exceptions, of course, such as farmers, who have to use accruals accounting.
Self-employment has grown under this Government in spite of government policy. The Government now have the choice to treat the self-employed equally and fairly.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. No one has done more in this important field of public policy over the years than she has. At the same time as we are discussing this important subject in the House of Lords, the House of Commons is discussing exactly the same topic. If ever there was any doubt about the importance of the subject, the conjunction of these two debates today should have significance for the Minister.
I will do a deal with the Minister: I will ditch what I was going to say, because I concur with so many of the points that have been made, as they are sensible. In return, if I give her a little more time to reply, I ask her to help me to understand three questions. The first was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was right about the broken promises. I certainly feel cheated, as does she. She and I spent a lot of time working together in the exceptional Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We have come a long way now. We have come even further from dynamic benefits, which I signed up to; I signed up to test and learn, universal service delivered locally and in-flight corrections.
It was understood that we were going to put in a generous floor that did not just deal with work. The problem in this debate is that colleagues on the Conservative side of the House are pursuing—almost exclusively, if I can put it so pejoratively—the importance of work. That is right, but more than 1 million people who are going to move on to universal credit will never be asked to look for work, and we have to cater for them too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I started back in David Donnison’s day with supplementary benefit. That was a safety net, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, mentioned. He made an important point because what we are missing here is the universal safety net that will need to be applied before people can even contemplate approaching the labour market. If this benefit were called “universal job search”, it would be perfect and I would support it 100%, as long as it were in place with a safety net underneath it.
I have three requests for the Minister. First, it would help me enormously if she could make a commitment—not a pledge or a manifesto commitment—saying that the Government intend, in the fullness of time, when resources allow, to put back some of the things mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. If she said that that was the Government’s ambition, it would go some way toward dealing with an important broken promise.
Secondly, there really needs to be some practical change. Next week is a key moment. We do Budgets now only once a year, rather than once every six months. Therefore, if we do not get the resources we need—I would sign up to the package proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and I also like the idea of the fortnightly grant, which would get over some of the short-term, immediate problems staring us in the face—the whole thing could be prejudiced. There is a danger that this becomes so toxic that we will not want anything to do with universal credit. This is a very important long-term policy for the country, so next week’s Budget is essential. If we miss that, we will not get another shot at this until a year’s time, and that will be too late.
Thirdly, I urge the Minister to go back to the Treasury—we understand her position: we are not stupid—and stress that if something serious is not done or some serious intentions are not made clear, we are in danger of risking future collapse in public confidence in this very important policy. That would not be in the interests of anyone: not the United Kingdom, not low-income families and not even those who are comfortable and have found their way early into the labour market. There is a lot at stake here. It has been a very important debate and I hope the Minister gets a chance to respond to it in good time.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this has indeed been a powerful debate. I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Hollis for opening it with her characteristic combination of passion and mastery of detail. I am also grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords, who, between them, have told the story of universal credit, from the original dream, the plans, the delays and the stumbles, to the reality of the gap between the dream and what now is.
On 13 September 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, stood at that Dispatch Box for the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill. He described universal credit as,
“the most radical reform of the welfare system since its invention”.
He told us:
“It will be simple to understand and access”.—[Official Report, 13/9/11; cols. 628-9.]
He also assured us that everyone would be on it by 2017.
He described a seamless system that would ease the passage into work, make people better off and ensure that work always paid. He claimed that UC could lift nearly 1 million people out of poverty. Those promises were the basis on which Parliament voted to adopt universal credit, so to ask whether the system meets those promises is not to play politics, it is to judge the Government by the standards that they set for themselves.
If any noble Lord opposite ordered a hire car and were expecting a Rolls-Royce, and what they got was a battered old Morris Minor with a flat tyre and a broken back window, I do not think that they would be very happy if the company said, “You don’t really want to go home. If you wanted to drive, you would just get in it and go”. We are merely asking that the Government deliver what they promised, and that is what is not happening.
It does not help to get into a political game of pretending that tax credits were all dreadful and universal credit is all perfect. I worked as a special adviser in the Treasury alongside my noble friend Lord Livermore. We were all trying to do the same thing: to make work pay, to lift people out of poverty and to have a system that works for everybody. Let us try to work together to get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, described what universal credit was meant to do. Of course, in that conception, it was a much more generous system. It had a 55% taper; it had more support; it had full universal support; it was a very different creature. We have to work out what is happening now, but it has been subject to repeated cuts from the Treasury, a point made by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Livermore in a very powerful speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and many others. We have heard many noble Lords demolish the idea that universal credit, as it is now constructed, always makes work pay: it clearly does not, and we need to get to a place where it does. My noble friend Lady Hollis made that very clear.
I am also sorry to say that we do not yet know if it works to help people to move into work, because the only evidence is research done before the work allowances were cut, back in the days when most people on universal credit were young single people, not those with kids or disabilities. We just do not know; the jury is out.
As for supporting people into work, the idea is meant to be that the claimant and their work coach work together to produce a personalised claimant commitment. That was the original vision, but I am hearing too many complaints about the variable quality of work coaches. The Government’s own research shows that most claimants feel that they are given a one-size-fits-all demand that does not meet their circumstances.
Although the carrots have been taken away, my worry is that the sticks are still there and the Government will have to lean on them. We have heard concerns about inappropriate sanctions on universal credit claimants, a point also made by the Trussell Trust. The trust also flagged up the problems emerging with in-work conditionality. In this new system, getting a job is not enough: if you do not earn enough money in that job to get off universal credit completely, you can be pushed to get more hours, or a second job, or to ditch your secure job for a better paid job. That is not very easy if you have kids or caring responsibilities. The system has to work before those sticks are wielded at people, and I do not think that they should be wielded that way anyway.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy made a very powerful case about the problems facing self-employed claimants. If the key argument for universal credit is a response to changes in income in real time, how can it be right to penalise self-employed people who are, across a year, earning the amount of money that the Government require, simply because they have good and bad months? That is what happens in business, even if they are not in seasonal work. Why can you get penalised if your profits drop one month because you have to pay the insurance bill? That simply cannot work, and I hope that the Minister will address this point.
Is universal credit working to lift 1 million people out of poverty? Sadly, as many noble Lords have said, it is having precisely the opposite effect. That is not surprising when we see the level of cuts in support that have been given, compared to the previous system. The CPAG shows that a lone parent earning £150 a week from working 18.5 hours would be £2,336 a year worse off than under the 2010 tax credit system. How is that progress? We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Beecham about the problems for people with disabilities. The cuts in the severe disability premium and the challenges of using the system were well described by my noble friend Lord Touhig. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Drake for highlighting the impact of the two-child policy on some kinship carers, despite the vote in this House to exempt them.
None of this will be offset by the tax cuts that get mentioned every now and again. As we have heard, they do not help the poorest. Even if the personal tax allowance were increased next week, somebody on £80,000 a year would get the whole benefit of that. A single mum working 35 hours a week during term time would not benefit from any of it, because she wouldn’t be earning enough.
The IFS used its gold-standard TAXBEN model to look at the impact of all of the fiscal changes that the Government have made. Its projections show that unless changes are made by 2021-22, 37% of our children will be living in relative poverty, the highest percentage since modern records began in 1961. For shame.
Is the system simple and easy to access? I need hardly go there, with all the stories that we have heard today. It clearly is not. I hope very much that the Government will address the long wait. I hope that Ministers will remember that, when the Bill was going through Parliament, noble Lords from all around the House pointed out that this would be a problem. That was in 2011, and I am sorry to say that almost every problem that has happened to universal credit was mentioned back then, during the passage of the Bill. The Government have had years to address this and they have failed to do so, so I hope very much that they are listening, but I am getting a little nervous, because now, in 2017, the problems are still here and are not yet being addressed.
The six-week wait clearly has to be addressed, but that is not a delay, it is a target. It is built into the system, and people simply cannot manage, as my noble friends have pointed out, without being supported much earlier. I am worried about how the system will affect vulnerable people—a point made by my noble friend Lord Cashman and others. I worry, too, about the implicit consent rule. I am also worried about the need to do this online. An advisor told me about a man suffering from severe depression who cannot leave the house, has no computer or internet skills and cannot manage an online account. The DWP has not helped him at all. His sick notes are now rejected by the jobcentre because he has to enter them online.
It is not working. We have heard descriptions of chaos, failing systems and problems. This has to stop. The problems with housing, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, my noble friend Lady Warwick and others should be enough to ensure that it does. My noble friend Lady Andrews described the problems in Wales and other parts of the country, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I worry that the Government have not realised how serious this is. I do not blame the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has been gracious to deal with and generous with briefings, but she inherited this mess and she simply has to help her department sort it out. I worry that the Government have been complacent about the scale of the problems, and I have not been encouraged by some of the contributions from those sitting behind the Minister today. Either the Government believe that the problems are not very serious or they have decided that they are collateral damage—a price worth paying. Either of those is mistaken; and the second is, frankly, unacceptable.
It is not too late. This system is in serious trouble. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said in a very powerful and helpful speech, what happens here results in human misery, and we need to address it. I urge the Government to take a deep breath now and stop. As my noble friend Lord Cashman said, leadership is not about ploughing on regardless; it is about stopping, pausing, listening to every word said here today, reading 650 pages of evidence given to the Select Committee and getting the system right before pressing on. That is the very least that this country demands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing this very important debate. It has been an impassioned debate and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The Government are undertaking welfare reform on a scale not seen since the introduction of the welfare state more than 70 years ago. Universal credit is essential to this agenda, transforming a benefits system hindered by bureaucracy and welfare dependency into one that places personalised support for claimants at its very heart. This support, tailored to the needs of the individual, is transforming lives across the country. People on universal credit have access to more tools than ever before to help them in their search for work and move into work faster than claimants under the system it replaces.
We know that these reforms represent a significant change for many people and we respect that, but this Government are committed to delivering UC safely and fairly to the best of our ability. At every stage of the process to date, we have worked to modify our approach with claimants’ experiences in mind. This is why we pioneered a system of advance payments for those embarking on a UC claim and why we recently ensured that all calls made to the UC helpline are free to users. We continue to spend more than £95 billion a year on benefits for people of working age, illustrating this Government’s commitment to a robust welfare safety net.
When the coalition Government came to power in 2010 it was clear that the benefits system was broken. For too long, and in too many cases, it made more financial sense for people to stay on benefits than to enter employment. A system had developed over the years that limited the hours claimants could work. Inadequate reporting requirements and complex interactions with other benefits all combined to remove incentives for people to take up work. Under UC, 86% of people are actively looking to increase the hours they work, compared with only 38% on jobseeker’s allowance. Even more troubling, the benefits system—the legacy system—made assumptions about people with health conditions or disabilities, wrong assumptions in many cases, condemning many to a life of limited or zero horizons. In contrast, UC brings coherence and simplicity to the welfare system. It replaces six benefit systems with one.
People now deal with one organisation only, through an easy-to-use online journal. They can access their UC account via smartphone, tablet or PC, enabling them to interact with the service all day, every day. However, I will say straightaway to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that they can also have home visits where necessary—that should be a 100% commitment. As I have stressed, the key achievement of this reform is that it puts work back at the centre of everything we do. This means that people claiming UC can see that work always pays. They can see exactly how much money they will receive each month. UC applies a consistent taper rate to earnings above a claimant’s work allowance, meaning that people are no longer penalised for taking on more work. Thanks to a data feed from HMRC, the UC payment adjusts automatically to take into account fluctuations in earnings. This removes the burden of paperwork and reporting on claimants that exists in the old system.
From the very start of the programme, we have published findings from pilots, carried out analysis and commissioned research into UC. We continuously measure the impact of UC on claimants through our Universal Credit at Work publications, which have acted to highlight the positive effect our reforms are having on individuals. As my noble friend Lady Stroud said, research from these reports shows that people in receipt of UC are more likely to be in work than are people on jobseeker’s allowance. UC claimants spend longer looking for work and consider taking jobs they would not previously have looked at. This positive trend was recently confirmed by new analysis published in September 2017 using a much wider sample group. The concept of “test and learn” is built into the DNA of UC. It allows us to quickly pick up on feedback from staff on the front line and use it to build improvements into each new release of the UC IT system.
During a recent visit to London Bridge jobcentre, I was delighted to hear from staff who praised the collaborative spirit of the new system, with claimants, work coaches and central and local government working together to further refine the service. I have to say, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that these work coaches were amazing: they are not drowning, they are actually enjoying the work that they do and feel liberated and able to help people daily. In fact, we are employing 5,000 more work coaches to help the system across the country, so that people have this personalised support system. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I visited a jobcentre in his borough, his designated territory as a Peer. I wonder if he has visited—I think not.
There has been much debate surrounding claimants’ ability to manage under UC’s monthly payment structure. Let me explain that the month-long assessment period is fundamental to the idea of UC. It means that the UC payment can be calculated on the basis of a full month’s income, using real-time information. Beyond the assessment period there is a further time of up to a week to make final checks and for processing the payment. We are working to reduce this time, but let us be clear: of the current tax credits population, nearly 70% are paid monthly or four-weekly.
On the issue of the responsibility for paying rent directly to landlords, the change in this policy is also backed by the evidence. Indeed, much of this policy was introduced back in 2008 under a Labour Government. In 2012 we established projects in six areas across the UK to test claimants’ capability in this area. The results, published in 2013 and 2014, show that the majority of social tenants can manage their finances: they are completely capable and want to manage their finances. We believe that it is important to improve the financial confidence of tenants, many of whom—I think that this is shocking—were previously unaware of how much rent was being paid on their behalf. That is dependency; it is not liberating. The reports highlighted the need to ensure that the right protections are in place, should people fall into arrears, which is why we have put in place a system of alternative payment arrangements for claimants who need them. This means that we can pay rent directly to a landlord to help protect those claimants at risk of eviction. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, it is actually a choice: it is either the claimant, the landlord or, indeed, the DWP who can decide whether it is in the claimant’s best interest that payment be made direct to the landlord. To address the point raised by my noble friend Lord Farmer, this, alongside the system of advance payments that I have already outlined, will support those claimants already in debt and help to prevent others from falling into it.
UC also shines a light on those in debt—I saw this when I visited London Bridge—so that work coaches can help them resolve this situation with personal budgeting support. I reference my noble friend Lord Fink and absolutely agree with him about debt. The recently published response to the report of the Financial Exclusion Committee recommends a much stronger focus on financial education in schools. Improving financial capability is at the heart of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, currently passing through your Lordships’ House. We all want to see the issue of debt tackled.
For people with health conditions UC offers greater independence and opportunity. Unlike the old system, it does not limit the hours which people can work. This means people with health conditions do not need to choose between starting a career and getting financial support for their disability. As was discussed in your Lordships’ House the other day, it recognises that the ability of people with health conditions to work will change, off and on. UC means you can do both. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke about people with severe disabilities. The financial support available to them is more generous than before. I take issue with the noble Baroness when she said she did not believe the sums, as they are actually wrong. People in the UC equivalent of the ESA support group get double the ESA equivalent. When we come to move people from these benefits on to UC, we will protect their payments and top up any cash shortfall. We have simplified the system to make this happen. Previously, people with disability had to grapple with seven different payments. Now it is down to one, but it is simply not the case that they will receive less. We have invested £200 million more in universal support, an issue raised by some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The rollout of UC has been undertaken carefully, beginning with a small group of claimants in the north-west in 2012. From May 2016, we started rollout of the full service, to all new claimant types, to be completed in September 2018. We will then take stock, before we start to move people on legacy benefits to UC. I am not sure whether all noble Lords are aware of the important point that we have not started moving people who are on legacy benefits to UC. This process of managed migration will not be complete until 2022, with transitional protections offered to legacy claimants throughout. If you were to believe some recent media reports, you could be forgiven for thinking that UC is in crisis: far from it. As noble Lords have said today, public scrutiny—including debates such as this—has a valuable role to play in putting government policy under the spotlight. However, let me be clear: having a job, earning money and building a career is the best outcome for individuals, society and the economy.
As several noble Lords have rightly said, countless studies show that meaningful work increases people’s happiness, fosters social inclusion, and improves mental health, life chances and life expectancy. It is important to stress that, of the total number of households that will move on to universal credit, we are currently only 8% of the way there. By January it will be just 10%; we are not going to rush things. As we roll out universal credit, those on existing benefits whose circumstances do not change will not be moved to universal credit. This will not happen until 2019 and we will provide transitional protection at that point, to make sure that people—homeless, disabled or otherwise—are not worse off at the point of change.
Work is a positive health outcome and UC puts it back at the centre of the conversation about welfare, a point made eloquently by my noble friend Lady O’Cathain. A society where the maximum number of people is in work is a happier, richer, stronger one, in which everyone can feel empowered. It is always the duty of a civilised society to provide help for those unable to support themselves. This is not the same as saying that a life on benefits is the only choice for a person with disabilities or health conditions. That is why this Government make no apology for focusing on what people can achieve, rather than on what limits them.
I turn to a number of points made by noble Lords which I have not yet addressed. I stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that the benefit freeze is the subject of the next debate, to which my noble friend Lord Young will respond. There has been a concerted effort to misrepresent UC and to paint jobcentres as forbidding places, undermining our efforts to continually improve the system. It is important to make it clear that every two weeks the work coaches in every jobcentre pool their ideas for change. All those ideas and thoughts about improving the system are fed into the centre. We are taking those on board and working with them.
Advance payments for UC are paid within five days and are interest-free. If someone is in immediate need, they will receive a fast-track payment on the same day. We have taken on board the need to increase the awareness of advance payments and their availability, and have informed all work coaches of this. The latest data shows that 52% of new claimants on universal credit are receiving an advance. That shows that people are aware of this support, and using it. Unlike what one noble Lord said, everyone is entitled to an advance payment.
On the subject of jobcentre closures, we are not reducing the level of support we provide to claimants through the reduction in the number of jobcentres—far from it. We are actually streamlining the number. I go through the contracts for the commercial leases, so I know that we are saying goodbye to some that were not accessible or good places to come into. We want to improve and streamline the whole experience for people going into a jobcentre. I again urge noble Lords to experience this themselves: they will see that jobcentres are worlds apart from what they used to be like. It is important for us to modernise and improve that experience. When we close a jobcentre, an outreach service is always put in place within the community, to make sure that local people can access support to get to work.
My noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned targets to sanction claimants. There are no such targets for jobcentre staff. Sanctions encourage claimants to meet their personalised claimant commitment, which is tailored and agreed between the claimant and work coach. On childcare, the best way to help families improve their lives is by supporting parents to get into employment. Universal credit offers parents unprecedented personalised support, including paying up to 85% of childcare costs. This increase to 85% will benefit up to 500,000 working families by an average £60 a month. This means that a growing number of families will get more support to move back into work. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who referred to kinship carers, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in the context of welfare reform. I wish to make it clear that if a claimant already has two children in their household and takes on responsibility for an additional child through kinship care, the Government do not wish to dissuade this from happening in the interests of the child, and an exception is provided. The exceptions are an important part of this policy and are there to protect those who are not always able to make a choice about the number of children in their family.
There is much more that I would have liked to have said in response to points made by noble Lords. I conclude by reiterating that UC prepares for work, and helps people to get into and get on in work. The Government are delivering this once-in-a-generation change in a controlled way. We are taking 12 years, from inception to final rollout. At each step of the way we have assessed the impact of UC on claimants. This is a work in progress and we will keep working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, let us work together to make this right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I do not have the time—understandably, given the pressure of other debates—to challenge so many of the assertions the Minister made in her reply which I have to say, from my work on the subject, are not well founded. I thank everybody who has taken part in today’s debate. The meaningful, moving, compassionate, well-informed examples and evidence that have come from around the House show how many of your Lordships are seeking to walk in the footsteps of claimants rather than sign up automatically—I am not accusing the Minister of this—to leafy government assurances which from my research are not supported by the evidence.
None the less, we have a Budget coming. I say to the Minister—I know she and her colleagues in the department will fight for this—that there is a choice. The Government can choose in the Budget to align themselves with the just about managing and the even more deprived—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I apologise, but the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed, and I must put the Question. The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
Working-age Benefits
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of rising inflation on families affected by the freeze of working age benefits.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we are at risk of failing a substantial number of children and some of the most needy people of this country. If a society is to be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, unless we are prepared to put aside party differences and make common purpose in addressing inequalities in our system of social security we will surely be found wanting. So what are the principles we should use when assessing the design and implementation of benefits policy, particularly the freeze on working-age benefits? We on these Benches are not ignorant of the Government’s substantial financial challenge. An ageing population, a sizeable deficit, and the need for additional expenditure on the NHS and on our education system put limits on the Chancellor’s options.
Understanding these challenges, the Church of England’s General Synod in a debate in 2009 asked that policies intended to reduce the deficit be judged against three principles: fairness, generosity and sustainability. The first of those principles, fairness, I know is important to many Members of this House, although we might have different ideas about what fairness is. Nevertheless, a fair benefits system needs to be transparent and consistent. On this point, I simply note that treating those in receipt of benefits fairly will require recognition of their individual dignity and sensitivity to individual circumstances.
Secondly, the notion of generosity in welfare provision is contentious. As I said in a debate earlier this week, this point is illustrated in the Bible where the community is called to ensure the welfare of the widow, the orphan and the stranger, although, as St Paul so succinctly put it, a person who is not prepared to work should not expect to eat. It was Archbishop William Temple who popularised the phrase “the welfare state”, and it is right to want fellow citizens to thrive and flourish. As such, the welfare system should be an instrument that facilitates mutual responsibility, especially for those who for reasons beyond their control do not have enough to survive on. To that end, profitable companies and the wealthiest members of society should seek to fulfil rather than avoid tax obligations, even if their activity meets the letter of the law. After all, the reason why so many international companies do so well here in the UK is that they benefit from an educated, healthy workforce and a world-class social infrastructure. In return, they need to make a fair contribution towards the funding of these things.
Thirdly, the welfare state should be sustainable. Incentivised reliance on the welfare system inhibits individuals’ ability to flourish, yet a society that allows large numbers of its citizens to live in poverty risks social disorder and disintegration.
All this brings me on to the current welfare system. The four-year freeze in most working-age benefits was announced by the then Chancellor in the 2015 Budget to last from 2016-17 to 2019-20. The stated intention of the policy at the time was to correct perceived policy issues: first, an alleged unfairness that benefits were rising at a faster rate than wages and, secondly, to make sure that people were better off in work than out of it. Despite this, in part owing to stagnating wages and rising prices, we find that benefit cuts are making families, even those in work, worse off. According to the IFS, absolute child poverty is projected to rise by four percentage points between 2015-16 and 2021-22 and relative poverty by around seven percentage points, primarily due to the impact of the continued freeze of benefits. A rise in absolute child poverty in this country is unprecedented, and I must say that it is unacceptable. That the burden of the freeze weighs disproportionately on children is revealed when it is estimated that in the same timeframe pensioners will see a 2% decrease in absolute poverty and their relative poverty will remain unchanged. This is fundamentally an unfair burden for children to bear.
At the same time, the impact of the freeze is intensified by rising inflation. Yesterday the ONS announced the most recent inflation statistics, reporting that food and non-alcoholic drink prices last month were 4% higher than in October last year. That is the fastest rate of growth since September 2013. Gas and electricity prices are also up by 6%, hitting the poorest families hardest. The cost of essentials has been rising faster than inflation since 2006. While benefits and tax credits will have risen by only 3% over the seven-year period between 2012 and 2019, prices are expected to rise by at least 13% on average over the same period. Families relying on benefits to supplement their income are simply unable to keep up with the rising cost of living.
The effects of this policy are felt intensely by the families affected. Its impact is huge, equivalent to taking £7 billion every year from family budgets, yet this is easily overlooked because its effect is incremental and works not by reducing the amount of benefits or tax credits that people receive but by reducing what they can buy. Families may be receiving all the benefits they are normally entitled to but are able to stretch them less and less far. Moreover, the majority of affected families are working families, which undermines the Government’s objective of making work pay. The National Audit Office reported in September this year that the freeze in local housing allowance rates has contributed to private rental properties becoming less and less affordable for families, which in turn is likely to be contributing to rising homelessness. Shelter estimates that the freeze on local housing allowance puts more than 1 million households at risk of homelessness by 2020. Since 2006, the maximum award for childcare costs that can be claimed under tax credits has been fixed. This effectively amounts to a decade-long freeze in the refundable element of childcare costs for low-income families. As the cost of essentials rises and families have less money for childcare and housing, the benefits freeze actually serves as a barrier to work rather than enabling it. The status quo is unsustainable.
There is room for reassessment. The benefits freeze will actually save considerably more than originally anticipated due to rising inflation. Ending the freeze a year early or uprating benefits by 1% a year for the next two years could still achieve the same overall savings originally planned. I hope that all parties will commit to making this change. Raising the personal tax allowance is not an effective solution because most of the benefits go to better-off households. Only £1 in every £6 spent on raising the personal tax allowance will go to households in the bottom half of the income distribution, with a negligible impact on poverty.
On Tuesday, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, warned that the lack of a Brexit deal could see inflation rise further, putting even greater pressure on poorer people. A fundamental reconsideration of the benefits freeze, in light of the principles that should guide welfare policy, is urgently needed. I hope that the Minister will not only assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government are listening but will respond by committing Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider the freeze, which is already causing so much misery.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. I am sorry that the congregation—if I may put it that way—is not quite as large as it should be, but we have already had a very interesting debate partially touching on similar issues. But it is as well that the right reverend Prelate draws our attention to particular aspects of the situation facing far too many people in this country. I again refer to my interest as a Newcastle city councillor. As I was happily reselected for the forthcoming elections, I hope to be able to continue saying that after whatever date they are on next year.
As I think I have said previously, I live just 12 minutes’ drive from the ward I have represented for the past 50-plus years. For every minute of that drive, life expectancy falls for people in that ward by a year. In other words, life expectancy is 12 years less in the ward I represent than in the ward in which I live, which says something about the problems faced by far too many people—and not only in the city of Newcastle. That manifests itself in many ways. Fortunately we have a very strong voluntary sector and a very caring community. But it is sad that teachers at the local primary schools bring in food for breakfast clubs for children attending their school because they cannot be certain of having an adequate breakfast and start to their school day. It is a measure of the deprivation that is unfortunately too prevalent. In a way, a more dramatic example of that is the West End Foodbank in Newcastle, run by the Trussell Trust, which has done wonderful work all over the country. The food bank in my ward is the busiest in the entire country. Again, it gives a sense of the deprivation, which is not universal but is certainly far too widespread for us to feel at all comfortable about it.
In an area with these problems and people struggling with them, many issues are making matters worse, reflected in a range of government policies. One of those is the bedroom tax, which has not been mentioned much latterly but which inflicts an average annual loss in the ward I represent of £777 on 243 households, amounting to £189,000 in just this one ward in the city. Across the whole city, the figures are 3,950 households, and the loss of income—and loss to the local economy—is £3,263,000, a formidable amount. On a national basis, I have not done the arithmetic but your Lordships will not find it difficult to acknowledge that we are talking of billions of pounds lost nationally to the local economy by this measure. Those numbers, of course, are expected to rise over the next few years. In general, dependency is likely to rise over the next few years.
The Resolution Foundation projects a total saving, at the expense of the most vulnerable and impoverished, through two more years of the benefit freeze and less in-work support under universal credit—which we have debated at some length already—of £6.8 billion a year by 2021. Money is not going into households and into the local economy, particularly in areas that need it most. We need to recall—although one would not imagine that readers of the Daily Mail and Daily Express would ever get to know—that 60% of benefit payments go to working households. Poverty among those in work is greater than among those without work. That is not to say that we should not be encouraging and facilitating people getting into employment—well-paid employment, we hope—but part of the problem that we have faced over the past decade or so is that earnings have not risen proportionately to the cost of living. In that way, people’s standards have fallen substantially.
In addition, there are government policies that make matters worse. In particular there is the pernicious restriction of benefits to the first two children in a family, mentioned in an earlier debate with reference to the kinship situation—which, I confess, I have not been alerted to, although I should have been—which is uniquely barbarous. However, it is bad enough for those restrictions to be imposed on any family. Some 900,000 are affected by this measure. The Rowntree Foundation, which does enormously valuable work in reviewing the state of our society, predicts that 470,000 more people will experience poverty by 2021, and a two-child family will be £832 a year worse-off than if benefits had kept pace with prices, or £676 for a two-child family with a single parent. Either way, that is a lot of money to support children in a very low-income family.
What is the justification for freezing benefit levels, especially now that the cost of living is rising rapidly? The cost of food, particularly, is rising substantially. The cost of living looks as though it is rising by a smaller amount but, for the people we are talking about, it is the basics—food, fuel and accommodation—that are the most telling calls on their budget. With Brexit, one imagines that food prices will continue to rise, probably at an ever faster rate.
There are also serious implications for the housing sector—both for social housing and for privately rented homes. ALMOs, the arm’s-length management organisations that provide much local council housing and manage it nationally, reveal that 31% of their tenants are in arrears to the extent of £414 per household, which brings a figure of £68.5 million a year in arrears. Of those who are universal credit claimants, 73% are in arrears, more than half of whom—this is telling—were not in arrears before universal credit began to be applied. In the private sector, as we have heard from time to time in your Lordships’ House, a vast number of people—4.7 million—are now in poverty after paying rent, where they can afford to. Where they cannot afford to, all too often they are faced with eviction, and society has to pick up some of the consequences of that through alternative provision.
The benefit cap has mainly affected single parents with multiple children. Indeed, 63% of those with three children or more are more likely to find it difficult to get into work or to be able to make up the difference. Yet against this background, the Government can find money effectively to reduce inheritance tax by increasing the threshold on family homes by an additional £125,000 for each spouse or partner, while their vaunted increase in the level at which income tax becomes payable benefits the higher paid proportionately more than those with very low earnings. There is also the anomaly that national insurance kicks in well below the tax threshold. Is it not time to review the relationship between these two forms of taxation? One of these two aspects of taxation receives attention from time to time, while the other apparently does not.
While we are talking about taxation, what about council tax? With bands unchanged for 25 years, the difference between the lowest band and the highest remains only threefold. In a street near where I live, there is a house on the market in band H where the asking price is just under £4 million, and the council tax will be in the order of £3,000. The smallest, cheapest flat in the ward I represent will be in band A, and the council tax will be £1,000. That is a ludicrously narrow ratio. I should make clear that my own home is in band F, and I estimate that it is probably valued at six to seven times the price of new houses being built in my ward—but my council tax is only twice as much. It is no longer the case that the poorest are protected by what used to be called the rate rebate scheme.
These are issues that need to be addressed if we are to protect people from the hardship that the right reverend Prelate so rightly outlined.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who brings a wealth of valuable experience from his local government work. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for this debate. It is something I was trying to get on the agenda myself, as it meets my intrinsic need to replace the now-gone annual uprating debates that we used to have on social security. I held the record for attending 27 years in a row without missing one. I wanted the box set until the Government went and did this dastardly act, and now I have to rely on the Church to give me the opportunity to go through the 37 means-tested benefits that are covered in this benefits freeze in my nine-minute speech.
I have a very simple point to make. I endorse what the right reverend Prelate said, but it seems to me that, in Parliament, one of the important defence mechanisms in our social protection network was that we accepted the principle that there would be a valorisation of the benefit levels—that the rates, which had to be considered by the Secretary of State for Social Security every year, were in some way linked to a cost of living measure. You could have arguments about whether RPI or CPI was right or wrong, but that for me was a cardinal protection for people. I would be prepared to go on any doorstep in the United Kingdom, however prejudiced the household might be, and argue with them that as wealth increases—or decreases—the people who are supported by our social network protections should both share in any increase and take the decrease if that is what the economy is facing. That seems to me to be an unanswerable proposition for securing annual rates for benefits.
It is a real disappointment to me that the Government set their face against making these cuts on an annual basis, because they had the power that enabled them to do that, through the existing uprating mechanism. They set their face against that, which suggested to me that they were prepared to coldly and calculatingly accept some of the rates of poverty that we now know exist. The right reverend Prelate set them out clearly, particularly in relation to child poverty. I agree with that. We know what we are doing and we are making children poorer.
It would have been a much better position for the Government to say, “We will look at this every year, and if adverse circumstances apply”—and they do—“we will justify the increase or decrease year by year”. That would give me more confidence that all these very competent people in the DWP doing the research and monitoring these things are not just doing other things, such as Brexit Bills or something. I would like an assurance from the Minister, if he can give it to me, that someone is actually doing that and looking at it. We may not have to do this work, because we are not covered by the annual uprating requirements, but somebody in the DWP should be doing it and making sure that a line is not crossed—because the circumstances have dramatically changed since 2016. We had an inflation rate of 0.3% and now we have a rate of 3%. I do not know that we expected that, although I thought it would happen—and it is important to remember as well that it is 4% for food and drink.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, knows about this better than I do, but as much as anything, the ability of local authorities to soak up some of the downstream consequences, which are inevitable in terms of public services, is diminished in a way that in 2015 and 2016 I did not expect to see. So for all these reasons, it is not safe just to say, “This is it for four years, and we’ll come back and look at it in 2020 or whenever”. I would be grateful for any comfort that the Minister can give me about how we are handling the interim period between now and then, and monitoring some of these issues.
The Resolution Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the IFS and CPAG are serious, well-respected organisations. We are extremely well served in the United Kingdom by these organisations, which are beyond reproach. Of course they are making forecasts and estimates, and they do not have a crystal ball, so you have to look at the assumptions carefully, but they are well respected across Europe for the work that they do, and they are all queueing up and showing the RAG lights on the risk analysis as amber going red on this. I am not sure that we can go through the four-year freeze without risking public disillusion, mistrust and misery. If we allow that to happen, it will be a great shame.
I could not say this in the earlier debate, because I was so generous to the Chief Whip with my time, but the seven-day waiting period applies to these benefits as well. We may be in the business between now and next week of making some mitigation to the seven-day period, which used to be three days—and there was a big row when it went to three days, although you can understand that when you are trying to deal with a situation that avoids churn in the labour market. Another ask from me would be whether, in gremio of the wider consideration of universal credit, the seven-day wait could not be looked at as well.
I say absolutely openly that I would much rather the Government considered postponing the increase in the personal tax allowance to £12,500. They can still get there by their manifesto commitment period if they miss a year. If the Minister is looking for money—and it would need big money to mitigate some of these benefit freezes—the £2 billion or £3 billion that you could save by not introducing that promised tax cut, which affects higher-income households disproportionately, would be a good place to start.
I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at it, but I was very struck by the recent survey the Financial Conduct Authority published, which was based on a huge sample of 13,000 people, divided into families that are struggling, squeezed and cushioned. The fragility that that survey revealed surprised me. I look at these things as closely as anybody, and it is worrying that we are sitting on a level of household debt that is bound to increase. If that is the base from which we are starting, we really have significant problems—not to mention withdrawing from the European Union, because the economy is bound to take a hit from doing that.
I have a final ask. We have the Social Security Advisory Committee available to us. It is another gold-standard institution. It is very experienced in all of this. I think that the Government should ask SSAC to monitor the remainder of this four-year freeze because it is big enough and ugly enough at telling the truth to Ministers privately in a way that might cause the Government to change their mind. It has a busy agenda and does not have an awful lot of extra resources, but it would be money well spent. If that were to happen, I certainly would sleep slightly easier in my bed at night. I hope that the Minister will think about that carefully.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I recognise, first, the depth of my ignorance of this subject compared with those who have spoken and those on the Front Bench. Secondly, I recognise what was established very well in the debate last week on the report from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer: namely, that the family is an essential building block in a stable society and that what you want in the family is stability. I am well aware that children in families perform better in school, have longer lives and so on.
On the point of longer lives, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, touched on a very tender point when he referred to the reduction in expectation of life mile by mile as he approached the ward or borough that he represents. At 87, that speaks to me very loudly. I feel that I am extraordinarily lucky and I recognise the misfortune of those with short lives much more clearly that I would have done 20 or even 50 years ago.
I therefore speak with a tender conscience. It is tender also, as I say, because I am largely ignorant of the field—but there are certain simple, salient facts. As I said, there is the fact that families produce stability. There is also the fact that families are in great difficulty in various percentiles of our income spectrum—if that is the right language. I realise that an across-the-board mitigation of the policy that was established by the freezing benefits would be hugely expensive. This is not necessarily something that any Government could contemplate at this stage of the economic cycle and the budget cycle. Equally, this Government are compassionate and experienced and it seems to me therefore that any mitigation should be aimed where it is needed most—and it is needed most by the children who are the product of the families, and by those children who have no families.
I would have thought that this meshes very closely with a launch that took place two days ago under the chairmanship of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on the effects of taxation on the family. What that revealed—incontrovertibly, in my view—is that there is a taxation bias. It is not deliberate, and the calculations are immensely intricate. The interaction of various factors means that families are worse off than they would be if they were not families and that, in particular, in-work parents under taxation are treated less favourably than those out of work. Therefore, my simple, not eloquent and not very clever suggestion is that if it is too expensive to mitigate across the board—which I assume it is—it would be sensible and compassionate to make the mitigation relate to the children in the spectrum, and in particular to children in families.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for choosing this subject and for managing to get it debated the week before the Budget, which I think is a very coveted spot indeed. In doing so, he has highlighted one of the greatest and most overlooked scandals of the austerity policies pursued in recent years. With apologies, I am going to go through some of the history to this and what I think is wrong with this approach to deciding benefits and then look at why I think it is being done.
Previously the default position was that social security benefits and tax credits were indexed to inflation so they would keep their value. Before 2011 they were linked to the retail prices index or ROSSI—a variant on RPI which excluded housing and some council tax costs. From 2011 they were linked to the consumer prices index and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out, that was contested but did at least preserve the stated intent of ensuring that benefits and tax credits remained in real terms at the level at which Parliament had decided to set them. It meant that Parliament knew what it was voting for when it approved changes to benefit levels.
That changed when the coalition Government decided to limit most working-age benefits to a 1% annual increase for three years from 2013-14. This Government went further and froze those benefits at their 2015-16 cash levels for another four years so they will not rise again in cash terms again until 2020. The frozen benefits include payments on which the poorest families in our society depend. I suggest there are two major problems with this change: one of process and the other of impact. First, it means that Parliament has no idea what it is signing up to—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—when something is set for four years at a time. The impact assessment for the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which brought this policy in, showed a projected saving to the Treasury of £3.5 billion by freezing the benefits as opposed to uprating them by CPI, although it noted that:
“These savings will continue in future as increases will be from a lower base”.
But of course inflation changes so the exact saving to the public purse and the corresponding cost to those who get the benefits and tax credits are variable quantities. So the Government asked Parliament to adopt a policy when they could not know the precise impact on the people who would be affected by it.
That is the second problem—the impact has turned out to be severe. This freeze cuts in real terms the incomes of affected households year on year. Inflation is now higher than when the Bill was passed. The impact assessment helpfully cited the OBR inflation forecasts for CPI inflation for every year of the freeze period. They varied between 0% and 1.9%. The forecast for this year was 1.2%. In fact, the CPI 12-month rate last month was 3%. That is good news for the Exchequer which scores a saving much higher than predicted. As David Finch of the Resolution Foundation points out, by 2020 the estimate is that the freeze will have saved the Exchequer some £4.7 billion, a full £1.2 billion more than previously forecast. With CPI at 3%, that makes year three of the benefit freeze alone worth £1.9 billion to the Treasury.
The bad news is, of course, that it is £4.7 billion which would have gone into the budgets of those who get benefits and tax credits and use them to feed their children and pay their rent, and now they will not. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pointed out, it is worse for the poor because they have to spend more of their income on essentials, such as food, and the inflation rate for food and energy is higher than the 3% general inflation rate. Most forecasts suggest that it will get worse. My noble friend Lord Beecham has revealed the effect of that in his area, and also the significant impact on housing.
CPAG analysed the effect of the freeze before the latest rise in inflation and found that in a universal credit system, the four-year freeze to UC and child benefit uprating will cost the average single-parent family £710 a year and the average couple with children £430 a year. I commend the concern for families of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I admire him for it. One of the reasons I am most worried about this freeze is that it affects most families with children, and that is where the damage is being done. I appreciate his raising that issue.
What will this do to inequality? That was set out in painful detail in a recent report by Hood and Waters of the IFS, Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2017-18 to 2021-22—there have been catchier titles, I grant you. It uses Treasury and OBR data and macroeconomic forecasts to model the impact on household incomes. Its projections showed this: inequality will rise over the next four years; the official rate of relative poverty after housing costs will rise by two percentage points, driven entirely by child poverty, which will rise by seven percentage points; absolute poverty will remain the same, but pensioner poverty will fall and absolute child poverty will rise by four percentage points. Children must be looking enviously at the triple lock enjoyed by pensioners.
Prices are rising but the real incomes of poor households are falling, and most of those had nothing to spare in the first place. What does the Minister think those families should do? More to the point, why are the Government doing this? We know, because on 30 October, my noble friend Lady Lister asked the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the Minister’s colleague, to describe the Government’s reasoning. The noble Baroness said:
“The benefit freeze is part of a package of welfare reforms that is designed to ensure that the system remains sustainable and to incentivise claimants into work. These reforms are working, and we have not had a lower unemployment rate since the 1970s. The changes we have made to the benefits system allow us to target the support we provide to those who need it most”.—[Official Report, 30/10/17; col. 1156.]
Let me take that Answer apart. First, it is part of a package of welfare reforms. The benefit freeze is not a reform: it reforms nothing; it is simply a cut every single year on year. Secondly, it is designed to ensure the system remains sustainable. Ministers often complain about rising social security spend without giving any context, or referring, for example, to the rising levels of age-related disability, or even without mentioning that spending on out-of-work benefits rises during recessions which, of course, is the safety net kicking in—automatic stabilisers, as economists put it, kicking in. A much better test of sustainability is the cost of social security as a percentage of GDP which has changed remarkably little in recent decades. However, if these cuts go ahead, the OBR Welfare trends report said that by 2020-21 social security spending in support of children and working-age people would be at its lowest share of GDP since 1990-91.
Thirdly, it is to incentivise claimants into work. But this benefit freeze affects people claiming ESA who have been deemed not fit to work yet. It affects mothers of children under one, whom even this Government do not think should work. It affects working tax credit and child tax credit which go to people in work. The same people whose incomes from wages have been squeezed are now finding the system that is meant to top up their household income is being slashed just when they need it most. Fourthly, the changes are to allow us to target the support to those who need it most. Yet the biggest losers overwhelmingly are families with children and especially single-parent families. How is that a good target?
Ministers keep telling us the country cannot afford to pay benefits at decent levels. The coalition Government famously said that,
“those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden”.
Yet a detailed study by Ruth Lupton et al of the coalition’s social policy record found that,
“the poor bore the brunt of its changes to direct taxes, tax credits and benefits”.
With the exception of the richest 5%, those in the top half of the distribution were net gainers from the changes. The study said:
“Perhaps surprisingly, overall the ‘welfare’ cuts and more generous tax allowances balanced each other out, contributing nothing to deficit reduction”.
Yes, those austerity cuts were not needed to cut the deficit but to pay for tax cuts for the richer.
There we have it. This policy hits the poorest who had no spare cash anyway. It hits low paid workers as well as those who cannot work. It hits children hardest. It will increase poverty and inequality, especially for children. Its impacts will be felt well into the future as these new, lower levels form the basis for any future increases. Every increase in inflation represents a windfall for the Exchequer at the expense of the poorest families in our society. This is unjustifiable. The Government should abandon it now.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate—his second debate this week, each focusing rightly on the least well-off in society. I am grateful for the way he set out his case and for what he said about families, much of which was endorsed by my noble friend Lord Elton. The other speakers in this debate are all veterans of previous debates on universal credit—an important qualification which I hope has reassured the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness wanted to look at history. If I may, I shall do exactly the same, going back a little further than she did. This debate is very different from one that might have taken place when I first entered government in 1979 as a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, a precursor to today’s DWP. Welfare spending on people in work barely existed at that time, often leading to a sharp drop in income as people moved off supplementary benefit into work, with all the disincentives that went with it.
In the decades that have followed, we have seen in-work support evolve from its inception through family credit and housing benefit to the introduction of statutory sick and maternity pay in the 1980s and then on to tax credits, which started in the late 1990s and have grown in importance ever since. The more than £25 billion that the Government now spend on in-work benefits and tax credits sits at the heart of a welfare system dedicated to supporting people, first, to seek and find work, and then to stay in work and take home more of what they earn. This has been a dramatic change in priorities over my political lifetime.
I hope it does not sound hard-hearted to say that work is the best route for families to get out of poverty and become self-reliant. I genuinely believe that to be the case. Earnings provide people with the best opportunity to grow their income and become financially secure. Across the UK, the unemployment rate is at its lowest level in over 40 years and there are fewer households where no one is in employment than at any time since comparable records began. That is why we are committed to incentivising work for those who can. This debate, however, is about the next step.
What happens to living standards when people have found a job? Here, the Government have taken a number of steps, not all of which have been mentioned in the debate. They have cut income tax for over 30 million people and taken 4 million low earners out of income tax altogether. As of April this year, a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay over £1,000 less income tax, compared to 2010-11. Our plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, mentioned, is to increase the tax-free personal allowance further to £12,500 by the end of this Parliament.
Other measures, such as freezing fuel duty and reducing social rents to 2020, will mean more money in the pockets of those social tenants paying their own rent and a lower housing benefit bill. If one puts it all together and takes into account the national minimum wage, in 2010 a single person on the national minimum wage working 35 hours per week would have taken home £9,200 after tax and national insurance. Following the national living wage and changes to the personal allowance, they would take home £12,500, an increase of £3,300.
The national living wage has had a big impact. It has given the UK’s lowest earners their fastest pay rise in 20 years. In 2016 their full-time earnings increased by 6.2%—well above median growth of 2.2%. Since 2010 the annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen in real terms by more than £300, while the incomes of the richest fifth have fallen. Our aim is for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings in 2020. Since 2010, we have 600,000 fewer people living in absolute low income on a before-housing-costs basis, and 1.2 million fewer people on out-of-work benefits, so income inequality is down.
My noble friend Lord Elton and others mentioned working families on low income. Here we have made the childcare element of universal credit more generous. Parents on universal credit can now claim back up to 85% of eligible childcare costs, compared with 70% in working tax credit, a change that is benefiting 500,000 working families. Working families in England with children aged three and four can now get up to 30 hours of free childcare a week in England, worth up to £5,000 per child. This amounts to a record investment by the Government in childcare. By 2019-20 we will be spending over £6 billion per year to support working families in this way. Helping the younger unemployed, we have seen more than 3 million apprenticeships start since 2010, with a commitment to 1.9 million more apprenticeships by 2020, helping young people into better-paid employment. Youth unemployment has fallen by over 40% since 2010, and the proportion of young people who are unemployed and not in full-time education remains below 5%
While the debate has focused on the specific impact of the benefit freeze, we should put on the other side of the scales the many measures that I have just mentioned. If we do that, we get a fuller and more balanced picture.
At the time of the 2015 summer Budget, we estimated that the benefit freeze would save £3.5 billion in 2019-20, equating to an average notional loss of £6 per week in 2019-20. Some of the other measures I have just referred to should be taken into account before one comes to an overall judgment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and others, contrasted the freeze in working-age benefits with a more generous regime for the state retirement pension. There is a key difference that justifies this. Once you reach state retirement age, there is no turning back. For most, there is no opportunity to increase their income through paid work, whereas those of working age and who are fit have this opportunity. Between August and October of this year there were 780,000 job vacancies. Just to make the point, around 80% of people leave JSA within six months of making a claim, indicating that this is a stream rather than a pool.
A number of noble Lords raised statistics about poverty. We can trade statistics about relative or absolute poverty, before or after housing. Since 2010, on a before-housing-cost basis, there are 600,000 fewer people on absolute low income—a record low—including 200,000 fewer children, 100,000 fewer pensioners and 300,000 working-age adults.
In his opening remarks, the right reverend Prelate said that one of the three criteria should be fairness. I agree. The Treasury published a cumulative distributional analysis alongside the Autumn Statement in November last year, showing the impacts on household income of tax, welfare and public expenditure changes implemented—or planned to be implemented—since the 2010 general election. This is the most comprehensive analysis available, covering the effects of not only direct cash transfers between households and government but of front-line public service provision. This analysis shows that the state is highly redistributive. On average, the 10% of households with the lowest incomes receive over four times as much support in spending as they contribute in tax, while the 10% of households with the highest incomes contribute over five times as much in tax as they receive in spending. The Government’s policies have repeatedly increased the tax contribution of the wealthy through measures such as the reform of dividend taxation and the increase in stamp duty. Income inequality is now lower than it was in 2010.
My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned children and families. We are committed to supporting families and tackling the root causes of child poverty and disadvantage. We know that children do worse in households where no one is in work. A child growing up in such a family is almost twice as likely to fail at all stages of their education as a child living in a working family. Children in households without a working member are five times more likely to be in poverty than those in households where all the adults work. Hence the emphasis in our policy on getting people into work wherever possible.
I shall touch briefly on some of the points raised in the debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in paying tribute to the voluntary sector and the work it does in helping some of the families we have been talking about. On the spare room subsidy—rather than the bedroom tax—he will know that discretionary housing grants are available to help those in need as a result of the change. My noble friend Lady Buscombe addressed the two-child policy in the debate that has just concluded. I should like to write to the noble Lord if I do not touch on all the points he raised.
On the benefit cap, there is a basic issue of fairness which, I think, resonates with the public as a whole. It is absolutely right that you cannot get more from a life on benefits than from work. This is the principle behind the cap.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for curtailing his speech on the earlier debate. I will pass on to the Chancellor his suggestion of switching the resources from cutting the personal tax allowance to putting more into universal credit. He asked why we used primary legislation to freeze the benefits and tax credits. Legislating for four years brought certainty on levels of welfare spending to benefit recipients, the taxpayer and the Exchequer. The annual uprating includes benefits for carers and disability premiums. My understanding is that, once we come to the end of the freeze, we revert to the default position of uprating on the normal basis.
The noble Lord asked about the SSAC. The annual uprating order that provides for increases in benefits and pension rates is not subject to SSAC scrutiny. The order is fiscal policy and that is why the four-year benefit freeze was provided for in primary legislation and not as part of the annual review.
This is a Government who support families. We support people below state pension age with over £90 billion a year in payments, providing a robust welfare safety net. We support families who face additional obstacles and costs as a result of disability or illness by maintaining the value of the payments they receive. We support parents to get into work and out of poverty, to earn more, to gain financial security for their families and to give their children the best prospects for the future.
Older Persons: Human Rights and Care
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That this House takes note of the human rights of older persons, and their comprehensive care.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Labour group in this place for giving me the opportunity of leading off in this debate on an issue which has concerned me for many years.
First, I must declare an interest. It is not my age—a lot of us might have to do that, although not the Minister, of course. I am the chair of Age Scotland, the charity concerned with all aspects of concern to older people in Scotland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, knows, in the 1970s I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland. When I was first made a trustee of Age Scotland, Brian Sloan, the chief executive, said that he remembered that, but that I had more of a vested interest in it now—rather cheeky, but he was right: I have a vested interest in it now.
I am grateful for all the submissions that we have received—I think noble Lords will also have received them—from Age UK, Age International, the Local Government Association, Independent Age and many others. I also commend the House of Lords’ Library for its excellent briefing; it really is good at this kind of briefing. All of this underlines the importance of this issue.
This debate is to look at older persons in the context of human rights, not just care and compassion—although that is important; we all need care and compassion and we must not forget that. But it is in the context of human rights that we are looking at the subject today, because it will affect us all. Assuming we avoid the grim reaper, everyone will be moving into older age. The United Nations has looked at this in the human rights context for some time, since its Second World Assembly on Ageing in 2002. The UN set up an open-ended working group—it is a pity in some ways that it is open-ended.
The Council of Europe has also been looking at this. My report, which is the basis of our debate today, was adopted unanimously by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in May this year. I thank the staff who helped me to produce that report; I could not have done it without them. The Council of Europe has been looking at the subject in this context since 1996, when it adopted the European Social Charter on the rights of old to social protection. All of that is good, but the problem is that little or nothing is done about it. All these things are agreed and adopted, but then they have to go to national Governments to be implemented which, I am afraid, does not always happen—indeed, it happens very seldom.
On 11 July, as the Minister will recall, I had an Oral Question about this. He noted it and followed on with—I was going to say the usual platitudes but, since I like the Minister, I will say the usual good and nice words that someone had written for him. I am hoping that we get better today; he has had longer to think about it and I am ever the optimist. Even in the Library earlier on, he asked me what kind of reply I would like, so I gave him a hint.
Let me outline some of the issues. First, there is the demographic challenge, which underlies all this. As Independent Age said, just to give one statistic:
“there will be nearly 16 million people aged 65 and over”,
in Britain by 2030. The number of those aged 80-plus is going up even faster and the number of centenarians is set to double. That indicates that the size of the problem is growing day by day, week by week, year by year.
A key aspect of the report which must be taken account of to ensure that, as the numbers go up, individuals are not disadvantaged but get a decent life is, first, the need for an adequate income. This is central to everything. Maintaining the triple lock is vital—and so far, so good. But when I heard my noble friend Lady Sherlock say earlier on that, because we have the triple lock, pensioners are lucky compared with some others, I worry. There is an attempt sometimes from Governments to divide and rule and to say that pensioners are okay compared with families with young children. It is not true for most pensioners, who are not all that much better off. It is this divide and rule that worries me. It occurs to me—we all saw the Panama papers—that if those with their fortunes hidden away in the Isle of Man, Bermuda or the Cayman Islands were to pay their fair share of taxes, there would be enough to provide decent incomes for people at every stage of their lives.
The second issue is appropriate housing, close to amenities. Instead, older people are often in cold houses, isolated from amenities. Age UK argued very effectively in its submission that older people want comfortable and attractive housing alternatives that promote healthy and active lifestyles. That saves money in the longer term.
I was really disappointed recently to see in Edinburgh—my home town now—more and more student houses being built, almost ghettoes of student houses. One thing that we recommend in the report is more intergenerational provision: housing for older people and younger people, including students, in the same area. I saw that in Denmark and it was working very well. They can help each other, so it can be mutually beneficial. The other type of intergenerational provision that I saw when I was preparing this report were day centres for older people combined with children’s nurseries. Not only was it good to have older people mixing with young people and vice versa, but the staff were helping each other out and learning from each other. Intergenerational provision must be looked at a great deal more.
This brings me to the central issue of social care, both residential and domiciliary. We must all recognise and acknowledge that most of it is, and will continue to be, provided by families as they look after relatives. But they need more and more help—they need respite care and domiciliary support. The scandal of less than 15-minute home care visits must end. There must be decent visits to look after older people living alone. We need proper home help services, district nurses and, above all, chiropody—it seems like a small thing, but if older people do not have proper chiropody and podiatry services, they cannot get around. It is vital. When old people are in residential homes, they must be looked after by properly trained staff. Age UK also makes some recommendations on that.
Now we come to my central point: we need a charter of rights for older people. That is what the UN said, and the submission that Age International sent to us all endorses it. For example, care in older people’s homes needs proper inspection by properly trained staff. Age UK has made recommendations on that subject as well. There are examples of abuse, such as what we saw on the Channel 4 documentary on Haringey. We only get to know about that when a whistleblower tells us about it—whereas if there were more frequent regular inspections without notice, as is advocated, and stiffer penalties for people breaking the rules, we might be treating old people better.
Let us look at abuse in a wider context. Far too much abuse, by relatives for example, is hidden, and we do not know about it. Sometimes—let us be honest—there is coercion, in relation to the drafting of wills and things like that. There is also abuse by commercial interests, especially now—the telephone calls and internet activities aimed at people who are not necessarily as clued up as younger people are, and can be taken advantage of.
In relation to social care, one of the difficulties we experience is bed-blocking. Beds that ought to be available for acute care in the NHS are being used by older people who should have been out of them some time ago, but the social care is not available—a package has not been devised. That is why the report recommends the integration of health and social care administration. At present, there are silos of NHS care and social care, with the money in their own budgets. In Scotland people are trying to bring health and social care together; in theory it is happening, but in practice it is not working on the ground. Some of the old traditions and patterns need to be broken down. That is another key issue that emerges from the report and the recommendations.
That brings me to another issue that needs to be included in the charter: an end to age discrimination. It is astonishing that age discrimination still takes place. It was supposedly outlawed in the Equality Act 2010, but although fairly strong action is taken on gender and race discrimination, that does not happen with age discrimination. One of the submissions tells us that the Royal College of Surgeons and Age UK examined the possibility that older patients may be discriminated against regarding access to surgery in England. Their first report, published in 2012, found that elective surgical treatment rates declined for the over-65s, in spite of this age group’s increased need for health interventions. The doctors say, “I’m sorry, you’re just too old. It’s not worth spending the money on you, because you’ll be dead soon.” It is outrageous that such discrimination should take place, and it must end now. I hope that the Government will pick that up.
Of course, not all older people are frail and dependent. We need to acknowledge that. I have talked a lot about those who are, but many are active, and promoting active ageing is included in the report. We need to encourage active ageing, and volunteering. Older people can and do volunteer, and they should be encouraged to do so more, partly to help even older people, but also to help younger people. They should also be encouraged to get about. I was interested in the Local Government Association’s submission about transport, which said that long-term underfunding for concessionary fares and free transport was about £200 million. Yet the best thing ever for getting older people active, and out and about—I advocated this myself when I was a councillor—is free transport. People travel from Glasgow up to Orkney, and down to the south of Scotland. That is keeping them out of old people’s homes and out of hospital, and making them less of a burden on the welfare state.
That is all included in the report, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister. He may well challenge me and say, “If there was a Labour Government, what would happen?”. He is entitled to do that but, if he looks at our manifesto for the last election, he will see that we proposed substantial increases in social care funding and a lot of the things included in the report. Sometimes I get told off for bringing politics into the House of Lords; I am not sure why, because we are here as part of the legislature. A general election may or may not be around the corner, but older people cannot wait for a Labour Government to come to power before some of these improvements get under way.
I hope the Minister will indicate that the work that has been put in by all the organisations that I mentioned, the Council of Europe and the United Nations in identifying the problem and indicating the solution will at least be picked up to some extent by this Government. If it is, I for one—I was going to say I would die happy—will continue to live in increasing happiness.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
Lord Balfe
I shall try to get it right this time.
I draw attention to my entry in the register and congratulate my fellow member of the Council of Europe, George—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—on tabling this Motion. As he rightly said, his report was adopted unanimously, which means, of course, that our side voted for it as well. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, back to the Front Bench, where I am sure she will continue to make a distinguished contribution.
As many noble Lords know, I have spent far too long in Europe and probably spend far too long following what is going on. I was interested to see that this Friday in Gothenburg there is a meeting of the Social Affairs Council to discuss social rights and the 20 principles of social rights. The Commissioner, Marianne Thyssen, has indeed said:
“We go for a Europe where our citizens come first”.
I only mention that in passing because this is yet another thing we will lose when we leave the European Union. We will no longer be part of these conversations and discussions on how to get best practice.
The report we are discussing talks about ensuring,
“appropriate assistance and support for older persons living in their homes, including medical and nursing care, meals on wheels and domestic assistance”.
I regret that, of all the briefings we have received for today’s debate, none has come from UNISON, the major trade union involved, or other representatives of what one might call the workers. Indeed, the only document I have received, which is a very valuable one, is an article from the Institute of Employment Rights on why collective bargaining is needed for workers in this sector. We often forget how many people work in social care. It is 1.1 million, the same number who work in all the pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés in England put together, but these are an unsung army. These are the people you see at 5.30 in the morning by the bus stop, going to help to get people up. They are the backbone of the social care system in this country, but sadly they often go unrecognised. Part of the reason for that is because it is very difficult to enforce individual rights if you are basically a lone employee of a privatised service.
I know that we have saved lots of money through privatisation but we have also saved much of it at the expense of the people right at the bottom of the pile—the people who dare not claim their holidays and who are afraid to put their head above the parapet because it could mean the end of their job. I do not think my next point is a party one because I think that we have both been as bad as each other, frankly. I want to hear us say that although this work is individual in nature, we need individual rights that are easier to enforce. We have one of the weakest law enforcement structures in relation to the rest of western Europe, and we have gone backwards. If noble Lords go back to the much underrated but signal figures of the Conservative Party, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, they will see that, during the 1920s and 1930s, with the erection of wages councils, the protection of certain groups of workers came right to the fore—and stayed there until the wages councils began to be dismantled in the late 1970s.
We need a central collective bargaining mechanism which lays down basic principles for workers within this specialist field. The issue is not just about the minimum wage; there are also questions about, for example, sleepover allowances and casualisation. When we are told that employers cannot afford to pay the minimum wage, my reaction is that there is something wrong with the system, not with the employers.
I appeal to both parties to look at the need for a system of collective bargaining and responsibilities—an end to the excessive casualisation of this sector and an acceptance that care for the older person, which is the heart of this report, has also to include respect for the carer, who puts so much into making life reasonable for many older citizens. We have a duty to them. I thank the noble Lord for introducing this report, which enables us to look at a very wide range of problems.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for moving this Motion. His qualifications date back to his time as director of Age Concern in Scotland. My qualifications simply date back.
The numbers are compelling. In this country there are now 11.5 million people over 65 and this figure will be half as much again in 10 years’ time. The Council of Europe is absolutely right to draw this demographic change to our attention in terms of human rights because we have to plan for it.
The declaration speaks of integrating health and social care services, and this is where the difficulties lie. At present, in planning for this demographic change, we have to decide where the NHS ends and where social care begins. Until we have a continuum of health and social care, we shall have only short-term solutions, dealing with emergencies as they arise.
At the moment, this changeover is held together by dedicated people—in the NHS, in the caring professions and in families. I hope the Minister will join me in acknowledging this. Surveys show that most of us would pay more tax to finance an integrated system—a solution which makes the Government very nervous. There is talk of a hypothecated tax similar to the local authority precept. But after a while, as we all know, the numbers become cloudy and cease to differentiate between general taxation and a hypothecated tax. Integration may not be cheaper, but it would certainly give better results—because there would be continuity and balance in people’s lives.
Ageing is not a genetically predetermined set of events. Over the years, research has identified—and it continues to identify—the biological processes that cause ageing. This, together with improving health at all stages of our lives, means not only that we are living longer but that we are healthier as we age. Next month incidentally, POST, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, will issue a note about healthy ageing, explaining how this came about.
But in spite of this, many automatically assume that having lots of older people is a problem. They tend to think about older people almost exclusively in terms of pensions and care. We have to challenge that view and change the attitude by emphasising the right for older people to continue working and volunteering. It is part of diversity. It is also part of healthy ageing, because much of our identity is expressed through the work we do and the service we give. The Council of Europe report touches on this, but I would like to see a lot more emphasis put on it. It seems a logical outcome for all the effort that we put into healthier ageing.
The good news is that things are moving in the right direction. Business in the Community has set up the Age at Work Leadership Team, and in 2016 Andy Briggs became the Government’s Business Champion for Older Workers. The Global Coalition on Aging is inviting businesses to sign up to its age-friendly business principles. BT, for instance, is an employer that has recognised the importance of this and has introduced flexible working to support older workers. Can the Minister assure us that the Government welcome these initiatives and will support them?
Finally, my noble friend, quite rightly, emphasises the human rights of older people. Of course he is right to do this, but rights are wasted unless there is awareness. Older people, their carers and employers have to know that other people have these rights, what they mean, how to exercise them, and how to seek redress. All this could well be expressed in a charter, as my noble friend suggests. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will prepare a charter? What will they do to raise the awareness of the human rights of older people?
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests in the register and to my date of birth. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Foulkes on securing this important debate and on his excellent report. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will remember that I was one of the co-rapporteurs on the framework directive of 2010 from the European Parliament on combating discrimination on access to goods and services on the grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation or gender. That is still resting and blocked by Governments who do not want to take the necessary action—so there needs to be taken at national level on this important issue.
The reality is that we are failing many older people when they need us most. The Care Quality Commission’s annual state of care report of 2017 found that only 2% of adult social services were rated outstanding: 78% were good, 19% required improvement and 1% were rated as inadequate. Before we congratulate ourselves, let us remember that the 1% represents 303 locations and approximately 16,000 individuals whose care was inadequate.
The report also, importantly, reveals wide variations in quality ratings between different types of homes and services. Community social care services were rated the best overall when compared with other services. Domiciliary services and residential homes received similar ratings. However, nursing home services received the worst ratings, with 68% rated as good, 28% as needing improvement and 3% as inadequate. Within these stark statistics are hundreds and thousands of vulnerable adults whom we are failing.
I am pleased to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, of the issue of human rights that is predominant in this Motion. That is why I turn specifically to the issues of human rights and discrimination and other issues faced by older people—in particular, people living with HIV. The Terrence Higgins Trust report, Unchartered Territory, surveyed nearly 250 people living with HIV across the UK, all of them aged over 50. Some 58% of respondents were defined as living on or below the poverty line. Over one-third of individuals living with HIV were reliant on social security payments. Some 84% were concerned about future financial difficulties and a third of respondents were socially isolated. Some 79% were concerned about memory loss and cognitive impairment in the future and how they would cope with managing multiple health conditions.
The challenges are many and varied. There is a difference in needs and experience, depending on whether an individual was diagnosed before antiretroviral drugs were available or after. Individuals diagnosed before treatment was available were more likely to have more additional health conditions. Social care is not currently meeting the needs of people living with HIV as they grow older because they face the prospect of managing multiple long-term conditions that are made more complex by their interactions with HIV. Even those who have been able to access social care have faced discrimination from social care professionals due to their HIV status. This discrimination is fuelling myths and stigma around HIV by treating people living with HIV differently from other social care users.
The Minister and his department will also need to address discrimination faced by older LGBT people. Care providers need to recognise and respect LGBT identities and should ensure that LGBT identity is not marginalised, nor rendered invisible, and that LGBT elders are not outed deliberately or inadvertently. There are human consequences to this. Unfortunately, the problem, as evidenced in the Stonewall/YouGov research, Unhealthy Attitudes, found that a quarter of health and social care staff had never received any diversity training at all. Some 72% had not received any training on the health needs of LGBT people and, shockingly, only a quarter of staff had received any training on trans people’s healthcare. The training of health and social care staff in understanding and engaging with the particular needs of LGBT+ people is an important and deliverable objective to improve the quality of life of these people.
Time does not allow me to offer the House further examples, but I ask your Lordships to imagine what it must be like to once again have to validate your life, your love and your relationships at a time when you are vulnerable and when these have been, and should remain, the one constant in your life.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate first the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We shared for many years a mutual interest in promoting the rights of older adults and many other interests, including the legal systems of our two countries regarding children and young people. As outlined in the excellent report he has introduced, the emphasis—which I share—on intergenerational work is so important, because intergenerational relationships promote the best sort of life for both old and young.
The human rights of older people are only part of universal human rights. Older people must always be treated as adults. Their rights cover not only employment—as in the US—but, in this country, the provision of care, goods and services. When services are worse, or of a lower standard than those provided to younger adults, this is an infringement of those rights and a serious form of age discrimination. When I was a commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I headed up an inquiry into domiciliary care in this country. We found that only 50% was of an acceptable level: therefore, 50% was not, and things have certainly not improved since we did that piece of work.
Turning to social care more broadly, we know that local authorities spend £8.8 billion a year on care for the over-65s in England, and that a further £10 billion is spent on formal care services by self-funding individuals and informal carers. If local authorities, self-funding and informal care are included, the total cost of social care is similar to the annual amount that the UK spends on the NHS. The consequences of long-term underfunding are an even more fragile provider market, growing and undermet needs, further strain on informal care, less investment in prevention, continued pressure on an already overstretched care workforce and a decreased ability of social care to help to mitigate the demand pressures on the NHS. We know that this is having a huge impact on many people supported by adult social care and support services.
The extra money for social care announced in the spring Budget was a step in the right direction, but it is only one-off funding that decreases each year and stops at the end of 2019-20; it is not a long-term solution. A report by the London School of Economics found that 1 million older people reported poor or inconsistent standards of dignity and respect when in hospital, and even not getting enough help to eat. The last CQC report found that levels of inadequate care had risen, with 25% of services not considered good enough. Stories of abuse and neglect within both residential and nursing homes are still far too common, and Health and Social Care Information Centre figures show that the majority of all safeguarding concerns relate to people of 65 and over. Inequalities in life expectancy are also very serious and have been rising, particularly for women.
So there is a huge amount that needs to be done. Supporting longer, healthier lives must be a critical priority for the Government and employers, as well as for people who experience social care. Only through such an effort will we be able to succeed in a number of key policy areas such as raising the state pension age and securing a sustainable health and care system. Human rights are universal; they do not lessen with age. If we forget that, we of all ages are equally lessened.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for introducing this important debate with his usual vigour and enthusiasm. He and I are members of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, so I have had the pleasure of following the development of this report on the human rights of older people over the last year. My noble friend has done a most thorough job of exploring many angles of the issue of ageing. I shall touch briefly on three of them today: legal and policy frameworks, the concept of “active ageing” and end-of-life care.
I remember seeing some years ago what was once a familiar road sign warning: “elderly people crossing”. Noble Lords clearly remember it. The man was bent double with a walking stick, with a helpless-looking woman at his side. It was criticised for being stereotypical. My noble friend’s report tries to counteract such stereotypes, which, like all stereotypes, are damaging and oppressive. Indeed, they may contribute to older people’s views of themselves—how they should look and behave, and so on. It must be damaging for their mental health, to say the least.
In your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, I usually discuss the other end of the age spectrum: children. Whether we are talking about children or older people, though, policy frameworks are important. Those of us involved in children’s issues have the Convention on the Rights of the Child to draw on. We use it as a kind of touchstone—a charter, to use my noble friend’s word. As my noble friend points out in section 2 of his report, there is no international legally binding instrument devoted to the rights of older persons. Many of us have called for one, including the UN independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights by older people. The European Convention on Human Rights applies to older persons, even though it is not explicit. The European Social Charter contains several articles relevant to older persons. The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly have promoted the rights of older people. The UN is actively working on this. There is concern: it needs to be pulled together.
When I talk about children’s rights, I always say that it is not only about protecting children: it is about empowering them. My noble friend is supportive of this concept for older people. A growing proportion of the population that is inactive and dependent is not only expensive for the state, but it is a waste of energy and talent. I am a great believer in prevention: we could improve systems to educate people when younger to help themselves through diet, exercise and ongoing mental activity. We should do more to support people through social systems. We know that many older people experience infringements of their human rights in later life. A recent Care Quality Commission report reveals inadequate and inappropriate levels of care and safety concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to this earlier.
Inevitably, of course, people die, and many are by no means elderly. I witnessed a dignified death when my brother died of cancer last year. Dying can be dignified for the person and, importantly, for the relatives and friends. My brother died in a beautiful hospice in Cheshire surrounded by flowers and cheerful, dedicated people after wonderful care. Some of his last words to me were: “You’ve got to sort out this hospice funding situation”. It is a situation that I was unaware of and I ask the Minister to clarify it. It seems that, if a person at the end of life goes into a care home, the money follows the patient. If they go into a hospice, however, the money does not follow the patient. Hospices are funded through their fundraising and bequests. I do not know why this should be. Hospices seem to me to be an excellent model for end-of-life care. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
Again, I thank my noble friend for raising the issue of the human rights of older people. We are talking about human dignity, support and empowerment, which are all absolutely key to any human rights.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, by far the worst abuse of older people is poverty. This welcome debate covers many other forms of abuse—ageism, elder abuse, inadequate care—and they are all very important. However, it behoves us to remember that, according to official figures, some 1.9 million older people live in poverty, which means that their income is below 60% of median earnings in this country. That is one pensioner in six.
Half a century ago, we were all very conscious of pensioner poverty. For one reason or another—perhaps because of better pensions and the rise in home ownership—that recognition has declined. Now, instead, people are talking about intergenerational fairness, which means giving older people less and younger people more. The research, including the excellent book by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has emphasised that the older generation has done increasingly well while the younger generation—generation rent—struggles. There is something in this, but it is a gross and important oversimplification. Rather than thinking of the elderly as one generation, we should think of two groups of elderly people. One group—I hope noble Lords will forgive me—is people like us, who are doing quite well. We enjoy wealth in the form of owning valuable homes that can be easily turned into cash through equity release. That wealth will be tax-privileged when we die, and on top of that we have had the chance to build pensions through our lifetimes: employer schemes, personal pensions and self-enrolment, which is now adding to our numbers. Meanwhile, the state has gone out of its way to hand us more dosh.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred approvingly to the triple lock. The triple lock is an absolute disaster, making us richer at the expense of much poorer working people—free bus passes; at 75, free TV licences. Last night I got home to find a large tax bill and with it, guess what? A piece of paper awarding me my winter fuel payment of £100—tax free, naturally. I have dispatched it to charity.
However, another group, the 1.9 million I referred to earlier, is materially seriously deprived. They do not own, they usually rent. They may not have adequate state pensions because they have not had the earnings record to get one, so they are forced back on to means-tested help. If they need care outside their own homes, they will be forced back on to the care that the local authority can provide. Local authorities now provide care only to people in gross need—care that is so cheap that it struggles to be inadequate. Those people cannot even look forward to leaving their struggling kids an inheritance.
These problems stem, in part, from deep social inequalities affecting all generations at all ages. However, in the case of the elderly there is one other factor that we should not ignore. It is a combination of the bad effects of two aspects of our politics. From the right has stemmed extreme restraint over public expenditure—austerity, if you like. That lies, for example, at the heart of the care crisis. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the answer to the care crisis is more money. But I fear that we on the left have also made a big mistake through our belief that all state benefits must be universal. There has been a liberal wing drifting out from academia, and it still permeates large sections of the left. So we all get these universal handouts, I get my fuel allowance, and the result is that the money is not available to target the true causes of poverty in old age.
Yesterday I and many other Members of this House attended the memorial service of the great Lord Joffe. He was my ally in this matter. When we sat on the Commission on Long-Term Care in 1999, the majority wanted care to be a universal benefit, free to all who need it, paid for in full to the rich. Joel and I argued instead that the top priority for scarce public money was to spend it on better care services for the poor, not on these huge handouts to subsidise the rich and, more particularly, their children, who would inherit the money from them. Life is about hard choices. We can have universal benefits for the elderly, or we can target the poverty among the elderly that is making the lives of so many a misery. Alas, we cannot spend the same money on both, but I know which I would put first.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for securing this very important debate with its enormous number of issues.
I do not feel I can follow that powerful argument by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, without addressing it, because he has an enormously important point to make. I shall make one suggestion, which I was going to make anyway, because this issue of intergenerational equity, and the triple lock that was referred to earlier, is becoming increasingly toxic in our political life and is dividing the generations. One way through it would be to look in the round at all the benefits that go to the over-65s. We need to take the pensions, the bus passes, the personal independence payments, the care allowances—a huge number of benefits go to certain people in that age group—and set them against the increasing lifetime costs that those people face, especially the group who develop multiple chronic illnesses quite early. I suspect that many of the 1.9 million that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to may be in that category. They develop those illnesses at quite an early stage, they find it difficult to continue to work and they are stuck in what I agree is a completely different group. I just wanted to make that point.
I sat on the board of the Care Quality Commission for two years between 2013 and 2015. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that we inspected care homes, though perhaps not regularly enough. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the CQC has uncovered some absolutely terrible and shocking cases of abuse. That does not mean it is perfect, but at least there is now a mechanism. I was also the author of the independent review into the 1.3 million unregistered workers in health and social care. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, they are, on the whole, deserving of our respect. One thing I was trying to do in the report was raise their status and recognise what they do. This is far too often still referred to as “unskilled”, but is actually deeply, deeply skilled and requires enormous maturity. I am glad to say that the Government have implemented some of my recommendations on training and the care certificate. I encourage them to keep moving forward on the idea of there eventually being one workforce across health and social care.
Some excellent examples of progress are now being made, particularly in Manchester, in pooling budgets and services for the over-65s. One of the missing pieces, however, will be that single workforce, with a common skill set and training. Partly as a result of the multiple chronic illnesses I referred to earlier, there is now a blurring of the lines between the jobs of healthcare assistant, district nurse and domiciliary care worker. It is increasingly difficult for people in the domiciliary care space who are going into homes where medical needs are quite acute. I would encourage more work to be done on developing that sort of joint training. We might perhaps consider including in this some of the relatives and volunteers who do so much of the caring work. They might benefit from some of that basic training and gaining that status.
I have two more points to make, the first about continuity of care. This has not been mentioned and is often overlooked. It is particularly important for frail elderly people, whether they are in a hospital ward or at home. The constant turnover of people in home care is obviously a difficulty for the sector, which is partly to do with money. However, in hospitals a bit more work and consideration need to be given to nursing shifts where, for some unknown reason, the same people reappear in a different part of the hospital for their next shift. That would make a substantial difference to a lot of very confused elderly people who are disoriented and some of whom have dementia.
Lastly, I entirely agree with some of what was in the report about negative stereotypes. There has been a lot of research in the US showing that negative stereotypes about older people being a burden influence enormously the way they feel about themselves and actually accelerate the process of ageing. Those of us in the media need to take more responsibility for the way we sometimes describe people without thinking. This is not malicious—it is just the way people talk in society—but the more that those in this House can do to challenge specific examples of it, the better off we will all be.
Lord Sawyer (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for initiating this extremely important debate. When I reflected on what to say in my five minutes, I intended to talk about something that has not been widely covered: isolation and loneliness among old people. I am going to change tack a little, but it is important that isolation and loneliness are addressed. The impact of being lonely on old people has recently been matched to the effects of smoking 15 cigarettes a day. When talking about comprehensive care for older people, we have to include a proper understanding and examination of the effects of isolation and loneliness.
I am sure all noble Lords will have heard similar stories, but I was told about a GP’s surgery in North Yorkshire, where I spent some time recently, at which a number of regular patients have nothing medically wrong with them. They book weekly appointments with the doctor because they want someone to talk to. I am sure that situation is not unusual, but it is a damn shame that it gets to that.
There is a great example for all of us in the new Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness. If noble Lords have not heard of it, it is well worth taking note of. It works in partnership with charities, supporting older people and carers. It puts a lot of emphasis on chatting, being happy to chat to neighbours, relatives and people in need of company. I think the commission is doing a great job by emphasising the power of talking. It sounds simple, and it is, but it needs to be done.
I want to move on now to join the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, whose speech motivated me to get up and say something quite different from what I intended to say. I thought it was great advocacy of people politicians never talk about: low-paid care workers. It was amazing that it came from the Conservative Benches. Perhaps the noble Lord is on the wrong Benches. How do we know? It was a very good speech and made me realise. Why Unison has not sent the noble Lord a briefing, I do not know, but the noble Lord made me revisit in my mind as I was listening to him the importance of making sure that we pay, train and look after care workers in the way we look after any other professional and do not see them as people at the bottom of the pile who always get attention at the very end when everybody else has had an opportunity to take their share.
When I was a young union official, I used to negotiate for those people. When they were employed by local authorities, as the noble Lord will remember, they were all covered by national agreements. Their pay, conditions and holidays were all covered, and so was their training and development. It was not very good at the time, but it was still covered, and there were still opportunities that were laid down at national level. The thing that changed all that, as we all know but it has to be said again and again, was privatisation. The privatisation of the caring services led to fragmentation of employers, some of whom, to be fair, have been reasonably good at doing the right thing. Others, however, have been pretty lousy at it and have not paid people properly, motivated them or engaged them in what the real job is about. This touches on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cashman, who made another speech that really moved me. How do we expect to get a fair deal for LGBT people when we do not get it in the sector at all? There will always be that problem unless we really address the pay and conditions of people who work in that sector and value them.
I do not think this will happen under a Conservative Government because it is essentially about cash. It is about saying that we respect people and value their work enough to say that, despite all the other pressures on us, we are going to make more resources available to pay them above the minimum wage, which is basically where they are now, and pay enough money to give them proper training and development. It is not going to happen, but I think it is a good test for the next Labour Government who come along. If a Government can do something about this problem, that is a good way of sending a signal that they really want to do something to help the older population and people who need care and attention.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for bringing forward this important subject. I will take a practical look at what I see as a highly complex issue. My noble friend tells us that those aged 65 and over are expected to number 16 million by 2030. When we consider the current impact on the health and social care system of the ageing population, with two-fifths of national health spending devoted to people over 65, we see that the implications for the NHS of the growth trend in those over 65 are quite staggering. The potential effects on tomorrow’s health services will be of crisis proportions unless today’s problems are tackled intelligently.
It is certainly encouraging that the UN and the Council of Europe have recognised the issue and the rights of older people. There is tremendous value in international charters and conventions that set out necessary human rights. I, along with others, have campaigned for many of them. But that is where the real work begins, for how many countries have signed such agreements, only to pay lip service to what they regard as international wish lists? Climate change is a good example.
I remember meeting Dr Manmohan Singh when he was the Finance Minister—later to become Prime Minister—of India and trying to convince him that a social clause was needed in world trade agreements. He said that he was convinced personally but that India and other developing nations did not believe that a social clause served their economic interests. He was a truly honourable man, but the economic interests of India came first. I tell the story because I believe that it is at the heart of what we are debating. We have to show our Government and every other Government that finding solutions to the problems of older people will be one of the most economically rewarding tasks they will ever embark on. I believe we can and I believe we must.
My long association with the manufacturing industry, together with a more recent period as president—and now vice-president—of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has taken me on a more pragmatic path to progress this issue. The particular issue I would concentrate on is what I think older people see as their main priority: health. I have seen the remarkable results that can be achieved where prevention has been the driving force. Since the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 was introduced, and prevention became less economically painful to employers than paying for damaged lives, we have seen an 85% reduction in workplace fatalities and a similarly impressive reduction in injuries, thus lifting a significant and needless financial burden from the NHS. RoSPA, with others, successfully campaigned for the introduction of seat belts in cars; the law was passed in 1989. Since that time, the number of vehicles has risen by more than one-third, but there has been a 66% fall in road fatalities. This preventive approach should be taken with some of the more serious problems that older people face.
Take the biggest preventable problem faced by older people: accidents. There are more than 250,000 fall-related emergency hospital admissions every year for serious injuries involving over-65s in England alone. Where there has been a targeted and collaborative approach, such as the one that took place in the West Midlands involving the Government, RoSPA and the local authority, aimed at preventing this type of accident among older people, significant results have been achieved—in this case, a 38% reduction in the number of over-65s attending A&E as a result of a fall.
Neither we nor the Government can solve all of the many and serious problems that older people face, but the Government must understand that acting to prevent the problems of the old is infinitely more cost effective than throwing money at their consequences. They should know also that there is an army of organisations and charities eager to partner them in a common objective of tackling the problems that older people face. I call on the Government to seize the opportunity that has been presented to them to deal with this, one of Britain’s most serious problems.
Lord Rea (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes has done an excellent job as rapporteur for the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, and we should thank him for presenting this report so well. It is an important contribution to the increased international concern for the human rights of older people. Your Lordships’ House is uniquely qualified to debate this issue, since exactly half of our membership is aged 70 or over. In fact, the psychogeriatrician Professor Tom Arie once described the House of Lords as an excellent model for a psychogeriatric day centre.
The report to the Council of Europe is thorough and cogent. It lists 14 measures that states should take towards,
“combating ageism, improving care for older persons and preventing their social exclusion”.
It says member states should,
“adopt a charter of rights for older persons in care settings to be used, inter alia, to empower older persons, as well as in the monitoring of long-term care institutions by an independent body”.
This has been touched on by several noble Lords already. The CQC is definitely a step in the right direction, but it needs better funding and more qualified staff. Here, I echo several other noble Lords who have spoken.
The purpose of the report is to stimulate Governments to take action to enact its recommendations, but it is not mandatory. If it were to be made part of an international convention, to be ratified by each of the states party to it, action would be more likely to follow. As the noble Lord knows, and as my noble friend Lord Foulkes mentioned, the UN has, since 2010, been hosting annual meetings of a working group on ageing. This is open ended, as my noble friend says, and is working towards the creation of a suitable UN convention on the needs of older people, to be ratified by member states.
However, a declaration such as the one we are discussing can still be influential in steering UN and national policy. I hope that it will influence the UN working group as it draws up a document to serve as a basis for an international treaty or convention. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about the progress being made by this group, and particularly the contribution of the UK representatives.
Life expectancy is increasing, but healthy, disability-free life lags behind by five to 10 years, strongly related to the level of social deprivation. Not only do those of lower socioeconomic status live shorter lives, but for more of that shorter life they live with disability, as has already been alluded to by several noble Lords. Many of the health problems of the old have their origins earlier in life. Most of their disease burden is due to chronic non-communicable disease—obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia and cancer—which is to a greater or lesser extent preventable, or at least whose onset can be postponed. A person with less disability in old age has usually had a lower burden of disease throughout life. Improving the health and lives of older people cannot be separated from measures needed to improve the health of the whole population. This is strongly influenced by the social determinants of health and disease, a topic which we have debated in the past in your Lordships’ House and which we will certainly debate again in the future.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I speak from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench tonight. I was going to declare an interest as an older person, but I am in such good company I will just declare an interest in having a small amount of self-funded care. To the noble Lord who said we must look after our care workers, I would say that I have my care worker’s children here to do some work experience, and we are very good friends in other ways too.
This debate is extremely welcome but could last several days rather than two hours because of the number of issues raised by the excellent report from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. What age does age discrimination start at? What are we going to do about social isolation? Is there abuse of older people in all care settings to some extent? Perhaps, but we do not know. Then there are all the different kinds of care an older person might receive, either in a care home or their own home.
Sadly, the time we hear most about the mounting difficulties in this area is when hospitals report that an elderly person has been ready to be discharged for months but no suitable arrangements can be made. It is classic bed-blocking, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned. This makes all elderly people feel vulnerable because it is entirely negative—a word referred to in the report and this afternoon in the debate. This negativity, allied to a feeling of guilt at being old at all, and therefore a burden, is not a good place for anyone’s mental health. The mental health of elderly people is one thing we have not talked about much.
Although the financing of care is not the focus of this debate, it is bound to be one of the headline issues, as we have heard from some of the telling speeches so far. I see that it is the fifth bullet point in the noble Lord’s report. There is no doubt that someone looking down at Great Britain from outer space would think we were mad to be spending less in real terms on social care than we were seven years ago, in spite of the recent injection of some money in the spring Budget. This is at a time when the number of people getting older and needing care is growing.
We must have known about this demographic for years now, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. Is it due to the fragmentation of care services that the message does not seem to be getting through with enough urgency? Responsibility for adult social care is split, with health, local government, the benefits system and equalities all involved. Whatever the reason, the human rights of older people would be much better protected in the care system if there were more money to spend on as high quality care as possible, with properly trained and better paid care workers spending as long as is necessary to do their job.
We also need far more suitable supported housing for those who can live independently into old age. In order to put funding on a sustainable financial footing, my party would put a penny in the pound on income tax to raise some cash immediately for both the NHS and social care systems. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke particularly about that. We advocate establishing a cross-party health and social care convention to carry out a comprehensive review of the sustainability of NHS and social care finances, and a monitoring agency similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility. The latter would report to see how the whole system was getting on, and how much was needed to meet the costs of projected increases in demand and any new initiatives, in order to make sure that changes in services are properly costed and affordable.
In general, we agree with the report about bringing NHS and social care together into one seamless service, pooling budgets in every area and developing integrated care organisations—an aspiration shared by many other groups. After all, where does the NHS’s responsibility end and that of the care services begin?
We would guarantee the right of all NHS and social care service staff who are EU nationals to stay in the UK. The UK needs 1.6 million health and social care workers up to 2022 to replace those leaving the profession, including European nationals who have already jumped ship. While on the subject of care workers, the ones I know who travel to people’s homes are trying their very best to do all they can for their clients, against the odds. They are not paid for travelling between clients so they often have an impossible task, particularly in rural areas, in trying to fit an hour’s work into half an hour, or half an hour into fifteen minutes.
It is not always recognised how important home carers are in an elderly person’s life. They often have to contact a doctor, a neighbour, the next of kin, or sometimes the police, so they really are on the front line, and we pay them very poorly. They also tell me that they often have to listen to some outspoken comments from those they care for who may come from a different ethnic group. But they do not complain because they make allowances for the person’s age and state of health. If that person goes into hospital, a home, or dies, then the carer from that moment is not paid. There is no period of grace.
In many ways, talking about the human rights of older people reminds me of the debate around the human rights of disabled people, which has never sat very comfortably in the Equality Act. The aspect which is familiar to me from that agenda is the right to independent living—the right to have a life, basically—and if possible, a working life for disabled people, paying taxes rather than only picking up benefits. However, each group also needs to have a social life. It cannot be right for older people needing care not to be able to get out and about, go to events, see people, go shopping, et cetera. It should not be enough just to help them wash, dress and eat, and then for society to forget about them. This is surely where communities or neighbourhoods might step in, as they have in the remote Scottish islands of Rum, Eigg and Muck.
We are, in general, a more caring society than people think, and not as good sometimes as some much poorer countries in looking after our elderly citizens. But someone has to take a lead in taking the concept of care beyond the minimum. A lot of churches do this, but what about the increasing number of mayors in our country? Could they not be asked to oversee this sort of involvement and undertake some social activities for elderly people? When I arrived in London 42 years ago, I joined my local contact group, which took elderly people living on their own out to tea once a month to someone’s home. My cell was organised by a barrister’s wife, who managed to capture as many judges as she could as they usually lived in big houses in picturesque surroundings. They quite often opened a bottle of wine in the kitchen afterwards—though I should not say that.
The noble Lord’s report says that member states or civil society should foster and promote human rights in this field. The challenge is how to begin the process of involving the whole community in this endeavour. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for initiating this debate today.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Foulkes on bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House today and on introducing it with his usual verve and clarity.
We have had a great debate, which has, of course, shed light on the range and challenge facing us all as we get older. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for welcoming me back to the Front Bench. I also hope he might try to do something about zero-hours contracts and outsourcing, which he referred to in his speech and which lie at the heart of his party’s economic and public policy.
As I reached the age at my last birthday which, I gather, tipped me over into the realm of “older person”, I wondered whether I should declare an interest. Then I realised, looking around the Chamber today that, with the exception possibly of the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, and, of course, of my ever-youthful noble friend Lord Cashman, we are mostly in the same boat.
Longevity is a cause for celebration, as well as for the concerns that have been expressed. My noble friend Lady Massey mentioned the stereotyping of old people. Her speech made me want to go out and dye my hair purple. I am very pleased that the Labour Government championed the rights of older people and enshrined age discrimination in the Equality Act 2010. It says that you should not be treated differently because of your age. It reflects the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations convention on the rights of older persons. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is absolutely right. Human rights do not lessen with age.
I should like to raise an issue of discrimination with the Minister—the flagrant injustice done to all women born in the 1950s who are affected by the changes to the state pension law through the 1995 and 2011 Acts. I have two sisters who are affected by it and I just missed the cut-off by a whisker. This debate is about inequality and justice. The Conservative Government’s Pensions Act 1995 included plans to increase women’s state pension age to 65—the same as men’s. I think that everyone would agree with that equalisation, but I do not agree—and neither do many women—with the unfair way in which the changes were implemented in the Pensions Act 2011. There was little or no information for those affected and no time for them to make alternative plans. Retirement plans were shattered, with devastating consequences. What are the Government going to do to mitigate this injustice to this cohort of older women?
The second matter I should like to raise with the Minister is one which many noble Lords have mentioned: the crisis of funding in the provision of social care. The old and those with serious conditions, and the co-morbidities that go with them, bear the brunt of the squeeze in funding in the NHS, the reduction in spending on social care and the Government’s incoherent strategy—perhaps I should say lack of strategy—for integrated care. Council-funded social care was reduced from £16.6 billion in 2011 to £15.6 billion in 2016-17—a real-terms reduction of 6%. I thank the Local Government Association and Age UK for their brief. Councils have worked hard to protect adult social care spending in cash terms. However, the LGA’s latest analysis on the funding gap faced by councils shows that this approach is not sustainable. The LGA estimates that local government faces a funding gap of £5.8 billion by 2020, £1 billion of which is attributable to adult social care and includes only the unavoidable costs of demography, inflation and the national living wage. The figure excludes other significant pressures, including addressing unmet need. The scale of the funding gap and the crisis of unmet need is widely documented, not just by independent think tanks such as the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund but by the voluntary sector: Age UK, Sue Ryder and many others.
Given the important role that social care services play in supporting elderly and disabled people, it is crucial that the Government use this autumn Budget to take immediate action to address the adult social care crisis. Although I do not expect the noble Lord to share with us or to reveal what might be in the Budget, I hope that he and his colleagues agree that this is a cause worth fighting for. Have he and his colleagues done so in this spending round?
Finally, I ask the Minister when the Government will publish their planned consultation for proposals on the sustainability of social care. Hopefully, we can then start building a sustainable system for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on securing the debate and I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very interesting and challenging debate at times. The Government were pleased to see the publication of the Council of Europe report on this important issue in May this year; as the noble Lord pointed out, we have had a chance to discuss it before. He is to be commended for leading such a high-quality piece of work; we would expect nothing less. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, back to her role on the Front Bench. I look forward to many more of these exchanges in the months ahead; she is clearly going to keep me on my toes.
The human rights of older people are what are in question here and, of course, they are no different from those of other citizens. What differs are the means needed to uphold those rights because of the specific needs of older people themselves including, critically, the care available to them later in life. As all noble Lords have pointed out, an ageing population presents the UK, in common with the developed world, with one of our most profound challenges. It raises critical questions as to how, as a society, we enable all adults to live well into later life and how we deliver sustainable public services that support them to do so. But it presents huge opportunities, too—socially, economically and dare I say it, morally. The care and respect that we provide to older people is the litmus test of the values that we hold as a society.
I believe that the Government recognise the scale of this challenge and are responding to it. I hope that the noble Lord—indeed all noble Lords, though I have a sense that they may not have—will have seen that, at 2 pm today, my right honourable friends the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Health published our plans to produce a Green Paper on social reform by summer next year. The announcement makes it clear that, to achieve reform where previous attempts have failed, we must take a broad view. The Green Paper will cover: social care funding and, of course, issues of means testing; social care services, including continuity of care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, mentioned; wider networks of support, such as the role of carers; the role of housing; and interaction with other public services. It will consider how technology, innovation and new workforce models can deliver better quality and value. It will be underpinned by the 2014 Care Act, which introduced national eligibility criteria for access to adult care for the first time, and by £2 billion in additional funding over the next three years to support social care. Part of the purpose of that funding is of course to reduce delayed transfers of care—what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, quite rightly described as, in the pejorative term, bed-blocking. I completely agree with her that that is not a term that we want to use or endorse.
To take forward the work towards the Green Paper, a group of independent experts, including Sir Andrew Dilnot and Dame Kate Barker—who have both led reviews into social care in the past—and, from our own House, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, will support government engagement with a range of stakeholders including, first and foremost, care users, their families and those providing care in whatever setting, to debate the issues and build consensus. Noble Lords are a treasure trove of expertise on this issue and it is critical that their voices are heard. That is why the First Secretary of State has written to invite the chairs of all relevant all-party parliamentary groups to meet him, so that he can to listen to their views.
An interministerial group has already been established to oversee the policy development process. Our aim is to build consensus around reforms which can last. Once the Green Paper is published there will of course be a full public consultation to provide further opportunities for all interested parties to add their perspective. The Government’s plan is bold in intent and ambitious in scope. I hope that everyone who has an interest in social care sees this as a fantastic opportunity to achieve the lasting and sustainable change that has so far eluded us.
Reform of this vital sector has been a controversial issue for many years but the realities of an ageing society—as noble Lords have pointed out—mean that we must reach a sustainable settlement for the long term. It will no doubt require difficult choices about what that system should provide and how it is paid for. But getting this right promises a better system that everyone can have confidence in, where people understand their responsibilities, can—critically—prepare for the future and know that the care they receive will be to a high standard and will help them maintain their independence and well-being.
As these plans for social care reform show, this Government’s ambition is to make the country a good place for everyone to grow old. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, accused me—somewhat unfairly, I thought—of lacking specifics in previous answers, so I am going to give some very concrete examples of what we are doing to support older people. We as a country are proud to lead the world in tackling age discrimination. The Equality Act provides robust protection against both indirect and direct discrimination in employment, and in February the Government published a strategy called Fuller Working Lives, which aims to increase the retention, retraining and recruitment of older workers by bringing about a change in the perception and attitudes of employers.
Many older people want to carry on working, and of course the coalition Government abolished the default retirement age and extended the right to request flexible working to all. It is therefore hugely encouraging that the number of older workers is at a record high—and not just because of the growing size of the House of Lords. I should add that I am doing my bit. Just yesterday, as happens every Wednesday, I had my parents looking after all three of my children—so I am keeping them active in their retirement, too.
Huge progress has been made under successive Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned pensioner poverty. It is still too high, at 16%, but that is compared with 40% in the 1980s. The pension credit provides a guaranteed minimum income to help tackle pensioner poverty in Great Britain, and over time the new state pension will reduce the need for means testing.
Beyond social care, we are taking action in a number of areas to support the comprehensive care of older people. One of these is the inclusion, by 2020, of training in geriatrics and prescribing for older people within all medical curricula, so that there will be additional support throughout every part of the NHS. The 2017-18 GP contract set out a requirement for the identification and management of patients aged 65 and over with frailty, to ensure that they receive an annual medication review. Where clinically appropriate, the GP will discuss whether the patient has fallen in the past 12 months, and provide any other clinically relevant interventions.
Of course people want to be at the centre of their own care, making sure that it responds to their own needs—which is why the Government have simultaneously extended both personal health budgets and integrated personal commissioning, as well as promoting the integration of health and care services through the sustainability and transformation programme that is the centrepiece of the NHS’s five-year forward view.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Thornton, raised the issue of integration of care. All parties are aiming towards that. There are different versions of this, but bringing together care for people who experience it, and who do not want to have to distinguish between primary, secondary, community, social and so on, is essential as the health needs of our population change around ageing and comorbidity.
Personalisation is therefore behind these ambitious plans, as well as our plans to digitise health services—a passion of the Secretary of State’s. The potential for mobile technologies to support an ageing society, to combat loneliness—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, pointed out, has such a pernicious effect in old age—and to provide real-time diagnostics is a rich seam that has only just started to be explored. New services, such as the GP at Hand pilots, hold huge opportunities for older people who need to see a GP but may be too frail to leave home.
Home is at the centre of providing for good care and for the human rights of older people. At heart, growing old safely and happily needs a good home. We know that most older people would prefer to live at home in their later years, which is why we have seen an increase in domiciliary care and sheltered housing. Others will want or need to be in a residential or nursing home, so the quality of that home and the care provided within it are everything. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, pointed out, the Care Quality Commission’s October State of Care report said that about four-fifths of residential homes achieve good or outstanding ratings—although I accept that only 2% or 3% are outstanding, and that could be better. For domiciliary care services the figure was 83%, and for community social care 88%.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about the work she did, when only 50% of care was judged to be good enough. I am not sure what year that was, but I hope that we have seen an improvement. The fact that those inspections are happening is helping to drive quality. The State of Care report highlights variation, and points to some evidence of deterioration. The CQC is looking at this quality, including the deterioration of good and outstanding providers, but it is reassuring to see that 82% of providers that had been rated inadequate had improved by their next inspection.
Providing good care in the home means supporting carers as well as care workers. That is why it is so positive that the role of carers has been wrapped into the overall social care reform programme that I described earlier. I pay tribute to all those, paid and unpaid, who look after older people and provide the dignity and respect that they deserve. Adults with dementia are particularly vulnerable, so I am sure all noble Lords will welcome the fact that over 2 million people have been trained to be dementia friends to support sufferers of this horrible disease.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, making sure that there is good care also means rooting out and, where necessary, taking professional or legal action against the despicable minority who abuse vulnerable older people. That is one reason that we introduced a new crime of wilful neglect, which came into force in April 2015. Looking ahead, the draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill will strengthen the Government’s powers to respond to physical, psychological and economic abuse in domestic settings, and we will launch a consultation on proposals soon. However, it is important to emphasise that this is only a minority and that the vast majority of people looking after older people work with great dedication and compassion.
Before concluding, I take the opportunity to respond to some specific questions that I have not yet had a chance to answer. I hope that I have given some specific examples to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and done so politely. I say to him that there is no need to wait for a Labour Government to act on these things. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, pointed out, we want to avoid the political toxicity that can accompany such issues.
My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, suggested that collective bargaining was the way forward. Perhaps that was a reminder of the past involvement of my noble friend Lord Balfe in unions and the Labour Party. However, I am not convinced that that is the right way forward. I do not think that it matters whether a provider is in the private sector, the public sector or the voluntary sector. As Tony Blair once said, what matters is what works. It is quality that counts and that is why we need to have the staff and the training to make sure that happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, talked about discrimination in medical care. That is, of course, absolutely wrong when it is done for unjustified reasons. There can be reasons why decisions are made not to operate on older people but those must always be clinical decisions based on clinical judgments and not because of any kind of prejudice. It is important to emphasise that there are routes such as HealthWatch and the health ombudsman through which people can report instances of discrimination.
At the heart of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is the idea of a charter of older people’s rights, which was endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. It is quite right, of course, that there is such a charter for children, and, indeed, a Children’s Commissioner has come from that. I hate to disappoint them, but that is not currently part of our plans. However, we will continue to watch the UN’s work in this area, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, with interest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, also asked about the difference between hospice and care home funding. They are funded very differently. The periods of time that one would expect to spend in one versus the other is also different. However, I shall certainly write to her with more detail of how those could be aligned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, asked about merging the health and care professions. That was an incredibly wise point. There are huge benefits from integration, not least because care is increasingly delivered in an integrated way, because of the complexities involved and because of the progression that integration offers. One of the criticisms of social care as a profession concerns the glass ceilings that exist within it; the opportunities for seniority are not there, whereas integration with the medical professions would provide that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, asked about preventive action. I completely agree with him on that. He will be pleased to know that there are big increases in capital spending on the disabled facilities grants, which is going up year on year precisely to combat some of the very avoidable issues of the usability and safety of homes, for example, to provide the kind of preventive action that he is looking for and that ought to reduce the instances to which he referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about raising the pension age. The Government have taken action to limit the maximum change to the state pension age to 18 months, building on the 1995 Act at a cost of, I believe, over £1 billion, so the Government are taking, and have taken, action to address that issue.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord for producing his report and instigating this debate. I thank all noble Lords for their wise and thoughtful contributions.
I would like to end where I started. The way we care for older people reflects our values as a society. As a country, we have a fantastic record of supporting and cherishing older people, but the challenge of making sure they can live their lives with independence and dignity is getting harder. We can meet this challenge only by working together, with imagination and compassion, to tackle the difficult decisions and choices that are needed, not least in the reform of social care services and funding. Noble Lords have a huge amount to contribute to this process and—as others have pointed out—because of the mean age quite a keen personal interest in it too. I look forward to working with noble Lords in that endeavour.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, in replying very briefly to the debate, I first apologise for not having moved the Motion properly at the start. Noble Lords gave me the kind of look that made me feel very guilty. I also apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench for not welcoming her. I was going to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I go back a long time together, but she is very young in comparison. Still, as fellow co-operators, we have worked closely together and I am delighted that she is on the Front Bench again.
It has been a fantastic debate. I am very pleased with so many excellent speeches, which were almost unanimous, if not quite. Like my noble friend Lord Sawyer, I welcomed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who was looking after the workers again. I should also have mentioned but forgot—perhaps I should have declared another interest—that my son works in this sector. He is relatively low paid and he works very hard indeed; I know care workers work very hard.
I also found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, encouraging and helpful. She is right about the Care Quality Commission; it is doing a job, but it could do better. There could be more frequent and incisive unannounced inspections. The fact that there are problems shows that it is not yet working. However, she is certainly on the ball, as it were, in getting it moving in the right direction.
I was grateful for the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Haskel and for the experience of my noble friend Lord Cashman in the LGBT sector. He also did a tremendous job on this as an MEP. My noble friend Lady Massey normally champions children and I see her as chair of the children’s committee in the Council of Europe—it is nice to have her move into this area as well. My noble friend Lord Rea and I used to work together in international development many years ago; it is wonderful to have him make such an eloquent speech in support.
It was also good to get such overwhelming support from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, and I appreciate it. Sometimes I can be a wee bit critical of the Liberal Democrats, but certainly not on this occasion. It was fantastic support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, she and I have also been working together for a number of years; it is nice to be working with her on the same subject again.
I am afraid I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I think he is falling into the trap of those people who want to divide and rule us. We will have the debate on universality versus means testing outwith this Chamber—we have a lot of debates outwith this Chamber—but when 1% of people in this country own 50% of the wealth, it is not the poor who should be fighting each other over who is a little better off than the rest. There are people who can afford to pay more in taxation; we will have to have that debate on another occasion.
I come to the Minister. I must say—and I say it with his boss present—that he is one of the Ministers for whom I have the greatest respect. He treats this House with great respect and answers Questions at Question Time properly; not every Minister does that. He does it very well and he listens carefully to what is said. I have been a junior Minister, too, admittedly in the other place, and I know it gives you a little more power, but you are always constrained by Secretaries of State, Prime Ministers and so on. But within that constraint, he has been helpful. I did not see the announcement about the Green Paper on social reform because we were all busy preparing for this debate. However, it is a welcome development. I do not normally welcome things from this Government but it is welcome. The way the Minister described it made it sound sensible, and it is encouraging. Let us say that it is a step in the right direction, but there are many more steps to take.
I should have said earlier that it is nice to see my noble friend Lord Pendry here. He had hoped to participate in the debate but I know he was called into hospital. However, I am glad that he has been discharged and is with us at the end of the debate.
I thank the Minister for that helpful response. I can only assure him that, as I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I have been going on about this for a long time, and some of us will keep banging on until we get more, and better. Our concern is to make sure that every old person lives in dignity, in some degree of comfort, and enjoys their last years as much as they enjoyed their early years.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will update the House on steps being taken to tackle harassment and abuse in Parliament.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, there can be no place for harassment, abuse or misconduct in politics. I said we would take action in days, not weeks, and that is exactly what we have done. Getting this right matters to everyone, and I want to thank the honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, who I know is taking a keen interest in this matter. I hope today’s Statement answers her questions.
Last week, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the party leaders to discuss this matter. All party leaders attended, and there was agreement to work together to make swift progress. The proposals outlined by the Prime Minister for an independent grievance procedure have been embraced across the House, and I am reassured by the consensus. All parties have acknowledged that any proposal must adhere to three specific criteria: it must have cross-party agreement, it must include both Houses of Parliament, and it must be independent. The new system will be available to all who work here, including all MPs’ staff, Lords’ staff, including Cross-Benchers’, interns, volunteers, journalists and constituency staff. It was agreed that the political parties would establish a cross-party working group to take this work forward, and I am pleased to report that the group met for the first time on Tuesday.
The working group is made up of representatives from every party and from both Houses: Conservative, Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Green and the Cross-Benchers. Very importantly, MAPSA—the Members and Peers Staff Association—and Unite are representing parliamentary staff on the group, and are ensuring that their experiences and their requirements are taken fully into account. The first meeting of the working group made it clear that the voices of staff will be at the heart of this process. Any new system will need the absolute confidence of those who will use it.
The working group also agreed that the new procedure must be independent of political parties and that, to inform the group over the next two weeks, we will hear from a number of different contributors. This will include hearing from staff directly, as well as from groups, including ACAS, IPSA, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and experts on a range of topics that will help us shape a new process. Anyone wishing to submit their own thoughts or suggestions to the group in writing is also welcome to do so.
This is very early days for the working group, and we will certainly be working quickly but thoroughly to make sure we create a new procedure that provides confidence to all who use it. I know that, in addition, many members of staff have expressed an interest in the provision of HR training, as well as better employee support for staff. All those employing staff will need a certain amount of guidance and training to enable them to be good employers.
This week, the working group heard directly from the Clerks of the two Houses, who provided a very helpful account of the procedure used by House staff. While we have recognised that the Respect policy used by the House authorities provides an excellent reference point, the independent procedure we are seeking to build will take into account the specific needs of Parliament, and the group has acknowledged the need for more than just mediation. The working group agreed that a new system should provide support, advice and action on a wide spectrum of complaints around bullying and harassment. We will do everything in our power to ensure the solution is transparent, fair and effective. And this fairness must also apply to MPs and Peers because we recognise that, right across both Houses, we have many model employers who genuinely care about and look after their staff extremely well.
We are working to a tight timeframe, but we have all acknowledged that it is right we address this issue with urgency. The publication of the final proposal will balance the need for fast action with the need for due diligence. The working group, including its staff representatives, is considering the timetable carefully and aims to report back to the House before it rises for the Christmas recess. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Speaker have said you hope that all parties will live up to their responsibilities by demonstrating both an appetite for change and a practical means of delivering that change. That is exactly what we intend to do and I want to thank all parties for working together in a supportive fashion. We share this duty to bring about positive change. People come to work in this place for a number of reasons—out of public service, to support the party of their choice, or to gain new work experience. Nothing should deter them from pursuing those ambitions and I know we are all determined to ensure that this is a safe and fair place to work”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. Before I make some general comments, I will put on the record my thanks to her because she pursued the issue of ensuring that the hotline—the reporting line—that is available to all members of staff in the House of Commons is also available to members of staff in the House of Lords. I know that she made a personal commitment to that and I fully support her on that. I am glad that the phone line is now available to Lords staff as well.
I am pleased that the working party is taking a proactive, robust approach in getting the first meetings and the subsequent meetings up and running, and scheduled so quickly. It is not all down to the House and Parliament as a whole, because individual parties must also review their processes and the support they offer. I am pleased that the Labour Party is appointing an independent, external adviser for both reporting complaints and to guide and support anyone affected by sexual harassment through our own party’s procedures. We also have an independent legal expert to review the Labour Party’s procedures and make recommendations of any further changes or progresses needed.
I mention this for three reasons. The working party cannot just respond to events: it has to have a clear process, which is what I think the noble Baroness was referring to—seeing what that clear process is. There has to be an evaluation of that process to ensure that it is respected and has the confidence of all parties involved, both those who make complaints and those who are subject to complaints. I also think the point about the guidance, support and advice is very important, because all the best processes in the world make no difference at all if there is no confidence in them and if people are not able to access or use them properly. Process on its own is not enough; it is about ensuring access to that process.
When people are reporting abuse—whether it is sexual, or inappropriate behaviour, or bullying—it is not easy and the first point of contact is often not the person who can take action or investigate it. So advice or reporting mechanisms have to be easily accessible and there has to be confidentiality in doing so. If it is a matter for the police, as the most serious cases would be, for so many people—I speak as somebody who was involved in Women’s Aid for many years—the first point of contact is not the person who can investigate a crime. It is often a friend, a colleague or their trade union. We have a duty of care to ensure that those people can engage with a friend or their trade union—somebody in a position who has a duty of care that can help and support them through the process. I emphasise that, whatever process is in place, there must be mechanisms, arrangements and indeed a whole infrastructure around it for support and guidance.
I have a few questions for the noble Baroness that I hope she can either answer or take into account and take back to the meetings. First, I would like clarification. I think she talked about everyone employed on the Parliamentary Estate, including the staff of MPs and Peers. What about the contractors who are employed not directly by Parliament but by agencies and third parties? Can we ensure that they are also included? The Statement referred to advice having come from experts on topics including violence against women and girls, employment law and best practice. Can she confirm that when we are talking about abuse, it is not just sexual abuse and bullying but also LGBT abuse and any form of racism at all? Abuse takes many different forms.
Secondly, I understand the need to move quickly, but it is worth spending the time to get this right. Planning well now to have the proper processes in place will avoid later problems in implementation. I am quite concerned that we should see a proper planning phase and then a swift implementation once we have got it right, not just a rush to judgment on the right process. If we get it wrong, the consequences for those who want to make a complaint and those complained about will be quite serious.
I am very pleased to see trade union representation on the committee. The noble Baroness will recall that last time I mentioned that my first piece of advice to anybody working in any environment is to join a trade union, because it can offer advice and has expertise in this area. For many who have a complaint to make, their trade union will be the first point of contact. I urge the noble Baroness to ensure that the role of the trade union representative is evident throughout the process, not just in the initial reporting for those who are members. Lastly, could she say something about the role, once the working party has come to its conclusions and has a process that it recommends, of the commissions of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
Working here in Parliament should be a great experience, and I think for most people it is. I worked for an MP for two years; we have remained friends for many years since and it was a wonderful experience. I want it to be a good experience for everybody. Somebody coming to work in Parliament should enjoy it, feel valued in the work that they do and feel that it is rewarding. I think most do—but, where that falls short and they do not, that is when action has to be taken and we must act. We in Parliament should set an example and aim for the highest standards.
I am grateful for the report today. I hope the noble Baroness will come back with further updates as the working party commissions its work. If she can answer my questions or write to me later, I will be very grateful.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I pass on to her and the House the apologies of my noble friend Lord Newby, who is unavoidably—I stress unavoidably—not here.
From these Benches, we welcome the move to tackle harassment and abuse in Parliament, and agree that it is important—indeed, essential—to have an independent procedure. We believe it is important that the procedure and system are available to everyone who works here, so we welcome the inclusivity of what is proposed. We are keen for the cross-party working group to continue its work with maximum input from staff representatives. We, too, agree that it is vital that the new system comes into place as a matter of urgency but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we think it important that it is not so rushed that we make mistakes with the process. It is crucial that we get the process right and that we keep it and its implementation under review.
The need for diversity and for women in roles higher up in the structures in both Houses will not be lost on those who are speaking today. We are certainly working hard to achieve that within our own party’s structure. Like all parties, we have looked at our own procedures, which we have had in place for some time, to ensure that they are robust, competitive and fall in line with ACAS guidance. We are listening to our staff and our members to ensure that our procedures are truly effective and responsive.
I have a few questions. In the past, people have clearly been deterred from voicing complaints by the threat of these coming out in the media—or forms of media. What are the Government doing? Can they do anything to ensure that people are protected from this intrusion so that they feel able to come forward? Those who are more likely to have been or to be victims must not be punished either directly or indirectly for the actions of the perpetrators. After all, the responsibility lies with the perpetrators. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims do not feel any negative effects from having made a complaint?
What consideration is being given—the noble Baroness referred to this—to steps to be taken in the case of allegations that are later found to be unfounded? Our focus and concern is on and for the victims, and the starting point must be to believe what we are told, not to dismiss concerns, but that does not mean that there should be no concern for anyone who is accused and is subsequently found not to be a perpetrator.
I would like to add a personal comment. When we began to be aware of the abuses of power and position that have taken place, I felt very guilty. I thought, “How could I not have noticed this? Why was I not providing support?” It took about a week for me to remember that many years ago, I was subject to a minor act of inappropriate behaviour in the House. I realised not that I had put it out of my consciousness because it was trivial, but that I was so shocked that I buried it. That is what our minds do, and we need to recognise that the way people act when they have been subject to something so shocking is not necessarily what we might expect.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am grateful to both of the noble Baronesses for their comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in particular for her comments about the extension of the helpline. I appreciate the support of the leadership across this House. Everyone has been very supportive in helping us to move forward, and I am sure that we will be able to continue in that vein; that would mean that the voice of the Lords would be strong within the discussions that are going on.
As both noble Baronesses said, all parties have published their codes of conduct, which will make clear how complaints will be dealt with. I believe that they are now all available, so that people are aware of them and can use that route if they so wish. I totally agree with noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that confidence in access to the new process is key; I assure her that it is in the forefront of the minds of the group as we continue our work.
Turning to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I will take the point about the contractors back to the group. I think it was raised in the other place as well, so I am sure that it will be discussed. I entirely agree with her point about racist and LGBT abuse; I can assure her that the group is considering harassment and bullying in the round. That is certainly something that we are considering. We expect the working group to submit a proposal to both Houses, including the commissions, for their agreement and adoption, so we will come to the House and the commissions with a proposal in order that we can ensure that both Houses agree to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly raised the question of confidentiality around these cases. I can assure her that that was something we discussed at the first meeting. We are very well aware of this issue, and we will need to bear it in mind throughout the process. In relation to her point about unfounded allegations, this was also raised at the meeting earlier this week, and we will be taking it into account. It was a very good discussion, and the representatives of the two staff organisations are certainly adding a strong voice to the group. They represented the staff very well, and I hope we will do them justice in the end.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I agree with what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have said, but can the Leader of the House help me? One or two references have been made to Peers’ staff. Can she help me find a way to employ staff that I could look after properly?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure the noble Lord would look after any staff he had properly. There are lots of websites with people available who, I am sure, would love to work for him and I can certainly help by talking to him about that if he would like.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the leaders of all the parties for the action they have taken so far. One of the difficulties with this area is that all the confidence and access to the procedures in the world will not prevent this being very tough going for an individual complainant. There may still be stages at which, having raised the issue, formally or informally, they do not want to proceed any longer; we all have to recognise these things. It is frustrating, but sometimes people would rather not go through the ordeal that they feel they are going through, and the procedure has to take account of that. Secondly, a good procedure will, we hope, mean that we will not get complaints years later. If people have sufficient confidence, they will not store this up for 20 years or more.
That brings me to my third point: legacy issues. We may have to acknowledge that issues that are current may not be appropriate for any new procedure: we may have to just draw the line, deal with the mess as best we can, and say, “Right, from now on, this is how it is going to be”. My final point—and I hope this will be maintained throughout the discussion—is that this should be independent of the individual political parties. That will go a long way to help with any factional fighting that might take place in the future—I am not saying that it does take place.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness, I agree with all her points, which were very well made, and I can confirm that we are all committed to an independent process. As we all outlined, there are processes through the parties which people can choose to use if they wish, but we are very well aware that we are focused on an independent process to give staff that opportunity if that is what they wish. The noble Baroness may also be pleased to know, understanding the concern for staff and the support that they need, that from Monday, in addition to the helpline that is already available to staff, a new face-to-face counselling service will be available. We have been able to introduce it relatively quickly and it will be available from Monday.
Hormone Pregnancy Tests
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place on hormone pregnancy tests. The Statement is as follows:
“Yesterday, the Commission on Human Medicines published the report of its expert working group on hormone pregnancy tests. As I said at Health Orals on Tuesday, Mr Speaker, this subject demands the utmost sensitivity and I will do my best.
Based on its extensive and thorough review, the expert working group’s overall finding, endorsed by the Commission on Human Medicines, is that the available scientific evidence, taking all aspects into consideration, does not support a causal association between the use of hormone pregnancy tests such as Primodos during early pregnancy, and adverse outcomes of pregnancy with regard to miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital abnormalities. Ministers have accepted the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines and a Written Ministerial Statement was published yesterday, along with a copy of the report.
In the UK, hormone pregnancy tests first became available for diagnosing pregnancy in the 1950s. Between then and 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market in the UK, a number of studies were published which investigated a possible link between women being given a hormone pregnancy test to diagnose pregnancy and the occurrence of a range of congenital anomalies in their babies. Although there was never any reliable evidence that HPTs were unsafe, concern about this issue, coupled with the development of better pregnancy tests, meant that a number of precautionary actions were taken to restrict the use of HPTs. The tests were voluntarily removed from the market by the manufacturers.
The body of information subsequently accrued by the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and other campaigners led to a parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall in 2014 during which the then Minister for Life Sciences stated that he would instruct that all relevant documents held by the Department of Health be released. In addition, he determined that an independent review of the papers and all the available evidence was justified.
The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether the totality of the available data, on balance, supported a causal association between use of a hormone pregnancy test by the mother and adverse pregnancy outcomes. It also considered whether, alternatively, the anomalies could have been due to chance alone or to other factors. The final report summarises the scientific evidence that was considered by the expert working group, its conclusions on that evidence, and its recommendations. All the available relevant evidence on a possible association has been extensively and thoroughly reviewed with the benefit of up-to-date knowledge by experts from the relevant specialisms.
The evidence reviewed by the expert group will be published in the new year, once it has rightly been checked in line with the legal duties of data protection and confidentiality. In addition to the overall conclusion, the expert working group has made a number of recommendations to safeguard future generations through strengthening the systems in place for detecting, evaluating, managing and communicating safety concerns with use of medicines in early pregnancy.
While I recognise the conclusion of the report will be a disappointment to some, I hope they will see the recommendations as positive. They are a credit to the efforts of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, which I know the honourable lady chairs, and a lasting legacy”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I realise that the House is working him hard today, but he has the comfort of a huge department to provide his brief for him. In some ways, that underlines the dilemma that he and the Government face on this issue. This report has caused such dismay and disbelief among campaigners, and every MP who spoke in the Commons, that it requires the Government to use their critical faculties, listen to what is being said across the piece and look again at the report, its genesis and its lack of transparency.
I have two questions. First, will the Minister explain why Marie Lyon was told:
“I could go to prison if I divulge what was discussed”?
Does he agree that that is about as far away from transparency as it is possible to get?
Secondly, the draft of the report, which was published in October, stated that:
“Limitations of the methodology of the time and the relative scarcity of the evidence means it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion”.
That sentence was removed from the final version. Why was it removed, why was there a delay of a month and did the Minister speak to the authors of the report about the sentence before its removal?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. The most important thing to stress is that this report was the product of an expert working group of scientists and included an independent member in Nick Dobrik, who is a noted thalidomide campaigner and certainly not a government yes man. The chair of the families group, Mrs Lyon, was an observer. We are beholden to take the evidence of those who are best qualified and who have given their view on what link there may or may not have been between these pregnancy tests and the abnormalities. The conclusion they have come to is that, in their view, there is no causal association on the basis of the evidence they were able to consider.
The noble Baroness asked about transparency. Every single member of the expert working group signed a confidentiality agreement. That is common to all such groups in the Commission on Human Medicines. Mrs Lyon was not alone in that. That expires at the point of publication, so she is now absolutely free to say whatever she wants, as indeed is any other member. I can reassure her that there was no particular or unusual treatment for her compared to other members of the panel or to other panels that have operated in similar ways. The minutes of all the meetings will be published. As the Statement pointed out, the full evidence set will also be published, once it has gone through due diligence.
Changes to the draft were suggested by the Commission on Human Medicines and accepted by the expert working group. There was no interference from me or anyone else—it was a discussion between those two bodies. The report was unfortunately delayed. That was in order to make sure that it was as clear and as digestible as possible for non-experts. I think the report is a very thorough and comprehensible piece of work. I recognise that it is not the response that families were looking for. In some cases, they have experienced horrendous events—they have either lost babies or, in some cases, their children have extremely severe deformities—but I come back to the point that the task of the group was to look at whether there was a causal association. The group had scientific expertise. It has given its advice, and we are following it and the recommendations that it made.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, how do the Government intend to restore the trust and confidence of those left feeling betrayed by the lack of transparency and openness surrounding this inquiry that the Minister has just talked about?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
As I pointed out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, transparency is there in the evidence and minutes that will be published. The report that has come out is big and chunky and contains a huge amount of information. There was an independent member in Nick Dobrik, the thalidomide campaigner, and Mrs Lyon, who chairs the families group, was an observer. We touched on confidentiality agreements. As I said, there is nothing out of the ordinary in that. I think transparency is there. I come back to the point that the working group was set up to examine all the available evidence scientifically. The department provided its scientific and non-scientific papers for that effort. I know the report has not come up with the conclusions that the families wanted, but it is the right group to have made that judgment.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister realises the concerns of those families who have been affected. He put the case and described how the inquiry was conducted very clearly but, as has been said, there is still quite significant concern outside this House among Members of Parliament and the families concerned. If we are talking about getting reassurance, perhaps it would be useful to have a proper debate on the findings of the report so that all these aspects can be laid out in greater detail, including the case from the Minister.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I would certainly welcome such a debate. I know that was discussed in the debate in the other place on the Urgent Question. I want to emphasise the seriousness with which I take this issue. I had the opportunity to meet Yasmin Qureshi MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group, and Mr and Mrs Lyon in early August. I will be meeting them again in early December. I utterly sympathise with them in the experience they have had, and I understand that there is a need to reassure them that the process that has been followed is a proper process. I accept that, and I am making all the efforts I can to do it.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 do not clarify how upfront charging can work without increasing barriers to healthcare for vulnerable groups, how they will not breach equality legislation through the potential use of racial profiling as a means to identify chargeable patients, and how the extension of charging to community services will not lead to patients being prevented from accessing preventative care programmes; and further regrets that they have been introduced without sufficient assessment of the effectiveness and value for money of the bureaucratic process proposed (SI 2017/756).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion because I believe the regulations on charges for overseas visitors do not clarify how up-front charging can work without increasing barriers to healthcare for very vulnerable groups. They do not explain how they will not breach equality legislation through the potential use of racial profiling as a means of identifying chargeable patients. The regulations do not show how the extension of charging to community services will not lead to patients being prevented from accessing preventive care programmes. I also believe that it is a matter for further regret that these regulations have been introduced without sufficient checks of the effectiveness and value for money of the very bureaucratic process proposed.
Let me say at once that, on the face of it, charging overseas visitors to use our hard-pressed NHS is entirely reasonable. But the Government’s latest plans to extend charges to community services will raise very little money, place a huge bureaucratic burden on the NHS and deny healthcare to very vulnerable people. The UK already charges some overseas visitors for most hospital care after treatment. Patients who are not eligible for free care include short-term visitors, undocumented migrants and some asylum seekers whose claims have been refused. There are already processes in place for hospitals to identify and bill such patients. We understand that in addition to these regulations, the Government are considering extending charging to A&E and GP services.
Under the regulations that came into force last month, all community services receiving NHS funding, including charities and social enterprises, are now legally required to check every patient’s paperwork, including passports and proof of address, before they receive a service to see whether they should pay for their care. Charges are up front, with non-urgent care refused. As a person will need to provide paperwork and/or a passport to prove eligibility, there is a distinct possibility that people who are entitled to free care on the NHS will be denied treatment because they do not have it at hand. Particularly vulnerable groups here include the elderly, asylum seekers, homeless people and mentally ill people. Moreover, if patients continually have to provide details every time they need healthcare, this risks them waiting longer, with an inevitable increase in bureaucracy.
Asylum Matters, in conjunction with a number of other organisations, has commented in response to the Minister, who has written both to Members of this House and to MPs in the House of Commons to allay fears about how patient ID checks will be carried out. He says that the changes do not require a patient to provide a means of identification to qualify for free care. He says that, while that may be helpful in demonstrating eligibility, other information will be used by trained NHS staff to ensure that the residency status of a patient is identified. He says that the regulations simply require that a relevant body must make such inquiries that it is satisfied are reasonable in the circumstance to determine whether charges should be made. The problem is that those protections are not built into the regulations. They may be in the guidance but guidance can be changed at any point, and they cannot be enforced if NHS organisations choose to insist on further proof of a patient’s ID.
I have been written to by many people, and I would like to refer to a very important paper sent to me by Natalie Bloomer, in which she refers to the father of a newborn baby who recently received a letter from his local hospital demanding to know whether his eight day-old child was entitled to free healthcare. The parents wondered if they had received the letter due to the mother’s foreign-sounding maiden name. When the father went back to the hospital, it quickly told the family to disregard the letter. For me, this highlights the whole problem of this wretched and miserable policy. It is quite clear to me that, apart from the dreadful impression and reputation it gives of our country, many people who legitimately live here and have every right to NHS treatment are going to be challenged by the NHS. I find this absolutely despicable.
I gather that the Secretary of State has claimed that charging regulations simply bring us into line with our European neighbours. Of course, this is complete nonsense. The work done by Doctors of the World, which I have seen, has been researched comprehensively, and the fact is that many European countries, particularly the ones we tend to compare ourselves with, actually provide a more comprehensive package of free healthcare—for instance, to undocumented migrants.
I receive many briefings and letters from reputable organisations. This regret Motion has been backed by many trusted and well-respected bodies, including the BMA, the Royal College of Midwives, Doctors of the World UK, the National AIDS Trust, Asylum Matters and Freedom from Torture. Many of them represent groups which will be intimately affected by the regulation introducing and extending overseas charges.
They are not the only ones to oppose this new policy. An open letter addressed to the Secretary of State, published by 193 organisations and 880 individuals, has called for the regulations to be dropped as soon as possible. Among the signatories were 300 doctors, 50 nurses, the former NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Amnesty International. Not only were they all agreed that the introduction and extension of charges will place a greater burden on the NHS, but this is the kind of thing that the Conservative Government pledged to cut down—the wretched bureaucracy involved and the time that will be spent by staff trying to make these charges work. The Royal College of General Practitioners has flagged up the possibility the new system could end up overstretching already strained family doctors at medical centres. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference, in its letter, spoke of the catastrophic consequences of the new regulations and asked for them to be suspended.
Not only is this a ludicrous action by the Government, it will have no impact whatever on the finances of the NHS. The estimate is that it will bring a £200,000 saving—how ridiculous. The point I want to make in the debate tonight is that these rules are now already law. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference has asked for the regulations to be suspended, and I hope the Minister can announce that he is going to do that, but at the least there should be an early independent review of how the new charges are operating. Until then, there can be no question of extending charges to yet more services. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the organisations that have briefed us. Sending a joint briefing was particularly helpful, not because it reduces the paper but because it increases the force of the content. It came from Asylum Matters, Doctors of the World UK, NAT and Freedom from Torture. We have had briefings from others too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Like him, I understand that some charging of visitors is entirely reasonable, but—and it is a very big but—the noble Lord has raised some very pointed questions wrapped up in the text of his Motion, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those point by point.
This is not a new problem for some groups but it is now worse. During the passage of the Immigration Bill, now the Immigration Act 2014, the points were put forcefully—especially, I remember, by those concerned with maternal health and by doctors who were working with a wide range of immigrants. I remember hearing from Doctors of the World UK that, before the regulations which followed that Act came into force, there were queues round the block at its clinic of people who were anxious about what their position would be afterwards.
The charging then was presented as an innocuous extension of the system, and really very beneficial. There was a lot of talk about health tourism blocking access for those of us who are not tourists. I began to think that the world must be full of people who had had their pregnancy confirmed and immediately booked a flight for the due date minus however many weeks the chosen airline applied as the cut-off for carrying pregnant women. At that time, it became clear that many hospitals found the charging system then in force so burdensome that it had simply defeated them, and there was a good deal of criticism of those that were defeated, I recall. This time around, again there has been considerable protest from people who have seen at first hand the effect of what the pre-23 October regulations require.
When I looked for the government impact assessment on the regulations, I found an evaluation by Ipsos MORI of the overseas visitor and migrant NHS cost recovery programme, published in January this year but apparently started in 2014. The paragraph on the costs and benefits of implementation made startling reading—which I found difficult because I printed it off in such a small font. It made me doubt whether there really was benefit to the implementation. What continued valuation will there be? This is another way of asking the question that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked: will the Government consult before extending the charges into other health services, including A&E and GP services? The letter that the Secretary of State wrote in response to the open letter seems to say these things are so because they are so. I am sure that there cannot be as relaxed an attitude as that seems to suggest.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for raising this issue. I am concerned about the additional barriers to care that may be faced by people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. We know that such patients already face significant barriers to both mental and physical healthcare. For example, we know that people with psychosis already face significant barriers to both mental and physical healthcare. We know that people with psychosis face a mortality gap of 10-15 years, mainly from physical comorbidities. We also know that migration itself appears to increase the risk of psychosis, and the science behind this is developing rapidly.
It is not easy to divide, “immediately necessary” and “otherwise urgent” care, which is exempt, from routine care, which is chargeable. I speak from the standpoint of someone who has cared for patients with mental illness and with learning disabilities over many years as a psychiatrist, and also as a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The principle of early intervention to avoid a later crisis is widely recognised and promoted by the health service. Such intervention needs to occur very early. Identifying and intervening on low-level symptoms avoids escalation to more severe presentations that require intensive treatment and expensive admission to hospital. I am worried that the checks that have been put in the regulations will mean that patients, whether eligible or ineligible for free care, may wait longer and may need to be in crisis before they can access services. If this occurs, it will produce more suffering, increase risks and cost the health service more.
These costs do not feature in the Cost Recovery Impact Assessment, published by the Government in July. I am aware of examples of asylum seekers who arrive in this country with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and my concerns extend to the mental health of their children during periods of extreme uncertainty. Their mental health needs would not seem to meet the criteria for urgent care.
My other area of concern is the accuracy of decisions to deny care to a patient. The exemption for,
“immediately necessary, or otherwise urgent”,
treatment is a clinical one, as stated in the Government’s impact assessment. However, the British Medical Association, of which I am also a past president, has asked for clarification on the procedure when a person is unable to pay, including what safeguards are in place to prevent further or serious harm to themselves or the wider public as a result of them being denied treatment.
I am concerned that the process of administrative checks alongside a clinical test of urgency will be burdensome, costly and rushed. Once information is on a patient’s summary record, it may be difficult to change it or to amend errors. Such circumstances could lead to a failure to identify those entitled to free care. This may be even more complicated in patients who have impairment of capacity, communication difficulties or other mental health conditions. Challenging administrative errors and information on digital records in the health service can be difficult for all of us, let alone those with impaired capacity, communication and learning disabilities, or autism.
What safeguards are in place to prevent errors in requiring up-front payment? Without robust safeguards, those most in need of care may be those least able to prove they have a right to it. I would support the suspension of these regulations for further thought, but if this does not happen, can the Minister tell the House what are the arrangements for reporting the impact of these regulations on the mental and public health of the population who are at risk?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The regret Motion at first appears to imply that charging overseas visitors is something new. The requirement for the NHS to charge overseas visitors has been in place for 35 years—but, unfortunately, compliance and recovery rates have historically been extremely low.
I thank the NHS workforce for the fantastic job that they do; they are now treating levels of demand not seen before. Do noble Lords not think it only fair that any overseas visitor using our NHS should make a financial contribution, just as we all do when we are on holiday abroad and possibly want to access medical help?
It is important to emphasise that NHS England, NHS Improvement and the department have published guidance to support the embedding of the regulations, producing an average price list so as to better inform and enable patients to look at the up-front charges for anyone not eligible for free NHS care. Those people can then make informed choices about their care here or at home.
I am informed that, in order to protect the most vulnerable and to protect public health, the department remains committed to ensuring that vulnerable groups are always able to receive free care and that no patient will be denied urgent or immediate healthcare, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay. This includes all maternity care in every setting, including diagnostic, and the treatment of infectious diseases.
Back in July, the department introduced new regulations to support improved cost recovery and make it fairer and more efficient for both the patient and the healthcare system. It saw recovery increase from £89 million to £360 million—all being transferred back into our front-line services.
Finally, with careful monitoring and ongoing assessments and with better use of existing data sources to improve efficiency, we will be able to see for ourselves the financial effectiveness and value for money through this process. These figures will be published in the new year.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on initiating this debate. Like him—and other speakers—I acknowledge that the NHS is under significant pressure and that there have been charges for a very long time. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, that, if there is a problem with cost recovery, these regulations are not the answer.
I am prompted to intervene in this debate because of an organisation in Bolton, my home town: a local group called City of Sanctuary. Its role is to create a culture of welcome and safety for refugees and asylum seekers. As a Member of the other House, I had a considerable amount of casework dealing with refugees, asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers, so I know that its work is extremely important and that it has a great deal of direct experience. It has raised concerns about vulnerable groups, particularly those I have mentioned. I note that this category is not mentioned by the Minister in his letter.
There are three points I want to raise. I have read the Minister’s letter to all Members with care and I thank him for it. He tries to be reassuring, but I am afraid that he does not allay all the concerns that some of us have on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us.
The Minister says that the regulations require that up-front charging for non-urgent or immediately necessary care will become a legal requirement. That is the basis of these regulations. But there is an immediate problem with the definition of “non-urgent” or “needing immediate care”. I think particularly of those people, such as refugees and others, whose full medical history is not known, may not be available or may not be fully evident, or who may not have proper cognisance of it themselves. It can be a very real problem, I suggest, for both the patient and the doctor. The medical groups who have expressed concern about this have made a very strong case.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the National Health Service is a cherished national institution, historically the envy of the world, and in theory none of us has a problem with overseas visitors using it. However, we currently have a huge issue of capacity. Unfortunately, it is not clear that we have the capacity to treat on the NHS all the overseas visitors that we would like to treat. Already the NHS is in breach of vital targets, such as waiting times for operations and to start treatment for cancer. Consequently, our cancer survival is the worst in western Europe, Canada and Australia. Only a few countries in eastern Europe have worse survival for common cancers.
We all love the National Health Service, so it is only right that anyone using our very valued NHS should make a fair financial contribution to help ensure its sustainability and the continued provision of world-class facilities—just as the British taxpayer does. Although I do not agree with the Motion, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tabled it, because it allows this House the opportunity to discuss matters relating to it, and the implementation.
I have no interest to declare, but I have been taking an interest in health tourism since I raised an Oral Question on this subject in March 2014, and we have seen great progress from the Government since then. Indeed, it was mentioned as an objective in my party’s manifesto. Over the past four years the Government have prioritised improved cost recovery, and as a result we have achieved more than ever before, with identified income for the NHS from overseas visitors quadrupling from £89 million to £360 million. All that income is, of course, directed back into front-line services. That sounds good. However, it should be recognised that £200 million of the £360 million comes from the immigration health surcharge, and in return 450,000 IHS visas are issued every year. Therefore, for £200 for immigrants and £150 for students—a subject that has been debated in this House—free NHS treatment is offered, without exclusion of pre-existing conditions, for nearly half a million people.
The regret Motion shows that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is concerned about racial profiling but, at the time of registration and to avoid any form of discrimination on arrival for a new hospital appointment, the same baseline question must be asked by an overseas visitor manager of every patient, in every department—using, according to the guidance, these exact words:
“Where have you lived in the last 6 months?”.
If the patient replies “In the UK only”, no further questions are asked regarding residency or immigration status. That is it. If the answer given is yes, there are to be no further questions. I fear that it will soon become common knowledge that, in the NHS, care is free to anyone who answers yes to this single baseline question.
This is spelled out in chapter 11, on page 88, of the Department of Health Guidance on Implementing the Overseas Visitor Charging Regulations. Furthermore, it clearly states at chapter 11.16:
“Administrative staff must avoid discrimination when asking these questions”.
Needless to say, vulnerable groups will be excluded from up-front charging. The guidance issued by the NHS specifically excludes asylum seekers, trafficked people and every other variety of vulnerable grouping. Furthermore, the guidance confirms that up-front charging will apply only to patients presenting for elective treatment. GP services and A&E are, of course, specifically excluded.
Health tourism is a huge issue. On 1 February 2016, my noble friend Lord Bates, the then Minister in this department, gave an estimate to the House that the cost to the NHS was some £2 billion. Possibly unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I am pleased that the Government are now running 35 pilot schemes in 19 NHS trusts to ask patients for two forms of identification to show ordinary residence. Again, this is just for elective surgery, for which there is plenty of time to plan, not emergencies such as complicated pregnancies, where we have seen real evidence of people coming specifically to the UK and literally being taken to hospital from the airport for free—for them—using extremely expensive medical assistance. Needless to say, in Europe if one is unfortunate enough to have to go to hospital, anecdotal and other evidence says that the first thing the hospital asks is to look at your insurance or E111. Our system of state-funded and provided medicine has for too long been lax in properly obtaining payment where it is due.
The real issue we should be discussing is how inadequate we are in terms of OVMs. In September 2017, Professor Meirion Thomas, who has become the country’s expert in this area purely as a matter of public service, sent freedom of information requests to NHS trusts. He asked eight acute trusts in London, two acute trusts in Birmingham and eight acute trusts in Greater Manchester for details of their OVMs. The trusts in London and Birmingham do have OVMs, but a grossly inadequate number. I will not bore your Lordships’ House with the numbers but the proportions are frightening. However, in Manchester, the results are even worse. Only one trust—the Christie hospital—has an OVM, and I would be pleased to provide my noble friend the Minister with details, should he so wish. This research proves that the NHS is not prepared for new legislation: seven acute trusts in Manchester have no mechanism for up-front charging. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support this regret Motion. The question we have to ask at another time is not how up-front charging can work in terms of the Motion, but how we are going to implement this to ensure a fair playing field for those who pay for and deserve proper treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. While, as ever, I disagree with the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am grateful to him for raising the topic of cost recovery for the NHS from overseas visitors. It is a very important policy issue and it is crucial that the objectives of these regulations, and the safeguards that we have put in place, are discussed and understood by Members of the House.
In July this year, my department introduced amendment regulations to extend and improve the recovery of NHS costs from overseas visitors who are not ordinarily resident in the UK. This followed a period of public consultation in 2015-16. The Government’s response to that consultation, which set out our intentions, was published in February 2017.
Let me first be clear about the principles that sit behind our policy on cost recovery. As my noble friend Lord Leigh has said, the NHS is a cherished national institution. It is paid for by millions of British taxpayers, who care deeply about it being used fairly, so we must protect it carefully. Our country has always welcomed visitors and the NHS is no different, but I hope noble Lords also agree that it is only right that, when using its services, visitors should also make a fair financial contribution to the NHS’s sustainability. On that basis I welcome the support in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for cost recovery. However, it would be wrong not to point out that, when specific proposals come forward, they seem less robust in offering that support.
This principle was not introduced by this Government; regulations and guidance requiring cost recovery from overseas visitors have been in place for over 30 years, as my noble friend Lady Redfern pointed out. As the number of visitors to the UK has grown over the years, the Government have supported the NHS to identify more income than ever before, quadrupling that income over four years to £360 million. The regulations we are discussing today continue this policy of seeking fair payment for NHS services provided and allow the NHS to take further action to support cost recovery in a way that is more efficient, more equitable and more effective.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
In the list the Minister gave, he did not deal with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I raised about failed asylum seekers who are still living in England.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
For clarity, they are not covered under the exemptions.
The second change the amendments make is to the requirement that any care not deemed immediately necessary or urgent by a clinician is paid for up front. The published guidance, again, for nearly 30 years, has recommended this. This practice ensures that a chargeable patient can make an informed choice about their care and therefore does not unwittingly incur debts when they could instead, for example, choose to wait for treatment until they have travelled home. Given that our NHS is facing unprecedented levels of demand, I hope noble Lords will agree that mandating this position is a sensible approach and that it will help make sure that all users of the NHS make an equitable contribution to ensure its continued success and viability.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has asked whether this practice will not create barriers between vulnerable patients and treatment and result in racial profiling as the front line seeks to determine eligibility for free care. I have already drawn noble Lords’ attention to the exemptions in place and the fact that all GP and A&E services remain free for all. I am also clear that immediately necessary or urgent treatment—such as all maternity services—will never be withheld, regardless of the patient’s ability or desire to identify themselves or pay. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and other noble Lords, it is for clinicians, and no one else, to determine whether a treatment is immediately necessary or urgent.
On whether patients may face discrimination, this is always unacceptable and not compliant with anti-discrimination legislation. As my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out, our guidance is clear that simple, short questions should be asked by trained staff of all patients whose records do not already indicate residency status to assist in identifying those not eligible for free care. That information can then be captured in the patient record for the future.
To support the implementation of these regulations, we have developed with front-line staff a “cost recovery toolbox” containing extensive guidance and template letters to patients and clinicians, as well as patient and staff-facing leaflets and posters and a web-based forum for peer support. As my noble friend Lady Redfern pointed out, working with NHS England and NHS Improvement, the department has published operational guidance to support the introduction of the regulations. This includes an average price list to provide consistency in up-front charging. The department has recruited a senior, experienced cost recovery team of NHS professionals who have led improvement visits to over 20 NHS trusts over the last six months. Action plans are in place for each trust and the team will support improvement and the sharing of best practice across the wider NHS.
I would like to end on an issue which has been raised by many noble Lords in this debate: the assessment carried out before we introduced these changes. As I have explained, up-front charging did not represent a change in policy, but instead has existed for many years before the consultation on other amendments. Over the course of the consultation and decision-making process, the Government carefully considered the impact the charges may have and published a full impact assessment alongside the regulations. This concluded that the package of changes would identify up to £40 million a year for the NHS. This is additional income and takes into account any administrative costs associated with the changes. I will also place in the Library copies of the equality assessments carried out by my department to inform the regulations, so that Members of the House will be able to review how the impact on vulnerable and protected groups was very carefully considered prior to the introduction of these changes.
All noble Lords have asked about the implementation of these changes and it is right, of course, that we proceed cautiously and sensibly and that we review how we are doing. So I am very aware of the need to keep the impact of these regulations under careful review in order to make sure they are implemented as planned and with no unintended consequences. My department will therefore undertake a full, formal review of how these amendment regulations are implemented, and monitor delivery closely, particularly where healthcare is provided to the most vulnerable. If further action is needed I will commit to update the House accordingly.
I hope I have been able to reassure all Members of this House about the long-standing principles that underpin our approach to cost recovery, the care that has been taken to protect vulnerable groups, and the reflective approach we will take during the implementation of these policy changes. I believe that they provide an equitable and reasonable step forward in making sure that all the NHS’s users, wherever they come from, make a fair contribution to the sustainability of the NHS, which is what British citizens expect. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The fact we spent nearly an hour on it as last business on a Thursday is testimony to the importance of the matter, which is why I welcome so many noble Lords having stayed to take part. I will not push this to a vote, and I will withdraw the Motion, but I do think it is an opportunity to raise some very important points with the Government.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made some very important points about the analysis of the impact assessment, the doubtful financial benefits set against the bureaucratic costs, and the impact this may well have on some of the most vulnerable people—the very people who, not just from their point of view but the public health point of view, need to access these services.
Secondly, from the evidence that I have received—and I have received many such examples—there is a real concern that people who are legitimately entitled to NHS services may get turned away. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, rightly asked what the safeguards were to prevent this.
I think it right that we talk about racial profiling because again there is some evidence that, in spite of what the Minister said and what is promised in guidance, this is taking place in some parts of the country. The NHS has many organisations—we have a lot of community organisations—but it turns out that staff who are given such responsibility may not be aware of the importance of this issue and its sensitivity. The obvious case here is British people with foreign-sounding names being challenged in a way which I think is inappropriate.
The Minister did not respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the Home Office requiring medical records. I do not know whether he will be prepared to respond to her in writing; I understand that the question goes much wider than his brief today, but I am concerned about the ethics of the Home Office requiring people to open their medical records.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was of course right to point out the barrier to people with mental health and other disabilities. This is not just about who is eligible: having to produce evidence to legitimise a right to treatment could prove difficult for vulnerable people who find everyday living hard and challenging.
Like my noble friend Lady Taylor, I say to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, both spoke about this—that I have no problem with the principle of cost recovery. I accept that it is right that the NHS seek to recover costs from the people who are not eligible for NHS treatment. My problem, particularly with these regulations, is that I have a feeling they will be counterproductive and I doubt they will raise very much in the way of resources. My noble friend also teased out the point about the position of failed asylum seekers, who seem to be particularly vulnerable. I welcome what the Minister said about unintended consequences; that is a very important point.
Operational guidance, which the Minister referred to, is one thing. I would have preferred to see some of the points he has made and reassurances he has given in the regulations, rather than operational guidance. I also noted with great interest what he had to say about accident and emergency and GP services. From the confidence with which he said it, can I take it that the Government intend that they will remain free for all in future? Perhaps I can ask him quite what he meant by that, because in the briefings that I have had people have emphasised that it is the Government’s intention to extend the charges to accident and emergency services and GP services.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
We are talking about the regulations that we are implementing, and they do not introduce that. That is the point I was making.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Noble Lords will interpret that response in the way they wish to. That is a bit disappointing.
The Minister has promised a review. I very much welcome that. He said it would be a full, formal review; let us hope it will also be an independent one. Asylum Matters has reminded me, in the most efficient way that that organisation works, that of course in 2016, a review was promised. I hope this time, we will actually get such a formal review.
Having said that, this has been an important debate. A lot of people are looking with great interest at what your Lordships have discussed tonight. We knew we were not going to be able to stop these regulations but I hope we have expressed those legitimate concerns. I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.