Lords Questions

Baroness Lister. I beg leave to ask the question on the order paper.

According to the latest data from the office nor national statistics,

income and equality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986. The key

to economic success and to reducing inequality is to improve

productivity which determines living standards in the long run. That's

why the Government's established a national productivity investment

fund and has published a green paper on industrial strategy highlighting

the role of improved skills, of infrastructure, investment and of

RMD. My Lords, the resolution foundation argues that to prevent

the biggest increase in inequality since the 1980s requires a shift in

social policy choices. Notably the freeze in most working age benefits

in the face of rising inflation. Will the Government now follow the

advice of Iain Duncan Smith and reconsider the freeze because he's

warned that it was never intended it would have such a dramatic effect on

incomes - his words. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do to protect low

inform income families in and out of work in this way for a Government

that claims to be working for everyone. My Lords, I think we have

to have a little bit of context. Savings are necessary to reduce

borrowing and to put the public finances back on a sustainable

footing after the financial crisis. And between 1980 and 2014, spending

on welfare actually trebled in Rae terms to ?96 billion whilst of

course GDP increased by much less -- in real terms. Our approach was a

different one. We are committed to supporting working families with a

whole load of measures - getting people back into work, innovating,

growing and putting the country on to a good footing. It's only a

forecast from the resolution foundation. Forecasts aren't always

right and we are determined to make the changes we need for this

country. Going back to text change about

inequality... Could my Noble Friend the minister say whether any

assessment has been made of the effect of the national living wage

on reducing inequality and indeed whether there's anything more that

could be done in this respect? I thank my Noble Friend because I

believe that the national living wage brought in in April last year

is a fantastic example of policies that the Government has introduced

to make work pay. In terms of looking forward, it will rise again

to ?7. 50 next month and it's already given the working people in

Britain the fastest pay rise in 20 years.

Observers will have noticed that there's a startling contradiction

between the presumption in the question that income inequality has

been growing very sharply and the resumption in the reply that it's

doing the opposite. There are different measures, but most of them

do think that inequality is growing. Wouldn't it be useful if the ONS

convened a panel of people to get a little more clarity as to why these

figures can be banded around with such different descriptions of what

is happening? I think the ONS keeps honest, they

look at the figures over time and they very helpfully update the

forecasts all the time so that we can see what is happening. I would

like to come back to the point which is that the resolution foundation is

looking at a forecast. If you look at what has happened, five years ago

it was predicted I think by the IFS that there would be a rise in

inequality. In fact, it hasn't happened actually. Things have

continued to progress and we have seen a recovery and that is what we

need to continue by having the right policies which this Government is

pursuing under our new Prime Minister.

My Lords, I am shocked that the minister doesn't recognise that

young working families are facing serious financial pressure and

struggling and that it looks as though it's going to be worse with

inflation. But would she agree that part of the reason for the very high

rents most of the families face, and would she be willing on the budget

tomorrow to permit local councils to go out and borrow the necessary

amounts of money to Drive forward development of affordable rental

housing. She's often acknowledged that the housing market is broken

but all of the Government solutions are on the demand side, supply

doesn't increase, especially not in the affordable area.

I wouldn't want to steal the Chancellor's thunder today and I

think that there is certainly some provision for Prudential borrowing

but I would like to come back to the support that we give to working

families. The national living wage has already been mentioned by my

Noble Friend and that's given the fastest pay rise in 20 years. We

have raised the personal allowance to ?12,500 by the end of Parliament,

nobody had done that before, we are introducing Universal Credit which

has the benefit of making work pay, so that if you go out and work, you

aren't held back by benefit dilemmas. We are committed to make

work pay and we believe that that is the very best way forward for the

people of this country, for hard-working families, which I agree

are a priority. But my Lords, the minister cannot

discount the resolution foundation in such a cavalier manner. It

produced very... It's got a strong reputation and it produced very real

and well backed analysis. It said that higher incomes will rise but

slowly. Middle incomes are going to stagnate. And low incomes are going

to fall. We know how little is at the base for low incomes for them to

be able to afford to fall without poverty increasing substantially.

They say it will be the biggest rise in inequality since the late 1980s.

I do not need to remind the House which party was in power during that

period and which Prime Minister, many of whose Cabinet members of

course are still with us. I would add that the resolution

foundation report also says, which is a point I've been emphasising,

that economic forecasts can change dramatically. There's no way of

knowing just how the future will play out. I believe that the

approach we now have, including industrial strategy, investment in

infrastructure, housing, digital, transport, all of this is making a

big difference. We have protected the most vulnerable through benefits

systems which is highly distributive, so households in the

lowest get four times more support. We want a fairer society and getting

workless households into work and improving productivity and skills is

to my mind the best way forward. I beg leave to ask the question

standing in my name on the order paper.

My Lords, the Government's white paper on exiting the EU was

published on 2nd February. It sets out the Government's priorities and

the broad strategy for exiting the EU and made clear that we'll take

back control of our own laws. There are a number of options as to how EU

immigration might work once we have exited the EU. We are considering

those options and will consult businesses and communities.

Parliament will also have a critical role to play.

To have beening main pressure so called is rally from non-EU

migrants. Why didn't the Government many years ago use clause 45 of the

TFEU, particularly 3 A and 3 A, C and D, to impose the necessary

civilised restraints on migrants coming in with authorisation so that

none of the horrendous hostility to immigrants from all over would have

been so evident in the referendum on 23rd June.

Well, my Lords, I think the noble Lord - I can't be accountable for

what happened in the past - I think we have been a very, very generous

country in terms of letting people come here for the purposes of work.

What I can say is that there was very clear messages last year, which

is about controlling the numbers of people who come into this country,

both from the EU and from non-EU countries and that is what we intend

to do and to keep Parliament fully involved in the process.

On the 12th January, the Government stated in response to an oral

question that "the directive sets out that in order for an EU citizen

to reside in another member state beyond three months, they "must" be

exercising a treaty right, that is working self-employed,

self-sufficient or a student. " After being asked three times why it

did not implement the three month rule for EU citizens still here

without a job, not a student, the Government said "it's not a failure

to implement, this country is more than generous in its implementation

of that directive". Firstly, why does the Government maintain that

only by leaving the EU can we reduce EU migration when the Government

accepts it's not applied the EU directive three month rule as firmly

as it could have done but instead considers that it's been "more than

generous in its implementation of the directive". And secondly, how

much lower would the net migration figure for EU nationals have been in

each of the last five years if the Government had applied the EU three

month rule directive as firmly as it believes it was entitled to do so.

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have been a very generous country

and certainly when Labour were in power, they decided not to exercise

the opt-out, as the noble Lord was asking. In terms of what would the

figures have been, we adopted a different process. My Lords, we are

where we are. The country's given us a very, very clear message in the

referendum and we intend to follow that through in terms of making sure

that net migration to this country is in the tens of thousands.

My Lords, I shall endeavour to be helpful to the noble lady the

Minister. The questions have been about the past, can I ask about the

future? Article 45 relates to the free movement of workers, not people

generally, and I wonder what thought Her Majesty's government has given

to the excellent report by the House of Commons Brexit committee, which

also talks about the right of UK and EU national citizens with non-work

aspects of immigration policy, including students, family reunion

and EU spouses compared with non-EU spouses, and I declare my interest

as listed in the register. My Lords, it is absolutely right that we

settle, and I'm glad she is talking about the future by the way and not

the past, which certainly I do not remember. But certainly, in terms of

the directive which is about the movement of workers and their

families, I think the Prime Minister has made it clear about the

protecting the rights of EU nationals in this country. But we

have talked a lot about the fairness of the process and therefore,

protecting the rights of EU nationals in return. The Government

does not want to do this on a unilateral basis, but we need to

think about all the people, both EU nationals living in the EU and EU

nationals living here. My Lords, the noble Baroness the

Minister has actually been very patient with the House over recent

questions in explaining to us, the rights of residence after five years

work as European citizens, and also about the right of citizenship after

six years. Can she tell the House whether, as regards citizenship, if

a European citizen becomes a citizen of the UK, does that mean he or she

has the right to remain in this country? I am broke grateful to the

noble Lord because we talked about this at length the other day, and in

terms of residency rights, the right of residency, and by the way, this

is an EU law and not a UK law, so all the talk we had about

conferences sickness insurance, this is EU law, which we implement, after

five years of abiding by treaty obligations, the noble Lord is

absolutely right. At person, and EU national living in this country has

permanent residency. They do not have to prove that permanent

residency but then he goes on to make another point which is very

valid which is to distinguish that from applying from Richard

citizenship. And in that application process, which is based in UK law,

that person has to prove residency and not to be breaking any

immigration rules. After six years they will then be granted UK

citizenship and the noble Lord is absolutely right, they have the

right to remain here. I beg leave to ask the question in

my name on the order paper. This government is committed to

working for everyone in all parts of this country. I am grateful to the

noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dinnington on rural proofing. We

will better understand and reflect the needs of rural communities on

our policies, including those on low incomes. The Government is currently

revising its guidance on rural proofing and it will be available. I

welcome the work but why do same any government departments fail to

recognise the huge barrier of transport costs faced by families on

low incomes in rural areas when they need to access public services,

whether it is young people needed to -- needing to get to further

education colleges, older people needing to access health and social

services, they are so often cut off and excluded by the costs of

transport. Surely, we cannot allow ourselves to stumble into a

situation where you have to be well off to live in the countryside? I

entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that we

enhance accessibility. I think sparsity and topography of the

countryside means there are great challenges. I'm particularly pleased

that the community minibus fund which was launched, it will enable

300 local charities and community groups across England to receive a

new minibus which I think will be very helpful. But clearly, there is

more that we want to do. I should say that the whole issue of

transport and the issue of accessibility, I think it is very

important that under the post office transformation, or the post office

branches will have banking facilities, so there are ways in

which we can actually assist rural communities across the piece. It is

international apprenticeship week. What is the Government doing to

encourage apprenticeships in rural areas? The Government is committed

actually to reaching 3 million prints ship starts in England by

2020. This figure includes trebling the number of apprenticeships in

food and farming from 6000 to 18000 by 20 20. The National Parks

authority are seeking to double the number of apprenticeships, and I

think it is very important that we encourage not only this week, but we

work with employers of all sizes, there is a new apprenticeship levy

coming into force in April this year for the larger businesses. This is

an enormous opportunity and I think raising the skills of young people

in the countryside, and in fact across the nation, is a force for

good. My Lords, the commission for rural communities was established in

2005 by the last Labour administration to promote awareness

of rural needs among decision-makers across government. It produced some

key reports on rural life. Those living in poverty in rural areas,

often in geographical isolation, can be harder to identify and help. But

my Lords, the coalition government scrapped the ICRC in 2013. With

issues of agriculture, trade and food policy on Brexit, could the

noble lord the Minister confirm what structures are in place to assure

the interests of rural communities are heard and acted upon during

these negotiations? My Lords, I will make sure the noble

Lord receives copy of the rural proofing guidance. I have been

working with my friend Ben Gummer of the Cabinet Office on this because

it is important that across Whitehall all departments understand

the issues of rural communities and also as Minister for rural affairs,

I am on a number of ministerial task forces, connectivity and housing to

mention two, precisely to ensure that the rural voices heard.

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, I wonder whether he

is concerned by the fact that in many rural and underprivileged

areas, libraries and leisure centres are under threat. These are the very

places that offer a glimmer of light to people who lead a dark lives in

terms of entertainment and education? My Lords, this rather

takes me back to my DC MS days and I think one of the things that strikes

me is very much how vibrant so many rural communities are, certainly in

my part of Suffolk. The amount of activities going on, cultural

activities, dance, theatre, music, is incredible. Obviously, we all

want to improve, we all want to have greater access ability to those

things, but I think the noble Lord may be painting a rather too

pessimistic picture. Making work pay is a very seductive slogan, but is

the Minister not aware that many of the families who are worst off in

our country have someone working in the gig economy. Can the Minister

say what steps the Government can take to ensure people are paid

properly and indeed earn at least a Living Wage? Well, it is a National

Living Wage and it is an obligation and I am greatly is that it is going

to rise to ?7.5 per hour in April. That is precisely why we want to

ensure that people on low incomes, the increase in the tax allowance is

precisely to ensure we are helping those at the lower end of the income

range? My Lords, rural proofing doesn't seem to have reached local

government, where many local services have withdrawn from

villages into urban centres, as a consequence of the very deep cuts to

local government funding. And I do wonder what advice the noble Lord,

the Minister, would provide to his fellow Secretary of State or noble

lord Lord born, about funding for district councils, to enable rural

proofing? As I said, the rural proofing guidance is secured across

Whitehall and of course ECL G is a very important government department

in that respect. Clearly there are very considerable sums of money

going to local authority. It is clearly for them to decide on the

decision of the budget. I think this predicate something more important.

We have to have a growing economy in order to afford all the things we

want to do. That is why this country is the fastest-growing economy in

the G7. That is important, because it is only when we grow our economy

that we are going to have the resources to do many of the things

your Lordships would wish to have done. Would the Minister care to

correct his assertion about the National Living Wage, and the

national minimum wage? And secondly, can the noble Lord, the Minister,

assure me that when the Government are putting a new free schools, in

areas where there is no need in terms of numbers, they will have the

needs of the rural economy. I declare my interest as a former

chair of Lancashire education authority, and because of history in

Lancashire, we have the largest number of voluntary aided schools

and people wanting diversity locally. The academic Catholic

schools in the main across the county. Can the Government are sure

that coming in from Whitehall with little knowledge and step over the

needs of local communities, some of those schools need money and

investment. My Lords, that is precisely why I suspect we will hear

about more investment, because we will want to enhance the opportunity

of children across the country. It is precisely why we have some

schools that are simply not up to the standard we want them to be.

That is why we will need to invest more, and it is why I am a champion

of rural schools, precisely because we want to assure their

opportunities in rural areas as across the rest of the country. As

for the Living Wage, I will check Hansard but the National Living Wage

will rise to ?7 50 per hour in April but I will ensure whether I have

made a mistake. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

question, standing in my name on the order paper?

My Lords, the police are operationally independent of

government. The investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and how

the police conduct these investigations, including whether to

conduct any form of internal enquiry are matters for the chief officer.

It is for the Police and Crime Commissioner to hold their forced to

account. My Lords, having served in the Home Office for four years, I

understand about the operational independence of the police. But my

Lords, this matter has gone beyond operational affairs. It has become a

matter of confidence in the police and the police service. The Chief

Constable of Wiltshire has gone beyond the police duties of

investigating allegations and following up evidence, and has

pronounced a verdict of guilty on the late Sir Edward Heath in respect

of allegations of child abuse, and has done that, even before his

enquiry is complete. The officer in charge of enquiry, having made a

stupid mistake at the beginning, has now been obliged to be withdrawn

because of ill health. He is having I think a nervous breakdown. Is it

not high time, the enquiry is being pursued in a way which looks to many

people more like a fishing expedition than a serious pursuit of

allegations and evidence. Is it not time that this operation is reviewed

independently, either by a retired judge as in the case of operation

Midland, or by a retired Chief Constable of recognised efficiency

and integrity? My Lords, my first of all, without talking about any

single investigation, may I express my profound sympathies with the

family and friends of people who have been either wrongfully named in

the press who have had, certainly after they have died, had to farmer

treats statements made about them. But my Lords, I would say in any

investigation, it is a matter for the police. In terms of

investigations of complaints against a chief officer, I know that,

because I took the bill through myself and the policing and crime

act, that we strengthen the independence of the police complaint

system and the accountability of Chief officers. And any allegations

of misconduct against a chief officer should be investigated by

the IPCC. The newspaper quotes came from an

anonymous source claiming to know the...

THE SPEAKER: Chair of the Sir Edward Heath charitable foundation and I

would like to join my predecessor in that position in asking my Noble

Friend the minister to whom is this Chief Constable accountable? If not

the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, showerly

not the secret and unnamed group of people that he himself has decided

to appoint. There are increasing concerns about the conduct of this

inquiry and we really need to know to whom is this Chief Constable

accountable. Well, I thank my Noble Friend for that question and he will

know that it's not for me to comment on individual operational matters,

these being a matter for the relevant chief officer. But chief

officers are, as I've said, held to account in respect of operational

matters by their Police and Crime Commissioner. In line with

recognised best practice, Wiltshire police also recently commissioned

Operation Hydrant to undertake an independent review of the

investigation to ensure its ongoing proportionality and investigation.

He talked about the secret and unnamed group. My Lords, it's

recognised as best practice and Wiltshire police have done that,

they've engaged a panel of independent ex-pers outside of

policing who're providing ongoing scrutiny of the investigation to

ensure its proportionality and justification. The membership

includes individuals from the legal profession and academics.

The newspaper quotes last month came from an anonymous source, claiming

to know the views of the Chief Constable for Wiltshire. This raises

the issue of the relationship between the police and the national

press and makes the case for Leveson part II even stronger.

Can we come to the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner to

which the noble lady the minister has refshed because a second issue

relates to the call for a Government instituted inquiry. Could the

Government confirm that in fact the Wiltshire Police and Crime

Commissioner has the power to commission such a judicial inquiry

into an operation by his own force? And the third issue is that if any

hard evidence actually emerged that the Chief Constable had made the

comments claimed by the anonymous newspaper source, then could the

Government confirm that the Wiltshire Police and Crime

Commissioner could under his powers suspend or dismiss the Chief

Constable. In other words, isn't the ball very much in the elected

Wiltshire Police and Crime Commissioner's court?

Well, I think the noble Lord raises a very good point in terms of what

is the role of the Police and Police and Crime Commissioner in this

situation. Without talking about the specific case that the noble Lord,

Lord Armstrong as asked about. It is for the police and the crime

commissioner to make the decision to appoint, to suspend or to remove a

Chief Constable in making the decision to compel a Chief Constable

to resign or to retire, a PCC is bound by certain requirements

including acting reasonably and fairly and consulting with the Chief

Constable and the local police and crime panel. A PCC may compel a

Chief Constable to resign or retire under section 38-3 of the police

reform and social responsibility act of 2011.