House of Commons
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security from paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the level of dissident republican activity in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
With permission, I would like to make a brief comment about the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), and his deputy, the shadow Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), as this might be their last outing in their current positions. We should put on record our gratitude for the work that they did when in office and for pulling off the great final stage of ensuring that policing and justice were devolved. We all owe them—and everyone in Northern Ireland owes them—a debt.
The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. The security forces continue to bear down on these terrorist groupings. So far this year, there have been 163 arrests and 56 persons charged with terrorist offences. That compares with 106 arrests and 17 charges in the whole of 2009. The numbers involved are small in terms of the overall population, but not insignificant in some areas. Everyone must play their part in demonstrating that these people have nothing to offer but suffering, damage and the diversion of money that would be better spent elsewhere.
Ms Ritchie
I join the Secretary in State in condemning attacks by dissident republicans on police personnel, property and community. I also join him in thanking the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for their work in Northern Ireland over recent years.
I would like to move on in respect of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland to today’s findings of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which state that the Ulster Volunteer Force leadership sanctioned the murder of Bobby Moffett and that it could have stopped it if it had wanted. I am sure that the Secretary of State and all Members would agree that that should be viewed very seriously. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it undermines the assurances that we were given about UVF decommissioning? Does he have no concerns that a decision not to re-categorise the UVF ceasefire will send a signal that a planned killing is par for the course and represents an acceptable level of violence? Does he further agree that all this raises the question of when is a ceasefire a ceasefire?
Mr Speaker
Order. In future, questions must be shorter. This really will not do.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. This was a disgusting murder, carried out at just after 1 o’clock in the afternoon in front of good, ordinary people going about their daily business, and it should be utterly condemned. The IMC report makes clear how extremely serious the matter is, but it does not recommend that we consider specification. We in Westminster, those in Stormont, the police, those responsible for security in Northern Ireland and, above all, the community have to bear down on this small number of people. I pay tribute to the very large number of people who turned out for the funeral, showing what the local community really thinks.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent attack by dissident republicans in my constituency, in which two young children almost lost their lives. My understanding is that six or seven people were arrested by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but all were released. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the frustration of my constituents at the fact that no one has been charged for that and other offences, or is it the case that the PSNI no longer has the experienced detectives that it needs?
Mr Paterson
I am very sympathetic to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency. This small number of people are wholly unrepresentative of the community. What they are doing is utterly irresponsible and risks serious damage to lives—it has to be utterly condemned. We have to respect the operational independence of the police. As I cited earlier, arrests are up and charges are up this year. We have had 56 charges as against 17 last year, but it is not for me to interfere with the processes of the police or of justice. The hon. Gentleman has good contacts with the local Minister and this is a devolved matter. If the local judicial system can be accelerated, that is now in local hands; we should not tamper with the independence of either the police or the judiciary.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I also pay tribute to the work of the shadow Secretary of State when he was in office, and I particularly thank the shadow Minister of State for the very courteous way in which he treated me while I shadowed him for a number of years.
Given the pressures of historical inquiries and the inevitable budgetary pressures that all public sector workers and departments are facing, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the PSNI has adequate resources to counter the threats we face—not only from dissident republicans, but from any terrorists in Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful for the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. We will stand by Northern Ireland, and we will do what is right. As for police numbers, we know that there could always be more—there is not a chief constable in the United Kingdom who would not like more—but I am in regular contact with the local Justice Minister, the Chief Constable and those who are bearing down on dissidents, and we will ensure that we do the right thing by Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I echo the words of thanks to the former Secretary of State and his former security Minister. We had several bruising encounters—some good and others not so good, but very enjoyable none the less.
Let me turn to the dissident threat. Will the Secretary of State give us a progress report on the automatic number plate recognition system that his security Minister announced in the House not long ago? Has it been introduced, and what progress is being made in countering and surveillance activities relating to dissident republicans?
Mr Paterson
At the previous Question Time, we announced that we had approved the final tranche—the £12.9 million that was required for the new technology, which I expect to have a real impact in bearing down on the small number of dangerous people. Its implementation is in the hands of the local Minister and the Chief Constable. I shall meet them in the forthcoming days and ask how they are progressing, but at the time of my last meeting with them, they were well on the way to introducing the technology.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State and, indeed, other Members who have made generous remarks this morning. I wish the Secretary of State and his deputy every success in their responsibilities.
Dealing with threats to security in Northern Ireland requires full public confidence in a police service that is representative of the community it serves. Although policing has now been devolved, the legal framework for ensuring that 30% of officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland come from the Catholic community remains the Secretary of State’s responsibility. Will he take this opportunity to confirm his commitment to achieving that target as soon as possible?
Mr Paterson
As the shadow Minister knows, the Patten commitment was to achieve a figure of 29% to 33% by this year. The current figure is 29.33%, so we have achieved the Patten threshold. The renewal of the measure was due to last one more year, and we agreed to that when we were in opposition. What we do next is up to us to discuss with the local Minister responsible and with those who now run the police service, but I hope that we have established enough momentum to ensure that people throughout the community will see joining the PSNI as a worthwhile career, and will be attracted to it.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
2. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on the effects of the recession on the Northern Ireland economy.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I wish to add my thanks to the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for the assistance that they have given since we took office.
In Belfast last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary and the Northern Ireland Ministers for Finance and Personnel and for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We regularly meet Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues to discuss economic matters and how we can best work in partnership to stimulate economic growth and encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland.
Christopher Pincher
The economy in Northern Ireland remains delicate. Unemployment rose between March and May. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that politicians and parties across the spectrum in Northern Ireland do not play politics when making economic decisions?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with those sentiments. I am pleased to say that these are matters for the Executive. However, I understand that, in his capacity as Minister for Finance and Personnel, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is present—at least, he certainly was earlier—will meet my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury later today, along with representatives of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, to discuss financial matters, including the forthcoming spending review.
It is, perhaps, worth my adding that I echo the views of the hon. Member for East Antrim, who has said:
“In some quarters, there appears to be an unwillingness to address the serious financial questions that are being posed. Let us be clear: we cannot dodge difficult decisions in formulating a new Budget. Delaying the Budget process until next spring is not an option.”
That is the way in which to proceed.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of deep public spending cuts in the Northern Ireland Executive budget, not only for the public sector but for the private sector, which depends on many of the contracts that are let? What assessment has he made of the impact of the VAT rise on the ability of the Northern Ireland economy to escape from the recession?
Mr Swire
The right hon. Gentleman does not, of course, draw attention to his Government’s own cuts of £44 million, and he—and the House—would do well to remember that we are in the current economic situation as a result of the legacy of the previous Administration. There are a number of positive things to say about Northern Ireland, however: there is the increase in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, and the waiving of national insurance contributions on the first 10 jobs created by a new business in year one will benefit more than 15,000 businesses in Northern Ireland, while reversing the most damaging part of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions will add a saving of about £80 million in Northern Ireland. The situation is very serious, but it was more serious before the coalition Government put these measures in place. It is not going to be easy, but Northern Ireland must play its part, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, in confronting the deficit and getting the economy going once more, which must be the aspiration of every Member.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
What meetings has the Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with Treasury Ministers—and what representations have they received from them—on public expenditure in Northern Ireland generally, and specifically on the level of block grant to Northern Ireland after the spending review?
Mr Swire
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a meeting this afternoon attended by his party colleague, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and representatives of the other Administrations in Scotland and Wales, at which, no doubt, these matters will be discussed in the proper manner.
Mr Dodds
I asked the Minister what meetings he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had had with Treasury Ministers, not what meetings there had been between Executive Ministers and the Treasury. However, does he accept that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique? It is the only country or region in the United Kingdom that is suffering from the dissident terrorist threat—a subject that has already been discussed—and that shares a land frontier with another country, and it is also the only area in the United Kingdom that is coming out of 40 years of violence and terrorism, which has greatly truncated the ability of the private sector to compete. It is also the only area that has already had 3% year-on-year efficiency savings, implemented by the Executive. Will the Minister ensure that the fabric of society and vital services in Northern Ireland are protected by making sure that everything is done to protect the level of the block grant after the spending review?
Mr Swire
Let me put the right hon. Gentleman straight: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet Treasury Ministers regularly and have done of late, not least to discuss the issue that confronts us all to do with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and we will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, however, in that this issue brings to the fore once more the fact that it is completely unacceptable and unsustainable in the longer term for Northern Ireland’s economy to be so dependent on the state sector—the relevant figures are about 70% as opposed to 30% for the private sector. We have to address that, such as by looking at other ways to kick-start the private sector, not least through corporation tax measures. We have to look at enterprise zones, too. All those things we are doing—
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
4. What progress he has made in discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to corporation tax in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Exchequer Secretary and I met Executive Ministers last month to discuss corporation tax and how the Northern Ireland economy could be rebalanced. We are working closely with them in the preparation of a Treasury paper and shall consult on this later in the year.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the problem with the Northern Irish economy is that the private sector is too small, and that reducing corporation tax rates will help boost the private sector and rebalance the economy?
Mr Paterson
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give one figure: 77.6% of Northern Ireland’s GDP is dependent on public spending. That is clearly wholly unsustainable, and our proposal is to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy—which I estimate will take at least 25 years—by a number of measures that could include the devolution of corporation tax rates, thereby allowing the local Executive to reduce them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In the Secretary of State’s consideration and representations on these matters, will he take particular account of the circumstances of border areas? Is he prepared to receive proposals on cross-border economic zones and their tax treatment, not least in the north-west, so that we can win investment and employment on the back of the cross-border Project Kelvin?
Mr Paterson
I am open to any ideas that will help to revive the private sector in Northern Ireland, which we all agree is too small. If the hon. Gentleman would like to make suggestions, my door will always be open. However, he should remember that a lot of this is devolved, with the decisions in the hands of his colleagues in the Assembly, and that this is a team game.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister for their kind words. It has been a huge privilege for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and I to serve the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever my future, which is in the hands of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will continue our bipartisan support for his policy.
During the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) talked about targeting Northern Ireland and the north-east of England for special cuts in Government spending. The Secretary of State tried to blunt that with the prospect of cutting corporation tax, but he will know from the Azores ruling that it is legal only if Northern Ireland bears fiscal consequences. What is his estimate of the annual additional cut the Treasury would have to take from the annual block grant to fund a cut in corporation tax to 12.5%?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I would just like to correct an inadvertent comment on my colleague the Prime Minister, who did not target Northern Ireland; he just said, correctly, that it is one of those parts of the United Kingdom that is over-dependent on the public sector. On the question of the corporation tax sums, I say, bluntly, that nobody knows. That is why I am working closely with my Treasury colleagues—in particular, the Exchequer Secretary—to work out exactly the cost. Some international accountancy firms have estimated that, according to the Azores ruling, about £100 million to £150 million would have to be taken off the block grant.
Mr Woodward
The right hon. Gentleman will know that Northern Ireland is over-dependent for a very good reason: because of the troubles. The answer to the question is contained in the report produced by Sir David Varney for the Treasury, and it is that £300 million would be taken out of the block grant. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that the net cost to the Exchequer for 10 years would be estimated at £2.2 billion. He is a very good sort of fellow, so why does he not level with the people of Northern Ireland? Just as his party’s electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists left them with nothing, just as his party’s talks on the Presbyterian Mutual Society look like leaving small investors with nothing, the promises on corporation tax will result in at best nothing and at worst an invitation to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to wield the axe.
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask for brevity, please, from Front Benchers; other Members want to get in.
Mr Paterson
I am sorry that the tone has descended. All my colleagues in Front-Bench positions inherited the odd prawn behind the radiator. We inherited Northern Ireland and a whole bag full of old langoustines stuck under a radiator going at top speed. We face a long-term problem with the economy. The Varney report is, sadly, now out of date. It cited a figure of more than £300 million, whereas the independent Northern Ireland Economic Reform Group, which carried out a detailed study of the benefits that a reduction of corporation tax would bring, gave a lower figure. The fact is that we do not know yet, and we will be studying this in detail and introducing our proposals later in the autumn.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent representations he has received on the report of the Saville inquiry.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The reaction to the report of the Saville inquiry and to the Prime Minister’s statement to this House on 15 June has been overwhelmingly positive. Since publication, I have also met the families of those killed. I have received no formal representations in relation to the inquiry’s report, other than routine correspondence.
Luciana Berger
Yesterday, the Secretary of State once again informed the House that he will be meeting the families who lost their loved ones in Ballymurphy in August 1971. Will he assure the House that the issues that cannot be explored by the Historical Enquiries Team will be resolved by a process that is satisfactory to the families?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think that she should understand the sensitivities of these historical cases. Where I have given a commitment—I have a meeting planned with the families—it is appropriate that I talk to the families before I comment further.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Whatever mechanism we adopt to deal with the past, if we adopt any at all, surely it must be consistent. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whereas the Saville report dealt purely with the activities of the troops, soldiers and other activists on the day, the Billy Wright inquiry, which the media attended, seemed to deal with issues before and after the events of the day? We need a consistent approach to try to bring some closure.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why we have launched a process of talking to local politicians and local groups to work out a way forward on how we handle the past. It was clear from the submissions to Eames-Bradley that there is absolutely no consensus, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we must have a process that is consistent. We will be working on that over the coming months.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
7. Whether he has met the family of Pat Finucane to offer an inquiry into his death; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I met the family of Pat Finucane while in opposition. On becoming Secretary of State, I wrote to the family and invited them to meet me.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Secretary of State elucidate the questions that were put to him by the family at that meeting?
Mr Paterson
The meeting that I had with them in opposition was some time ago. I have a meeting planned shortly and I think that it is appropriate, as I have said on several occasions, that I talk to the families before pronouncing further. The hon. Gentleman knows from his time as a Minister in Northern Ireland how sensitive and difficult this issue is, which is why it was not resolved by his Government.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Surely the Secretary of State will realise that, rather than individual inquiries, it would be better to put the resources into the Historical Enquiries Team so as to allow a swathe of the people who have been injured and who suffered through the tragedies of Northern Ireland’s years of terrorism to find answers to their questions.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Historical Enquiries team is looking at 3,268 deaths on a budget that was originally set at £34 million over six years. We must contrast that with the Billy Wright inquiry on which I reported yesterday, which cost £30 million and looked into one death.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government on cross-border economic co-operation.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held discussions on economic matters, which are largely devolved to Northern Ireland, with Irish Government Ministers when he was recently in Dublin. The trade and business development body, which aims to enhance the economy on both sides of the border, is a forum operating under the North/South Ministerial Council that also allows Northern Ireland and Irish Ministers to discuss those matters.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the Minister for his reply. Have he and his team considered what lessons can be learned from the economic successes of the Republic of Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s that could now be applied to the economy of Northern Ireland?
Mr Swire
Yes, we certainly continue to study that. It is worth pointing out that despite the economic slowdown experienced in recent years the Republic of Ireland continues to attract major foreign direct investment. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland’s stock of direct inward investment is five times greater than the OECD average. According to one leading accountancy firm, there have been well over 50 investment projects this year alone. It is significant, we believe, when spending is being cut and many taxes are going up, that the one set of taxes that are not being touched in the Republic is the low rates of corporation taxes.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept and agree with me that cross-border co-operation is vital for economic recovery in border areas of Northern Ireland? Does he agree that because of the banking crisis there are major cross-border interests that we need to deal with at a British-Irish level?
Mr Swire
I most certainly do, bearing in mind that a lot of these decisions are up to the Assembly and the Executive. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome, along with us, the forthcoming investment conference in Washington under the patronage of Secretary of State Clinton, as well as the advance trip to Northern Ireland by her husband, former President Clinton, at which representatives from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be present hoping to attract inward investment, which will benefit the very cross-border communities to whom the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment who died on Friday after being injured in Helmand province on 23 August. We are for ever indebted to him for the sacrifice that he has made. We send our sincere condolences to his family, friends and comrades who all miss him very much. He will not be forgotten.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Julian Smith
May I add my sympathies to those of the Prime Minister?
At a time when we need to maximise growth and restore our public finances, is it not the height of irresponsibility that the unions are planning to go on strike, and should not former Ministers be ashamed of themselves for encouraging it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Everyone in the country—the trade unions included—knows that we have to cut public spending, that we have to get the deficit down and that we have to keep interest rates down. It is the height of irresponsibility for shadow Ministers to troop off to the TUC and tell it that it is all right to go on strike. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment? We honour his bravery and we think of his family and friends as they mourn their loss. May I give my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family on the loss of his father? The words he used to express his love for his father touched everyone. Today, as we welcome the Prime Minister back to his place, I also congratulate him and Mrs Cameron on the birth of their new baby.
Let me ask about an issue that is of great concern on both sides of the House—the trafficking of women and girls for sex. This week, a gang was convicted here in London of bringing girls as young as 13 to this country to be sold for sex. The work of the police and prosecutors has protected young women from that gang, but this evil trade is growing. All parties in the House are united in their abhorrence of it. Will the Prime Minister update us on the work that is being undertaken to stop it?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady not only for what she said about the serviceman whom we lost in Afghanistan but for her very kind words about my father and our new daughter. I am very grateful for what was said last week by the shadow Lord Chancellor and for the letters that I have received from Members right across the House. It is very touching and heart-warming that people think about one at times like these, so I thank them for that.
Let me take this opportunity to say something about the right hon. and learned Lady, as I think this will be the last time that we face each other across the Dispatch Box. She is the third Labour leader with whom I have had to do battle—she is by far the most popular—and she has used these opportunities to push issues that she cares about deeply such as the one she raises today. She has been a thorough credit as the stand-in leader of the Labour party and I thank her for what she has done.
The issue of the trafficking of women and girls is an extremely important, sensitive and difficult one. I have been to see some of the exhibitions that have been run, including the one by Emma Thompson, about how bad the problem is. We are committed to working across the Government to do everything we can to help the police, to help at our borders and to make sure that we have in place all the laws and systems to bring this evil trade to an end. It is something that, tragically, has grown over recent years. We often talk about how we have ended slavery in our world, but we have not; it is still with us and this is the worst manifestation of it.
Ms Harman
I thank the Prime Minister for his complimentary words—it is just as well that I am not wearing a hoodie.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about human trafficking, and I am grateful to him and the Deputy Prime Minister for working with us on it when they were in opposition. Will the Prime Minister help to build on that work by agreeing that the United Kingdom will opt in to the new European directive on trafficking in human beings, which the Commission proposed in March?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for raising that point. We are looking carefully at the issue. From looking at the directive so far, we have discovered that it does not go any further than the law that we have already passed. We have put everything that is in the directive in place. I am happy to go away and look again but, of course, as we do when thinking about all the things that we have to consider opting in to, we have to ask ourselves not only what is in this directive and whether we are already doing it—the answer in this case is yes—but what might be the consequences for our security and borders, and our ability to take decisions in the House. That is the consideration that we have to make, and I give absolutely no apology for saying that this Government will look at these things very carefully before signing them.
Ms Harman
But the difficulty is that the Government have already indicated that they will opt out of the directive. If we are already complying with it in this country’s laws and practices, as well as working internationally, we should be proud of that and step forward to sign the directive. Will the Prime Minister reconsider?
The Prime Minister
I have already answered that, but let me make some additional points: first, the directive itself is still being finalised; and, secondly, there are opportunities at any stage to opt in to something of which we approve. However, the key point is that we must examine the directive and then ask whether opting in would add anything to what we already do in this vital area—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Hon. Members say yes, but the fact is that we do all the things that are in the directive today, so we then have to ask whether opting in would in any way endanger our borders and immigration system. That is a question that a responsible Government ought to ask, and it is a question that this Government will ask.
Ms Harman
The right hon. Gentleman is hanging back on this—he should step forward and sign the directive. The point is that trafficking is an international crime. The traffickers work across borders, so we have to work across borders to stop them. Will he reconsider and opt into the directive?
The Prime Minister
I have answered the question. The fact is that we have to work internationally. We are working internationally as well as making sure that we have what we need at our borders and in our police service here in the UK. We are also looking at something that the previous Government did not put in place: a proper border police force, which would make a real difference to securing our borders. However, as I said, when looking at such directives, it is right to ask not just whether we are already doing the things that are in them, but what might be the other consequences of signing up. That is a sensible thing to do; the previous Government signed far too many things without ever thinking about what the consequences would be.
Ms Harman
I am disappointed by the Prime Minister’s answer. I know that some in his party are irrationally hostile to Europe, but he should not let them stand in the way of stopping human trafficking.
I have one last question before I go. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they regularly complained that we had Prime Minister’s questions only once a week. Now that the right hon. Gentleman knows just how enjoyable the experience is, does he plan to bring it back to twice a week?
The Prime Minister
It is one of the few things that Tony Blair did of which I thoroughly approve. Quite seriously, having worked for Leaders of the Opposition and Prime Ministers who did Prime Minister’s questions, I think that a half-hour session once a week is good not only so that Parliament can grill the Prime Minister, but so that the Prime Minister can grill everyone in his or her office to find out everything that is going on in government. That is the right way to do these things.
I know that we are not saying goodbye to the right hon. and learned Lady—it is only au revoir—and that she will be the deputy leader under whichever leader the Labour party elects. I note that she can spend some time over the coming days contemplating what to do with the four votes that I think she has in the election, because she is of course a member of a trade union, a Member of Parliament, a member of the Labour party and a member of the Fabian Society. Her position can be combined with her husband’s, whom I believe has another three votes—democracy is a beautiful thing!
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the saddest legacies the Government inherited is the fact that one child in five grows up in a household in which nobody is in work? Does he agree that it is not just an economic but a moral imperative that we should, to coin a phrase, move from a handout to a hand up?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want to tackle poverty, we must go to the causes of poverty. The chief cause of poverty is people being out of work generation after generation and, as he says, young people growing up in homes where nobody works, where there is no role model to follow. That is why we are pursuing the welfare reform agenda so vigorously, because we want to help people to get out of unemployment and into work. We want it to be worth while for everybody to work or to work more than they do now. That is what our welfare reforms, so scandalously neglected by the previous Government, have set out to achieve.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Q2. The proposed £400 million Mersey Gateway project, which will create up to 4,000 new jobs in the area, is under threat because of the spending review, despite the fact that it is strongly supported by business and by all local authorities across Cheshire and Merseyside, including the Chancellor’s local authority. How will cutting projects such as the Mersey Gateway help economic growth in the north-west?
The Prime Minister
We are not making any further cuts in capital spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask the question of those on his own Front Bench. The Labour party went into the last election with a 50% cut in capital spending in its figures, and did not tell us one single project that would be cut. We have said that that is far enough; we should go no further. We will be protecting capital spending to help to boost the recovery in our country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Q3. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his excellent speech on parliamentary reform, promised far more free votes in the Committee stage of major Bills. Can he confirm that this bold and courageous policy will apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill?
The Prime Minister
We have already taken some big steps to pass power from the Executive to Parliament—[Interruption.] Someone shouts “Rubbish.” We established the Backbench Business Committee. The Opposition had 13 years; they never did that. We gave the House of Commons control over electing Select Committee Chairmen. The Opposition had 13 years to do that. It never happened. We will be giving Select Committees further powers over selecting and looking at appointments in the public sector, and I am the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right to call a general election. As for major parts of legislation set out in our coalition agreement, I regret to inform my hon. Friend that I will be hoping for all my colleagues to support them with head, heart and soul, if I may put it that way, but should there be greater opportunities for free votes, yes, there should be. I remember the previous Government, even on topics such as embryo research and experimentation, whipping their Members, particularly in the House of Lords. That was quite wrong and it will not happen under this Government.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q4. Given the strategic defence importance of the aircraft carriers, on which work has already started, will the Prime Minister undertake to meet urgently with me, other parliamentary colleagues and workplace representatives so that they can put to him their concerns about reports that the aircraft carriers will be cancelled, before it is too late?
The Prime Minister
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his Ministers are happy to meet anyone who wants to discuss the state of the defence budget and the appalling legacy that we have been left. Of all the budgets that I have looked at, that is the one where we were left the biggest mess—£38 billion over-committed, and decisions taken that made very little sense at all. But the hon. Gentleman will be seeing a strategic defence review in which we properly review how we can make sure that we have forces that are right for our country, right for our interests and ensure that we protect our interests around the world.—[Interruption.]
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am afraid I have no props.—[Laughter.]
With only five years to go to achieve the millennium development goals, which are still way off track, what will the Prime Minister do to ensure that those critical promises are kept?
The Prime Minister
My apologies for missing the joke. Next time I will look more carefully. I did not know that we were allowed props, Mr Speaker, but obviously you take a more relaxed view of these things.
My hon. Friend raises a very important point and the conference—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I may take a relaxed view about some things, but not about excessive noise. The Prime Minister must be heard.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the millennium development goals, set in 2000 and meant to be completed by 2015, and there is a vital conference, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be attending next week, on that specific issue. This country—this applies to parties on both sides—can hold its head up high, given that we are going to hit the 0.7% target of gross national income going to aid. That means that we will be playing our part in making sure that those vital MDGs are met. It is important, although spending decisions are going to be difficult, that we hold our head up high not only overseas but at home and say, “This is right, to help the poorest in our world, even when we have difficult budget decisions at home.”
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Q5. May I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the family of Kingsman Darren Deady, who was a constituent of mine and sadly lost his life last Friday, having been injured in Afghanistan three weeks ago? His senior officer said that Kingsman Deady “was a superb soldier—trusted, respected and an example to others.”He will be sadly missed. Bolton Community and Voluntary Services has already lost £89,000 of grants this year for small voluntary groups—groups often working with the most vulnerable. Many organisations are on the brink of closure because of those cuts. If the Prime Minister believes in the big society, what will he do to save those groups?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to the hon. Lady’s local council is what I would say to every council in the country, which is that we all know—and Opposition Members know—that we have to make spending reductions. The Opposition were committed to £44 billion of spending reductions at the last election, and we should say to every single council in the country, “When it comes to looking at and trimming your budgets, don’t do the easy thing, which is to cut money to the voluntary bodies and organisations working in our communities. Look at your core costs. Look at how you can do more for less. Look at the value for money you get from working with the voluntary sector.” The hon. Lady should take that message to her local authority. That is the message that I would take to her local authority, and everyone should try to work in that direction.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Q6. Has the Prime Minister received any representations from Fidel Castro on deficit reduction? Is there any possibility of arranging a trade union conference pass for Mr Castro so that he might be able to enlighten the trade unions on cutting the size of the state?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This week it was revealed that even Communist Cuba has got with the programme that we need to cut budget deficits and get spending under control. So we have Comrade Castro on the same planet as the rest of us; we just have to get the Labour party and the trade unions on that planet at the same time.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Q7. Burma and Iran were signatories to the universal declaration on human rights, but there are some men and women who cannot exercise those rights. In particular, Sakineh Ashtiani awaits death by stoning, and Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned because she won an election. Will the Prime Minister make urgent and renewed representations to the Governments of Burma and Iran in order to free those brave and courageous women?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue, and I shall do precisely as she says and continue to make those representations. It is important that we make them not just to those Governments, but to Governments who sometimes take a slightly different view. When I was in India I raised the issue of Burma with the Indian Government, because I think it is important that we talk to the neighbouring states of those countries and make sure that they are campaigning in the same way.
The human rights record in Iran is absolutely appalling. The person to whom the hon. Lady refers is being treated in a completely inhuman and despicable fashion, and we should be absolutely clear that the situation in Burma is an affront to humanity. Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued detention is an outrage. She has spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest, and her example is deeply inspiring. All of us like to think that we give up something for democracy and politics; we do not. Compared with those people, we do nothing. They are an inspiration right across the world, and we should stand with them.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Like the last Government, we have promised to act on the litter that defaces our towns and countryside. Unlike the last Government, will we take some real practical action, such as starting a bottle deposit and refund scheme, which a Campaign to Protect Rural England report launched today shows will protect the environment and save local authorities millions of pounds?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion. Bill Bryson has made this suggestion to me as well because of the success that schemes like this have had in other countries. I will certainly ask his right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary to look at this issue and see if we can take it forward.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q8. Back in June, Andrew Cook boasted that he was the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire, yet it turns out that his registered main residence is on the island of Guernsey. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when he accepted free plane flights from Andrew Cook, he did so having satisfied himself that such a donation was both legally and morally acceptable?
The Prime Minister
Obviously it is up to every party leader to make sure that when they accept a donation they make proper checks and do so in the proper way. All the donations that the Conservative party has received are properly set out with the Electoral Commission and other bodies, and we do everything we can to make sure they are accurate; I hope that the Labour party does the same thing.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Q9. Two weeks ago, Bola Ejifunmilayo and her three year old daughter Fiyin burned to death in an unregistered house in multiple occupancy. Often poorly converted, with enormous fire risks, the majority of HMOs in Milton Keynes and elsewhere remain unregistered. What more can the Government do to end this plight and hopefully prevent another tragedy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point about an absolutely tragic case. As he knows, local authorities are responsible for licensing houses in multiple occupation, and they have the power to prosecute landlords who fail to apply for a licence—and they should do so. There have been too many cases like this. The law is there; it should be used. Our whole approach is to give local authorities the power they need, and the discretion they need, to take action for the good of their communities; that is the change we want to bring.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Q10. Building work is already under way on a new campus for Skelmersdale and Ormskirk college in my constituency, so it was a real shock to find that £4 million committed to the project will now not be available because of the Government’s decision to stop the budgets of the regional development agency with immediate effect. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and those at the college to try to find a way through? The building is already going up, and this would be a real embodiment of a hand up to the young people of Skelmersdale and the start of the regeneration of Skelmersdale.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this specific case, and I will go away and look at it. In the Budget, while we did make difficult decisions, and some spending reductions were made, we actually put some money back into college building projects because so many schemes had suffered from the overspending and lack of control over the past couple of years. I will certainly look at her case and see whether a Minister can meet her to see what progress can be made.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
In Great Yarmouth, one of our Labour legacies is that we still have one of the more deprived wards in the country. Will the Prime Minister outline the plans he has to deal with one of the legacies he has inherited, which is the shocking breach in the achievement levels of deprived schoolchildren?
The Prime Minister
There are many things we need to do to tackle deprivation. We have spoken today about the importance of tackling long-term unemployment and joblessness that goes back through generations. Clearly, one of the other things is making sure that children from less well-off backgrounds are getting access to the best schools available. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has announced this week how we are going to try to help children on free school meals to get access to the very best schools in our country, and we want to expand the number of good schools by allowing academies and free schools to go forward. I hope that Labour Members will back those plans. The problem we have is that there are not enough good school places. It does not matter how many different schemes are devised for lotteries or anything else for getting kids into good schools, we need more good school places, not least in Great Yarmouth.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Q11. Talking of schools, on 2 September the Department for Education sneaked out the equalities impact assessment associated with the Building Schools for the Future decision. That assessment showed that the scrapping of that policy had a disproportionate impact on poorer children in our society. Can the Prime Minister explain what is progressive about that?
The Prime Minister
One person’s announcement is another person’s sneaking out; I do not quite understand that. Let me tell the person who was largely responsible for designing Building Schools for the Future what a completely shambolic and disastrous programme it was. It took three years and £250 million before a single brick was laid; well, maybe we should assess that. The other thing that we could perhaps assess—it is worth reminding people of this—is the bureaucracy of Building Schools for the Future. There were nine meta-stages to putting in a bid. Each of the nine stages had further sub-stages. This is what a local authority had to do—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the programme; I am sure this will be a trip down memory lane for him. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Thank you very much.
Local authorities that wanted to get involved needed a partnership for schools director, a director of education project adviser, a 4Ps adviser, an enabler from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—[Interruption.] I am sorry the list is so long, but it goes on and on. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] The answer is that it was a disastrous programme, completely overspent and totally out of control. The last Government had announced 50% cuts and had not told us where a penny was coming from, and the hon. Gentleman is largely responsible for it.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Could the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Immigration will in the next few days come up with a solution for the English language schools in the UK, so that the good schools can move forward productively while bogus colleges and bogus students are dealt with?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working extremely hard on that issue. We all want the same thing, which is to ensure that Britain benefits as a provider of great education courses, universities and colleges that can attract talented people from around the world. But at the same time, we all know that there have been too many bogus colleges and too many bogus students coming here not really to study but to work or for other reasons, and we have to crack down on that. That is what my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is trying to do, and I am sure he will be in contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) to ensure that that is the outcome of the policy.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Q12. I want to help the Prime Minister to reconsider the fact that we are not signing up to the directive on human trafficking, which, as he may understand, I know a little about. As a consequence, we rely on sections 57 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That means that we cannot, for example, pursue or have any jurisdiction over someone who is normally a resident of the UK but is not a UK national, who is involved in human trafficking. More importantly, we cannot have jurisdiction when a UK resident in another EU country is trafficked by a non—
The Prime Minister
I will obviously listen very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and perhaps he would like to set out in detail why he thinks this is so important. The point is that the UK’s victim care arrangements are already in line with internationally agreed standards, as set out in the Council of Europe convention on trafficking. The UK already does what is required by the proposed directive on assisting victims, so the proposed directive would not improve the provision of victim care. Those are the facts, and Opposition Members need to engage with that point.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
If the Prime Minister were invited to lecture at Harvard university, like the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), on what subject would he care to speak?
The Prime Minister
I hope that my days on the international lecture circuit are some way in the future.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Q13. What is the Prime Minister doing to protect manufacturing in the west midlands, and in Coventry in particular? Equally, what is he doing to protect the research and development that a lot of manufacturing companies rely on?
The Prime Minister
The most important thing that we can do is make Britain a great place to do business, to set up a business and to manufacture. That is why we showed in the Budget that we are going to cut corporation tax to one of the lowest levels in the developed world, why we are cutting national insurance for every new business that sets up, and why we are dealing with the appalling economic inheritance that we were left by the Labour party so that this economy can grow, have low interest rates and get moving to provide good jobs for all our people. That is what this Government are all about, and that is what we are fixing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Q14. Is the Prime Minister aware that the last Government took £30 million a year out of our social housing budget to give to their friends elsewhere? Because of that under-investment, one in 10 people in my constituency are on the council housing waiting list. Does he agree that social housing money raised in Harlow should be spent in Harlow, and that Harlow housing money should be for Harlow people?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, which is that in our relations with local government, at a difficult time in terms of budgets, we should be giving it money and taking away the ring-fencing and complications and all the different grants. We should say, “There’s the money. You’re democratically elected, you decide how that money is spent.” That is what people are going to see from this Government, and I think it will be welcomed by local government up and down the country.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
“If I am Prime Minister a Conservative and Unionist Government will work with”
the Northern Ireland
“Executive to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS”—
the Presbyterian Mutual Society—and continued:
“you’ve done the right thing and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded.”
How soon will that pledge be honoured?
The Prime Minister
I am determined that we will honour that pledge. This is important. I know how angry people in Northern Ireland are when they hear British politicians say, “Of course, nobody lost any savings in the crash.” People did lose money, including in Northern Ireland, and they are right to be upset and angry.
A working group is trying to go through those issues and to find an answer. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is involved in that, and the Chancellor is engaged in the issue. It is not easy, but we are determined to find a solution so that we can give satisfaction to people who lost money in Northern Ireland and who currently feel that they have been let down.
Individual Electoral Registration
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s plans for the implementation of individual electoral registration in Great Britain—Northern Ireland having introduced such a system in 2002.
It is widely recognised on both sides of the House that the current arrangements for electoral registration need to change. At present, there is no requirement for people to provide any evidence of their identity to register to vote, which leaves the system vulnerable to fraud. Household registration harks back to a time when registration was the responsibility of the head of the household. Access to a right as fundamental as voting should not be dependent on someone else. We need a better system of keeping up with people who move house or who need to update their registration for other reasons. Individual registration provides an opportunity to move forward to a system centred around the individual citizen.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are concerned when they read of allegations of electoral fraud, including those alleged to have taken place at elections this year. Although proven electoral fraud is relatively rare, we should be concerned about the impact that such cases have on the public’s confidence in the electoral system. The most recent survey, which was taken after the general election in May, found that one third of people think that electoral fraud is a problem. We can be confident that any allegations will be properly investigated by the authorities, but it is right that we take steps to make the system less vulnerable to fraud, because tackling that perception is an important part of rebuilding trust in our democracy, which is why this Government are committed to speeding up the implementation of individual registration.
Individual registration will require each person to register themselves and to provide personal identifiers—date of birth, signature and national insurance number—which will allow registration officers to cross-check the information provided before a person is added to the register, which should tackle the problem of fraudulent or ineligible registrations.
However, I want to make it absolutely clear that there will be no new databases. The Government’s commitment to rolling back the surveillance state will be demonstrated clearly later today when the House debates the remaining stages of the Identity Documents Bill. Electoral registration officers will check the information they receive from people applying to be registered with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the applicant is genuine. People seeking to access public services are already subject to various similar authentication processes, for example when applying for benefits, and I do not believe such a check, which will help to eliminate electoral fraud, is disproportionate or that it represents an invasion of privacy. Naturally, we will ensure that robust arrangements are put in place to ensure that personal data are securely held and processed by electoral registration officers. Personal identifiers will not be published in the electoral register.
The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 was passed in the previous Parliament with all-party support. At this point, it is worth paying tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who worked tirelessly on promoting that. The Act gave us a framework for moving to individual registration. Introduction was to be on a voluntary basis before a further decision by Parliament—on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission—on whether to make it compulsory from later in 2015 at the earliest, but it is our judgment that that is a slow and very expensive way of doing things.
I am announcing today that we will legislate to implement individual registration in 2014. We will drop the previous Government’s plans for a voluntary phase, which would have cost about £74 million over the Parliament. I believe that there is a far more cost-effective way to familiarise people with the new requirements for registration and—importantly—avoid any temporary drop in registration rates.
We propose that individual registration will be made compulsory in 2014, but that no one will be removed from the electoral register who fails to register individually until after the 2015 general election, giving people at least 12 months to comply with the new requirements, and ensuring as complete a register as possible for the election. From 2014 onwards any new registrations will need to be carried out under the new system, including last-minute registrations. We will also make individual registration a requirement for anyone wishing to cast a postal or proxy vote. That will tackle immediately the main areas of concern on electoral fraud, but it will ensure that people already on the register can vote at the next election and will have more than one opportunity to register individually.
Individual registration also provides us with an opportunity to tackle concerns about people missing from the electoral register, which are held on both sides of the House. But it is important to put this into perspective: the UK registration rate at 91% to 92% compares well internationally, including with some countries where voting is compulsory.
There is a significant number of people who are eligible to vote but not on the register. There is a variety of reasons for this and the move to individual registration provides us with an opportunity to do something about it. Whether a person chooses to register or not should be their individual choice. But we should do everything we can to ensure that people are not prevented from registering because the system is difficult to use or through ignorance of their rights. For example, research carried out by the Electoral Commission revealed that 31% of people believed that they would be automatically registered if they paid council tax. Many of those people may not therefore actually take the trouble to register to vote. As part of introducing individual registration, as well as improving the accuracy of the register, we will therefore take steps to improve its completeness.
I can also announce today that we will be trialling data-matching during 2011—comparing the electoral register with other public databases to find the people who are eligible to vote but who are missing from the register. The aim is to tackle under-registration among specific groups in our society and ensure that every opportunity is available to those currently not on the electoral register. These pilots will enable us to see how effective data-matching is and to see which data sets are of most use in improving the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. If they are effective, we will roll them out more widely across local authorities on a permanent basis to help ensure that our register is as complete as possible. The Electoral Commission will also play a key role in assessing and reporting on the pilots.
I will be writing to all local authorities responsible for electoral registration to invite them to put themselves forward to take part in these trials and I strongly encourage them to work in partnership with the Government on this important matter. Much work is already done by electoral registration officers to raise awareness and encourage people to register, but I will be considering further how local authorities, Members of Parliament and the Government might work together to develop an approach that will make a positive impact on the level of electoral registration.
Registration should be a simple process. We will also be considering how electoral registration can be integrated into people’s day-to-day transactions with Government— for example when they move house, or visit the post office, or apply for a passport or driving licence.
Our proposals will improve both the completeness and accuracy of the register. We will therefore seek to bring forward a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the current Session followed by a Bill to introduce individual registration from 2014. The need to improve the accuracy and completeness of electoral registers is an issue on which there is cross-party consensus. As we move forward, it will be important for us to maintain consensus and we will be seeking to work closely on implementation with political parties across the House.
The steps that I am announcing today will achieve change over the lifetime of this Parliament that will safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and improve registration levels. They are an important part of rebuilding people’s faith in our democracy and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I’m back again.
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but not—I am afraid—for most of its content. Will he accept that his announcement today of the speeding up of individual registration, but without safeguards or any additional funding, could undermine the integrity of our democracy and lead to a repeat on the mainland of the Northern Ireland experience, in which the introduction of individual registration led to a 10% drop in registrations and many eligible voters effectively being disfranchised?
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which was passed with all-party support, and he paid a fulsome tribute—entirely deserved, if I may so—to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), but why did he not go on to acknowledge the reasons the Conservative Front-Bench team endorsed wholly and specifically the detailed timetable in the 2009 Act and the special safeguards and the role for the Electoral Commission, which was spelt out in that Act? Has he forgotten what his own hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, said in the House and has repeated since the general election? She said that
“it is right to take this matter forward carefully and step by step. None of us wants to see a system introduced that would in any way undermine the integrity of our democratic system.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108.]
And is he not also aware of the endorsement of the details in the 2009 Act by the then Liberal Democrat spokesman, David Howarth? He said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened”—
exactly what the Minister is now proposing—
“or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 112.]
The Minister seeks to justify his announcement today principally by referring to electoral fraud. We all share concerns about electoral fraud, which pollutes and undermines the democratic process, and the last Government, not least in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, took active measures that are working to protect us better against fraud. However, that was not the principal reason for individual registration. That was about giving people rights as individual citizens just as these days people have rights to individual taxation. What is the evidence that initial registration is the principal point at which fraud takes place? In my experience, the principal problems have come not from that, but from personation at the polls of someone lawfully and properly on the register, or from misconduct over postal votes, where the 2006 Act provisions are working, but where further protection could easily be provided by the simple arrangement of banning the publication of the absent voters list in the immediate run-up to, and during, the election.
The Minister complains now about cost and complexity, but given that our scheme in the 2009 Act was the subject of detailed cross-party consultation by Lord Wills, then my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, why was no such complaint made just six months ago? That system provided a key role for the European—I mean the Electoral—Commission—[Interruption.] I had Prime Minister’s questions on the brain, but happily the European Commission is not involved in this at all. The system provided a key role for the Electoral Commission to certify that full steps had been taken, but the Minister’s provisions seek to bypass the safeguarding role of the Electoral Commission. Why is that?
The arrangement set out in the 2009 Act included a voluntary process that the Minister now derides, but has he forgotten that the hon. Member for Epping Forest specifically endorsed voluntary registration in the first instance, making that subject to certification by the Electoral Commission that it was safe to proceed? The Minister claims that our overall registration rates are similar to those of other countries. They may be, but will he not accept that the overall average disguises the fact that, as the Electoral Commission showed, in many areas, especially in inner-urban areas and seaside towns, and among the young and those on lower incomes, levels of registration are much lower than the average, and less probably than in other countries?
There is no need, as the Minister implied, for further data-matching powers. They are already on the statute book and go back to previous Conservative Administrations, with powers for electoral registration officers strengthened by us, as set out in detail in a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). We will work carefully with the Minister to ensure that the data-matching arrangements are effective.
Overall, however, time and again the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have accepted that 3.5 million voters are missing from the register. The burden of the Minister’s statement today represents an admission that the 2010 register will disfranchise millions of voters, yet he is planning to use that register for the new fixed boundary arrangements, which will eliminate any local independent public inquiries. Given that, what possible reason is there for rushing the boundary legislation, except the reason now helpfully and publicly put on the record by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) and the right hon. Friend Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis): that this is being done solely for narrow, party political advantage?
Mr Harper
That was a rather grudging welcome, I thought, for our plans.
Let me run through the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. His key point, set out at the beginning of his response, was to say that we were planning to speed up individual registration without safeguards, but I do not think that he can have listened to my statement. He specifically referred to the Northern Ireland experience, but what we are doing is entirely because of the Northern Ireland experience, where there was a significant drop in the numbers on the electoral register, albeit one that most people thought was greater than what we could have expected from just removing those who were on the register who should not have been. Clearly we would expect some reduction with individual registration, because there are some people on the register who should not be. However, the Northern Ireland experience is exactly what we are trying to avoid, by not removing people from the register before the next election if they have not registered individually—as I set out right at the beginning of my statement—so I do not think that that issue is valid.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) as saying that she was clear that we did not want to undermine democracy. The whole point of the safeguards and the data-matching that I have outlined, along with the careful way in which we are going to proceed, is exactly so that we end up with a register that is more accurate and more complete than the one that we have today.
The recorded statistics on electoral fraud, which come from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission, show that fraudulent registration is one of the principal examples of electoral fraud, and there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it should be tackled.
As for the Electoral Commission and the safeguard to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as I made clear in my statement, the Electoral Commission will absolutely be involved in the process, advising us on the data-matching pilots. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and yesterday, when the chair, Jenny Watson, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, she welcomed individual registration, making it clear that it was an opportunity to give individuals responsibility for their vote. She also said that introducing individual registration would enable focused programmes to improve registration rates and gave some examples of programmes in Northern Ireland to encourage young people to vote. We will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission, which has set out some important principles that we plan to follow.
As for under-registration, I made it clear in my remarks that we think that getting people who are eligible to vote on to the electoral register is as important as dealing with people who should not be on it. That is why we set out the proposal not to get rid of people in the first instance, but to improve data-matching, so that we can put some proactive plans in place to tackle under-registration. However, the boundary review will take place on exactly the same basis as the last one. We will use the existing electoral register, as with the previous boundary review, which took place under the previous Government, but under our proposals there will be more frequent boundary reviews—once a Parliament—so that we use the most up-to-date registration data and seats bear more relation to up-to-date electoral data.
On a positive note, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s concurrence that he will work with us on the pilots. I shall write to those local authorities this week, and I shall be happy to work with all parties in the House to look at ways of improving electoral registration across the country, so that we have a more complete electoral register.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I appeal for short questions and short answers.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I thank the shadow Lord Chancellor for his courtesy in telling me a short while ago that he was going to mention what I had said on this matter. As this might really be his very last appearance at the Dispatch Box—we hope for a Frank Sinatra-style comeback, of course—I should like to pay tribute to him and wish him well on behalf of Members on both sides of the House. He will recall that we have argued over this matter for more than five years. The previous Government delayed and delayed, but at the eleventh hour they at last brought in individual voter registration. However, they still built in delays. Of course I have said in the past that I do not want anything to undermine the integrity of the democratic system, and I stick to that, but nothing that the Minister has said today appears to undermine that integrity. On the contrary, he has said that he will proceed carefully, step by step, and he has assured us that he has learned from the Northern Ireland experience. Also, the new system that he has devised will save money as well as time.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course individual registration might improve security, but it will also raise the threshold for engaging in the voting process. Is the Minister today announcing a reduction in the amount of money that goes to electoral registration officers? In his statement, it sounded as though he was taking about £74 million away, but could he be more specific about the phasing of the budget for councils?
Mr Harper
What I announced was that proceeding with the voluntary phase was going to cost £74 million, and we are doing away with that. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he would not expect me to announce things that are going to be announced in the comprehensive spending review. I am confident, however, that the funds that we need to implement this in a sensible way will be forthcoming.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Minister’s statement is very welcome. May I ask him to invite leaders of all parties in the House together to maximise our input into getting all those electors on to the list who should be on it? I should like to suggest that this November should be a democracy month, involving a campaign to do that, so that the register published in December has the maximum number of people on it for the immediate and long-term future.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I said in my statement that I wanted to work with local authorities and with Members of the House to promote electoral registration. His second idea is a very good one, and I shall think about it some more and see what we can do, ahead of the registration for this December, to make a significant impact.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In my constituency, five Conservatives were jailed or convicted following illegal registrations. They will probably be the last people to be convicted of that, because Lydia Simmons, whose seat was stolen, still faces a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which were not available because the Conservative party did not pay the costs of its representatives. When looking at this issue, will the Minister see whether there are ways of making funds available to prosecute criminally illegal registration in such cases? I should also like to ask whether he is changing the law when he says:
“Whether a person chooses to register or not should be their individual choice.”
I did not think that that was the case in law at present, and I wonder whether his statement is announcing a legal change
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady would not seriously expect me to comment on individual cases, particularly when I do not have the details of them. On her second point, people are not legally obliged to register to vote. If they receive inquiries from the local authority—the household registration form or some other inquiry—they are legally obliged to respond to them accurately, but there is no obligation on individuals to register at all. When registration is a household matter, and a person is responsible for registering other people, it is right that that should be obligatory, but when individuals take responsibility for their own registration, it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is up to them whether they choose to register— [Interruption.] We live in a free society, and people are entitled to decide whether they wish to be registered to vote and to cast their vote. That is the position today, and it will remain unchanged.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today. He mentioned the checking of national insurance numbers. These are of course available to people who are not citizens of this country or other eligible countries. What sort of citizenship or nationality checks will be carried out on those people?
Mr Harper
Electoral registration officers already have to undertake a number of checks to confirm that people are eligible to vote, particularly in different sets of elections. My hon. Friend will know that, for example, in order to vote in a general election, a person has to be a citizen of the United Kingdom or a qualifying citizen of the Irish Republic or the Commonwealth. Those checks will remain as they are now. The checking of the date of birth, signature and national insurance number will enable the registration officers to be confident about someone’s identity, which will enable those other checks to be more accurate.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In these days of value for money and cost effectiveness, does the Minister see any merit in people who are in receipt of a state benefit, and thereby already encountering an arm of the state, automatically being registered to vote? The same could apply to people paying council tax, as he mentioned in his statement.
Mr Harper
While we are looking into data-matching, we are also going to look at other public databases—the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a couple—to see whether, using that information, we can contact people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the register. They could then be contacted to check their further eligibility—their citizenship, for example—and encouraged to register to vote. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful and worthwhile point.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I warmly welcome this statement. It is long overdue, and I am very glad that we are now going to have individual voter registration. I hope that the Government will also make a statement shortly on postal voting. Postal voting on demand has undoubtedly increased fraud. Will the Government look into that, and will they take some action to curb it?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
There are currently 3.5 million people missing from the electoral register, many of whom are the most needy people in the country, and they form a significant part of our work load. Measures have been put in place by the previous Government and this Government, and I welcome the proposals to improve registration announced today. The issue is one of timing. These measures will take time to settle in, and the freeze date for the boundary review is December. In the interests of fairness, bipartisanship and an equitable work load for MPs, will the Minister consider using estimated eligible electorates as the basis for the calculation of new seats in December? Those voters could then be registered when the new measures came into effect, and there would be no fiddling.
Mr Harper
I take exception to the hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “fiddling”. The boundary review proposed in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will be carried out on exactly the same basis as previous reviews, using the same electoral register and based on the same data. I acknowledge that there are people who are eligible to vote who have not chosen to register, and that is why we have put in place measures to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has made some helpful suggestions about what we could do this year, and we plan to fix this. When the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) raised this matter on Second Reading, I responded by saying that we would put in place measures to tackle under-registration, and I hope that he will be happy with what we have announced today.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
At the moment, we send national insurance numbers to young people who are approaching their 16th birthday, yet, on the declaration form that goes to the local authority, only those who are 17 and older are identified. How can we ensure that we pick up those who are 16 and over and put them into the registration process in anticipation? Would it be possible to promote this through the schools system? The other thing I would like to ask is about the arrangements that are going to be made to check up on those living abroad. What will happen? Is there any capacity to—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently explain to the hon. Lady that on these occasions Members should ask a single, short supplementary question? She has had a good run, but we will leave it there for today.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady’s first point was valid. This is indeed something that the chief electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland has been doing—working with schools and also picking up the points the hon. Lady makes about national insurance numbers. In her evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform yesterday, the chair of the Electoral Commission drew attention to the work in Northern Ireland that has been particularly effective at getting younger voters on the register. That is exactly the sort of thing that we will be able to do once we introduce individual registration and make individuals responsible for registering to vote.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, under-registration disproportionately hits the poorest, the youngest, the most mobile and ethnic minorities in our communities. I welcome the data-matching pilots, but surely it cannot make sense to go ahead with a radical redrawing of parliamentary boundaries before those pilots have taken place. If the Minister is sincere in wishing to conduct a cross-party review, let us have that review, look at the evidence and only then look at a radical redrawing of parliamentary boundaries.
Mr Harper
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. The last boundary review that came into place for the recent general election was done using the existing electoral registers, and at least some people not on them were eligible to vote. I have already responded to that point. I am very pleased to work with colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that more people who are eligible to vote are on the register. I set that out in my statement and I made it clear that the Government are as interested in the completeness of the register as they are in ensuring its accuracy.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is taking steps that go a considerable way towards restoring integrity to individual voting, but may I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), that, given that we value individual booths for privacy at the polling station, the over-extension of postal voting destroys that degree of privacy, at least within households? The Minister should look at this question again. People should have postal votes because they need them, not just on demand.
Mr Harper
I hear what my hon. Friend—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—says, and I will think further on it. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will welcome the announcement in my statement that although we are going to leave people on the register who have not individually registered ahead of the general election, those who want to exercise a postal or proxy vote—the areas of greatest concern—will have had to register individually, ensuring an extra safeguard.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined some changes in electoral reform, which we are glad to see happening. Whenever we go knocking on doors, as we do every time there is an election, people always tell us at the last minute that they thought they were on the list, but they have moved house and so forth. Is it possible to allow late registration even beyond the time currently allowed?
Mr Harper
Our proposals in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will set fixed parliamentary terms so that election dates become more predictable, should enable organisations such as the Electoral Commission and local authorities to run campaigns to improve registration ahead of specific elections. We will know when the date of the election will be. The hon. Gentleman thus makes a valid point. Under our fixed-term Parliament proposals, it should be easier to deliver what he suggests.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Minister have any plans to improve the process of checking the identity of voters at the polling station in order to reduce the risk of impersonation?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If the Minister wants data-matching, it is not a few paltry pilots that he needs; he could do it right across the country. As to his statement that whether a person chooses to register should be an individual choice and in light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I thought that it was a citizen’s duty to register to vote. Is this for ever going to be known as the Harper doctrine—“If you don’t feel like registering to vote, don’t bother”?
Mr Harper
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that citizens should register to vote. I said in my statement that we want a complete register, so the Government clearly want the maximum number of people to register. The issue is whether we believe the law should say that someone should register and whether there should be a criminal sanction if they do not. I do not think that there should be. Indeed, in her evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee yesterday, the chair of Electoral Commission said:
“I think the idea that your vote is yours and it is not somebody else’s—you need to take some responsibility for it—will help and enable registration officers to do more work.”
The Government are very clear: we think people should register to vote and we want them to do so, we just do not think there should be a criminal sanction if they choose not to.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister said about individual voter registration, which I believe is long overdue. Two of my hon. Friends have already raised the issue of restricting postal and proxy votes, and I would like to add my voice to theirs, urging the Minister to consider reintroducing the restrictions—they were never removed in Northern Ireland—as the key way of tackling electoral fraud in this country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Only 84% of registration forms are returned in Newcastle because we are a large city with a large student and deprived population. I have always considered it to be a crime that people should lose their right to vote because of a moment’s inattention. In the new coalition Government’s “big society”, is the Minister saying that there is no obligation to register to vote?
Mr Harper
No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that with the current household registration, where one is not just responsible for one’s individual vote but for other people’s too, the law requires that when sent a form or approached for information, one has to give it. When this becomes one’s individual responsibility and the only person affected is yourself, I simply said that I did not think that it should be a matter for the criminal law.
On the issue of why people choose not to register to vote, the most common reason given is that people have moved house so that voting was not high up on the list of things to be done. For an awful lot of people—almost a fifth of those not registered—it happens because they have not bothered. As MPs and politicians, we all have to persuade electors that they should bother to register. Then, when they have registered, the next challenge is to give them a reason for coming out and using their vote at elections—something that does not happen enough today.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Under the Minister’s plans for individual registration, does he intend local authorities to collect as a matter of course individuals’ titles so that those using the electoral roll respectfully to engage with the electorate can do so with due courtesy?
Mr Harper
That is not something I thought of announcing today, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that for politicians it is sometimes frustrating when we do not have people’s correct titles and we end up with our individual computer programmes guessing what they are, often getting them wrong. I will think further about this, but we should remember that in view of all the pieces of information we already ask local authorities to collect, process and deal with, which are not essential for voting, we must be careful not to impose extra burdens. As I say, I will think further about it.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Despite my reservations about individual registration, I welcome what the Minister said about data-sharing pilots and I hope he will consider Glasgow as a candidate for such a pilot. However, if we are going to all this great effort to share all these databases in order to identify people who have deliberately chosen not to register to vote up until now, what is the point of the exercise if, having identified those people, we are not going to oblige them to register? What is the point of that exercise?
Mr Harper
There are two questions there. On the first, I shall be writing to all local authorities responsible for registration suggesting that they engage with the pilots. The best thing the hon. Gentleman can do is to speak to his council and his registration officer and encourage them to participate. On his second point, quite a lot of people have not deliberately chosen not to register. As I said, one of the key reasons is that people have simply moved and have not got around to registering. Some people do not know how to register. Many would do so if it were easier, and if they were clearer about what they had to do. I think that if we approach them, tell them that they are eligible to vote and explain how they can do so, we will improve the rate of registration. However, in a free society, if someone deliberately chooses not to register to vote, that is a matter for them.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Parliamentary democracy cannot function at its best if nearly 10% of our citizens are not registered. May I urge my hon. Friend to think again? I think most people believe that registration is a civic duty, and that they would be surprised by what he has said today. May I encourage him to make it a legal requirement for people to register when he introduces legislation?
Mr Harper
I made it clear that I, too, think that registration is a civic duty. However, making it a legal requirement presents the challenge of deciding what sanctions should apply to those who do not register. I do not think that, in a free society, it would be right to imprison someone who chose not to register to vote, or to hit them with a huge fine. In a free society, people should be free not to register to vote without incurring a criminal penalty.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I cannot help thinking that we are making voting more difficult for people, and placing more and more barriers in their way, when we ought to be making the process easier. We have all observed that during general elections. It applies not just to the young, the elderly and the disabled, but to people who lives in houses in multiple occupation, especially those living in flats in Glasgow and some industrial areas. It will be difficult to carry out data-matching in such circumstances. I am glad that it is to be piloted, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) pointed out, unless it is followed up and the electoral registration officers are much more proactive than they have been so far, it will be a wasted exercise.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady makes a good point. One of the reasons for the data-matching pilots is to enable electoral registration officers to identify people who may be eligible to vote but are not on the register. They can then focus their efforts on that. As I have said, there is evidence that specific procedures to target younger voters and others who are not currently on the register have been very successful in Northern Ireland.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
A significant number of United Kingdom citizens living overseas are entitled to vote, but at the last general election a not particularly significant proportion registered or, indeed, voted. How will my hon. Friend ensure that more of them are encouraged and able to register? Could UK embassies, high commissions and consulates be better used to encourage them to register individually?
Mr Harper
I have received and replied to a number of written questions along the same lines recently. The Government are considering those issues, and if we have proposals to present we will, of course, announce them to the House first.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Resources will obviously be crucial to the success of the project. A significant proportion of British and Commonwealth citizens in my constituency do not have English as a first language. What additional resources will be given to local authorities such as Leicester to enable them to deal with that important issue, and will the Minister meet a delegation to discuss it?
Mr Harper
I should, of course, be pleased to meet a delegation from the right hon. Gentleman or, indeed, from any other Members who wish to discuss these issues. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, he will know that local authorities receive funds from their revenue support grant and other resources enabling them to carry out electoral registration. He would not expect me to make specific announcements about the proposals for funding this project before the spending review, but I am confident that it will be properly resourced.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am by the argument of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), which appears to be that we cannot adopt fully equal constituencies until we have dealt with the inadequacies of the register over which his party presided, and we cannot do anything to introduce the improvements in the register at any more than a glacial pace? Is not this obstructionism the real attempt to use the electoral system for partisan advantage?
Mr Harper
It seemed a bit churlish to point out in my statement that if there were problems with the state of the electoral register, it was not the parties on this side of the House that had been in government for the past 13 years, which is, I think, the point that my hon. Friend was making. Let me make it clear that we want to improve the state of the register, but the fact that it is not perfect should not mean that we cannot continue with the boundary review. The last Government conducted a boundary review, and we are conducting the review of the register on exactly the same basis.
It is worth pointing out that our electoral register contains the names of about 91% or 92% of eligible voters. In that regard, we compare very well with other comparable democracies. However, we are not complacent, and we want to improve our registration levels still further.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) gave the example of Northern Ireland, where individual registration saw dramatic falls, especially in poorer areas. What extra resources will the Minister give local authorities, and—this is very important—will he ring-fence those resources to prevent authorities from spending them on other things?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. The fact that individual registration was implemented overnight in Northern Ireland led to that sharp drop, not all of which was accounted for by the removal of people who should not have been on the register because they were not eligible to vote in the first place, which is one reason for introducing individual registration. It is because we do not want to see a similar dramatic fall here that I announced the safeguard that we would not remove people from the register immediately, and certainly not before the next general election.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s second point about resources and ring-fencing, it is a difficult argument. Local authorities generally take exception to central Government’s giving them ring-fenced amounts and micro-managing what they do. I know that it can be argued that central Government should say that this is a different area, but that is not a view that has been taken so far. I will think about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, but I do not think that the Government will pursue it.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Without simply reiterating the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), I ask the Minister to take on board my deep concern about postal voting fraud. Although I welcome individual registration, I fear that it will not wholly tackle that problem, to which I have referred before.
In my constituency—I must choose my words carefully, because the case is currently being investigated by the Electoral Commission—200 more votes were cast than electoral ballots were issued. I want to impress on the Minister a point that was raised with me recently by a constituent. He said that Labour Members were going from door to door asking if people wanted them to help them to fill out postal voting forms.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I will not do so, but he has raised the issue of why it is important to make the accuracy of the electoral register more secure. We intend to deal with the public perception as well as the reality of the fraudulent registrations that have occurred. As I said in my statement, a third of the public are worried about the security of registration in our voting system, and it is important to the maintaining of confidence in our democracy for us to deal with those real concerns.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister has said that the proposed carry-over from 2014 to 2015 is designed to avoid the adverse effects experienced in Northern Ireland, but he has also said that those who carry over will be disqualified from postal or proxy voting. Will that disqualification be noted on the register? Among the groups who lost out in Northern Ireland were the long-term sick and disabled, who made the mistake of believing that being on the standing list for postal votes was the same as being permanently registered.
Mr Harper
Those people will not be disqualified from postal or proxy voting, but if they wish to have a postal or proxy vote, they will have to supply their personal identifiers. Those who are already signed up for postal or proxy voting and have already supplied their signatures and dates of birth will have to renew those details from time to time and undergo a verification check. The information will be due at some point in the future in any event, and we are investigating whether we can synchronise the processes to avoid duplication.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the step to speed up the process of individual registration, but the overwhelming majority of people in the UK do not move from one year to the next. Although I completely agree with having security for the initial registration—supplying national insurance numbers and, most importantly, signatures—because the vast majority of people do not move every year, will the Minister consider sticking with the current position of allowing annual renewals on the list to be done by, for instance, the internet or telephone, rather than having to supply a signature every year?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. People who are on the register, and who have supplied the identifiers and where verification has taken place, will not have to supply the identifiers and go through that check every year if there are no changes to their details. I thank him for making that point, which has enabled me to make that clear to the House.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Data-matching and data-sharing will be key if we are to ensure that thousands of people are not removed from the register as a result of this process. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the pilots will look at as wide a range of data sources as possible? Will he give an assurance that he will look at sources from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions, for instance, and from universities, colleges and schools as young people are often not registered? Will he also consider looking at sources from utilities in the private sector, given that they form an important part of the registration process in Australia?
Mr Harper
I thank the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee for raising that point. As well as writing to local authorities, I will write to a number of other organisations, including civil society bodies, in looking for ideas on how to tackle this issue. I said in my statement that we will look at public databases. Other issues arise if we want to look at private databases, but we are considering that too as we want to use a wide variety of sources. As I will be writing to local authorities, I urge hon. Members who are concerned about registration to speak to their local authorities and to encourage them to participate in those pilots. We want a wide range of authorities to take part, and we want to look at a range of data sources because we want to discover which of them are the most effective before we roll this out across the country.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the statement. I have listened to what hon. Members have said, and it seems to me that while nobody will be removed from the register, there is a certain amount of uncertainty in respect of eligibility to vote. Through these various registration documents, will the Minister consider giving people a particular number that could be annexed on to the national insurance number?
David Morris
No, not an ID card. Far from it; it will be a number, and that number will transfer with them if they move addresses. That would be—
David Morris
It would not be an ID card. It would be a number that was unique to each person.
Mr Harper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The whole point of using the national insurance number as the check is that it is a number that is attached to the individual. I think my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) were in danger of anticipating the debate to come on removing ID cards and the national identity register.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that one in five people in Britain are functionally illiterate and therefore incapable of filling in forms, and that many more cannot even speak English, does the Minister accept that there will be a systemic deregistration of people? Therefore, will he undertake to ensure that his review of boundaries is done on the basis of population taken from the census, rather than on a corrupted registration based on individual—and, we now hear, voluntary—registration of certain social groups?
Chris Ruane
The Conservative party has been in power for 40 of the last 60 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that anybody would think he was auditioning to be a television sports commentator judging by the frequency of his sedentary interventions? He had his go much earlier—he did very well out of me. He should now listen to the Minister’s reply.
Mr Harper
The whole point of using the data-matching pilots and so forth is so that the electoral registration office can identify eligible voters and encourage them to register to vote. It would not be right to use population data because constituencies should be based on eligible voters and not everyone who lives in a certain area is eligible to vote in parliamentary elections. That is why it is not right to use census data. We should use electoral registration data instead.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Will the Minister look at the specific issue of college and university students who live at both a term-time address and a different address during the rest of the year? Some are registered in both places, some in one place, and others in none. The result is that, as in Leeds North West, the turnout figures are misleading because quite a number of those people have voted elsewhere. I feel this needs particular consideration. May I have a conversation with the Minister about it?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is, of course, perfectly lawful for individuals to be registered in more than one place—they may do so if they occupy two properties, for example—although it is not lawful for them to vote more than once for the same body. The much-quoted survey about people who are not registered did not address one particular aspect of that issue: quite a lot of students who it said were not registered to vote at their term-time address are, of course, registered to vote at their home or parental address. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I would be very pleased to meet him to discuss it.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that there is considerable concern about the answers he gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and that that concern appears to be shared by Members of the coalition parties. The Minister has regularly mentioned the Electoral Commission. What consultations did he have with it prior to making his statement? Is it his intention that it will continue to have, as the Opposition Front-Bench team has said it would, the role it was given in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009? If he is serious about avoiding the consequences that arose in Northern Ireland, will he be flexible about the imposition of compulsory individual registration in order to take into account the difficulties that may arise?
Mr Harper
We have, of course, been working closely with the Electoral Commission. My officials have been working with its officials, and both the Deputy Prime Minister and I have met its chair and chief executive to discuss these matters. I think I can accurately say that they are content with our approach. We plan to keep them involved in the process: we want them both to assess the data-matching pilots and, as we move forward, to comment publicly on the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register so that there is an independent check on the progress the Government make.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The experience in Northern Ireland has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and one of the lessons from our experience has been that resources need to be put into the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland—or the local councils here in Britain—to get to people who are hard to reach in terms of registration. Can the Minister give a commitment that resources will be available? Also, I welcome the fact that he says his proposals will be achieved on the basis of consensus-building, working with other political parties and having pre-legislative scrutiny, but why does he not adopt the same approach on other important issues such as fixed-term Parliaments?
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. On the point about pre-legislative scrutiny, I hope hon. Members will be encouraged by that approach. Whether we can have pre-legislative scrutiny partly comes down to timing. Both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have explained that point: early in a new Parliament Governments simply have to get on with some things and cannot delay everything. However, we plan to legislate to bring in these proposals in 2014. We will introduce proposals in a draft Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House will have the chance to scrutinise them, and we will listen to what they have to say before introducing a Bill for scrutiny in both Houses.
Points of Order
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the future of the Mersey Gateway bridge and the impact of cutting capital projects on economic growth. The Prime Minister said specifically and clearly that the Government were not going to cut capital projects. That seems to contradict what I have been told on the Floor of the House and in letters: that a decision on the Mersey Gateway bridge is postponed pending the review of expenditure. Incidentally, that is in stark contrast to the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, which is a capital programme, the cancellation of which has badly hit my constituency. Can you, Mr Speaker, arrange for an urgent statement to be made to the House to clarify the position on the bridge because we do not want to be in a situation where the Prime Minister is misleading the House?
Mr Speaker
I can make no such arrangement. What I say to the hon. Gentleman in response to his attempted point of order is that he is a wily old hand, and some people might think—this could be uncharitable, but it might not be—that he is seeking to continue the debate. He has put his views very clearly on the record, and I have a feeling they will be heard where he wishes them to be heard. Moreover, if he wishes to follow up his grave concern on this matter with questions of one form or another and in other parliamentary ways, it is open to him to do so, and I have a hunch that he will.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that this is in order. I was concerned to read in The Guardian today a statement from Jenny Watson of the Electoral Commission that was based on evidence she gave yesterday. She said that she could not really accept amendments to the alternative vote and boundary change Bill after November and that if their lordships amended it, that would make her life very difficult. Is it right for the head of an Executive agency so to dictate to or tell both the other place and, as their lordships’ amendments come back here, this place what they can and cannot amend and when they can and cannot amend it? You have been very good in bringing Ministers to the House to be held to account by Members, but the Executive consist of more than Ministers; we have these new agencies, the Electoral Commission in this case and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in others, where there are deep concerns about whether MPs can carry out their duties. This new state within a state just does not seem to be accountable and has an awful lot of influence.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but we cannot have an oration on the matter. We have had a point of order—we are grateful for that—to which I will respond after I have heard from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing).
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise it and I have not read the report in The Guardian, but I am a member of that Committee and was at its sitting yesterday morning. What the report describes is not what the chairman of the Electoral Commission said; in fact, it is quite close to a point that I raised in that Committee sitting with the chairman of the Electoral Commission about the significance of the date of 5 November being six months before a proposed referendum. What the right hon. Gentleman has just read from The Guardian is not my recollection of what occurred yesterday, and I thought it was as well to raise that.
Mr Speaker
Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, there is a disagreement on what the evidence is. What I would say to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and to the hon. Member for Epping Forest is that I am not responsible for what is or, alternatively, is not said by people outside this House. There is, of course, a system for the House to consult external parties, and there is a chance for Members to move amendments on which the views of others have been given. The Bill to which reference is being made is, of course, a Bill that has been committed to a Committee of the whole House, and the situation is that people are free to volunteer their views to the Committee on the Bill. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform is also conducting an inquiry into the implications of the Bill and, doubtless, it will report any views in due course. I see nothing amiss in what has occurred, but in the course of these brief exchanges the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have placed their views fairly and squarely on the record.
Bill Presented
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Lansley, Secretary Michael Gove, Danny Alexander, Mr Mark Hoban, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to make provision about eligibility for a child trust fund; to repeal the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009; to make provision about entitlement to health in pregnancy grant; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 73) with explanatory notes (Bill 73-EN).
Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for connected purposes.
Who owns the money in your bank account? That small question has profound implications. According to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs—but it is not. Money deposited in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than 200 years, legally the property of the bank, rather than the account holder. Were any hon. Members to deposit £100 at their bank this afternoon or, rather improbably, if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was to manage to do so on any Member’s behalf, the bank would then be free to lend on approximately £97 of it. Even under the new capital ratio requirements, the bank could lend on more than 90% of what one deposited. Indeed, bank A could then lend on £97 of the initial £100 deposit to another bank—bank B—which could then lend on 97% of the value. The lending would go round and round until, as we saw at the height of the credit boom, for every £1 deposited banks would have piled up more than £40 of accumulated credit of one form or another.
Banks enjoy a form of legal privilege extended to no other area of business that I am aware of—it is a form of legal privilege. I am sure that some hon. Members, in full compliance with IPSA rules, have rented a flat, and they do not need me, or indeed IPSA, to explain that having done so they are, in general, not allowed to sub-let it to someone else. Anyone who tried to do that would find that their landlord would most likely eject them. So why are banks allowed to sub-let people’s money many times over without their consent?
My Bill would give account holders legal ownership of their deposits, unless they indicated otherwise when opening the account. In other words, there would henceforth be two categories of bank account: deposit-taking accounts for investment purposes, and deposit-taking accounts for storage purposes. Banks would remain at liberty to lend on money deposited in the investment accounts, but not on money deposited in the storage accounts. As such, the idea is not a million miles away from the idea of 100% gilt-backed storage accounts proposed by other hon. Members and the Governor of the Bank of England.
My Bill is not just a consumer-protection measure; it also aims to remove a curious legal exemption for banks that has profound implications on the whole economy. Precisely because they are able to treat one’s deposit as an investment in a giant credit pyramid, banks are able to conjure up credit. In most industries, when demand rises businesses produce more in response. The legal privilege extended to banks prevents that basic market mechanism from working, with disastrous consequences.
As I shall explain, if the market mechanism worked as it should, once demand for credit started to increase in an economy, banks would raise the price of credit— interest rates—in order to encourage more savings. More folk would save as a result, as rates rose. That would allow banks to extend credit in proportion to savings. Were banks like any other business, they would find that when demand for what they supply lets rip, they would be constrained in their ability to supply credit by the pricing mechanism. That is, alas, not the case with our system of fractional reserve banking. Able to treat people’s money as their own, banks can carry on lending against it, without necessarily raising the price of credit. The pricing mechanism does not rein in the growth in credit as it should. Unrestrained by the pricing mechanism, we therefore get credit bubbles. To satisfy runaway demand for credit, banks produce great candy-floss piles of the stuff. The sugar rush feels great for a while, but that sugar-rush credit creates an expansion in capacity in the economy that is not backed by real savings. It is not justified in terms of someone else’s deferred consumption, so the credit boom creates unsustainable over-consumption.
Policy makers, not least in this Chamber, regardless of who has been in office, have had to face the unenviable choice between letting the edifice of crony capitalism come crashing down, with calamitous consequences for the rest of us, or printing more real money to shore up this Ponzi scheme—and the people who built it—and in doing so devalue our currency to keep the pyramid afloat.
Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.
The Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that is not so. Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit backed by savings. In other words, it would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the cliché of our day, sustainable.
Ministers have spoken of their lofty ambition to rebalance the economy from one based on consumption to one founded on producing things. A good place to begin might be to allow a law that permits storage bank accounts that do not permit banks to mass-produce phoney credit in a way that ultimately favours consumers and debtors over those who create wealth. With honest money, instead of being the nation of indebted consumers that we have become, Britons might become again the producers and savers we once were.
With a choice between the new storage accounts and investment accounts, no longer would private individuals find themselves co-opted as unwilling—and indeed unaware—investors in madcap deals through credit instruments that few even of the banks’ own boards seem to understand.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Douglas Carswell and Steve Baker present the Bill.
Mr Douglas Carswell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November and to be printed (Bill 71).
Business without Debate
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ways and Means
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amendment of the Law
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) It is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation,
(b) for refunding an amount of tax,
(c) for any relief, other than a relief that—
(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.
The resolution and the others on the Order Paper enable the House to embark on its third Finance Bill of the calendar year. As Members will be aware, the general election and the need for an emergency Budget meant constrained timetables in legislating for tax measures this year. We have the opportunity in this Bill to examine the technical measures that will benefit from the intense debates Upstairs that I know so many of my colleagues enjoy. I will look forward to seeing many of them on the Benches with me.
The first Finance Bill introduced by this Government legislated for the key measures in our emergency Budget. The Government needed to take quick and decisive action to reassure the country and the markets that we would not allow debt to spiral out of control. However, there remain a number of minor and technical measures that we inherited from the previous Government, which must be legislated for before 2011. The resolutions before us today form the foundation for such a Bill.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that, alongside the Budget, I set out a proposed new approach to tax policy making that we have been discussing with interested parties over the summer. As part of this new approach to making tax policy, the Government are committed to being more transparent and to improving the scrutiny of tax legislation. As a first step towards that, we published all the legislation that will be included in the Bill in draft for consultation on 12 July. Representative bodies described that as a “welcome move” and the consultation has received more than 40 comments, leading to a number of technical changes to the legislation. That approach provides additional scrutiny, which we believe is essential in demonstrating that the Government are genuinely listening to how the tax system can be improved.
Detailed examination of the Bill is for another day, but I want briefly to explain some of what is before us. The Bill will provide for improved treatment of company distributions and ease restrictions on research and development tax credits. It will relieve carers of unnecessary tax and assist trusts to help victims of asbestos exposure. Although small in nature, the Bill will introduce important measures to ensure better compliance with a better tax system.
In conclusion, the Bill on which the resolutions are based will take forward many necessary changes in the tax system that make a difference to the broader public. The Government are making these changes responsibly, having consulted on all the legislation. I hope it will find support among Members on both sides of the House.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and I agree with the welcome, to which he drew attention, for the consultation on and publication online of the proposed measures before the summer break.
There is still no good reason for this year’s post-election finance legislation being split into two Bills other than the Government’s wanting to get key measures on to the statute book before all the Government Members realised fully what was going on—before, for example, they had the change to read the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Budget assessment, published last month, which stated that the Budget was “clearly regressive”, or the analysis published by the TUC just a few days ago, which underlined the same point.
We are committed in the debates that will follow to holding the Government to account on fairness and to scrutinising closely the quality of the legislation that the Government propose, which I hope will reflect the benefit of the consultation to which the Minister referred. The Opposition will be busy once the Bill is in front of us, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but we have no reason to oppose the resolutions and we are happy for them to proceed.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Let me go back over the last three Finance Bills that have become Acts. In 2009, we had 127 clauses and 61 schedules—the normal Finance Bill that we have all spent many pleasurable months Upstairs considering. The first Finance Act of 2010 had 70 clauses and 20 schedules, and then we had the very brief Finance (No. 2) Act 2010, which had 11 clauses and five schedules. The Minister tells us today that there is a requirement for a third Finance Bill this year to cover 18 areas—he described them as minor technical measures. It might well be that they are measures that are time-limited to some extent and must be considered. However, my difficulty is that there will be two full years between 2009 and 2011 before we get a full Finance Bill. That Bill is important in terms of scrutiny because it consolidates and brings together all the tax and duty measures in a single Bill and gives Parliament the opportunity to consider in the round the comprehensive impact of all these measures together rather than doing so piecemeal, which is what is being done here, notwithstanding the technical reasons behind that.
I have no particular problem with the measures that are to be debated—I think that some of them will be sensible—but I am looking for some confirmation before I make a final determination on this measure that when we get to 2011 there will again be a full, comprehensive Finance Bill so that we can see all the tax, duty and other financial measures in a single Bill for proper detailed consideration Upstairs over the months it normally takes. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that once we have got past this limited No. 3 Finance Bill, future Finance Bills will not be delivered in this way and will once again be full and comprehensive.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to make a couple of specific points about the motion. Although I accept that the Minister has said that the Finance Bill will be quite narrow in scope, there are a couple of provisions in the motion that suggest that there could be an opportunity for the Treasury to introduce a series of other measures. The Minister, as is the practice now, tried to set out the context in which the Finance Bill would be set, and obviously the Opposition completely disagree with the Government’s approach.
It is quite clear that a strong dollop of dogma has been introduced into the Government’s financial strategies. Rather than sensibly and prudently address the deficit, the Government are going far further, far faster than is necessary, which is having a dilatory impact on the economy at large. However, that is a debate for another day.
The specific element of the motion that I want to address is item No. 6, the “Collection of income tax on payments”. Senior officials from the Minister’s Department have been giving evidence to the Treasury Committee this morning about the significant concern that has been expressed by many of our constituents about problems with the pay-as-you-earn system in collecting income tax that is owed, perhaps when miscalculations were made. Some reports suggest that 1.4 million people owe about £2 billion, which is an average of £1,400 each.
There is significant concern across the country and I am glad that the permanent secretary and his colleagues have given a concession today about the interest elements being waived, in part, when sums above £2,000 are owed. That prompted me to look carefully at some of the regulations that the Minister has introduced, and I noticed that he laid statutory instrument No. 1879—the Taxes and Duties (Interest Rate) Regulations 2010—which sets out that an individual who owes money to Revenue and Customs has to pay interest on it at 3.5%, but if HMRC owes money to an individual it will pay only the absolute, basic minimum, which I think is 0.5%. That disparity is controversial and many people find it difficult to understand why, in all fairness, there is not a two-way street. I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight this issue; I have prayed against that statutory instrument and I hope that we will find time to debate it.
In general, will the Minister iterate an apology from his Department about what has been happening with the PAYE arrangements? Will he also undertake that concessions will be given on the interest owed on any sums to try to make it a little easier for those who face an unexpected bill to bear that cost?
Mr Gauke
With the leave of the House, let me respond briefly to the points that have been made. First, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) asked whether this Bill sets a precedent for future Finance Bills. The intention is to return to the usual one annual Finance Bill; that is probably enough for most Members of the House—even him. As I outlined earlier, the Bill is needed because of the general election and to take decisive action on the deficit.
In response to the comments of the shadow Minister, I should say that it was important that the Government took decisive action and implemented the measures. Indeed, one reason for the fall in long-term interest rates in recent months might be that the Government have been determined to take decisive action and have demonstrated that by passing legislation to enable us to do so. It is right that we should take further time this year to go through some of the technical measures, and that is exactly what we will do with the Bill.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) asked about the interest regime, the provisions for HMRC in relation to the late payment of tax due and the interest that applies when HMRC owes money. He will know that the provisions in the resolutions and in the Finance Bill are intended very much to tidy up and bring consistency to some areas. The overall interest structure and a unified interest rate was introduced in the Finance Act 2009, which the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) might have taken us through, and we are not departing from what was in that.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the comments of senior HMRC officials at the Treasury Committee this morning regarding the regime for those who have underpaid tax of more than £2,000. HMRC has said throughout that a sympathetic approach would be taken in matters of hardship, but what has been announced today is the intention to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to pay off the underpaid amount without interest or penalties being applied. I am sure that will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
Having responded to the specific points that have been raised in this very short debate, I am grateful that the motions have the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. cAPITAL aLLOWANCES
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
3. Venture Capital Schemes
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
4. Enterprise Management Incentives
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
5. Settlors’ Excess REpayments
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
6. Collection of income tax on payments
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
7. Company Distributions
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
8. Real Estate Investment trusts
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
9. Financing Costs and income of group Companies
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
10. Consortium claims for group relief
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dolphins (Japan)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
My constituent, Alice Cheney, from Great Clifton near Workington, brought me this petition because she feels strongly that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan. She notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year just in the area of Taijii. She is also concerned that the dolphin meat produced after the slaughter is contaminated. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Workington,
Declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan; notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year in the area of Taijii; further declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness for the majority of Japanese citizens, who are unaware that this is going on in their country; and notes that the petitioners believe that the dolphin meat which is highly contaminated is being distributed to an unaware Japanese public protected by a government that knows the dangers of this practice and the risks to health it poses.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000860]
11. Value Added tax (supplies relating to non-business use of business assets)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
12. value added tax (gas, heat and cooling)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
13. Value added tax (aircraft)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
14. Value added tax (Postal Services and transport of passengers)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
15. tobacco products duty (long Cigarettes)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16. landfill tax (Lower Rate Materials)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17. Recovery of overpaid tax
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18. Relief from tax (incidental and consequential Charges)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Identity Documents Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 9 June (Identity Documents Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at this day’s sitting at 7.00 pm, or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
In the interests of allowing the House full debate, as the Government intend to do, we tabled this programme motion as a precautionary measure in case the previous business took us close to 7 o’clock. Looking at the clock, I suspect that this motion could best be described as otiose, but nevertheless it behoves me to move it.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have absolutely no problem with the programme motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Identity Documents Bill
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
‘(7) This section is subject to section [Identity documents for transgendered persons].’.
Julie Hilling
It is a privilege to move a new clause to a Bill in the House for the first time.
New clause 1 relates to a group of people who are often forgotten—in fact, they seem to have been forgotten by the Government because they were not covered by the equality impact assessment on the Bill—and for whom the identity card was a valued asset because they were able to have one card in their birth gender and another in their acquired gender.
Changing gender is not something that happens overnight; people have to go on a journey that might take several years. For the vast majority of people, it takes at least two years until they reach the position of saying that they wish to live as another person and are able to undergo gender reassignment surgery. However, many trans people choose not to undergo surgery, either because it can be dangerous, painful or unsuccessful, or for other reasons.
Gender identity is extremely complex and there is a broad spectrum of trans individuals. At one end of the spectrum are trans individuals who commit to living in another gender and undertake gender reassignment processes to help them to achieve that, while at the other end are individuals who feel trans, but continue to live in their birth gender, even though they feel trapped in that gender. In between those two ends of the spectrum are trans individuals who feel genderless and prefer to remain gender-neutral, as well as trans individuals who genuinely identify with both genders. There are also people who identify with their non-birth gender, but need to continue to live in their birth gender in certain situations.
In Committee, I talked about my friend who I will call Jane. Jane is still working as John in a very male-dominated industry. She is usually Jane at home, although she is not yet Jane with some of her family, especially her elderly parents, who she does not wish to upset. Jane is on a journey, but at the moment she has to live her life in two genders. It is hard to imagine the problems that arise in her life. What does she do when she wants to book a hotel room or a flight? The ability to have two identity cards has allowed her to go on holiday as Jane, but to continue to live her work life as John. Identity cards were not a full solution to the problem faced by dual-gendered people such as Jane, however. Although the scheme allowed individuals to hold cards in both genders, only one card was valid for overseas travel.
Another trans person—I shall call her T—has contacted me to tell me about her experiences. After feeling transgendered from a young age, T has just started to take active steps to make herself physically more feminine. Of course, it takes time for the physical aspects of gender to change, so T is not yet ready to start living as a woman all the time. Anyone who has had any contact with the transgender community will know the importance of people being able to pass as the opposite gender from their birth gender.
T is a professional working for a very conservative firm. She is only too aware of the difficulties she would face if she started to dress as a woman before she was physically able to pass. Although there is legislation to protect such people against discrimination in the workplace, she knows that she would face great difficulty in her field of work and that, if she was sacked, she would be unlikely to get another firm to take her on. She has therefore decided that she will not start living as a woman in the workplace until she is physically and mentally ready to do so.
T is a trans person with a life away from the workplace, however. She lives as a woman at home and goes out as a woman. It is when T travels abroad as a woman that she feels most liberated with her gender identity.
T has travelled abroad as a woman on a male passport, but that was never easy, even when travelling to relatively trans-friendly countries. Problems arose because when she presented her passport to immigration officials, not only did she look different from her passport photo, but the document stated that she was male, not female. That typically led to delays involving prolonged questioning and embarrassment, but on a few occasions the situation was more severe. In one country, she was taken for further questioning into a side room in which she was mocked and ridiculed by several male immigration officials. They refused to allow her to be frisked by a female immigration official and she was inappropriately molested by a male immigration official—one can only imagine the humiliation.
After that incident, T decided to apply for a passport in the female gender and adopted a female name. That has had a remarkable effect on her life because she no longer faces delays and prolonged questioning. There is no more embarrassment because there is no discrepancy between the person presenting themselves to immigration officials and their passport. When travelling in certain countries, she is confident of joining queues to be frisked by women, not men. Fortunately, she has not experienced any negative issues when travelling as a female on a female passport, and she is grateful for the protection that that female passport has brought.
The problem has not been solved completely, however, because there are still instances when T is required to travel as a man. She has not disclosed her trans status to her employer, so she has had to refuse all international travel at work because any flights and hotels would be booked by her secretary and, of course, bookings have to mirror the name and gender on a passport. Her continued refusal of international travel is likely to have an adverse effect on her career.
The right to travel is an important aspect of the fundamental right to liberty, and T feels it is important that she travel as a woman in her early stage of transition. However, although she is dual-gendered, there will be instances when she is required to travel as a male. She is therefore in an impossible situation because how does she choose the gender for her passport? The most logical solution to the problem, as set out in the new clause, is that dual-gendered people should be allowed to be issued with two passports. Of course, some single gender people are issued with two passports, particularly when they want to travel to countries in which it is inappropriate to have the passport stamp of certain other countries, so there is a means by which two passports may be issued.
A small number of people make up the trans community. ID cards were not a perfect solution, but they gave those people some liberation. I suggest that people should be allowed to keep their identity cards as a valid means of travel until the Government bring forward an alternative solution.
The Government indicated in Committee that an alternative proposal would be put forward to solve the problem, but unfortunately it has not yet been presented to Labour Members. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us by telling us how the Government will resolve the problem experienced by a small group of people who benefited from identity cards, but will face difficulty due to the cards’ removal.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
In Committee and through subsequent correspondence, I have pressed the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), on the consultation that she and her Department undertook when putting the Bill together. However, I have received no answer, so I hope she will tell the House the groups that she consulted, given that the issue did not even feature in the Government’s impact assessment. This House is a tolerant House, and I know that the hon. Lady is a relatively new Minister, but if a mistake has been made, I hope she will have the decency at least to acknowledge that in the House and to apologise to the people affected, who have very little voice. However, there is a vocal group in her Department who have been influential in shaping policy across Whitehall and beyond.
We recognise that the problem is not easy to solve—either here and now on the Floor of the House or more generally—but a small but nevertheless important provision of the Identity Cards Act 2006 was introduced to bring about the existing benefit. We do not necessarily expect a detailed answer from the Minister today, but she has not reassured me, either through correspondence or in Committee, that serious action is under way in government to address the situation. The matter is not so much one for the equalities unit, which she indicated in her last letter was examining the situation, but one for the Identity and Passport Service, which deals with identity issues for the Government as a whole.
We want a real commitment to action today, but all I have heard from the hon. Lady—perhaps she will expand on this during the debate—is the suggestion that the Government are looking to work with international partners to remove gender markers from passports entirely. That proposal could be subject to a huge debate, and I am not sure that we would want that to happen—I think that Government Back Benchers agree. The approach would seem to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would also confuse a lot of people, but even if it was an answer that could be agreed as a way forward, such international negotiations would take a long time, meaning that the proposal is a long-grass solution. We are looking to see a timetable for action and a commitment to action. I once again remind the hon. Lady that she is now a Minister. Whatever her previous record, words are easy. Action may be harder, but action from the Minister is what we are after today.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
As Members know from my comments on a similar amendment in Committee, I very much support initiatives that will advance the rights of transgendered people. In Committee I acknowledged the role of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in providing a measure in the Identity Cards Act that enabled a transgender person to be issued with two identity cards, one in the gender of birth and another in the gender of their choice.
As hon. Members know, only one of those cards is available for use for travel in Europe. The second card issued in the second identity is available only for use in the UK for identification purposes. The person was required to choose which identity applied to which card at the time of application.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) described to us in detail some of the complex and difficult issues faced by transgender people—I should say people with gender identity issues, because they can be anywhere on the spectrum. It is not simply a case of being one gender or the other. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, the transgendered community can at times be marginalised, difficult to communicate with and difficult to gather together. Her Government’s approach to transgendered people and identity cards did not, however, extend to passports, which it could have done. There was ample opportunity both before and since the identity cards legislation was passed in 2006 for the previous Government to apply the same provisions to passports, but they chose not to do so. There are good reasons for that.
In speaking to the amendment, Opposition Members did not explain why passports did not benefit from the same provisions. I intend to set out briefly some of the issues involved and what we will be doing to seek a consolidated solution on identity and for transgendered people. I will deal in due course with the points raised by the hon. Ladies.
Current passport policy enables a passport to be issued in a person’s acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate, on production of medical evidence indicating that they experience gender dysphoria, or a report to some such effect. A passport in the acquired gender can be a key facilitator in gaining evidence to put before the gender recognition panel to show that a person is living their life in the acquired gender, thus allowing them to get the certificate.
The passport is, of course, an international travel document. It is a good argument that one can get two passports if there is a difficulty with the stamp of a particular country, but there are identity issues associated with passports that are more complex than the same physical image and the same or a similar name appearing. A passport is issued on the basis of nationality and citizenship. It is a secure document that meets strict international standards and enjoys a high international reputation. The standards are agreed and set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
We are not aware of any member state that issues two passports on the basis of transgender, and there are a number of reasons why we do not currently envisage the issuing of two passports—I made some inquiries about that possibility—to the same person but in different identities and with different facial images. There are fairly obvious security and immigration control issues arising from a person travelling to a country in one identity and perhaps leaving in another identity. There is also the personal situation for a transgendered person.
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that following the Committee sitting I wrote about it on my blog. It was clear—[Interruption.] That is often a good way of communicating with the transgendered community.
Meg Hillier
I am amazed that the Minister tells us that she wrote on her blog about the issue, as though that is a formal Government process. I have asked her repeatedly what formal Government consultation took place and her answer is her personal blog. Is this the way the Government intend to continue?
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Lady is pushing it. That was not an answer to the formal question. I mentioned my blog to illustrate the point that security issues in relation to travel are not the only consideration. There is also the personal situation of a transgendered person. The responses to that blog post indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) identified in Committee, that—
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Lynne Featherstone
No, I will not give way at the moment. I will finish the point I am making. The responses to the blog indicated that transgender people felt that would make them stand out—it would out them.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the contents of the hon. Lady’s blog are germane to the debate, is it not a requirement that the House should have access to it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately, the blog is not a document, so that is not the case.
Lynne Featherstone
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will answer the formal question from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about consultation. The scrapping of ID cards formed part of the manifesto for the 2010 general election for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The policy received considerable media coverage and our opposition to ID cards has been in the public domain from the outset. The coalition agreement clearly sets out our aim to scrap ID cards and to destroy the national identity register. Therefore, although a formal consultation was not undertaken, we have been open and transparent in what we intended to do and what we are doing.
It is clear from the messages—Opposition Members may think a website is not a formal place—from the community that transgendered people do not welcome the state emphasising their individual circumstances. That is why we will be engaging with the transgendered community and others to determine what they consider is the best approach and how we can best achieve a suitable outcome to the issue raised by Opposition Members, which I agree is extremely important—how to deal with the state of not quite being one gender or the other, or in process between the two.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
So what the Minister is telling us is that the Government did not carry out an equality impact assessment, and that the substitute for that is correspondence with individuals on her blog. That takes the place of an impact assessment, which is a legal requirement.
Lynne Featherstone
No, that is not exactly what I said. The impact assessment for the Bill was published on 4 June 2010 and is available on the website of the Identity and Passport Service. The impact assessment indicates that the policy of scrapping ID cards does not have an impact on statutory equality duties.
As the Minister for Immigration indicated in his letter of 19 July to the Chairs of the Committee considering the Bill, the ID card is just one form of identity and although the policy in respect of issuing two cards to a transgendered person may be considered as innovative, scrapping ID cards would not impact on their ability to access services or to travel in their chosen gender. It ill behoves the Opposition to make light of the transgender community communicating through whichever means it wishes.
We need to be careful that in seeking to extend the rights of the transgendered person when travelling, we do not create the potential for additional difficulties. That is why we intend to work with the transgendered community and others on determining what they consider is the best approach and, in conjunction with the Government Equalities Office, consider how we can move this important issue forward. It is important that we listen to those who are most affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned in Committee, a number of his constituents who would be affected and with whom he has had discussions do not favour the approach suggested by the amendment.
At the same time, through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, we will discuss with our international partners the issue of gender recognition in passports. It is possible for a passport to be issued with an X instead of an M for male and F for female. However, we anticipate that the use of an X may raise more questions than answers. Instead, we will consider other options, including whether it might be possible to remove gender identifiers from passports, and look at any potential consequential security implications of this. We aim to consult groups in the UK this autumn and with the ICAO and others over the coming months.
Meg Hillier
I am puzzled that that proposal has come out of leftfield one might say—but perhaps with this coalition, out of rightfield—as a solution. It seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is a very big proposal to suggest that “male” and “female” be removed from a document that 80% of the British public use.
To return to an earlier point, however, the Minister’s ego is quite extraordinary. Her blog and no official consultation seem to be her answer to things, and I worry about the civil service. There are some excellent civil servants in her Department, as I well know, and they have to act on the basis of two political manifestos and a personal, political blog. Within government, there are statutory and other requirements for consultation, but the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to explain that this Government do not take them seriously. They prefer party political routes, with all their imperfections, to what one might reasonably expect, which are proper Government routes.
Lynne Featherstone
As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, we are taking formal Government routes, too. Indeed, we will proceed with more formal routes and properly consult a wide range of transgender groups.
The new clause is impractical and fails to recognise its impact on transgendered people. It asks that ID cards that have been issued to transgendered people remain valid until expiry or until another system is in place, but in practice that would mean that only transgendered people would have ID cards. Apart from the huge cost of maintaining the ID infrastructure, whenever that card were used the gender background of the cardholder would be immediately identifiable. Rather than enabling transgendered people to get on with their lives without interference, the proposal would bring them unnecessary and potentially harming attention and focus, and the same problems would arise if transgendered people were issued with a bespoke identification document other than a passport.
This Government are producing the first action plan on transgender equality ever produced by an Administration. Perhaps Opposition Members did not realise the unintended consequences of their new clause, but I recommend that it be withdrawn.
Julie Hilling
I am a new Member, and this is the first time that I have been through this process. However, a Bill has been introduced to get rid of previously enacted legislation that served some members of our community well—a small proportion, but it served them well—and I am deeply shocked that, without any formal consultation or proper discussion with that community, we are now saying that we will get rid of it.
Lynne Featherstone
We have agreed that it is an important issue and I understand that there was only one case of dual issuing—of issuing two identity cards.
Julie Hilling
I was not a Minister and cannot answer that point, but I thought that we were supposed to have impact assessments before we made legislation. The Government are making legislation without them, and I am deeply shocked.
I wish that I were reassured, but I am not sure that I am. I listened to what the Minister said about the need to go forward on the issue and the transgender community being consulted on the solution. I hope that she will undertake that consultation.
Believe me, I recognise that the situation is difficult to resolve. I understand the difficulty of saying, “Let’s not have a gender in the passport” because that would not be a solution; and I understand the difficulty of issuing people two passports. The House should not misunderstand me; I understand that difficulty. However, it is so important for that small group of people that we do not allow our citizens to be humiliated as they go through passport control or people to lose their careers because of the difficulties that they face. On the basis of the Government’s guarantees that they will take the issue forward, take it seriously and work on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Passport fees for holders of ID cards
(1) This section applies to a person (“P”) who—
(a) held a valid ID card on the day on which this Act was passed, and
(b) paid a fee for the card.
(2) On the first occasion after the passing of this Act on which P applies for a passport, the fee charged for the passport shall be reduced by £30.’.—(Meg Hillier.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Transfer of information from National Identity Register to Identity and Passport Service
‘The Secretary of State must ensure that any information recorded in the National Identity Register which—
(a) relates to a person (“P”) who has indicated that P wishes to retain P’s identity card until its expiry date, and
(b) is relevant to an application by P for a passport,
is transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.’.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, in clause 2, leave out from ‘day’ to end of line 10 on page 3 and insert
‘will remain valid until their expiry date.’.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 13, leave out clause 3.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 16, in clause 3, at end insert—
‘(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, present to Parliament a report identifying the information destroyed in accordance with subsection (1).’.
Meg Hillier
I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee, but the Opposition are concerned about the mean-spirited nature of the Bill. Some 14,000 people took up ID cards, most of which were paid for, and those individuals thought that the cards would be valid for 10 years. It was a simple transaction not just with a commercial body, but with Her Majesty’s Government and, indeed, the Identity and Passport Service, one of the most trusted public bodies in this country, as research shows. Yet if the Bill goes the way the Government wish and, similarly, through the Lords, one month after Royal Assent those individuals will lose the ability to use the card that they had thought would be valid for 10 years. We have tabled some new proposals and given the Government a choice about how to deal with the matter. There is still an opportunity for the Minister for Immigration to recognise that, in his haste to get rid of identity cards, which for him is a big ideological issue, he does not need also to be unfair to those who in good faith paid their £30.
The new clause and amendments detail two proposals. There is no money resolution attached to the Bill, so we cannot press for a refund. However, we propose that the fee that people paid be added as a credit to the passport database. The data-matching would be relatively straightforward, given that everybody who holds an identity card, including myself, has, or has recently had, a passport. Of course, there are data protection rules, and we would have to gain permission from those individuals, but I would happily give permission for my data to be transferred.
In the process, we would lose the fingerprint, because it cannot be stored—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister is listening. It cannot be stored on the passport database—[Interruption.] I am being ironic: the Minister will, I hope, be listening in a moment. It cannot be stored, because the Government, in their desire to get rid of it so quickly—[Interruption.] In their reckless desire to get rid of it quickly, I repeat for the Minister, the Government do not plan to introduce passports with fingerprints. However, that credit would give some comfort to those who paid £30, and it would represent basic fairness.
The Government make great play of fairness—they often point to their coalition agreement, which makes much of it—and, as we seem to be quoting manifestos today, each individual party spoke about fairness in its manifesto, so we ask that the proposal be considered. It would be a relatively straightforward transaction, and with another amendment we will probe the Minister on a further issue. If the Government are planning to destroy the data, they will have to handle the information and do something with it, so they might as well pass it over to the passport database.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady expect the repayment to be made to those persons who received that particular facility for free?
Meg Hillier
If the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to listen, he would have heard me deal with that point at the beginning of my comments.
We also suggest an alternative, so the Government have a choice. The Minister has two options in order to be fair to those members of the British public who bought a card in good faith. The alternative is to allow cards to continue for 10 years and, again, with the permission of the individual cardholder, for data to be migrated to the passport database, which is not a terribly difficult transaction, so that ID cards can continue as passports. We recognise that that is not a perfect solution, because with few cards already out there and, given all the points that we rehearsed in Committee about someone’s ability to recognise the document, there might still be issues. However, that would represent a choice for the individual who had paid their £30 to have the card.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
We learned in Committee that of the 14,670 ID cards that were issued, almost 3,000 were given free of charge, so only 11,000 cards were paid for. Are the Opposition, in the second of their two options, suggesting that we maintain the card infrastructure for the next 10 years just for those 11,000 people, at a cost of £50 million to £60 million for 16 people per constituency?
Meg Hillier
That is not what we are suggesting, as the hon. Gentleman would see if he read the new clause. As I said, we are suggesting that the information be migrated to the passport database.
We recognise that this is a rare area of unity for both Government parties, which is perhaps why it is being rushed through. The Government clearly want to get rid of the national identity register. However, it would not be difficult to migrate data to the passport database, especially given that everybody who currently holds a card has recently held, or currently holds, a passport. Of the 11,000 people affected, many may choose not to take up migration of the card. If there were to be the option of a credit on their passport database, some may not choose to take that up either. However, it would give them the option. I believe that it can be done relatively cheaply, and that it is fair.
This is being done with the ideologically driven haste of the Minister. We have debated this previously and I know that he is passionate about getting rid of ID cards, but basic fairness is involved. Frankly, those who bought in good faith from the trusted Identity and Passport Service have been diddled by this Government. If the Minister gets up and talks about what his manifesto said, we will be driven to despair. We discussed this in Committee. When somebody buys a passport or an identity card, or has any other transaction with Government, they will not necessarily take into account something that has been said in a political manifesto. Government has some degree of continuity and when an individual has bought something in good faith, there needs to be some recompense for them.
We recognise, reluctantly, that both parties in this Government had a mandate to get rid of identity cards; as I said, it is one area of unanimity within the coalition. Therefore, whatever our position on that general issue, we will not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue of compensation is very important, and we will seek to divide the House on the new clause unless the Minister can give us some reassurances.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I rise to oppose vigorously the new clause.
We have to be absolutely and abundantly clear about the fact that identity cards are exclusively and solely a new Labour creation. Every single other party in this House made it absolutely clear that we would have nothing whatsoever to do with them and that if we had even the remotest opportunity to get rid of these useless and intrusive lumps of plastic, we would do so immediately. We actively encouraged people not to take out ID cards. For those who did so, under new Labour encouragement, that was their free and fair choice: tough luck to them. We are now enacting exactly what we told them. The new coalition Government are absolutely right to try to get rid of ID cards. They said they would do it in 100 days. I am disappointed that it will take a little bit longer than that, but thank goodness we are getting rid of this hated, obtrusive and ridiculous scheme.
We refer to these as ID cards, but let us give them their proper name. They are not ID cards, but NLID cards—new Labour identity cards. They are a monumental folly that symbolises new Labour’s attempt to create the anti-civil libertarian state, and thank goodness they did not get away with it. Instead of droning on about compensating the poor mugs they encouraged to take out ID cards, why do not Labour Members get on board and join us in celebrating the removal of these things? Nobody wants them.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the very strong feelings that the hon. Gentleman is conveying, but I want to draw out his views not on whether ID cards should be abolished but on whether individuals who paid for them honestly and in good faith should be recompensed, as suggested in the new clause.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We told people who were thinking about taking out an ID card, “Don’t do it—we’re going to abolish this scheme.” In fact, if someone took out an ID card in Scotland, they would not require compensation but having their head looked at. The Scottish Government made it clear that people would not be able to use an ID card to access public services in Scotland. We did everything we could as a Government and as a party to discourage people in Scotland from taking out ID cards—and thank goodness they listened to us. I think that perhaps one in 10 of the people involved took out an ID card in Scotland. Anyone who did so would have to be the biggest new Labour cheerleader waving in and celebrating the arrival of the anti-civil libertarian state in Scotland. They would need to have had “Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath’s Finest” tattooed on their chest to have taken out an ID card in Scotland: that is how ridiculous a proposition it would have been.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the course of such an impassioned speech. Does he agree that not all Labour Members take the same view? In fact, the Labour party leadership candidate, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), has said that ID cards were a great mistake and that the party should show some humility and admit that it got it wrong.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have that quote from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who said:
“As someone who is liberal on social issues and civil liberties, I accept that in government we were too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties…We have to have to be able to say we won’t go back to ID cards.”
Come on, the rest of you—catch up! He might be your leader, because according to the opinion polls he is ahead. You are way behind current thinking on this. Labour had a good record on civil liberties until new Labour came along—please get back in touch with your civil libertarian roots.
Meg Hillier
I am interested to hear the Scottish National party’s position. In fact, people could not easily apply for ID cards in Scotland, and that is why very few did so. They were not formally launched there at the point at which the Government changed, but they would have been coming and I am sure that there are many people in Scotland who would have liked one.
Leaving that aside, it would be interesting to know what the SNP’s position is on fingerprints in passports, which is something that Members from many parties in this House, both Government and Opposition, have indicated is very important, and something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has not ruled out.
Pete Wishart
If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we are straying somewhat from the terms of the debate, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am very pleased that the coalition Government are picking up the Scottish example as regards databases. They have seen the good sense of the SNP Government in their approach to these issues, and I congratulate them on following and copying their model.
Given that it was Labour Members alone and exclusively who encouraged people to take out ID cards, why are they asking the taxpayer to help with compensation? It should be the Labour party that compensates the poor souls who took them out. It has all these trade union funds—what is it going to do with them? If you want compensation to be paid to these people, pay it yourself.
I have one bit of comfort for all those who have taken out ID cards in the course of the past year: they are becoming a collector’s item. This is really intriguing and interesting. Forget about compensation—all they need to do is get one of the great Labour champions of the anti-civil libertarian state to sign their card. If anyone watching this has an ID card, they should get Mr Clarke, Mr Reid or Jacqui Smith to sign it, and that will increase its collectability. They might get more than the £30 that they want the Government to pay them back. Here is a good idea: they should get the absolute champion of ID cards, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), to sign it; they would probably turn a profit given the collectability that that would have in the future. The collectability of ID cards makes them almost like little bits of the Berlin wall, appropriately, and that is how they are likely to remain.
I make a plea to the Labour party: get on board with this. Get in touch with your civil libertarian roots, find a new agenda, listen to what is happening in your leadership contest, and forget about droning on about compensation and trying to get this scheme to go on. It is done, finished—move on. I am with the Government on this one. We should reject this new clause, make sure that nobody gets compensation, and end the scheme tomorrow if we can.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who, with Celtic chutzpah, put the damning case against identity cards and the national identity register extremely well and with great wit and humour. I pay tribute to him.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will forgive me for saying that the fortitude with which she moved the new clause characterised her approach throughout the long march of ID cards up to the top of the hill and now, happily, down again. She reminds me of Queen Victoria during the Boer war. When it was put to her in the early stages that there was a possibility of defeat, she memorably said, “I do not accept the possibility of defeat. It does not exist.” The attitude of the hon. Lady and the former Government to ID cards is encapsulated in that memorable quotation. There has been a state of denial and an almost fanatical refusal of the reality of how the debate on ID cards has shifted since the early days, when I concede opinion polls were somewhat against those who opposed the cards.
There is no doubt that there has been a sea change in public opinion in recent years, encouraged not only by parties in the House but by a genuine campaign across the country against the menace of ID cards and the national identity register. Yet the former Government did not listen to that campaign or to members of my party, the Liberal Democrats or the nationalist parties. There was a grand coalition against the proposals, but still they pressed ahead. Worse than that, to use another military metaphor, they laid booby trap after booby trap to make it as difficult as possible for people to withdraw from the scheme. That is where the new clause fails the test that we should set it.
Although I appreciate the spirit behind the proposal, there is no doubt that members of the public who chose to buy an identity card would, by definition, have been aware of the raging debate about that contentious issue. I have to say to them, caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. When buying the card, they knew that it was my party’s stated intention to take immediate steps to end the scheme, and that other parties were saying exactly the same thing. The message was loud and clear.
The situation is rather like the one 13 years ago, when the Labour Government came to office. They made their position clear about certain policies—for example, promising an end to tax credits for people on private health schemes. We are not here to debate that now, but it is a parallel point. Labour was elected to office overwhelmingly and carried out its policy, as it was entitled to do. The electorate were given a clear message, and the late Government did not renege upon their promise. They pressed ahead based upon the mandate that they had received. Although we can debate the merits of that decision, it was their prerogative. Now, 13 years later, we are in a similar position. We have a Government consisting of two parties that made their position crystal clear before the election, yet if we accept the amendment, we will be applying a different rule.
Politics is a tough occupation—I am sure we all have direct experience of that. We win some, we lose some. Labour comprehensively lost the argument on identity cards and the national register, and I submit that in those circumstances, the best thing for it to do is accept defeat gracefully and not press the new clause.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was eloquent and I agree with much of what he said, above all about the centrality of the manifesto on which a party is elected. The Conservative party was elected on a very clear manifesto against the alternative vote, and of course Conservative Members are now marching into the Lobby to vote for a referendum on it. However, he will have to learn a lesson about politics that I have had to learn for much of my life, which is the pleasure of swallowing one’s previous pledges and standing on one’s head. On AV, which is far more important than this minor Bill, the Conservative party is doing both. The nation will duly take note.
Mr MacShane
The Minister is quite right. However, it was my money that paid for my ID card, and the state has no right to confiscate my money. If it took a house or land from me by compulsory purchase, it would have to pay the due sum.
Mr MacShane
I am terribly sorry, but I obtained my ID card and paid my £30. The new Government are rightly seeking to confiscate it, but they owe me modest compensation for doing so. I would never be allowed, under your stern tutelage, Mr Deputy Speaker, to accuse the Ministers of misleading the House or not being straight with us, but may I say that they are being a right pair of tea leaves at the moment? They are going to steal my money and not hand it back. [Interruption.] I mean that they are fond of tea and coffee. A very sound principle of British law is that if the state changes regulations and confiscates an individual’s property that was bought in good faith, forms of compensation are normally paid.
That is not just my view but that of a distinguished Conservative adviser, Lord Levene, who I believe the Prime Minister has hired to advise him on reducing defence expenditure, or perhaps more accurately to achieve smarter procurement in defence, which is his speciality. He wrote a very cross letter to The Times, about which we later had a very nice telephone conversation, in which he said that it was quite preposterous that having bought his identity card in good faith, he should now have it confiscated without any compensation. I bow to Lord Levene as a banker, a man of affairs, a business leader and a distinguished Government adviser, and shelter behind his outrage. Frankly, it does not matter if we are talking about one person or 14 million people. I put it to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that the Government could do themselves no end of good by accepting the new clause, because 14,000 or 15,000 people, in good faith, took out ID cards—[Interruption.] Sorry, 11,000 people paid money for cards and others got them free. They have used the cards for three months, so compensation could be made pro rata. It would do the Government no harm—they have sent letters to Lord Levene and me, but they will be sending more—to put a little cheque in the post for those people.
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman was in danger of coming close to a serious point, and I thought it deserved to be dealt with. I am sure he has read the Bill and the Identity Cards Act 2006 carefully, so he will be aware that the Government of whom he was such a distinguished and eloquent supporter for so many years wrote the legislation so that the ID card, which he says is to be confiscated, is not his property. The ID card has always been the property of the state, so he cannot run the argument that his property will be confiscated.
Mr MacShane
I am grateful for that hair-splitting point. My passport remains the property of the state, but the plain fact is that I and 11,000 others paid £30. That is not a lot of money, but it was paid in good faith. New clause 2, gently and in a friendly way—there will be other opportunities to make similar points—says that there should be polite compensation. That is a long-established principle of British democratic practice. We are talking peanuts, so the Government would do themselves no harm at all if they erred gently on the side of generosity.
Guy Opperman
I shall not detain the House long, but the Bill has rightly been described as a long march. The previous Government’s policy began years ago as a proposal for a compulsory scheme, forcing ID cards on individuals. As a result, there was tremendous opposition. It is surely a rare day when the Conservative and Liberal coalition is supported by Justice and other individuals and organisations that promote civil liberties.
The Government, having decided that the scheme would be compulsory, indicated in the previous Parliament that the scheme would be voluntary. I confess that my vast research was not into answering the question whether schemes in other parts of Europe are compulsory rather than voluntary, which the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) raised. However, the UK scheme was voluntary and people signed up it.
The 2006 Act wound its way tortuously through the House, slowly but surely, faltering at every step, like some relic of yesteryear, as the previous Government attempted to demonstrate tremendous moral fibre in some shape or form. They were in the position of having to carry the measure, and the scheme eventually became voluntary. As soon as the scheme became voluntary, the argument in favour of repayment fell away. People were not obliged to sign up for an ID card, and could instead rely on their passports, driving licences or alternative documentation.
The reality is that people voluntarily signed up to pay for an ID card. They were not forced to sign up, so the Government’s approach must be dramatically different. The decision to sign up is for the individual, and the legislation states that if they do not want to sign up, they do not have to do so. It is not incumbent on the state, at this or at any other stage, to pay compensation.
Mr MacShane
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question so I can get this clear: if he voluntarily buys a house and the council comes along and takes it off him, is he saying that the council does not have to pay compensation?
Guy Opperman
A variety of things could happen in that situation, not least suing the council. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that various people who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee indicated that they might contemplate suing the Government. People could sue the council if they were put in that position.
Pete Wishart
That is not so much the key point as the context of such decisions. When lots of people are saying, “Do not buy this because we are going scrap it,” people are making an informed decision. If they choose to buy voluntarily an ID card, that is surely up to them.
Michael Ellis
To continue the example of the house sale, an individual buying a house despite knowing that there is something wrong with it, such as subsidence, is the same as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in respect of his ID card.
Guy Opperman
The position has been explained and I am sure that it is fully comprehended. We should not detain ourselves on the £30 any further in the House. Liberty and Justice support our point of view.
Meg Hillier
Liberty is also in favour of removing ID cards for foreign nationals, or biometric identity documents, or whatever people wish to call them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Liberty? Is he aware that surveys revealed that the Identity and Passport Service is one of the most trusted public bodies in the country? That trust is being breached by the Government’s decision. All we are saying to the Government is, “Be fair to those who bought an ID card.” Frankly, the idea that everybody read all the manifestos, as some hon. Members are saying, rather overrates their importance, and suggests that hon. Members are not in touch with the many people who do not follow politics and daily read manifestos .
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is quite tight and that he should speak to the new clause? He should not draw Members into other areas.
Guy Opperman
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I have in any way drawn Members into other areas.
The short answer to the hon. Lady is to ask her this question: if the ID cards satisfaction survey showed that they were so popular, why did so few people sign up? Fewer than 15,000 signed up, and several thousand did not have to pay.
Damian Green
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) inadvertently misled the House by saying that Liberty is against biometric residence permits. I have Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate. It states that—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that the permits are part of the debate, and we are being drawn into other areas. I am sure that Mr Opperman would like to continue his speech.
Guy Opperman
I do not intend to go any further on that point. My final point is that we should not sign up to proposed new clause 2.
Steve McCabe
I, too, do not want to take too long on new clause 2 and in speaking to amendment 8. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I am going to try to find out who the 10 people in Scotland who want to join his fan club are, and I will do anything I can to put them in contact with him.
I want to acknowledge that there is one area of agreement. The Lib Dem and Conservative parties both went into the election on a promise to abolish identity cards, and we cannot really find fault with that. Of course, the Lib Dems also promised thousands of extra policemen, and I do not know where that figures in the current arrangements. However, if people are going to pray in aid that their manifesto commitment is the great justification, we need a total explanation. As far the Lib Dems are concerned, their justifications amount to nothing.
Mr MacShane
It is a narrow point, but it is an important point. Since 1945, there have been many elections—although perhaps not recently—in which a party has said that if elected it would nationalise a private industry. The owners of the shares in that industry—even if the shares amounted to £20 and were bought on the day of the election—always received due compensation. We do not confiscate without some compensation. That is a very important point of British democracy.
Steve McCabe
There is a principle here, and that is my point. People bought these cards in good faith. It is all very well for other hon. Members to say that it was clear that if the election results went a certain way they would be abolished, but everyone—including the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and indeed for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—must remember that no one won the last election. The Conservatives did not convince the electorate of the merits of their manifesto, nor did the coalition partners. That is why we have a coalition. The election result was not clear cut and no single party succeeded in convincing the electorate that they had a right to govern by itself. In that context, it would be reasonable to show a bit of humility in the proposals the Government make.
I have no objection to the Government choosing to abolish ID cards, but I do object to them seeking to penalise and punish those who bought cards in good faith. The electorate will remember all these grand speeches saying that those people do not count for anything and the derogatory remarks—although I am sure that they were made in jest—of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Hon. Members should recognise that those people acted in good faith and it is not appropriate to penalise them.
We do not want to make a massive deal of this, but the Minister has had quite a lot of time to think about it. We are talking about a relatively modest amount of money, but the precedent it would set is very important. If the precedent is set that people will be punished if, after having acted in good faith by doing something that the Government of the day encouraged, it will cause paralysis in many other areas.
Mr Burley
The hon. Gentleman said that this proposal would cost a relatively modest amount, but does he have any idea how much it would be? The current cost of maintaining the present system, as we know from Committee, would be £50 million to £60 million over 10 years. Other hon. Members have suggested migrating the data to the Passport Service, but I have no idea what that alternative proposal would cost. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the cost of maintaining the system for 11,000 people would be?
Steve McCabe
Fortunately, I do not suffer from the voodoo economics of Conservative Members, so I do not have a clue where the hon. Gentleman gets the figure of £50 million or £60 million. We are saying that there should be a £30 discount when the person who currently holds a card next applies for a passport. Under whichever education system hon. Members operate, they should be able to work the figure out for themselves.
I like and respect the Minister and I trust what he says, but clause 3 states that the information on the national identity register will be destroyed. It is fair to say that when this was discussed in Committee his knowledge of the technical detail of the register was almost as good as mine, and neither of us is likely to get a job with Bill Gates any time soon. We know from the information that was presented to the Committee that there is some doubt in Government and in Government organisations about what is meant by the national identity register. We cannot pass legislation in good faith and then discover that it cannot be implemented because the Minister has been asked to do something that he is not technically capable of doing.
I make this point for two reasons. First, since the election, my colleagues and I have listened to the grandstanding from the Government Benches about their civil libertarian credentials. That will work in the early months of government, when it is easy to run around saying that they are against speed cameras or DNA testing, but it will not work when they face constituents who have suffered and want to know why the Government are not on their side—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants to come to the defence of his new-found friends again, I will give way.
Pete Wishart
I just wanted to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to say whether he is in line with the thinking of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who has said that the previous Government were too draconian on civil liberties. Is that an admission that the hon. Gentleman recognises?
Steve McCabe
Let me be blunt. I may find myself loyally serving my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—who knows—but I am not against ID cards. Nor would I say that the previous Government, in the circumstances with which we had to deal, were draconian. We took the difficult decisions that were necessary, and there will come a time when Ministers in this Government have to come to the House to tell us what they are having to do to protect the public because of a deterioration in our security situation. It is easy to grandstand now, but tomorrow always comes—and what is said now may come back to haunt you.
It is all very well painting a bleak picture of the previous Government, but can the Minister tell us today how the information contained on the national identity register will be destroyed? He will know that in the evidence given to the Committee the chief executive of the UK Border Agency was not entirely clear what the national identity register was. Some people thought that it was to do with facial geometry, some thought it was not. Some people thought that it was to do with a Sagem algorithm, whatever that is, and others thought that it was to do with the Cogent algorithm. One person thought that it was “co-ordinated” and another said that it is not a box with everyone’s name in it—I think we know that much.
I do not want to push the new clause to a vote, but is the Minister able to tell us today how he will comply with the requirements of clause 3? If not, will he agree to come back to the Chamber and report what has happened? The last thing that I want to do is be back here at some point in the future accusing Ministers of failing to comply with their own legislation.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I have done it so often he might want a restraining order at some stage.
I understand the argument for why the people who foolishly bought an ID card should get some compensation—[Interruption.] I am not saying I support that argument, but I can see its logic. However, I struggle to see the logic behind the arguments for new clauses 2 and 4, one of which would, if I am right, see the existing cards be valid for nearly another 10 years. The other would provide for a discount, at some point during those 10 years, if someone applied for a new passport. I struggle to see, however, how having ID cards that are still valid in nine years and nine months would give those holding them the advantages they sought when they paid for them. Where would those ID cards be accepted as a proven form of identity? What is the risk that people could forge them? Would people struggle to tell the difference, if they did? Would people be able to travel around the EU using an ID card instead of a passport? I struggle to see how that would happen, and it would open up the door to a manner of identity fraud different from what we already have, so I cannot vote to keep it in place for the next 10 years.
The idea of credit against a passport is a better one, but again we would have the problem of having to keep the data for all that period. We would also have the problem of how to process that data. I presume that the easiest way would be that, when a person applied for a passport, they would have to send in their ID card to prove that they actually had one in the first place. Again, however, how would we deal with people who had changed their names, lost their ID card or found it useless for eight years until their passport renewal came round and had to dig it out from the bottom of a drawer somewhere? There would also be the risk that people might try to create fraudulent cards, meaning that someone would have to go back to the original list of people with ID cards for proof. And how would we handle the fact that not everyone actually had paid for their card? I accept that the proposal provides for that, but it means that someone would need a record of who had paid for their card and who had got theirs free.
With respect, therefore, I cannot see how we can vote for either of the two solutions. There is no way I can vote for either. Given some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members about the legal issues involved in scrapping ID cards without compensation, I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat the assurance he gave us in Committee that the Government had received solid legal advice that it is legal and will not be overturned at huge cost to the taxpayer resulting from the court proceedings subsequent to this process.
Julie Hilling
Hon. Members on both sides have been extremely rude to constituents of mine who have written to me about how they bought an ID card in good faith. I assume that a lot of Members in the Chamber today were not part of the pilot programme in which constituents were able to buy ID cards. Had they been, perhaps they would also be speaking up on behalf of those constituents who bought ID cards but will not now get a refund. Those who have written to me are mainly pensioners and on a low income. They decided that they were only going to be travelling as far as Europe and that therefore an ID card was a good value alternative to paying the full amount for a full passport. These people are taxpayers.
Michael Ellis
May I ask how many of her constituents wrote to her about this?
Julie Hilling
Especially in a marginal.
I have received letters from about a dozen people in my constituency, and as I say, they are on low incomes and are taxpayers. Each of them entered into a contract with their Government saying, “I will purchase an ID card, and for that I will have the benefit of travel within Europe and other benefits, such as proof of identity, for 10 years.” It is not unreasonable for those constituents to expect either to get their money back or to receive credit for it.
Nigel Mills
Will the hon. Lady confirm my understanding that those constituents will already have had a passport that they can use to travel to the same places?
Julie Hilling
I will happily answer that question. The only people who prior to the election could get an ID card were those whose passport had recently expired. They were mainly elderly people who made a decision not to travel further than Europe, and they were mainly people who could not afford, or found it difficult to afford, the full cost of a passport.
Several Members have talked about how the message was loud and clear that the ID cards would disappear. My constituents are not fortune-tellers and could not say what the outcome of the election would be. In actual fact, they made their views clear by returning a Labour MP, so it is insulting to them to say that they should have expected the ID cards to disappear.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
In all fairness, the hon. Lady should concede that it was almost unprecedented in all the polices taken through by the Labour Government for a break clause to be flagged up by the then shadow Home Secretary and others. That sent a very strong signal to commercial organisations that the current Government would not continue with the ID cards programme. I am not saying that all her constituents will be reading the trade press, or even the quality press, but it was clear that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had made manifesto commitments to abolish ID cards.
Julie Hilling
My constituents could not have foreseen at that point that there would be a Con-Dem coalition. How could they have known what would be in the coalition agreement, especially given that it does not bear much resemblance to the manifestos?
Catherine McKinnell
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the constituents who have written to us and who we deal with, and who are concerned about not receiving any compensation, do not follow avidly the words of a shadow ministerial team? Largely, they are probably not interested in the pronunciations of a shadow ministerial team, but are busy trying to survive day to day on a state pension, to make ends meet, to get their shopping and to look after their grandchildren. They are not avidly following the intricacies of the position of the shadow ministerial team.
Julie Hilling
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because I agree with her absolutely.
If someone buys a service from the Government, of whatever colour, they would expect their Government to continue to provide that service, and if they did not continue to do so, they would expect to be compensated. That is the major point.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. I put it to her that her constituents ought to be complaining to the Labour party, which was in government at the time, because it was made clear to them that we would not be continuing with this scheme. The fault for the costs that her constituents have borne should rightly be laid with Labour Members and the Labour Front-Bench team. Is that not true?
Julie Hilling
The hon. Lady does not quite understand that my party, the loyal Opposition, does not have the power to make payments. If only we did. If only we had the power to say to those who bought identity cards, “We will reimburse this money.”
Mr MacShane
Can we nail this extraordinary new constitutional doctrine that because a party thinks it is going to win an election, everything should come to a dead halt before the people have voted? I saw the shadow Home Secretary at the Great Eastern Tandoori restaurant in Pimlico the day after the election, except he was not to become the Home Secretary. Should he receive compensation? We really have to stop this nonsense. Power might have changed hands, but we should still accept responsibility and pay the compensation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Members are getting carried away with interventions, and we ought to stick to the point. Mr MacShane should know better.
Julie Hilling
I remain absolutely convinced that my constituents deserve fair treatment. They deserve either to have the money refunded—sadly, this mean-spirited Bill does not allow that to happen—or for their identity cards to continue, although I accept that this might be difficult. The easiest thing would be to allow them £30 credit towards a passport.
People have talked about alternative means of identification, but I wonder whether those hon. Members who are present know how much they cost. All those alternative means of identification cost more than the identity card. Those who are disabled—for instance, those with a visual disability or other conditions—cannot get a driving licence; and indeed, if someone was never going to drive, why would they apply for one? However, a driving licence is one of the few photographic means of identification that we have in this country. The identity card was therefore valuable as a tool with which people could prove their identity, which is becoming increasingly important and difficult to do nowadays.
Let me finish by saying that I believe that the Bill is mean-spirited. The Government should give £30 credit to those affected, and I very much hope that hon. Members will vote for that later.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I have known you long enough to know that when you frown in the way that you have, Mr Deputy Speaker, you wish and expect short speeches from hon. Members. I therefore intend to be brief.
I came into the Chamber mindful of the Opposition amendment and with a view to supporting the proposal to pay compensation to those who have taken out voluntary cards. However, I have listened to what hon. Members have said, including the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). It is probably right that people should have been cautious in taking out a voluntary card, knowing that the policy was not carried in all parts of the House. However, it would have been better for the Government to pay the money back as a good-will gesture than for us to be fighting about £30 multiplied by 11,000 on the Floor of the House. I understand that the principle is important, and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that the 12 constituents and others who may have written to her are obviously deeply concerned. Perhaps £30 is not a lot to some people, but it is certainly a great deal to the constituents whom she mentioned.
Catherine McKinnell
Just to clarify whether £30 is a significant amount, in fact, we are not talking about £30; we are talking about the additional £50 that will be required to get another valid form of identification. An extra £50, making £80 in total, is a lot of money for some people, and particularly for pensioners, who have to save for some time to afford it.
Keith Vaz
I agree with my hon. Friend: it is a lot of money for some people, but it is not clear whether there is a huge point of principle, based as it is on the fact that people were clear that identity cards were an absolutely partisan policy on the part of the previous Government. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Walsall North—the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is your sister.
Keith Vaz
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me—I think I just about know the difference between my sister and my hon. Friend, who was so often the conscience of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it considered the issue in the previous Parliament. We accepted that the previous Government had an absolute right to put through their legislation on ID cards. It was only my hon. Friend who reminded the Committee on so many occasions that he thought that the policy was wrong.
Mr Winnick
As for the previous Government, obviously there was controversy among Labour Members on the subject—it would have been odd if that were not so—but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the original idea for identity cards came from Michael Howard, when he was the Home Secretary in, of course, a Conservative Administration?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick): Michael Howard had a proposal for something called the smart card. He tried to get it through this House, but he could not do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Let me remind hon. Members that we are discussing new clause 2. These points are not relevant. I am sure that you will wish to return to the new clause, Mr Vaz.
Keith Vaz
Unfortunately I did not know about those points until they were made. Had I known that they would be raised, I would not have given way. However, as you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a debate about Lord Howard; it is a debate about new clause 2.
Although I came into the Chamber wanting to support those on my Front Bench—and I still want to, because I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who was a superb Minister, appearing many times before the Home Affairs Committee on identity issues, including the cost of identity cards and their implementation—I am probably minded to abstain if there is a vote.
I understand that the Minister has written to—[Interruption.] Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), for whom I have enormous respect and affection, that I do not think that what is proposed is the equivalent of the nationalisation of British Steel, with the Government moving in to take away somebody else’s property, including his own. As the Minister said, the card that my right hon. Friend is waving before me is the property of the Government. However, that is a side issue. I understand that when he makes his point, he comes from the steel capital of Britain, but we are not talking about the nationalisation of British Steel.
Mr MacShane
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—for whom I worked as a Parliamentary Private Secretary for many happy years—for giving way. I would be quite happy to concede the financial point if the Government were prepared to cut a deal and let me keep the card until it expired. That seems quite reasonable, because it is a European card. Every time I have used it to go through airports in the past three months, people have said, “Ooh, that’s a good idea! The Brits are becoming like us.” Well, thanks to the coalition, now we are not.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We have a set of former Ministers for Europe in the Chamber.
Keith Vaz
Indeed. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) that he is the last person who needs an identity card to get into France. He is probably the only former Minister for Europe to be fluent in half a dozen European languages. His very face is sufficient to get him into the European Union.
Keith Vaz
I meant the mainland European Union.
Anyway, before this becomes a debate about the European Union, let me say that I shall abstain on new clause 2. However, I am attracted to amendment 8, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and not just because they are distinguished members of the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) is, but because there is a lot of merit in what they say. The Minister should take amendment 8 seriously. I do not know whether my hon. Friends will push it to a vote, but the destruction of the data is an important issue.
When I raised this matter on the Floor of the House, following the Home Secretary’s announcement that ID cards were to be abolished, either she or the Minister—I cannot be sure which—said that there would be a huge event in which all the data would be destroyed. I think that it was said, perhaps playfully, that there would be a big bonfire, and that Members of the House would be invited to attend such an event. I know that that was meant in jest, but this is a serious point.
I support what the Government are doing to remove the names of innocent people from the database. That is absolutely a move in the right direction. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked whether the previous Government had lost their way on civil liberties issues, and I would say that we did a little, partly because of a lack of scrutiny by this House, rather than through any intent on the part of the Government. We should have been better at scrutinising legislation.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us a clear statement on how the data are to be destroyed. My hon. Friends who have tabled amendment 8 have proposed a time limit of four months, within which a statement must be made to the House. I do not believe for one moment that that is an unreasonable request. I hope that the Minister will give my hon. Friends the assurances that they seek. This is not a huge issue, but it goes to the heart of what the coalition Government say that they are going to do with these data. We must not keep the data unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, and I hope that he will give some comfort to my hon. Friends, and an assurance that the data will be destroyed within four months.
Mr Stewart Jackson
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), although he lapsed from his usual urbanity and eloquence when he did not recognise the difference between his charming sister and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)—
Mr Jackson
That goes without saying.
I am quite fond of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), but he rather over-egged the pudding. Let us remember that it was his Government who gave us 90-day detention without trial. In 2005, they told us that it was imperative that we force through that measure, disregarding hundreds of years of close attention to civil liberty and due process. They were then humiliated in an unprecedented vote—given that they had a 66-seat majority—and the proposal went down to 42 days.
Mr Winnick
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The previous Government did not give us 90 days. That proposal was defeated by the House of Commons.
Mr Jackson
It was indeed defeated, by one vote, because of the good sense of many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the then Government’s side who saw that it would not be sensible to traduce the British traditions of liberty and fairness on the back of a scare campaign from some people who were taking an authoritarian, draconian approach. To be fair and open-minded, as I aspire to be, I should say that the debate went on in my own party as well. Some Conservatives took the view that we should be tough on law and order, and that we should do the right thing and support the then Prime Minister. A small number of my colleagues voted for that proposal. I must not perambulate too far from the new clause that we are debating, but we must bear in mind that context as we listen to Labour Members’ arguments about civil liberties today. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was absolutely right to say that, until that point, there had been a fine tradition in the Labour party of support for civil liberties.
Steve McCabe
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, whether the best symbol of a Government’s faith in civil liberties is their support for a phone hacker in No. 10 and a Minister who spies on his own colleagues and friends—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) should carry on with the debate on the new clause.
Mr Jackson
I shall defer to the good sense of the Deputy Speaker and pass over those issues. I am mindful, of course, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has worked in the Whips Office, and that Whips are a bit more bare-knuckled in debates than some others. I shall move swiftly on.
I want to talk about authority and establishing one’s policies before an election. I made the point to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are discussing new clause 2, and the hon. Gentleman must speak to that.
Mr Jackson
By a circuitous route, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak to that new clause—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman to know that he can talk about these matters on Third Reading, if that is the route that he wishes to take. If he could just speak to new clause 2 now, that would be much better.
Mr Jackson
I shall speak specifically to the proposal about compensation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me if I meandered somewhat.
There is, of course, precedent for a party being elected, putting a programme forward and sticking to its manifesto commitments without paying compensation, even at a modest level. For instance, one has to think only of the assisted places scheme, a windfall tax on utilities or the national minimum wage—they all had fiscal ramifications, but the Conservative party in opposition did not insist that there was any necessity to make specific compensation to specific groups.
Steve McCabe
On a minor point, this new clause is not asking for compensation per se; it asks for a reimbursement of £30 only for those who subsequently apply for a passport. It is designed to right a wrong; it is not a general request for compensation.
Mr Jackson
The substantive general point, which the hon. Gentleman does not want to concede, is that what is happening is a direct result of a new Government who with their coalition partner have a mandate to take a decision that has fiscal ramifications through new legislation. My point is that the precedent has been set in the past for new legislation having financial ramifications; it will inevitably affect some groups of taxpayers and voters, but the Government will not see fit to compensate them in a particular way, even on a modest scale.
Of course it is regrettable that some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West will be in a difficult position as a result of the decisions made, but I come back to the point that the two parties that form this Government won 60% of the vote on an unequivocal commitment to abolish identity cards, whereas the party that was unequivocally in favour of them comprehensively lost the election on 6 May. Although only a modest amount of money is involved, the amendment is inappropriate, particularly during a time of less than benign financial circumstances when we need to reduce the deficit.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
Labour Members fully understand that repealing the Identity Cards Act 2006 and scrapping ID cards was a manifesto pledge of both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties and that they are fulfilling a pledge to the electorate on this issue. In fact, I think this is one of the few actions taken by the coalition Government that can claim at least some sort of mandate from the public. I add, however, that Labour was elected in 2005 with a manifesto pledge that stated:
“We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.”
That was the manifesto basis on which the decisions were made.
The current Government have taken the scheme in its infancy and killed it off before it has even had a chance to prove itself—in terms of finance, security, issues of identity theft, protection and, indeed, popularity, or any other measure of its worth. As we learned in Committee, the Government have their arguments, but in my view their reasons for revoking ID cards are weak, mean and, most important of all, costly to the taxpayer. In Committee, the Minister for Immigration stated that he was committed to abolishing identity cards
“because it was—and, until the Bill is enacted, is—an expensive and misguided scheme.”––[Official Report, Identity Documents Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2010; c. 43.]
That assertion is, I contend, completely wrong and misguided. The ID card scheme will become more expensive as soon as the Bill is enacted because the expenditure has already been incurred in setting up the scheme—on infrastructure, computer software and so forth. Furthermore, recovering that money relies on allowing the ID card scheme to continue. Conservative Members should remember that the expenditure was incurred subsequent to a manifesto commitment by the previous Labour Government.
I do not want to dwell on the motives behind the Bill, and I suspect that the motives of Liberal Democrats are completely different from those of Conservative supporters. It is clear, however, that Conservative Members base their opposition to the ID card proposals on a false premise.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that those who write to me in my constituency are asking me to scrap the ID legislation as quickly as possible, purely on the grounds of civil liberties. I find it astonishing that there can be any debate about this for much longer. Indeed, a number of people have suggested that we should wind up the debate immediately, although obviously a good many Members want to continue it. I have not received a single letter asking me—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention is far too wide of what we are discussing at the moment.
Grahame M. Morris
I do not think that the Government’s arguments have been effective. Aspects of the scheme deserve to be retained, and they are embodied in the new clauses and amendments. Clause 2 states:
“All ID cards that are valid immediately before that day are to be treated as cancelled by the Secretary of State at the end of the period of one month beginning with that day.”
In Committee, the Minister stated proudly that this was the Government’s first Bill. I am astonished that he can be pleased with himself, given that this first Bill from the new Government breaks a contract that was established between citizen and state. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), people put their faith in the Government and bought ID cards. They entered into that contract on a voluntary basis—there was no element of compulsion—and I believe that they have been let down sorely and spitefully by the Bill and the Government. The Government’s behaviour is illogical, unfair and frankly unnecessary.
Hon. Members have suggested various reasons why people may have decided to invest in ID cards. The need to protect their identities must have been a major concern, as identity theft is a huge problem that costs the economy billions of pounds and causes individuals untold stress and suffering. They may simply have wanted a more versatile method of identification—Labour Members have given some excellent examples of that—or even a proof of age. Whatever their reasons, they entered into a contract, and that contract should be honoured, but the coalition Government are tearing it up, and people who acted in good faith can justifiably feel let down.
Members on the Government Benches have argued that it might have been reasonable for people to expect ID cards to be scrapped if the Tories won power. That applies to the Liberal Democrats as well, as it was in their manifesto. But should we really be sending the public the message that they should not take too much notice of what the current Government say, because the next Government may say something different? That is a dangerous message to send.
Pete Wishart
I know that the hon. Gentleman is already a very assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. When constituents asked me about ID cards before the last election, I gave them clear advice: I advised them not to obtain ID cards, because they were too controversial and might be rescinded. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if a constituent had asked his advice about ID cards, given that they were so contentious?
Grahame M. Morris
That is dangerous territory, which we explored earlier today and in Committee. If that principle is to be applied to what a Government may do, should it be applied to nationalisation without compensation? Is that the logic of the argument?
The decision to terminate existing and operational ID cards one month after Royal Assent—I assume that the Bill will be passed today—with no compensation for those who have purchased cards is not only shameful, but a travesty. I mentioned that Labour had made a manifesto pledge to the public, and that the public had returned Labour to government in 2005. We implemented a scheme allowing a citizen to receive, for a £30 fee, a card that would expire in 10 years. For the current Government to come to office and turn that system on its head without consideration for those who participated in the scheme on a voluntary basis, and had handed over their money in good faith, strikes me as a complete dereliction of duty that sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman talks about this being a dereliction of duty, but this is a scheme costing billions of pounds for barely 12,000 people that was trotted out in circumstances where there was no prospect of it being taken up.
Grahame M. Morris
The scheme is in its infancy and, essentially, it was marketed in only two areas—Manchester and London. It would have been rolled out further and then, presumably, have had much greater appeal. There is an interesting contradiction: the big corporate interests who were involved in this scheme were paid compensation, but no recompense is to be made to ordinary citizens who paid £30 for a card.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned the £30 figure. It may seem a trifling sum to some Members, but for a great many people, including many of my constituents, it is a considerable amount of money. There has been some discussion of why individuals on low incomes might have chosen to spend such a sum on an ID card, and whether many did so. We must consider the fact that alternative forms of identification are more expensive—for example, a provisional driving licence is an accepted form of ID commonly used by younger people as proof of age and it costs £50. There is a cost reason that led some people voluntarily to choose to buy an ID card, therefore. People on lower incomes who needed to prove their age would naturally be inclined to opt for an ID card, but whether the person who bought the card was on a low income or a millionaire is, in fact, irrelevant because the behaviour of this Government in not addressing the unfairness and injustice contained in the Bill is deplorable.
I cannot see why the cards that have already been issued cannot in some way remain valid until their expiry date. The parties in the coalition Government have only a handful of policies on which they truly agree and I accept that not continuing with the ID card is among them, but not enough care has been given to reimbursing cardholders or to making some attempt to maintain already issued cards, perhaps with some reduced functionality. There remains a database for passports, and this card could perhaps, at least in some way, remain an authenticated identification document. Did the Minister seek any advice on possible functions for the already issued cards, or was he content just to allow them to fall? There seems to me to be no reason why the cards cannot remain valid until the expiry date.
The Government are abandoning ID cards without any concern for the expenditure that has already been incurred by the taxpayer or any consideration for current ID cardholders, and with little thought for the future of British passport security and the use of biometric data. The Minister has had every opportunity to address the issues Opposition Members raised in Committee, and it is a shame that he was unable to work with us, at least to try to improve some aspects of the Bill.
Damian Green
We have heard a festival of synthetic indignation from Labour Members over the past hour or so. We know they do not mean it because they did not even vote against the Bill on Second Reading, so they do not oppose it very hard. They are scratching around to find ways to express some opposition.
As has been amply illustrated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), there are, however, some glimmers of light in the authoritarian dark that was the Labour Government. One or two of the leadership candidates, including the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), have said the previous Government were wrong about ID cards. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks his party should move on from that idea. As that has been stated several times during the debate, I feel it is only fair also to record—
Damian Green
I will in a moment, after I have paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has consistently been against identity cards. As we are mentioning the Labour party leadership candidates who are virtuous in this regard, I should mention her too, because no Labour Member did.
Steve McCabe
I hate to interrupt the Minister when he is in such fine flow, but I just want to suggest to him that he has misunderstood our position. This is not synthetic indignation and nobody on our side is rejecting the Government’s right to abolish ID cards—in fact, a number of us have acknowledged it. We are objecting to the mean-minded attitude that sets out to punish the relatively small number of people who bought ID cards in good faith.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman made that point, with characteristic eloquence, in his speech, and I will address it shortly. I am pleased to report to the House that, as those who sat through the Committee stage will be aware, the Labour party has come up with no new ideas to defend the ID cards scheme since then; we have heard all these arguments before.
This group of amendments, which groups together all the arguments that the Opposition can make against the Bill, is a series of impractical and expensive suggestions, made, I suspect, with varying degrees of seriousness. If I were to be kinder than I have been up to now, I might say that some of them may excite genuine feelings among Opposition Members, but others have been tabled for the sake of it.
First, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and repeated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about refunds or passport-related refunds. We debated this extensively in Committee, and I recognise that £30 is a significant sum to many people, particularly those who are struggling economically in these difficult times, when the Government have had to absorb a terrible economic inheritance from their predecessor.
I do not have any data on the socio-economic status of the very small number of people who bought ID cards, nor, as far as I am aware, do any Labour Members. Before anyone stands up to ask me about this, I shall say that I do not propose to waste any public money by undertaking a survey of who they are. There are times when even those in this House need to step back and apply some common sense to the matters before them. I do not think that anyone in really difficult economic and financial circumstances would have thought, “What is the best thing to spend £30 on this week? I know, a very controversial ID card that will enable me to travel to Europe, but not anywhere else in the world. That’s the most important thing to spend my last £30 on.” I do not believe that one person in this country took that decision, and I have heard nothing from those on the Opposition Benches during our discussion of this Bill to convince me that that is any way a realistic proposition.
I further point out to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who leads for the Labour party on this, that the charging system for ID cards introduced by her Government took no notice of the ability to pay. It set a flat fee, which took no account of whether someone was unemployed, an old-age pensioner or in full-time employment, like the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). Sadly, he is no longer in his place, but he was asking us whether he should have claimed for his ID card on expenses. I would have thought that, at the time, that would have been a seriously terrible idea.
The only exception made on this flat fee of £30 that these allegedly struggling people were paying was for those who were in employment and working at one of the airports, where the then Government were anxious to foist the scheme on people in its early days. Anyone in that position would have been one of the 3,000 or so who were given a card free of charge. Those 3,000 lucky people—all, by definition in full-time employment—represent almost 20% of those to whom any card was ever issued. Of course, those cards were paid for by the taxpayer, so when one actually looks behind the indignation expressed by Labour Members, one does not find any substantial argument on this, which they have made the main point of their attack on this Bill.
The Government inherited an ID card scheme that has found very little favour with the public. That is a key issue. Many Opposition Members have talked about the costs, and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) advanced the extraordinary proposition that even though he accepted that the coalition Government had the perfect right to get rid of the ID cards scheme, we should have carried on with it because the longer it went on the further the costs would be spread. That seemed to me an extraordinary attitude to parliamentary democracy. This is a key issue as the taxpayer has already paid £292 million with fewer than 15,000 cards having been issued—20% of them paid for by the taxpayer. So the calculation at the moment is that the cost to the taxpayer so far is about £20,000 per card. If we exclude the cards issued free of charge, it is £25,000 per card. That is by any standards a scandalous waste of public money that lies squarely at the door of Ministers in the previous Government.
The argument has come from the hon. Member for Easington that the scheme would have become self-financing over time. Based on public demand, there is no evidence to support that, particularly when the cost report in 2009, produced by the Labour party when it was in government, showed that a further £835 million was to be spent on ID cards by 2019, either by the taxpayer or by individual citizens having to sign up for those cards.
In the light of those facts and the already excessive spending of taxpayers’ money on an unpopular and deeply intrusive scheme, we have proposed this Bill. That is why we opposed ID cards in opposition and why we have introduced this Bill so quickly. We do not see why the taxpayer should have to pay yet again. During the debate, several of my hon. Friends asked how much the cancellation would cost, and the answer is about £400,000. As I have illustrated, enough has been spent on the scheme and the taxpayer should not face a further bill of the best part of half a million pounds. That is why we have been clear that refunds will not be offered.
Julie Hilling
How much would it cost the taxpayer, though, if people had a £30 credit when they applied for their passports? Why would it be costly?
Damian Green
As a practical point, the vast majority of people who have bought ID cards already have passports, so it would be entirely valueless to them.
There are practical difficulties with the amendment. It would require the keeping of identity card records for many years to come to ensure that only those who were entitled to a refund could apply for one. I shall come on to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about the destruction of data, but we have made it very clear that we will destroy all the data obtained under the ID cards scheme and that we do not wish to retain any data for this reason or for any other.
I observe in the group of amendments that we are discussing that the twin threats are unnecessary data retention and cost to the taxpayer. Those are the two things that Labour Members who proposed the amendments seem to be concerned about. I assume that new clause 4 is intended to be helpful in avoiding the need for an individual to provide further personal information in the event that they should subsequently apply for a passport. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) is, I am sure, aware that, as I have just said, the vast majority of ID cardholders are or were passport holders, so the information relevant to a passport application will already be held on passport records.
In any case, the proposed new clause misses the point of the Bill. The Identity Documents Bill is about scrapping the ID card scheme and destroying the national identity register. We are opposed to the register in principle on the grounds that it is a database holding huge amounts of personal and biometric data simply because a person has applied for an identity card. We do not believe that holding the data is either necessary or proportionate for the purpose for which they were obtained. Instead, it represents a significant intrusion by the state into the lives of our citizens. That is why we are looking to destroy all the information recorded on the NIR. Officials are currently finalising work with contractors on how that will be achieved and the Information Commissioner’s Office has been notified of the destruction process.
Keith Vaz
That is very reassuring, but in his mind and that of the Home Secretary is there a time scale by which this should be done? We appreciate that contractors have been instructed, but has the Minister said that the Government would like that done in a certain number of months?
Damian Green
It would be slightly premature for me to give too much detail now because the legislation has not been passed. We have tried to be as clear as possible in saying that we will do it as quickly as possible after the Bill has passed through all its stages, but I do not wish unnecessarily to annoy or provoke the other place by saying anything else.
Steve McCabe
Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that all the information will be destroyed within two months of the Act passing?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman has ingeniously asked the same question as his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, to which I shall therefore give exactly the same answer, or revert to an old parliamentary phrase and refer him to the answer I gave some moments ago. We are in contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office about the destruction process, as I have said, precisely to ensure transparency and openness about the physical destruction process.
The Chairman of the Committee made the point that I had jokingly suggested that we might have a sort of auto-da-fé of all that unnecessary information. I was only half joking when I said that and, sadly, it is not possible because the information is on various databases, so we are going to have to delete it. To answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak’s technical question, that is like any other act of removing information and involves deleting it from the various databases. That is why we are doing it in conjunction with the Information Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman is waving the Bill at me, so I will say that it must be done within two months of Royal Assent. The reason I cannot give the exact answer that the Chairman of the Committee wants is simply that I do not know when Royal Assent will be, but I hope that it is soon. We will then do it as soon as possible within the two months set out in the Bill. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. There is a serious point here: if one believes, as we on the Government side do, that this information has been held unnecessarily, it is sensible to get rid of it as soon as possible, and Parliament needs to know about that.
Damian Green
Let me anticipate what the hon. Gentleman is about to ask. It has always been my intention that when that had happened, Parliament would be informed by way of a written ministerial statement about both the process and delivery of destruction. I could not be more open or transparent about this. We will do it within two months and as soon as possible after Royal Assent. When we have done it, I shall produce a written parliamentary statement that will say not only that we have done it but how we have done it. I hope that I have finally satisfied the hon. Gentleman on all those points.
On new clause 4, I suspect that hon. Members may not have considered its cost implications. There are significant costs associated with establishing whether a person wants their record to be retained, what information he or she is content to be transferred, the security and data transfer costs and, finally, future storage costs—particularly if the person does not subsequently apply for a passport. I am afraid that this is another amendment that seems intent on adding again and again to the cost of the ID card scheme. We want to scrap the scheme at minimal cost to the taxpayer. The new clause would not achieve that aim and would not remove the state’s ability to retain data without good reason.
That profligate approach is evidenced in another of the amendments before us, supported by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. We covered the issue of the life expectancy of the card during earlier stages of the Bill and indicated then that the cost of implementing that amendment would be between £50 million and £60 million over 10 years.
I note that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch has not added her name to the provision, despite tabling something similar in Committee. She indicated in Committee that she thought that figure was at the top end of the estimates, but I am not sure of the basis on which she reached that conclusion. The estimate is a reasonable reflection of the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer that would be incurred by providing a service over the next decade for fewer than 15,000 people, almost 3,000 of whom did not pay for their card in the first place. Leaving aside the cost, the proposal would mean retaining the whole national identity register for another decade, which would involve holding the fingerprints of 15,000 innocent people.
Meg Hillier
I wonder whether the Minister is speaking to the right provision because my name is attached to the amendment, as it has always been.
Damian Green
I apologise to the hon. Lady. If she wishes to associate herself with such a ridiculous proposal, I am happy for her to do so.
The proposal would mean that cardholders would run the risk of their card’s usefulness diminishing even further over time because of the very small number in circulation. That would be likely to result in little or no future engagement or investment by travel operators, carriers and other agencies in accepting ID cards. The provision would give cardholders the false hope that their ID card would continue to be useful, if they had found it useful in the past. I recognise that the amendment to retain the national identity register has been tabled as a consequence of the proposal that ID cards should remain extant for 10 years.
The national identity register sits at the heart of our opposition to the whole scheme. We do not believe that it is the role of the state to gather huge amounts of personal and biometric information about its citizens unless there are proportionate and necessary reasons for doing so. Such reasons could involve the prevention and detection of crime, or national security and safety, but part of the underlying problem with the ID card scheme has always been that its purpose was ill defined, with the reason behind its introduction moving over time from dealing with terrorism to accessing local services.
The national identity register is nothing but a database containing data on individuals who have, by choice, applied for an ID card. The holding of such data represents a significant intrusion on the privacy of the individual. Scrapping the scheme and destroying the national identity register are major steps towards returning power to the public and reducing the intrusion of the state. We are opposed to building up banks of data that neither serve a specific purpose nor deliver a specific outcome. The national identity register fails on both counts.
I have dealt in some detail with all the new clauses and amendments tabled by Labour Members. Each of them fails on practicality, and many of them fail because they would create an extra charge on either the public purse directly, or the citizens of this country indirectly. They all fail, however, because behind them lies the desire to intrude far too much on the private lives of people that was at the heart of the previous Labour Government. As a civil libertarian, I genuinely hope that the future Labour party will reject that in its entirety.
Meg Hillier
I was puzzled by the Minister’s speech because it sounded more like a rallying cry to a group of students than an attempt to address the new clauses and amendments. I should say, however, that I have no problem with rallying cries to groups of students in their place. In fact, not long before the election—when the Minister and I sat on opposite sides of the House—we addressed students together, and he announced that a Conservative Government would remove ID cards to an audience of about 25 people.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we tabled new clauses 2 and 4 as alternatives for the Government to consider as we try to find a way of providing some recompense to those members of the public who bought the cards in good faith. We would have preferred to have tabled a measure providing for a refund but, because there is no money resolution attached to the Bill, we could not. With that in mind, we intend to press both new clauses to Divisions, although if the first is agreed to, we will not need a vote on the second.
I need to pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made. We were not suggesting in the amendments—perhaps he should look more closely at them—that we expect the national identity register to continue. They were carefully worded to suggest migration of data to the existing passport database. In fact, the identity register would have been a modern passport database, had the Government had the courage to continue that approach.
New clause 4 is not about being helpful to those who already had passports or wanted a passport. It would allow cards to continue, but would attach them to the existing passport database. Accepting that the Government’s intention is to destroy the national identity register, it sought to find a solution to that. The Minister has not given very good answers about why that could not be done. Had the Government included a money resolution, it would have been possible—instead of sending two letters out to everybody—to provide a refund to those who had paid or those who had applied for a refund, which would not necessarily have been everybody. The Government’s approach is mean-spirited.
The Minister spoke about the state holding huge amounts of information. I hope that his Government still believe that the NHS should hold information on people, that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency should hold information, and that the passport database should exist. The national identity register was a modernisation of the passport database.
I assure the House and anyone else who may be watching proceedings today that there is nothing synthetic about our indignation. We recognise that both Government parties had clear policies on the issue, and we can do the maths. We know that we have limited options to improve the Bill, and we are trying to make the best of a bad job because the Bill does many things of which we disapprove. New clauses 2 and 4 attempt to provide some recompense to the people affected.
We have heard some disparaging comments. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) spoke about politics being tough. It is clear that his Government are saying that it is tough on members of the public who bought a card. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke about the mugs who bought a card. That disparaging attitude may well be reflected in the Lobby, so let us be clear who is on the side of the consumer in this case. It is certainly not the Government.
The Minister used his cod maths when talking about the cost of the identity card scheme. It does not behove a Government Minister to be so flippant and free with figures when he well knows that the cards had to be paid for by fees. As is the case with the first issue of anything, when the first Mini rolled off the production line, it probably cost several million, if not billions of pounds, but for the last Mini, by definition, the cost per item was much lower because many thousand would have been produced. Identity cards had been issued for a few months at the time of the general election, but under Treasury rules they had to be paid for out of fees, just like passports, as the Minister knows. It ill behoves him to take that approach. I wish to divide the House on the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Damian Green
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out
‘(with consequential amendments) by this Act’
and insert
‘by this Act (with consequential amendments and, in the case of section 38, also with minor amendments)’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 4.
Damian Green
The amendments address an issue that was much discussed in Committee. They are not central to the Bill itself, but they are an important part of the wider picture. As we have already discussed at all stages, the Bill is about scrapping ID cards, destroying the data held on the national identity register and, as a result, removing the disproportionate hand of the state in the gathering of personal and biometric data for the purpose of issuing an ID card. It removes the ability of the state to require that a cardholder informs the state for the next 10 years of their personal circumstances, and it removes the threat of a heavy fine of up to £1,000 should they fail to do so.
Most of the clauses in the Bill re-enact the parts of the Identity Cards Act 2006 that were useful and proportionate. Clause 10 re-enacts the provisions of section 38 of the 2006 Act, which allows the Secretary of State to require relevant information to be provided to verify information provided in a passport application or to decide whether to withdraw a passport. In this context, “relevant information” includes identity information to confirm that the applicant is a real person and the person whom they claim to be. It enables the Identity and Passport Service to obtain information relevant to the application and considered necessary to conduct an effective interview with first-time applicants. That may include records from the credit reference agency that will show how long the person has lived at an address and at how many addresses they have lived. It would be unlawful and a breach of the Data Protection Act to require information that was not relevant to the passport application.
During the oral evidence sessions in Committee, two pressure groups—Liberty and Justice—supported the provisions in the clause, which is a welcome and envious position for any Government when bringing new legislation before Parliament. However, I indicated in Committee that I would welcome representations from members of the Committee on the scope of clause 10—in particular, on ensuring that information obtained is indeed passport-specific—and on the retention policy on data obtained.
Meg Hillier
In general terms, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the amendments, but I have a number of small points to make and questions to ask of the Minister. I understand his reasons for not publishing the list of organisations that might be referred to. I recognise the valid security reasons for that, but it does rather go against his desire for transparency. I wonder how he will try to square that circle, to ensure that safeguards are in place with respect to which organisations are approached. I am aware that internal audits take place on a routine basis in passport offices up and down our different countries. However, the Minister has made much of the need for transparency and safeguards, and the two do not work well together.
I reserve judgment on the proposal to retain data for 28 days. I recognise that the current practice in the Identity and Passport Service works quite well, and it is interesting that the Government want to put those arrangements on to a statutory footing. It is interesting partly because passports are issued under the royal prerogative, an arrangement that is not on a statutory footing. I also wonder whether such a move might limit any necessary flexibility. What conversations has the Minister had with those who deal with the security of our passports, in particular the excellent team based in the Glasgow passport office, who often put themselves at great risk while investigating and uncovering fraud? I am aware that data relating, in particular, to withdrawn passports can be especially important in uncovering rings of individuals trying to help others fraudulently to obtain passports. Generally, I support the principle of not holding information any longer than is necessary for this purpose, but we need to ensure that the Government are not unnecessarily restricting action on fraud.
In passing, I must also add that the Bill is a lost opportunity to tackle fraud. Had we still been pursuing the inclusion of fingerprints in passports, which the Minister is throwing out under the terms of the Bill, that would have helped to reduce fraud more generally. If the Minister can answer those two points, it would reassure me considerably.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. As I understand it, in one of them she is suggesting that I am being too transparent, and in the other that I am not being transparent enough. I appreciate the difficulties of opposition, having had 13 years of it, just as she will appreciate some of the pressures on Ministers. She asked me to reveal internal conversations within the Department, particularly with people who are involved with difficult and dangerous anti-fraud operations. She will know as well as I do that it would be hugely inappropriate and unwise for me to answer that question directly.
Meg Hillier
I fully appreciate that, but I did not actually ask the Minister to answer that question directly. I shall take him to be a man of honour and a man of his word if he can tell us that these issues have been fully explored and that he is personally content about them. It is important that the House knows that that is the case, partly because those individuals put themselves in harm’s way when doing their job.
Damian Green
Indeed so. This is not an adversarial climate, but the hon. Lady will know as well as I do that striking a balance between transparency and flexibility on the one hand and security on the other lies at the heart of much of what the Home Office does, and, indeed, of much of what the Bill seeks to do. She and I would probably find ourselves on different points of that particular spectrum, but we both recognise that it is a spectrum within which we both have to operate. I can only say that it would clearly not be appropriate for me to set out for the benefit of potential fraudsters which organisations they would have to satisfy in order to be issued with a passport, so I shall decline the opportunity to talk to her about the individual organisations concerned.
Meg Hillier
If the Minister is not hearing what I am saying, perhaps there is an issue about how he is answering questions generally. I was not asking him to do that, so that is fine; we agree. I simply want to know whether he feels personally reassured that these measures will not detract from the ability of the UK Passport Service to carry out the security checks that normally take place. If that was not clear before, I hope that it is now absolutely clear. I do not think that we are asking for different things; I am just seeking reassurance from the Minister that he has done his job as thoroughly as I expect he has.
Damian Green
Of course the Department that the hon. Lady used to be responsible for would not put the security of our passports at risk.
To answer the hon. Lady’s other point, information relevant to future investigations would be retained under the proposals before us, with the amendments here. I hope that she will agree that that strikes an appropriate balance. Genuine concerns were expressed—not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), but by Members of all parties—to the effect that the simple repetition of the original clause might put us at the wrong side on the spectrum between transparency and security. That is why I agreed to put the 28-day provision directly in the Bill. The hon. Lady asked about that, and I see no reason to believe that this will in any way inhibit or impede anti-fraud operations. What the amendments will do by changing the clause is to allow operations to be properly conducted while at the same time reassuring individual applicants that any information they give is not kept for an unnecessarily long period of time. That is what this set of amendments is designed to achieve. I commend the amendments to the House.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 10
Verification of information
Amendments made: 2, page 5, line 24, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1) This section applies where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person within subsection (4) may have information that could be used—
(a) for verifying information provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application for the issue of a passport, or
(b) for determining whether to withdraw an individual’s passport.
(2) For the purpose of making the verification or determination mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), the Secretary of State may require the person within subsection (4) to provide the Secretary of State with the information by a date specified in the requirement.’.
Amendment 3, page 6, line 2, leave out
‘of relevant information to the Secretary of State’
and insert
‘to the Secretary of State of information that could be used as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b)’.
Amendment 4, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
‘(8A) In a case within subsection (1)(a) where a passport is issued, information provided in accordance with this section must be destroyed no later than 28 days after the passport is issued.
(8B) In a case within subsection (1)(b) where a passport is not withdrawn, information provided in accordance with this section must be destroyed no later than 28 days after the determination is made not to withdraw the passport.
(8C) Subsections (8A) and (8B) do not apply in a case where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable to retain the information for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or detecting crime, or
(b) apprehending or prosecuting offenders.’.—(Damian Green.)
Third Reading
Damian Green
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a huge pleasure to move Third Reading. The Bill has now proceeded through the scrutiny stages of this House. I appreciate that this is a short and simple Bill, but it is a genuinely historic one—not only because, as mentioned, it was the first Bill introduced by the coalition Government, but because its content is historic and marks a significant shift in direction in the relationship between the state and the citizen in this country. That in itself represents a significant step forward.
The House has agreed to destroy data held by the state without condition or distinction. Consigning the ID cards scheme and the national identity register to the scrapheap reflects the absolute commitment of the coalition Government to reduce the interference of the state and return power back to the people. I am very proud of what the Bill will achieve and I am encouraged by the support for it in all parts of the House. I emphasise “all parts” because we have had some fairly partisan debates this afternoon, but even Labour Members have admitted that the Conservative party had a clear commitment in its manifesto, as did the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties in their manifestos.
Many of us welcome the fact that two fifths of wisdom is beginning to creep into the Labour party in that two of the five leadership candidates have decided that the ID card scheme was a mistake. I fear for those who have expressed such strong support for that scheme; if the wrong Miliband wins, they could be in trouble. I also fear for the peace of the dinner party in that the civil libertarian/authoritarian divide is beginning to open up in the Labour party and has even opened up in the Miliband family. This will be an issue that they will have to resolve in a few weeks’ time.
This Bill has sought to repeal parts of the 2006 Act that dealt with the ID card scheme, but we have been careful—I want to emphasise this—to re-enact the important powers on fraud prevention and detection available to protect the public. There is no reduction in public security as a result of the Bill; rather, it is about seeing an enormous increase in public freedom.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the Bill’s scrutiny. We have taken on board the concerns raised on Second Reading and in Committee on information verification, and we have successfully tabled amendments to strengthen safeguards for the public and raise accountability. We noted the comments made in Committee about transgendered people, and will engage in further work with international colleagues in relation to the points raised about passports.
The Bill should also be seen as part of a wider programme to increase individual freedom. Along with Bills such as the freedom Bill, it will, as I have said, alter the balance irrevocably, giving us more powerful citizens and a less than all-powerful state. That is one of the significant changes for the better that the Government will be able to achieve for the country.
There was a discussion about who was responsible for the ID card scheme: about whether it was a new Labour creation, or, ingeniously, the creation of my noble and learned Friend Lord Howard of Lympne. The truth is that it was neither. We had ID cards in this country during the second world war. They were abolished in the 1950s, to great public acclaim, by a Conservative Government who concentrated, as we have done throughout the decades, on the importance of maintaining the power of the citizen.
In times of crisis, Governments often return to ID card schemes, and it was clearly the view of the last Government that Britain was at war after 9/11, that we were at war with terrorists permanently, and that we therefore needed to be put on a permanent war footing. It is at the heart of the contention of those of us who voted against the original Bill, and campaigned successfully against it—as has now been proved with the passage of this legislation—that we cannot and should not lead our lives as though we are in a state of permanent warfare: that if people’s freedoms are restricted so much in an attempt to defend those freedoms, those who threaten our freedoms have already won.
This is a significant victory for the British people. I pay tribute not only to Members on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill, but to the various pressure groups involved. Liberty and Justice have been mentioned, but I also pay tribute to the NO2ID campaign, which can chalk itself up as one of the most successful pressure groups in history. It was formed less than 10 years ago, and within a decade of its formation it has achieved its principal aim.
No doubt all the pressure groups that I have just praised will spend the next few years complaining that we have not gone far enough in various directions. However, I look forward to constructive discussions with them. The broad conclusion that the country can draw from the passage of the Bill is that the march of freedom is happening again, and the British people are beginning to recover their historic freedoms and gain new freedoms. That is one of the many ways in which this Government will improve the lives of people throughout the country.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In a speech on Second Reading, when there was a time limit, I paid tribute to campaigning groups that had been extremely effective in swaying opinion in the media, at least—if not the opinion of the country—against the idea of new forms of biometric recording and an up-to-date and verifiable national register showing who was in the country and their identity. I now pay tribute to the Minister for his dedicated work in opposition, and in the four months of the coalition Government, in implementing the commitment of the coalition partners.
I do not, however, pay tribute to people who believe their own rhetoric. I have done it myself, and it is not a good idea. Eventually one comes to believe things that are not true, such as the idea that the last Government took away our civil liberties and were intent on strengthening the authoritarianism of the state. I am very sad that people who are standing for senior office in my party have also bought the myth that a second-generation biometric register somehow took away the civil liberties of the British people. However, we lost the election, and those of us who believed that we were doing the right thing lost a level of the debate that was crucial to the continuation of the scheme.
I am very happy to pay tribute to Lord Howard as the father of the modern scheme. We did not have the facility of second-generation biometrics when he advocated the scheme in 1996. However, he at least understood that if we were going to control unwarranted immigration, deal with the rising level of fraud, which was minuscule compared with the level today, and tackle the verification and authentication of genuine identity not least in respect of access to what are, uniquely, free public services such as the NHS, we needed something better than the passport as we had it then, and, it has to be said, as we have it today even with the improvements in the photographic evidence.
I wish the Government well in implementing e-Borders in their border police force. I do not know how that will enhance the sophistication of addressing illegal entry into the country or the identification of those who are already illegally here given that when in 2004 we introduced the registration system for the extended European Union A8 nationals we found that 40% of the people who registered were already in the country before the freedom of movement regulations had come into being for those new EU entrant countries. I do not know how the Government are going to do this, therefore, but I wish them well in trying.
This evening, I merely want to say that I speak as someone who has spent years persuading their senior colleagues in Cabinet to go in a particular direction and who has taken the slings and arrows of being accused of being authoritarian because they genuinely believe that updating the evidence that is already taken for the passport and the driving licence makes sense as it will be genuinely authentic—as opposed to the myth we peddle that somehow the identity documents we use are genuinely verifiable when they are not. In short, I speak as someone who has been told that they have betrayed the civil liberties and historical rights of people in this country when they have not, yet my only regret is that, having spent so much time having to put up with the black looks of Lord Prescott and the grumbles of our former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and having eventually won the decision in government and started to implement the policy, I find that I am defeated at the last hurdle.
All I can say is congratulations to those who have won and commiserations to those who were misled into believing that ID cards would cost £2.5 billion and there were therefore going to be major savings from scrapping them, rather than the sum of £84 million over four years. I say commiserations to those who feel they were taking a great step yet find that that step has not led them anywhere new at all.
The Minister said on 9 June that the civil libertarians were in the ascendant in the Conservative party today and that is true, but let us not confuse libertarianism with liberty. Let us not confuse being concerned about out and out libertarianism with authoritarianism. These are not opposites; they are nuanced issues and they are difficult to deal with in government at a time of—whatever Ministers may feel—continuing risk. I should also point out that we must ensure that we move as the international community moves, because I guarantee that within 30 years second-generation biometrics will be used for international passport purposes.
Finally, I say just three words: rest in peace.
Keith Vaz
It is a great pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who took us all the way back to the birth of ID cards and has now read out their last rites in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I do not think he should take the criticism of the last Labour Government personally. People say many things in leadership election campaigns. Let us see what happens next week when, in opposition, we have an opportunity to fashion our new policies. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all he did as Home Secretary on so many issues to do with his portfolio.
I also pay tribute to the Minister. Anyone who has followed Home Office debates over the past few years since he has been on the Front Bench will have noted the enthusiasm, delight and intellectual vigour that he put into the campaign against identity cards. I am sure it gives him great satisfaction to be here to read the last rites of the identity cards and to do so very modestly. I suppose that when faced with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, the Scottish National party, Justice and Liberty—a very odd combination—it is probably right that the official Opposition have, in a sense, thrown in the towel. The shadow Minister accepted that there was no appetite among Labour Members to oppose the Bill on Second Reading and she tabled some carefully thought-out amendments, but the Government, with their majority and with this Bill as a central part of their Home Office agenda, have got their Bill through, after only 12 weeks.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously—I know that he will—the concerns expressed about the destruction of data. The Select Committee on Home Affairs will be writing to him in two months’ time. I know that he did not give that as the absolute timetable, but he mentioned two months and then a further two months, and he then said that this would depend on what happens in the other place. I do not think that it will be a problem there, so by Christmas or, at least, by the new year we should be in a position to know that these data have been destroyed. I am sure that we will be writing to him to ensure that now that the funeral is over, the ashes will be scattered in about four months’ time.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
This is indeed an historic occasion and it is gratifying that the coalition has been able to deliver so early in its life such a significant change and such an improvement in our civil liberties. This is clearly the first stage in a much wider programme. Members on the Government Benches have been accused of being obsessed with civil liberties, but it is a sign of how regressive or repressive the Labour Government had become that they characterised supporters and defenders of civil liberties as people, or Members, who were obsessed with that subject over and above any other.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) spoke of the so-called myth that the previous Government had an agenda that was contrary to civil liberties. However, they gave us identity cards, which we no longer have. We also had pre-charge detention, control orders, fingerprinting in schools and DNA retention. In my view, that constituted a full-frontal assault on our civil liberties, and we are right to try to redress the balance. He also said that there might be only £84 million-worth of savings—I do not know whether he actually used the word “only”. Even if that figure is indeed right, in the current context those are savings that we need to achieve.
In my view, and that of the coalition Government, this Bill is just the first step in a programme of rebuilding and restoring our reputation as a nation that values civil liberties and is willing to defend them whenever they are under assault.
Pete Wishart
Good riddance to the most thoroughly bad rubbish. Thank goodness we are standing on the brink of getting rid of the pernicious and hated ID cards. They were new Labour ID cards—NLID cards, as I called them in the previous debate—created solely by the previous Government. They are now thankfully being abolished, and I give great credit to the coalition Government for being able to introduce this Bill so quickly. Thank goodness we are getting shot of these cards today.
I also wish to pay tribute to the many campaigners who fought so hard and long to ensure that we never saw ID cards introduced in this country. I am referring to NO2ID, Liberty and all the other groups that were out there campaigning. This became a real election issue, and I am sure that other hon. Members also found that it was regularly raised in the hustings. People talked about Labour’s creeping authoritarian state and its anti-civil libertarian agenda, and how Labour must be stopped. Thankfully, today is the day that we can put to bed not just ID cards but, I hope, the whole anti-civil libertarian agenda that the Labour party tried to foist on us.
This Bill has been relatively easy for the Liberals and Conservatives as well as for those of us in the Scottish National party and other national parties. We opposed these things—we hated them and we wanted rid of them. This has been a real challenge for Labour Members and I have watched their agony throughout this Bill. I did not know whether they were going to oppose it or support it. I had to wait for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to get to his feet to know whether it would be the first line of the next Labour manifesto or whether they were going to support the scrapping.
I still do not know what Labour Members’ response to ID cards is. They have not opposed them in any way. They supported Second Reading—or abstained—and they proposed tame, minimal amendments in Committee. We have heard a lot of huff and puff today about compensation, but I still do not know what the Labour party’s approach to ID cards is. I would like to hear—perhaps in the summing up—whether it has now dropped the whole idea. I hope that it has, because Labour should come home. We need the Labour party in opposition to come home to its civil libertarian past.
Julie Hilling
When poor people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency want to open a bank account or do any of the many things for which people need to prove their identity, if they do not drive and do not have utility bills how will they prove their identity in his new free world?
Pete Wishart
This is the thing that the Labour party consistently refuses to appreciate and understand. ID cards were an attempt to change the whole nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. That was what they were about. People in groups such as Liberty and NO2ID did not oppose ID cards because they were a nice cuddly little thing that would help people to access services—they opposed them because they were a new element to the relationship between state and individual. That was why ID cards became so hated throughout the nation.
Mr Blunkett
The hon. Gentleman is emotionally attached to the idea of the perniciousness of the scheme, but I want gently to test how far his libertarianism would go. There are two states in the United States where a blind person can obtain a licence to own a gun. One of those states does not require a blind person to have a driving licence—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. That point is wide of Third Reading, but is a good try none the less.
Pete Wishart
It was a good point, and you have rescued me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I would have found it pretty hard to respond to it. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) for intervening, because I want to pay tribute to him, too, in the course of all this. Of course, ID cards were his child. He argued them through Cabinet and, as he said in his speech, he had all sorts of opposition and he fought his corner. However, he has left the Labour party a dreadful legacy. I hope that it can join the rest of us—where it should be—in ensuring that we can continue to hold this Conservative Government to account.
It was great when the Conservatives were in opposition—of course they were against the anti-civil libertarian agenda—but we will have to watch them like hawks in government, and we need the Labour party on board for that task. We need the Labour party to help to hold the Conservatives to account, because I have a sneaking suspicion that once they have had a good start and once they have their feet under the table, they will start to consider several issues and the old Conservatives will start to come back. We will start to see that move towards the authoritarianism that was a trademark of so many previous Governments. I appeal to the Labour party to help us to hold the Government to account and to get rid of the opposition to this. They should say, “Good riddance” and be thankful that we have got rid of ID cards.
This runs through the whole history of Labour and ID cards. We never even knew what they were for—that was the great thing. We did not know what they were supposed to achieve. When the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough introduced them—he can correct me if I get this wrong—his intention was that there would be a fully compulsory scheme, so that everybody in the UK would have to hold an ID card. That, I believe, was his intention and that was what he wanted to try to deliver. As he tried to get the scheme through, the opposition started to kick in. Opposition to the idea seemed to be growing and growing, so we saw the reasons behind ID cards changing. The scheme changed into a voluntary scheme that not only would keep us safe but could be used to make sure that we could buy services. I believe that being able to play the lottery was one of the great reasons we were given to have an ID card. They became not so much ID cards as super cards that would solve all society’s ills.
Mr Blunkett
I promise not to divert us from the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not remember anyone on our side—certainly not me—talking about being able to use the lottery.
Pete Wishart
It might not have been the right hon. Gentleman who said that and I am sorry if I have characterised him in that way. I believe that his true intention was to have everyone signed up to a mandatory ID card; that was the first attempt and agenda of the Labour party when it introduced the idea. All the way through the difficult conception and birth of the ID card, there was no real consistency in the way in which Labour tried to get it through. That has been the difficulty throughout the whole experience.
Labour’s opposition to the Bill has been woeful—not knowing whether to support it or not and making some caustic comments about compensation; that has been its attitude—but there is light at the end of the tunnel. According to all the opinion polls, it looks as though the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) might win the Labour leadership election and he has said that ID cards were a step too far. He talks about the fact that they were not a good idea and says that there should be no further backing for them. Perhaps we will start to get the Labour party back on board; I certainly hope so.
Today has been a thoroughly good day. I congratulate the Minister on taking the Bill through in his usual manner—with good grace and listening to some of the arguments and representations—and on a job well done. This day is the end of ID cards, and thank goodness for that. Good riddance to them and let us hope that we never see their likes again.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has done exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said and has begun to believe his own rhetoric, entertaining though it was to listen to. It might be helpful if I explain to him and to the rest of the House the position of the official Opposition. I remind the House that although many things are said in election campaigns, what happens in reality when people have power is often very different. We have a good example of that in front of us in the form of the coalition Government, but I shall say no more on that.
Her Majesty’s Opposition recognise the Government’s clear position and the reality of the maths. We know that both parties were elected on manifestos to get rid of ID cards and that the Bill is the fruition of what is a fairly rare point of agreement. Indeed, only on Monday the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), was speaking with enthusiasm about her position when she was in opposition and had to be quickly reminded of something by her Parliamentary Private Secretary, who passed her a note. She then swiftly began to read an alternative position from the coalition agreement, so we know that sometimes things are said but then change. However, the reality is that both parties agreed on this point and we recognise that that gives the Government a mandate. We are not here to oppose for the sake of opposition, but we feel that the Bill sweeps aside many important things.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Bill is symbolic—and it is for him and his Government. It is also ideologically based and very rushed. Had he been in his Department a bit longer and had other Ministers in that Department and in government thought things through, they might rue the day they swept away the baby with the bathwater. The Bill has the serious consequence of removing the option to have fingerprints in passports, which the identity register allowed. That would have updated the passport database to allow for the very secure retention of that important biometric.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is very exercised about data being held by the state. I am sure that he must have a passport for travel and I wonder whether he has ever given a moment’s thought to where passport information is held. As I reminded members of the public and others up and down the country during many of my roadshows, visits and talks about this issue over three years, 80% of us have a passport and that information is held securely. We have a good Passport Service, but what we proposed was a more secure approach. I shall not dwell on what we could have done or what we would do differently again, but it is an important principle of the Opposition that the passport should be secure not only now but in future. The new design for a more secure physical passport that I signed off earlier in the year has been unveiled and produced in the Blaydon constituency. We wanted greater security with fingerprinting, but the Government have effectively abandoned that.
Interestingly, the Bill sets the tone for the way in which the Government wish to work. It was brought forward in quite a rush. We finally managed today to extract from the Government the fact that there was no consultation on the Bill, so mentions in manifestos and on individuals’ blogs seem to be the way in which the Government choose to consult. We also know that the Bill’s impact assessment was inadequate, which is sad, given that one of the Ministers responsible for the Bill is also the Minister for Equalities. Labour Members will watch closely to ensure that such sloppiness does not take place in the future, and I hope that Ministers acknowledge that they have a responsibility to do their jobs thoroughly and properly.
We look forward to hearing more about the transgender issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). We tried to put in place something that would make the best of a bad job in this regard, but the Government removed that option overnight without any recognition of that fact. No full solution is forthcoming, so we ask the Government to report to Parliament as progress is made on the issue. I ask the Minister with responsibility for passports to write to me around Christmas or in January to let me know what progress has been made, and to place a copy of the letter in the Library. I have been contacted by many people who would be grateful for such information. A lot of them do not have voices of their own, but they will be looking closely at how the House scrutinises the issue and have made it clear that they want to know what is going on.
The Bill prevents the Government from collecting and storing fingerprints, which means that the British passport will fall behind international standards relatively quickly, although international passports improve over years. Over time, British citizens will be forced to pay for visas when they make certain international visits. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have indicated that they favour biometrics on passports and increasing passport security, so I wonder whether the Bill has been fully squared in government. We hear that the Government are halting the use of fingerprints, but we do not know for how long. I hope that they will consider putting that back on the table because we all have a genuine interest in ensuring that the British public are safe when they travel and that our identity documents are as secure as possible. The use of fingerprints also helps to tackle identity fraud because many criminals have multiple identities, yet fingerprints are one of the surest ways of prevention.
I know that Ministers take seriously the Home Office’s responsibility to do everything in its power to protect people—that is the Department’s raison d’être—but the Bill throws out the baby with the bath water. The Opposition would revisit the issue of biometrics on passports, even though I give no commitment about what we would do on identity cards, given that we will shortly be under new leadership. However, if we were to get into power in five years’ time, we would be in a different place than if we were not to get into power—heaven forefend—for 10 years. We recognise that we will have to deal with the landscape that we face at the time. I would hope that that landscape would involve fingerprints for passports, but the Bill does not make that look likely.
The Bill’s refusal of any recompense to those who bought cards in good faith is mean-spirited, as is the fact that we have had no opportunity to press for refunds, which was why some of the new clauses that we tabled were complex. As I said, no proper account was taken of the equalities impact. If I was to be particularly mean, I would suggest that the mean-spirited nature of the Bill is a metaphor for the Government as we approach tough spending decisions.
I thank hon. Members who have played an important part in developing our policy and supporting my Front-Bench role. The Opposition’s redoubtable team has mostly consisted of newly elected Back Benchers, who have been committed to addressing the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the former right hon. Members for Redditch, for Norwich South and for Airdrie and Shotts, the last of whom will no doubt give the Bill a run for its money in the other place, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. It is rare that a junior Front-Bench spokesman has such support from a series of former Home Secretaries, but they have been incredibly supportive and helpful.
We are not yet dancing on the grave of identity cards. I live in hope that the Government will see the error of their ways and that, despite this Bill, they will revisit the issue of passport biometrics. I look forward to seeing how the Bill progresses in the Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
petition
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
My constituent, Alice Cheney, from Great Clifton near Workington, brought me this petition because she feels strongly that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan. She notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year just in the area of Taijii. She is also concerned that the dolphin meat produced after the slaughter is contaminated. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Workington,
Declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan; notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year in the area of Taijii; further declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness for the majority of Japanese citizens, who are unaware that this is going on in their country; and notes that the petitioners believe that the dolphin meat which is highly contaminated is being distributed to an unaware Japanese public protected by a government that knows the dangers of this practice and the risks to health it poses.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000860]
Military Aviation Industry
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the time and the opportunity to hold my first Adjournment debate. It may be my first Adjournment debate, but the topic is one on which I have spoken many times, both in the House and locally in the constituency. It is no less a subject than the future of UK military aircraft production.
The debate could not be more timely. Only last week, unfortunately, BAE Systems, which has its military headquarters in Warton in my constituency, announced potentially 1,000 job losses. I know that BAE Systems and the trade unions are working hard to minimise that eventual figure, but it serves as timely notice to us that the issue is not one of numbers or technology. It concerns people’s lives, jobs and the UK maintaining a sovereign capability in an area in which we are currently world leaders.
I refer to comments made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly after the election, when they said that one of the most important things that we had to do as a nation was to rebalance the economy, and rebalancing the economy was about being less reliant on services and moving on to manufacturing. It was about jobs being in the north rather than in the south. It was about jobs with high export potential that earned serious money for this country. I can think of no other sector that ticks all those boxes more than the UK military aircraft division.
I know that you, Mr Evans, and your fellow Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), are precluded from taking part in the debate by the office that you hold, but both of you have a long-standing record as doughty defenders of the UK military aircraft sector.
In the north-west the industry is the engine room of the entire regional economy. From Warton, Samlesbury and the other plants that we have, tens of thousands of component suppliers and many, many small shops and taxi firms gain a living from the work that is done there.
In this debate I shall focus on a few key areas—the future of the Typhoon programme, the exports that we can derive from that, and the unmanned aircraft programme, which, I am proud to say, is being developed at Warton. There are some Members in the House who say that we should not be concerned about having a UK military aircraft capability, that sovereign capability was for yesteryear, and that we should be buying off the shelf. What they seem to forget is that the UK is the shelf. We are world leaders in most of this technology. When it comes to unmanned aircraft, the work is not done in the United States. The Americans are not the world leaders, they are not at the cutting edge and they do not have the talented people. The work is done here in the United Kingdom—in the north-west, in Lancashire, in Warton and in Samlesbury. That is where the talent lies, and those are the people whom I am here to represent this evening.
I therefore call on the Minister, when he makes his remarks, to reflect on the importance of the future of the unmanned aircraft industry to this country, because it is not just an industry that we lead, but one of huge potential growth both in the realm of military technology and for civilian use. We live in an unstable world, and as part of the security and strategic defence review we have considered all sorts of threats. They include an increased risk of piracy, the need to defend key oil installations and tackling human trafficking. Unmanned aircraft in their various forms are a fantastic way of including flexibility in one’s military capability in order to address a number of those risks. Aircraft such as HERTI are flexible enough to allow civilian operators to take on some of those roles, leading to less reliance on Governments.
Typhoon, or the Eurofighter as some people may know it, is primarily built at Warton, but work has also been done at Samlesbury, and there has been talk recently about the importance of tranche 3B and why it is crucial for the RAF to place orders. I appreciate that when it comes to the lack of money in the defence budget, we are in unprecedented times, and I know that the Minister has to take some incredibly difficult decisions. Members will not like some of those decisions, but I believe that tranche 3B is very important and Typhoon is a first-class aircraft, so I make an appeal to him once again. When he looks at it, he should do everything that he can to ensure that there is the potential in the RAF for 3B.
However, we have to look beyond 3B, because the real prize is in Typhoon’s export potential, because that is where the jobs, the foreign currency and the futures of people in my constituency will lie. Many Members will be familiar with the export orders that have been placed with Saudi Arabia and BAE Systems’ work in that country and throughout the middle east, but I call upon the Government to continue that excellent work and gradually drive forward the work of BAE Systems and its work force in securing those export orders. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister’s recent visit to India, where we secured a substantial order for Hawk jets, because I do not believe that BAE Systems, great though it is, could have achieved that without significant Government help at the highest level.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that UK defence contracts with BAE Systems also importantly enhance our export capability, and that any reduction in UK defence contract spending will affect our capacity to export?
Mark Menzies
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We cannot be totally reliant on exports, because, if the RAF buys and uses something, that is a more powerful pitch than any sales brochure, so we have to ensure that the UK armed forces continue to place significant orders for UK military aircraft. I agree that exports are not the only solution, but, in a tough economic climate, we need to invest a considerable amount of energy in securing such exports.
I say to the Minister, please let us not be shy about getting behind BAE Systems when securing exports. The French are not shy, the Americans wheel out Barack Obama and the Russians wheel out Vladimir Putin. So, let us leave no stone unturned and use every weapon in our armoury to ensure that the United Kingdom is out there putting forward what I passionately believe to be a world-class product built by a world-class work force, securing defence orders for this country and vast amounts of foreign currency potential. I call upon the Minister to support me in that.
We have 6,500 people working at Warton and about 5,000 at Samlesbury, but it is not just about numbers—it is about the quality of those jobs. Two hundred apprentices are currently going through BAE Systems military aircraft division.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a huge impact in terms of knowledge and skills that are transferable throughout manufacturing as a result of the aerospace industry, that many of the techniques and technological advances that are developed feed through into manufacturing in the UK generally, and that having a thriving, successful aerospace industry will have a huge impact on British manufacturing?
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. He is on the record as speaking up for jobs and skills in this country.
A layman could be accused of thinking of the jobs at Warton as being about metal-bashing and nuts and bolts, but far from it. We are talking about people who are at the cutting edge of design and computer technology—the sorts of things that I, as a mere Member of Parliament, struggle to get my head around. They are absolute world leaders in their field, and they are our people—Lancashire people, on the whole. They have spent their whole lives honing their skills at Warton—they were not invented: they were grown. We need to recognise the contribution that those skills make to the economy, as well as their transferable nature and the fact that many component manufacturers can look to the military aircraft division and take some of the lessons from that sector to use in their own sectors.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend accept that not only the people at Warton and Samlesbury are involved in this, but the people at Rolls-Royce who develop and build the engines and avionics? In making his comments on the Eurofighter, would he like to include the F-35, which is being developed, alongside in the USA, at Samlesbury and at Warton? It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister, or even the Prime Minister, could get some clarity from the American Administration on how they intend to progress development of the engine for the F-35. That would create thousands of jobs, because that aeroplane is needed in vast quantities by the USA. Those are the very products that are being built in the UK, at Rolls-Royce and in Samlesbury, for the new F-35 fighter.
Mark Menzies
I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the F-35. Indeed, we are very lucky this evening to be joined by members of the trade union movement from Samlesbury who are in the Public Gallery. Before I came into the Chamber, I was reminded of the importance of the F-35. Were I to forget to mention it, I would have very much failed in my duty to represent their wishes.
Graham Jones
One of the worries is that if the Eurofighter is withdrawn to a significant extent from Samlesbury, we run the risk of part of the development of the F-35 being withdrawn to the United States. There is always a risk, especially with high unemployment in the US, that the Americans will be looking to US manufacturing to take on what are essentially US jobs. The Eurofighter keeps that anchor in the UK and in Lancashire.
Mark Menzies
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting concern. However, I am sure, from my conversations with BAE Systems, that the nature of the contract is robust enough, and the commitments from this Government are clear enough, that there will be a good future at Samlesbury. The Minister is bound by a difficulty in being able to give details about the F-35, but any that he can provide will be incredibly welcome.
I want to be generous in giving others time, because I know that colleagues wish to make some points. My final point is that the future of the UK military aircraft division, which is based at Warton but also has a significant element at Samlesbury, is not just about the regional economy of the north-west, or about jobs, vital though those matters are. It is about the UK being serious about ever again being able to play a role through a strategic, sovereign capability to manufacture our own aircraft, own our own technology, develop our own high-tech skills base and continue to be a world leader in what we do. It is also fundamental to achieving the objective of rebalancing the economy that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out. If we fail to take that into account and to get behind the UK military aircraft sector, not only will the north-west lose out but the entire UK economy will be much the poorer. I ask the Minister to get behind exports, do what he can for the future of the F-35 and the Typhoon, and let us really make a difference.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), on securing the debate. I reiterate his point that I am sure your fellow Deputy Speakers would have loved to speak in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I am sure that you would have been keen to take part as well, given the constituency interest.
Aerospace is an industry that touches every part of the UK economy, including the south-west, but nowhere more than the north-west. We in the north-west are extremely concerned about the job losses that will almost definitely occur there in the coming months, particularly at Samlesbury and Warton. We know that 149 jobs are likely to go at the former and 298 at the latter. Having spoken to both management and the unions, we are aware of the reduction in work on Airbus components at Samlesbury. I am sure that that matter also affects your constituents at Filton, Madam Deputy Speaker. We know about the valuable work on the Tornado, the Harrier and the Hawk that has taken place at Warton in the past. I will be honest in saying that the announcements about reductions in the Tornado and Harrier fleets were made before the general election, but we are also concerned about future plans. I shall touch on that later.
The work force have been given about 90 days to be consulted by the management on jobs. Hundreds of jobs were lost in the industry last year, including at the Warton and Samlesbury plants. We hoped that there would then be a tailing-off of job losses, and I am angry that they are continuing and are likely to continue further as a result of the Government’s strategic defence review.
We must attempt to minimise job losses where possible. I do not want anybody from either plant to be made compulsorily redundant. However, I understand that they just about scraped through last year with voluntary redundancies, so it will be much more difficult this year. Many workers there who are friends of mine, and their families, are concerned about their economic future and their careers, having spent decades at the two plants that are going under.
It is particularly heartbreaking that many skilled manufacturing jobs have gone abroad over the past five decades, especially with the growth of the European Community, now the European Union, and globalisation. The north-west is proud that we still have a much higher percentage of the population engaged in manufacturing than elsewhere, and in the Preston and central Lancashire area the percentage is the highest in the country. That is under threat now.
We have been making aircraft in the Preston area for more than 100 years, and aircraft that fought in both world wars were built in and around my constituency. They used to be built to fight against countries such as Germany. We now build aircraft in co-operation with Germany. Europe has been at peace for decades and we want that to continue. Indeed, we want peace on a global scale, but while there is no guarantee of that, defence equipment will always be needed, and it must be manufactured. This country is particularly good at that and has an extremely high technological base.
I trained as an electronics engineer and computer scientist. I worked in those jobs in my professional life in both the public and the private sectors before entering politics. As the hon. Member for Fylde said, engineering is not about metal-bashing. Of course, many skills, including metal-bashing, have survived for generations, but many of the skills that are coming on stream are highly technical and advanced, particularly in computer-aided design, and we are the envy of the world in many areas of manufacturing. We lead the world in stealth technology—I have seen the world-beating stealth technology manufactured at Warton—and are ahead of the Americans, the Israelis and the French. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the unmanned vehicles that we are developing.
We have already lost many manufacturing industries to countries such as Germany, Japan and China, particularly in the consumer electronics field, but one area in which we excel is the manufacture of defence equipment. We need that to continue, which is why we should do everything in our power to protect jobs and the high-tech industries such as those in the north-west.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. Does he agree that in 13 years under the previous Government, there was an unprecedented collapse in manufacturing in this country, when it declined three times faster than under Margaret Thatcher?
Mark Hendrick
I accept that there has been a loss of jobs in manufacturing, but that trend has continued since the 1960s under Governments of both persuasions. I say that as an engineer rather than as a politician. As technology advances, computers can do many jobs that humans used to do, and a section of an aircraft that used to be made of 100 parts can now be made of two or three. I would not try to be party political on manufacturing. Nobody did more to defend jobs than the previous Labour Government. Every contract that could be given to British Aerospace, which is now called BAE Systems, was given to it, and order books were full. We were looking forward to decades of further production at the company, so we will not take any lessons from the Conservatives.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend’s point about general manufacturing is important, but does he agree that defence industry manufacturing has been completely different from much of the rest of the picture? Defence manufacturing has been a strength in the past 10 years, especially given the number of jobs that have been created. The danger is that we could lose capacity over the next decade and the capability to lead the world in a range of areas, including, of course, shipbuilding.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are not here to talk about aircraft carriers, but they are important to the future of both Warton and Samlesbury. Manufacturing the two aircraft carriers in places such as Barrow would support many industries in the north and north-west, but they are under consideration in the strategic defence review. Bluntly, if the carriers do not go ahead, the need for the aircraft to go on them will be called into question, as will our share of the F-35 joint strike fighter programme. We are currently guaranteed 12 to 15% of those contracts with Lockheed Martin. The Government are sailing close to the wind when it comes to maintaining our share of that work unless a commitment is made to the aircraft carriers.
We are playing for high stakes, because at threat is the future of Britain as a defence manufacturing nation. We have lost a lot of consumer manufacturing to the likes of Germany, Japan and China, and it is essential that we maintain our expertise and technological base in defence manufacturing. Otherwise, not only will the jobs and livelihoods of people in the north-west economy suffer, but the nation will suffer, because we will not punch the same weight or have the same GDP. We will be a much poorer nation as a result. Aerospace is the jewel in the north-west’s economic crown.
On the strategic defence review, the Typhoon programme is extremely important. Exports are important, as is take-up by the four partner nations in that programme. Before the general election, I was disappointed to see the Liberal Democrats make it plain that they would not continue tranche 3B of the Eurofighter Typhoon, against the wishes of many in the north-west. It is a disgrace that so many Liberal Democrats can take a view that threatens so many jobs in the north-west, especially when so many were silent on the issue during the election, especially my opponent in Preston. The Labour Government signed up to tranche 3A, so we showed our commitment, and I call on the Government to show their commitment not only to Typhoon, but to the aircraft carriers, the design and preparation for which are well under way.
The skills of a generation of the work force at Warton and Samlesbury will be put at risk. Last year, 200 jobs went at Samlesbury, leaving only 4,200 jobs. The hon. Member for Fylde mentioned the figure of 5,000, but 4,200 is the actual figure—a loss of more than 25%. The situation is similar at Warton. I do not want to see anyone lose their job, but it is surprising that executive jobs have not been greatly affected. Only one executive job will be lost over both sites, which seems unbalanced.
The announcement that 1,000 jobs will be lost across the country in BAE Systems is a tragedy, but I shudder to think what the strategic defence review will reveal after November when it is completed. That announcement may be just the tip of the iceberg of job losses, and the Government will rue the day if they make significant cuts and these major programmes disappear, as those decisions will be reflected at the ballot box at the next general election.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), I do not intend to tempt the Minister to prejudge the outcome of the strategic defence review, nor will I engage in self-indulgent scaremongering about possible outcomes. There are more than enough armchair generals, bath-tub admirals and heaven knows who else opining in the letters columns of the national press about what form the future force configuration should take, and we do not need to debate that tonight.
Mark Hendrick
I do not want to hog the debate, as I have already spoken at length but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that before the general election we made it plain that we would cut the deficit by 50% over four years. With a party now in government saying it will attempt to cut the deficit totally in five years, hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.
Paul Maynard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but people’s jobs depend on decisions being made now, and I do not intend to engage in self-indulgent scaremongering. He may wish to do so on behalf of his constituents, to whom he is responsible, but I do not intend to adopt a similar position.
Paul Maynard
No, because I have a number of things I want to say.
We are here to discuss the UK military aviation industry, not the outcomes of the strategic defence review. There are two important aspects to consider. First, there are the potential changes to UK Government orders that we do not know about, and which we will not find out about tonight, however much Opposition Members may wish otherwise. I do not expect that, and I am sure that many other Conservative Members do not expect it either. However, we can discuss the important steps taken by the Government to promote exports. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) discuss the need to improve exports. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said it was no substitute for investment by the UK Government. We had 13 years of a Labour Government who failed to take seriously the promotion of UK exports. I heard it time and time again, even from active trade unionists, that BAE Systems—
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that the absence of the Opposition Front-Bench team is a further sign of the importance they place on this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is an Adjournment debate, so the hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant. I hope that Members will return to the aviation industry.
Paul Maynard
Export industry is crucial, and improved Government support for it—
Paul Maynard
No, I am sorry. I am not prepared to give way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, a recent trip to India resulted in a much improved Hawk order. However, I would like to make one observation to the Minister that I hope he will bear in mind. There is no finer advertisement for the British military aviation industry than the Red Arrows. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he is considering the wider issues of the strategic defence review.
Tonight’s debate should not be about BAE Systems only. I realise it is a major player in the UK military aviation industry, but it is not the sole player. In the north-west, we have the North West Aerospace Alliance, which has made an enormous effort to develop a world-class supply chain that includes not just BAE Systems—
Graham Jones
Put simply, if the RAF or the British Government will not buy Typhoons, why should any other country? It is a really poor advert. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the strength of our exports will come from our confidence in our own products and UK manufacturing base? He seems to be arguing the opposite, which I do not fully understand. That is an important point that he needs to focus on—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is an Adjournment debate, which is going a little longer tonight because of the time. The debate is in the name of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) please resume his seat while I am on my feet? Thank you. Interventions are to be brief. It is a Back-Bench debate and should refer to the title and subject of the debate. If Members want to speak, they should stand and hope they get in.
Paul Maynard
I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to talk about the importance of sovereign capability in terms of our military aviation industry. Many people might regard the notion of sovereign capability as something nostalgic. At the moment, we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, and many people are saying how fortunate we were in those days to be able to generate our own aircraft, make them within our own shores and defend our shores against our enemies, and that we should continue that in the future. I would be cautious, however, about basing any arguments for sovereign capability on nostalgia, tempting as that might be, but sovereign capability matters. It is an important concept that the Government have to buy into, because we do not know what is around the corner or what the future holds. We do not know whether we can rely on those on whom we have relied in the past. The world is full of unknowns, and sovereign capability is our sole protection from them.
I therefore ask the Government to consider carefully the ways in which they can support sovereign capability, and to look beyond defining it simply in terms of whether shipyard X or aircraft factory Y remains open. With regard to military aviation, I ask the Minister to consider how the Government can use some of the things that they are already doing to protect sovereign capability, in particular through the important changes being made with the introduction of local enterprise partnerships. It is important that the Ministry of Defence speak to other Departments to consider how the newly emerging LEPs can best be allocated to strategic areas, which can then underpin particular subsections of the defence industry. A good example would be the application by Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre to have a local enterprise partnership focusing on the aeronautical supply chain, which I discussed earlier. That is one way in which Government innovation can help to support sovereign capability without having to invest just to keep things open.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
One thing that must also be considered when talking about the area of north-west England for which my hon. Friend is a Member—quite a few Members are from there—is that places such as Samlesbury and Warton form an area of excellence that is the silicon valley, as it were, of the defence aviation industry. We have only to look back at what happened in the 1960s when the Wilson Government cut the TSR2. We had a world-beating product, but it was shredded because of what was happening at the time in the political framework. My hon. Friend is correct about the allocation of funding. We have to preserve not just the jobs, but the scientific—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I said just a moment ago that interventions needed to be brief. That is a general rule of the House. The hon. Gentleman should not use the opportunity of an intervention to make a speech. I am sure that his hon. Friend has got the gist of his point now.
Paul Maynard
I agree with it fully, so I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
The other Department that I would like the Minister to talk to is the Department for Education. It is a common complaint across Government as a whole that science education is somehow in decline. When I was fortunate enough to tour BAE Systems in Warton, I saw many highly skilled people who had engaged in scientific educational training. They had their physics and their chemistry: they knew what they were doing when it came to science. That is one important reason for ensuring that we emphasise why more students should get science-based qualifications that lead to careers in important defence-based industries—in particular military aviation—and underpin the protection of our sovereign capability.
I hope that the Minister will take both those ideas away and do something with them. Sovereign capability matters. It needs to be more than just a phrase that gets deployed in debates such as this, and we need to do more than depend on nostalgia to underpin it. I hope that he will consider that. We have something that we can be enormously proud of in the UK military aviation industry but, like anything, it must be constantly burnished and kept up to scratch. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he intends to do that when he responds to this debate.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I had not originally intended to speak in this debate. I will try to make my contribution brief, but it is important to make a contribution, in part to correct some of the misconceptions spread by the previous speech and, to an extent, by previous interventions.
First, I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on sovereign capability. It is important that we maintain that in the years ahead. The aviation industry in the north-west offers prime examples of the ways in which we have been able to lead the world, and it is vital that we continue to do so. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind as we approach at breakneck speed the conclusions of the strategic defence and security review.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should support the Government’s drive to improve the standing of our exports. We can sustain many jobs by increasing our exports, not only in the aviation industry in the north-west but right across the defence industry. We can also improve the UK’s standing in the world, and our military and diplomatic influences, by doing so. Let us not pretend, however, that the situation is dire at the moment, or that the previous Labour Government ran us into the ground. I am sure that the Minister is aware—although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is—that this country punches roughly three times above its natural weight in its exports industry. We should be proud of that, and the kind of partisan remarks that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has just made do the defence industry and those who work in it a disservice.
I want the Typhoon to play an important part in the areas that I have just mentioned, and in sustaining the economy. It will do so, however, only if we take a mature attitude to exports and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) said, if we buy this kit ourselves. The first question that any foreign Government will ask when we rock up at their door and try to sell them this kit or anything else is, “Are you using it yourself?” If we are not, why on earth should they buy it? I very much hope that the laudable rhetoric that is coming from the Government at the moment will be sustained by a proper strategy that will enable us to acquire this kit and help us to export it overseas.
I want to mention scaremongering in regard to jobs. There is an important role for Members of Parliament in standing up for employment in their constituencies and their regions, and I think that many hon. Members on the other side of the House get that. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys understands it as well. It is not dishonourable to speak up for the potential industrial consequences of the decisions that are about to be made. I am a member of the cross-party Defence Committee, which has just concluded that some of those decisions could put at risk our long-term security, as well as our defence industry and the industrial base that it sustains.
Graham Jones
I note that, yesterday, the Minister said that the UK was the second most successful exporter of defence products in 2009, with orders worth more than £7 billion. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend provides evidence for what I was saying earlier. We are a successful country, but we want to become even more successful. We shall need to do that in an environment that is going to be very tough in the years ahead. Other counties are retrenching their budgets just as we are, but it is important that we take a mature attitude to this.
Returning to my point about jobs and about the industrial base that the defence industry sustains, I wonder whether the Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys are aware of the evidence that the chief executive of BAE Systems and other senior members of the defence industry gave to the Defence Committee last week. They pointed out that we are on the verge of decisions that we risk getting wrong. Alarm was expressed within the industry among the speakers who gave evidence to the Defence Committee last week. If we get this wrong, they said, we could lose our capability in the north-west—in aviation, shipbuilding and right across the piece—in a way that will have devastating consequences for employment. If in five or 10 years’ time, we decide that we need this capability, we will find that the employment base needed to sustain it has gone—never to return. If the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys believes that those people were scaremongering when they said that, I hope he will stand up and make his view clear. I certainly do not think that they were, as this is a serious issue that will have to be dealt with.
In conclusion, it is so important to sustain capacity at Samlesbury and Warton—for the reasons I have just set out, but additionally because if the north-west takes the right decisions and the Government support it, and developing a defence and industrial policy following the strategic defence review will be critical—that could strengthen and augment its position as playing a leading part in the country and the world in producing world-class industrial products to serve our armed forces here and to export across the globe. The decisions made now and in the coming weeks and months will be critical.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this important debate. I agree with everything he said; I know he has worked tirelessly on this issue for many months. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) struck a slightly more positive note. I do not think that all is doom and gloom; we should celebrate the success stories as well, so I am grateful that some Members have reflected that.
I shall start by focusing on some of the positives in the north-west of England. The aerospace sector there has long been recognised as one of Europe’s leading industrial clusters and as a model for development within the aerospace and other industries. In my Pendle constituency, a number of significant firms are dependent on the aviation industry and on military contracts in particular.
As recently as Defence questions on Monday this week, I raised the importance of military aviation. I was reassured by what the Minister had to say. I pointed out to him that on the previous Saturday I had visited Euravia, a company that repairs and overhauls aircraft engines located in Kelbrook in my constituency. I was there to attend the event at which the company was presented with the Queen’s award for enterprise in the international trade category. Despite the recession, that firm had seen a growth in orders and was significantly increasing its overseas trade, starting to explore new and exciting opportunities. I believe that such businesses are leading the way in showing how other firms in the aerospace sector should behave—developing the skills of their workers, attaining an international reputation for high standards and good customer service, and always looking for new contracts abroad in case contracts in the UK dry up.
In underlining the importance of the aviation industry to my constituency, I point out that Rolls-Royce is the largest employer, with more than 1,000 workers in Barnoldswick producing engine fan blades. I was particularly delighted to have been able to take my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to visit Rolls-Royce prior to the election; I know that he is acutely aware of the importance of the aviation industry in Lancashire. I find it encouraging that in recent months Rolls-Royce has announced a string of deals, including one worth £1.1 billion at the Farnborough airshow. In July, the company unveiled detailed plans for a new £30 million aerodrome at its site in my constituency. This extension of the current site is where it will build fan blades for the F-35 joint strike fighter, which colleagues mentioned earlier in the debate. The extension will create about 100 new jobs in my constituency, although that will depend on approval from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, for the Rolls-Royce F-35 engine.
I know that the Government have already been working closely with Rolls-Royce to help it to secure more business. I was particularly pleased to see bosses from Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems accompanying the Prime Minister on his recent visit to India. I really do see aviation exports as key, and I am therefore delighted that unlike Ministers in the last Government, Ministers in the present Government are proactively helping our businesses to win contracts abroad.
Graham Jones
I question that last point. All the previous tranches, up to 3A, went through under a Labour Government, but tranche 3B, on which many Members are now focusing, is in doubt under the coalition Government. How can the hon. Gentleman justify his comment, given that all the previous contracts were honoured by the Labour Government, whereas the new Government are considering reviewing and perhaps cutting a future contract, 3B?
Andrew Stephenson
I am happy to justify my comment by asking how the hon. Gentleman justifies the Labour Government’s huge overspends, and the massive deficit that they built up when their expenditure was out of control. Clearly they should have got spending under control, and should have conducted a strategic defence review instead of delaying the pain until now.
The importance of big aerospace contractors such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems to Pendle, Lancashire and the United Kingdom economy should not be underestimated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde pointed out, there is a significant number of subcontractors and support companies. The average job in aerospace contributes £75,000 gross value added to the economy, and the figure rises to £115,000 at BAE Systems, compared to only about £15,000 gross value added per job in other sectors in Lancashire. I have noticed when I have spoken to business men in my constituency how many of them started off as apprentices at either BAE Systems or Rolls-Royce.
Many Opposition Members have expressed concern about the potential impact of the strategic defence and security review on the military aviation industry. We have already had a debate today about who has been fuelling scare stories in the press. I believe that hon. Members have a responsibility not to fuel scare stories: I do not think that they do anything for workers’ morale. I suggest, however, that the biggest risk to our military aviation is not the strategic defence and security review, but the muddled and incoherent programme left by the last Government.
Before Opposition Members lecture the coalition Government on the financial implications of reviewing certain defence contracts, they should remember that with a defence budget of some £35 billion a year, they left behind an overspend in the equipment programme that will amount to £38 billion by 2020. That is what we must deal with now, and that is why we are carrying out a full review of all the current contracts.
I used my maiden speech to explain the need for us to build a high-skilled economy, and I specifically mentioned the importance of the aviation industry. So far I have been very encouraged by the measures that Ministers have taken to support military aviation, but I urge them to do even more to support that vital sector.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing what has turned out to be a longer debate than we might have expected. It has given many more Members a chance to make speeches, some more political than others.
I want to break the Lancashire stranglehold on the debate—or rather the north-western stranglehold. I used to teach geography too, so I apologise to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). My constituency has been very much affected by the proposal for job losses at the BAE Systems site at Brough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) have been engaged in cross-party work in relation to that proposal, and over the past few years they have also worked closely together to help to secure contracts for the continuation of the site.
The BAE Systems site at Brough has a huge impact on our area. In recent years we have struggled in respect of manufacturing jobs, as has the rest of the country, and the continuation of the Brough site is greatly valued by local people. It gives young people in the area some aspiration that they might have a future job in manufacturing. I know all about that. I grew up in the area, attending a comprehensive school in Hull, and one of the most secure prospects we had was the possibility of going into apprenticeships at either BAE Systems at Brough or BP at Saltend.
I cannot over-emphasise the value of BAE Systems and the Brough site to our local economy and education facilities. It is heavily involved in local schools in my constituency and across the East Riding, and probably beyond that. Its educational roadshow is run from Brough and it has thus far received about 5,000 young people from the ages of nine to 13, bringing them on to the site to see what the possibilities for them there might be, and perhaps sparking an interest in manufacturing and in pursuing that interest in their own educational futures. BAE Systems is also heavily involved with the local secondary schools and every year provides a number of apprenticeships to local schools. All that is a success story for our region, so I do not want anybody to leave this debate with any impression other than that the existence of the Brough site in our local area is entirely positive.
The links go far and wide. The current mayor of Goole is an employee at Brough BAE Systems, as is the husband of my secretary in the constituency. Perhaps I should therefore declare an interest, although many more people than just those two are employed there—and, in fact, the mayor of Goole is a Labour party member so I am working cross-party in that respect.
There have been a number of challenges to the Brough factory in recent years. It is heavily reliant on Hawk contracts, for instance, and a couple of years ago there were a number of job losses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle worked incredibly closely to try to alleviate the pain of that. Following the problems back in 2008 and earlier we got an assurance from BAE Systems that the over-reliance on the Hawk contracts at Brough would cease and that it would seek to broaden the work undertaken there. However, I can only repeat what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has said in response to the latest threats to Brough:
“So with the first test of this so-called transitional plan, which only ended in December, it has failed and I think this is a breach of faith.”
There are certainly those in the Brough work force who would share the sentiment that despite the assurances BAE Systems gave some years ago, the continued reliance on Hawk has led us to the position we are now in. I urge the Minister to give us assurances this evening in whatever way he can that the Government will put as much pressure as possible on BAE Systems to ensure that the work undertaken at Brough is broadened in furtherance of the agreement of some two years ago.
It is also important to pay tribute to the unions at the Brough site. Every time there have been threats to jobs at Brough, they have engaged in a positive way with management, local elected representatives and the local councils, who are also incredibly supportive of the site. As we move forward in addressing difficult decisions more generally, the nature of their engagement might serve as a lesson to others about what can be achieved when we have a proper positive partnership between unions, staff and management. I hope others will take a lead from the engagement at Brough as they face their own issues in coming months and years.
I also seek some assurances from the Minister this evening on the future of the Hawk contracts. We have not been able to get to the bottom of that. We are told that there are three countries, two of which have been named—one as country X, for whatever reason—where there are potential Hawk contracts ready to be signed. What is different about the current position at Brough, where about 210 jobs are under threat, is that this seems to have come as a bolt out of the blue. When there has been a threat to jobs in the past, the management at BAE Systems have engaged positively with local Members of Parliament, the local councils and the work force to see what pressure can be applied, wherever, to try to alleviate the problems. This time, the threat seems to have come out of the blue, so we are unclear as to what exactly the contracts are, at what point the Hawk contracts are at and whether indeed there are any contracts. The securing of one of these contracts would put the site on a secure footing for a couple of years. If the Minister is unable to respond this evening to those points, I urge him to take them up with BAE Systems and respond to the work force and MPs as soon as possible.
It is also important to welcome the new Government’s movement on the so-called “commercial foreign policy”, because this is something we need. I heard with interest the comments about the success of the UK’s aerospace industry over the past few years. It did not happen overnight or in the past 13 years; it happened because of decisions taken decades ago, many of them in the 1980s and often in the teeth of opposition, because of the nature of the work involved, from the Labour party—depending on who gets its leadership, we might see that again in the future. Those tough and important decisions taken in the national interest decades ago have led to the successful industry we have in this country today.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman makes persuasive points, but does he not think that they underline the importance of the decisions that we are going to take next month in ensuring that the next two decades can continue to provide export growth?
Andrew Percy
I do think that, but Labour Members have absolutely no credibility on this issue. They could and should have undertaken the strategic defence review a number of years ago, and they have left us in the current financial position. They must accept that the decisions being taken today are not down to this Government, but down to our inheritance from the previous one.
Andrew Percy
No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I fear that we will end up getting into too much of a political debate. Perhaps I have contributed to that, and I apologise, so I shall now focus much more on the positives of how we can make progress.
There is the potential for us to work on a cross-party basis and for MPs representing different parts of the country to work together to protect their local work forces. The Government have got the right idea about going out there and selling for Britain. I take the point that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made about the fact that we must prove our commitment to our products, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard what he said. Tough decisions lie ahead, but as long as this dialogue takes place early, the announcements do not come out of the blue and we are given the full information about where we are at, particularly on the Hawk contracts and the Brough site, we can perhaps alleviate many of the current threats to jobs.
I conclude by, again, emphasising that the Brough site has a highly skilled and dedicated work force, who are an important part of not only the local economy, but the national economy. We have to get real about this commitment to improving manufacturing in this country, and there we have an excellent example that can be drawn upon for use in other areas of Government policy. I urge the Government to do all that they can to work with BAE Systems, to protect jobs not only in Brough and my patch, but across the whole industry. It is a huge success story for our country, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on managing to get this important issue on the agenda this evening. I have worked in the aerospace industry for more than 40 years, and I can remember working on the old Phantom engine at Lucas Aerospace many, many years ago. Amazingly, some of those engines are still being used in jet fighters in underdeveloped countries.
It is important to remember that this country can no longer afford to develop new military aerospace equipment, because it is far too expensive for a single country to do that. The European countries of Germany and Spain—the ones involved in the Eurofighter contracts—have appreciated that. One thing that concerns me a little is that although the Eurofighter is being built at the moment, we should be developing the next stage of military aircraft now. A new aircraft does not just happen tomorrow—it takes years and years to develop. I hope that the European Union, in collaboration with all the aerospace companies, is starting to consider the next combat plane that will have to be developed after Eurofighter finishes.
Eurofighter is being built at Samlesbury, near Preston, but the biggest contract for Preston would be one that has already been mentioned: the F-35. Our requirements for the F-35 are negligible compared with what the USA wants. I understand that it is considering somewhere in the region of 3,000 of these aeroplanes. Quite a large number of them will be built in Lancashire at Samlesbury and Warton. I hope that the Minister can press the USA to take final decisions on engine design and engine contracts, because I know that Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick is urgently awaiting the contract.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points and I agree with him. I am concerned about our capacity at Warton if we are solely reliant on the F-35 and the Eurofighter is cancelled or reduced. The F-35 is assembled not in the UK but in the USA, so we will not need the runway at Warton and we will lose our capacity. There are ongoing issues when we rely totally on the F-35. We should not be doing that; we should be trying to keep our European bases, which is the point that he is making.
Gordon Birtwistle
All military aircraft go out of fashion. By the time the Eurofighter was developed, the countries that would potentially be our enemies were already developing systems to combat it. We have to accept that, as it has gone on for ever. I remember the TSR2—not many people in this Chamber will remember that—which got almost to the point of taking off when the then Labour Government cancelled it. This has nothing to do with politics, really—it has to do with collaboration between countries across the world in developing the fighters.
One thing that I want quickly to mention is the link between military aircraft and commercial aircraft. Modern aeroplanes, such as the Airbus, are built around the technology that has been developed over many years in military aircraft. The fly-by-wire in the Airbus was initially developed in the early stages of the English Electric Lightning aircraft and was developed further for commercial aircraft. Military aircraft sales in this country are very high—I accept that—but they pale into insignificance when they are linked to the sales of commercial airliners.
Rolls-Royce is one of the manufacturers, and much is built in Burnley—the thrust reversers are built at Aircelle. The contracts for the Trent engine and the Airbus wings all involve products that have been developed from old military technology.
Mark Hendrick
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a young engineer, I trained at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. Liquid crystal was one of the products that was developed there for military use. As we know, that has formed the basis of television sets sold in millions around the world. That is a technology that we developed and that we are not exploiting as a nation because the sets are made in other countries in the far east. The loss of any industry in the north-west would mean that we would lose the spin-off industry, as well as the direct industries that he talks about.
Gordon Birtwistle
Yes, that is another industry that developed from military aircraft. My link is from military to commercial and concerns the potential for sales of commercial equipment—that is, the new Trent XWB Rolls-Royce engine that we hope will power the new family of single-aisle aircraft after the Boeing 737s and A320s have finished their lives. All that technology starts in the military field because commercial companies cannot afford to develop the technology. They live off what they get from the Government to develop technologies to power military aircraft, and that spins off into commercial aircraft. When the Government order military aircraft, they might—indeed, I am sure they do—contribute to the development of commercial airliners and engines in this country. Thousands of people work in that industry and we are world leaders in it. We probably produce the best aircraft wings ever built and Boeing is certainly a big customer of many manufacturers in this country, particularly Rolls-Royce, whose Trent engine powers the new Dreamliner, the 777, most of the Boeing 737s and the majority of the Airbus aeroplanes. Hon. Members will know that the new A380 is powered by the new Trent 900 engine.
It is important to keep military aircraft going, but it is also important to keep a focus on the cost of doing so and the cost of developing those aircraft. I understand that Eurofighters cost about £20 million apiece. It is important to link all that together and consider the development of commercial equipment that spins off from military equipment. As I have said, military equipment comes and goes—in my life, I have seen some aircraft cancelled and some that are developed go on to be very successful—but it is important to focus on what we can get from the development of military equipment into commercial equipment, as that is where all the money is made by companies that work in that industry.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) made a good point about cross-subsidy. We can look at BAE Systems and start from there. It spends £101,000 for every £1 million—10% of its revenue—on research and development, and it is the third-highest of 850 UK firms when it comes to R and D. He made the tremendous point that any reduction in our military or industrial base will affect commercial opportunities and other businesses in the north-west and the UK.
This is not a two-sided argument, as some Government Members have characterised it. It is not about deficit reduction or increased national debt, and I am very concerned that the Treasury is leading on this issue rather than the Ministry of Defence. The arguments between the Chancellor and the MOD do not serve the country or the aviation industry well, and statements such as that by the Secretary of State for Defence that we will buy “off the shelf” are very unhelpful.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) talked about scaremongering. When workers hear those kinds of comments and see job losses, they are naturally concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, they have every right to approach their Member of Parliament and expect them to stand up on their behalf and for their jobs and families. They also have sense in that they understand that the sector is part of the UK’s industrial base, especially in Lancashire and the north-west.
I think we are all aware of the UK’s industrial base. I want to read out three points from the plethora that have been raised with me. First, the UK is the world leader in the manufacture of aircraft wings and engines, as the hon. Member for Burnley pointed out, and has a 35% market share in the sale of engines, which is worth more than £5.1 billion a year. Secondly, defence exports are generally worth £5 billion a year to the UK economy and support 65,000 jobs. Thirdly, according to the Government’s 2009 value added scoreboard, the aerospace and defence sector added £12 billion in value to the economy. The average value added per employee in the industry was very high, as the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) pointed out, at £116,000, whereas for general manufacturing the figure is £15,500 per employee in Lancashire. The £116,000 figure also compares well with those for other industries. The sector is one of Britain’s success stories, as has been pointed out.
This is not about scaremongering. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that these issues are raised in this place and discussed thoroughly. The citizens who elect us are the important people, not us. We are simply advocates on their behalf. They are the ones who will face redundancy and repossession when they are unable to pay the mortgage. Britain will suffer from the economic impact—and there will be an economic impact. This is not a case of pushing one domino over and perhaps two or three others falling. In the case of the defence industry, if one domino is pushed over, it is likely that the whole lot will go down, and Britain’s industrial capacity in one of our best exporting sectors will then be torn away.
The north-west has a great export and manufacturing story. However, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, that has come on the back of military spending and Government contracts. The old private sector and state industries are long gone, and the heartbeat of the north-west economy is kept ticking by, if not the public service, defence and nuclear.
The Chancellor’s priorities for the coalition Government are a return to manufacturing, and a focus on the private sector and on manufacturing companies that are able to export to get Britain out of the so-called deficit. The north-west’s defence industry ticks all those boxes. We should look at the domino principle of how everything collapses if the industrial and skills bases are taken away. If things are turned off today, they will not come back on in five years’ time. Given that the industry ticks all the boxes that the coalition has put forward, I do not understand why it would cancel any of the defence contracts.
Gordon Birtwistle
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the age profile of a lot of the work force in the British aerospace industry, particularly in Lancashire, and the engineering industry is getting very high and that when those members of staff move, the companies should seriously consider replacing them with a major influx of new apprentices? We heard earlier that BAE Systems takes on a derisory number of apprentices compared with the number of people whom it employs.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that a lot of skilled people in the sector developed their skills in the 1960s and 1970s. We paid the price for the great manufacturing recession of the 1980s with the loss of capacity and skills. Those in my generation are missing from the skilled group, and such unskilled people should have become skilled so that they could work in places such as Warton and Samlesbury. The history lesson from the 1980s shows that when manufacturing is hit, it does not come back, and we should take that lesson on board when we consider defence spending.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about apprenticeships. BAE Systems has some 200 apprentices. It spends £1 million at the university of Central Lancashire and is heavily involved in trying to bring young people through so that they get skills. On job prospects, I have heard someone—it might have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—talking about Govan shipyard or Asda, and one could almost say for us that it is a supermarket or BAE. That is not quite true, but it is a lot of people’s perception of job prospects. A job at British Aerospace, as it was formerly known, was something to behold because someone employed there was working for a first-class company that was one of the best in the region.
The Minister has heard a lot of evidence during the debate—all of it true—to show that we cannot afford to cancel defence contracts now.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House in a positive manner and we are with him on maintaining jobs, skills and our excellent defence export industry. However, is he edging towards suggesting what his party would be able to cut to maintain the defence expenditure that he is proposing? Government Members would be fascinated to hear what might be sacrificed so that his skills base and industry may be supported.
Graham Jones
Thank you very much for raising that. You make a very good point that there has been no dialogue—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made any point at all? It is important that the second person is not used. We must get into the habit of holding debates through the Chair. I know that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue that now—we look forward to it.
Graham Jones
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is a result of being a new MP.
There has been little dialogue between the Government and unions. We need more discussion of the future prospects. I appeal to the coalition to engage in more dialogue and to think about the decision that it will make.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the chance to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, but this is a stimulating and important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing the time for a debate on such an important subject. We have heard some great remarks.
Although I had not planned to speak, the subject is important to me as the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield because in the neighbouring constituency, Cheadle, there is a big BAE site, BAE Woodford, which is a former aerodrome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) no doubt knows, having been raised in Poynton. Many of the work force live in Macclesfield. Woodford is famous for the Lancaster bomber, the Vulcan, and now Nimrod. It is also famous for many well known air shows, where Concorde turned up.
BAE Woodford is symbolic of the importance of the industry to the UK. In recent decades it has seen a huge amount of investment in the new Nimrod MRA4, which is a magnificent aircraft. I have had the chance to tour the aircraft on site and it is an amazing structure. Sadly, the long-term survival of that aircraft is not guaranteed, despite the best efforts of my predecessor, Sir Nicholas Winterton, of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), and of the work force and management of BAE. It is well known that the site will close in 2012.
Today we have been meeting the Minister and are extremely grateful to him for the time that he has given. We made representations about the importance of securing the remaining nine Nimrod MRA4s that we are keen to see produced, which will be vital to protect this country’s Trident capability. We will see how that emerges from the strategic defence review. We are very hopeful.
It is important not just for BAE Woodford and the people who work there, but in the context of the debate, that we have a strong and vibrant aviation industry and military capability. We need that not only to find jobs for people when the 600 jobs at Woodford go in 2012—of course I am concerned about that—but in order to maintain our sovereign capability, which has been well described in the debate. We must have that at the forefront of our minds.
The other point that has been made on both sides of the House is that we need to maintain the skills and the experience that underpin this vital industry. Those are important to the economy not just of the north-west or the other side of the Pennines, but to the whole country. The industry is strategically important. I hope that on the strength of the debate, the strength of feeling and the judgments that have been made by the Minister and his colleagues, we will see the industry thrive and succeed. It will be vital in future. I hope the Minister will take note of these points, and I look forward to hearing his response later.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. It is always a pleasure to be able to contribute to a debate when I had not expected to do so, and today is one of those rare opportunities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for initiating the debate and I apologise to him for missing the commencement of it. The previous business finished earlier than we expected.
I shall use the opportunity to make a case that I have made before to the House with regard to the A400M future large aircraft, with which the Minister will be familiar. It is a major development project for future military aircraft that involves manufacturing capability in my constituency in north Wales, with the Broughton Airbus site, and also creates employment in Bristol and the Avon area.
The Minister will know that some 6,500 people are employed at the Broughton site. Many—to continue the tenor of the debate—live and work in the north-west, and many live and work in my constituency in north Wales. Indeed, some 2,000 of the people who work at that plant are based in my constituency, and they are very concerned to ensure that the A400M aircraft is developed, purchased and built, and that the relevant skills are grown, to ensure that we meet the needs not only of the military, but of the skills base in the private sector.
The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), when Defence Secretary, signed a contract for the purchase of 22 A400M aircraft—before the general election but in the window between January and the general election date. The current Government have now deemed that period to be one for the review of contracts. The Minister is currently reviewing the contracts for the purchases that my right hon. Friend intended to make at that time, and I wish to see the Minister do so positively, for the reason that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) gave.
The use and development of military technology is strongly linked to the development of civil aircraft. Members will know that the Airbus factory at Broughton produces world-class wings for civil aircraft, but it does so based on the technology, skills and investment in people that its military capacity is developing and, with the A400M, I hope will continue to develop. There is a great synergy between the two, and, when I recently met the trade unions, which work very positively with the management at that factory, to look at the work on civil and military projects, they recognised that although the Airbus factory in north Wales, servicing north Wales and the north-west, does not make a major contribution to the A400M, the skills, expertise and wings that are developed for civil aircraft very much depend on its successful construction.
The A400M is a flexible aircraft, providing the opportunity for the strong development of the required technologies in modern aircraft. It offers the requirements that the military need for civil, military and humanitarian usage, and it is an excellent technology that has long been in development. I was very pleased when that contract was signed, so I am disappointed that it is under review, but I hope that the Minister will review it positively. Given what I have heard from Members today, this debate is not just about our military capability, but about maintaining a world-class manufacturing base with skills development and long-term jobs in the British aerospace industry, both in the military sector and, as with my constituency, in the civil sector.
Those skills are interchangeable, but if we duck that challenge, purchase products off the shelf from foreign countries and do not develop our skill base, we will be exporting those jobs to competitors—to foreign countries—who will ultimately cost us more in the long term, not just in terms of our technology and our ability to export products and skills to other countries, but in relation to our future defence capacity.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Fylde for initiating this debate and to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to contribute, however briefly, given the time that we have had. This has been a very valuable debate, and there are real issues at stake, so I hope that the Minister, in his difficult deliberations, will take on board my constructive comments about the A400M and, ultimately, confirm the contracts that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East signed in good faith in order to keep that skills base in north Wales and in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
It is customary to congratulate the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who has secured such a debate at the end of the day, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) with particular pleasure today. It is his first Adjournment debate, mine too as a Minister, but it has been of the most exceptional value and great quality, so his congratulations are all the more deserved. There has been a phenomenal level of participation in what is normally a half-hour debate. My brief is littered with handwritten comments, which I hope I can decipher as I go through my remarks. If for any inadvertent reason I unintentionally overlook any hon. Gentleman in my response, I shall of course write to them subsequently. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on what was a very informative and entertaining maiden speech in the House during the debate on the strategic defence and security review on 21 June. He is clearly carrying on with exceptional skill the excellent work of his predecessor, Michael Jack, who also spoke very strongly for the aerospace industry in the north-west.
Peter Luff
This debate is timely, as my hon. Friend said, not only for the reasons he gave us—the very sad redundancies, which I want to discuss later—but because of its significance to the strategic defence and security review process. That process seriously constrains how far I can go in replying to many of the points made by hon. Members, and I apologise for that, but the debate is an important contribution to the process, and I welcome it for that reason.
The debate is also timely for a second reason, as we heard. Today is battle of Britain day: 15 September 1940, 70 years ago, was a critical turning point in the war, when RAF fighter command claimed a decisive victory over the Luftwaffe. It is fitting, when debating the aviation industry today, to pause and pay tribute to the bravery of our RAF service personnel, past and present, and to all those who work so hard to design and build the aircraft in which they fly. From the battle of Britain to Afghanistan, the skills of all those who work in the industry and their commitment to supporting our servicemen and women has proved to be second to none.
The contribution made by the UK’s military aviation industry in supporting our armed forces cannot be underestimated, and it certainly has not been in the Chamber this evening. All three of your Deputy Speaker colleagues, Mr Speaker, have interests in the aerospace and military aviation sector. I know that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) are particularly sad not to be able to contribute to this debate—they, too, have been outspoken advocates for their constituencies in the past—and the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo) has a strong local aviation industry and a vital interest in the A400M project.
I am relieved that Members from areas other than the north-west turned up. This is not just a north-west issue, although it is very important to that region, and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) demonstrated that fact. We also have interests in Yorkshire and around the country, including the south-east, the south-west, the west midlands, and the east midlands. Wherever one goes there are aviation and military aviation interests, so I am glad that the debate has been so broadly drawn.
Our servicemen and women who are currently deployed on operations, particularly in Afghanistan, deserve the best equipment that we can provide, and there is no doubt that the UK military aviation industry has risen to that challenge in the past and, as hon. Gentlemen have said, continues to do so. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech and I share his heartfelt and sincere view that it is crucial for the security of the UK and our allies that we have a strong and dynamic military aviation industry both now and in the future.
BAE Systems’ Warton facility, which lies within my hon. Friend’s constituency, demonstrates this ethos, supporting as it does the important multinational Typhoon and joint strike fighter programmes. I will be concentrating on fast jets and unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—but military aviation of course encompasses much more, including helicopters, tankers, strategic lift and, as the right hon. Member for Delyn reminded us in his fine speech on the A400M, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, or ISTAR.
Turning briefly to ISTAR, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) told the House that he had met me, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), to discuss the Nimrod MRA4. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which they put their case and, in particular, to the trade union representatives from Woodford who came with them and made such a powerful case. I apologise publicly for the fact that the meeting was so disrupted by Divisions in the House, but I think they successfully conveyed their key messages, and I congratulate them on that. I promise that I will take careful account of what was said.
The coalition Government recognise, of course, that the UK military aviation industry is a vital strategic asset. The challenge is to maintain a vibrant and innovative industry capable of meeting the needs of the MOD at a time of financial challenge, and to be competitive in the world marketplace while at the same time minimising any MOD investment in artificial sustainment activities—we want this activity to be real. We simply cannot do this without listening to what industry has to say; and industry has had some very powerful advocates in the Chamber this evening.
That is why, in addition to the engagement with industry that has occurred during the SDSR—despite, Mr Speaker, reports to the contrary—I recently announced the publication of a Green Paper at the end of this year to explain the MOD’s defence industry and technology policy, to follow the conclusions of the SDSR in the autumn. It will include a full discussion of many issues, including sovereign capabilities and skills—I hope that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—and, I hope, the role of apprentices, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). On a recent visit to Rolls-Royce I was struck by the number of senior managers who had started their working life with the company as apprentices, which shows how important that route of entry into the industry is.
As a result of that Green Paper process, we will publish a White Paper in the spring, which will formally set out our approach to industry and technology through to the next SDSR, which I hope will come after a much shorter gap than this one. That will provide the clarity that the industry needs to understand what our priorities are and how we plan to engage with it to bring those priorities to fruition.
Two of the highest priorities in the Green Paper and White Paper will be reinvigorated Government support for exports and helping small and medium-sized enterprises to expand and prosper. Many of them serve and supply the military aviation industry, as hon. Members have said. We will support the drive for exports with an active and innovative programme of defence diplomacy, and Ministers will play an important and personal role in that.
My hon. Friends the Members for Fylde and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys mentioned the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in securing a recent Hawk contract in India, which shows how important high-level ministerial engagement is. When I wore a previous hat, as Chairman of what was once called the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we repeatedly made the call for such engagement, and I am delighted to see it bearing fruit so quickly under the coalition Government. The entire ministerial team was at the Farnborough air show this year to demonstrate our support for military exports in general and the military aviation sector in particular. I undertake that that level of support from Ministers will continue.
I turn to the BAE Systems site in Samlesbury. The MOD continues to recognise BAE’s integral role in the UK aerospace industry, and it is essential that we continue to work together for our mutual benefit as we establish and confirm the UK’s strategic objectives in the wake of the SDSR. In that respect, I very much welcome the company’s own review that is currently under way to ensure that its Military Air Solutions business has the right balance of skills, capabilities and resources to meet the new challenges that lie ahead. That cannot be achieved without some effect on the structure of the company, and I note with sadness the company’s announcement on 9 September that it sees a need for more than 700 job losses at a number of its aviation business sites following decisions by the last Government in 2009. Those losses come on top of earlier such announcements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde will be aware, however, that BAE Systems is making a multi-million-pound investment in the north-west at its Samlesbury facility, which will be state-of-the-art. The company aims to develop the site into a major centre for unmanned air system development. Samlesbury has a strong tradition of design, engineering and manufacturing excellence in the aerospace industry, for which I pay tribute to it. It is home to some of the most advanced aerospace manufacturing and assembly technologies in the world.
On the subject of advanced technologies, unmanned air systems, which my hon. Friend mentioned, are already making a critical contribution to our operations in Afghanistan. Hermes 450, Desert Hawk and Reaper are saving the lives of our forces, our allies and the Afghan people themselves. I look forward to the introduction of Thales’s Watchkeeper system, which is currently the MOD’s largest unmanned air vehicle procurement programme. It will provide operational commanders with a day and night, all-weather capability to detect and track targets without the need to deploy troops into potentially sensitive and dangerous areas. My hon. Friend mentioned HERTI, which, if I remember correctly, is a privately funded capability at BAE Systems.
Looking further forward, we are investing in programmes to help us better understand possible future roles for unmanned air systems. Mantis, for example, is a programme funded jointly by the MOD and BAE Systems, which is leading an industrial consortium. The programme is a concept demonstrator with state-of-the-art sensors that will demonstrate a UK-developed deep and persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability of the type currently provided by Reaper.
Mark Hendrick
The Minister is speaking very strongly about the importance of the UAV programme, which is taking place principally at Warton, and I totally agree with him. He mentioned the restructuring at Samlesbury, which we all know has amounted to hundreds of jobs being lost last year and hundreds more this year. What does he have to say to people there who are going to lose their jobs, some of whom have given a lifetime of commitment to Samlesbury? That is likely happen to even more of them as a result of the defence review, in addition to the losses announced recently.
Peter Luff
I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me express deep regret for those redundancies, which result from decisions taken in the past. Exactly how BAES chooses to distribute its skills and work force in future is a matter for BAES, and it is not for me to comment. However, I express deep regret to those individuals, many of whom are outstanding engineers and technicians who started as apprentices and who have given a lifetime of work to some excellent products. I shall turn to the importance of maintaining a skills-base in the north-west, in particular for unmanned aerial systems, in a moment.
Another unmanned aerial system, Taranis, is the MOD’s prototype unmanned combat aircraft of the future. Built by BAES, Taranis reflects the best of our nation’s advanced design and technology skills. It will allow the MOD to gain a better understanding of the most cost-effective and capable future combat air capability force mix between manned and unmanned platforms. A pinnacle of UK engineering and aeronautical design, Taranis is a leading programme on the global stage and a significant step forward in this country’s fast jet capability. It is truly a trailblazing project.
To return to a point I made earlier, projects such as Mantis and Taranis will enable the UK to retain vital aeronautical engineering and design skills, not least in the north-west at Warton and Samlesbury. However, we acknowledge the risk to sustainment of critical engineering skills and, in particular, a critical mass of design skills within the UK aerospace sector. We are currently funding some work with BAES and key UK suppliers to sustain capabilities pending SDSR outcomes, which I am afraid I cannot prejudge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde of course has a specific in interest in Warton, and its work is vital to the Department. The Typhoon programme contracts are worth approximately £20 billon for, from memory, about 160 aircraft, up to and including tranche 3A. I was asked to say that I would not cancel tranche 3B, but I cannot cancel it, because no order has been placed. However, all future Typhoon contracts are SDSR dependent. Of course, a significant proportion of the Typhoon work goes to BAES.
The MOD has also awarded a contract worth approximately £145 million for unmanned air systems air projects based at Warton. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, the site makes a critical contribution to the multi-billion dollar JSF F-35 programme, about which many hon. Members spoke enthusiastically. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Pendle that a two-engine option is vastly preferable in terms of security, design and driving down cost. I hope our American friends will be persuaded to pursue the two-engine option, which offers great strategic and financial advantages to countries participating in the programme.
The UK’s military aerospace industry is well placed to continue performing significant work in maintaining Typhoon’s capability edge and to address the considerable export interest that is being shown. Indeed, with two existing export customers—Austria and Saudi Arabia—official campaigns being pursued in India, Japan, Turkey and other countries, and with further opportunities in the middle east, including in Oman and Qatar, Typhoon promises to provide excellent employment prospects. That underlines that healthy defence exports are the best way in which to sustain a viable defence and aerospace sector in the UK.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) suggested that we were in some sense withdrawing from a commitment to Typhoon, but nothing could be further from the truth. Such suggestions are very damaging to our defence exports. This country has a fine aircraft in Typhoon, which is already in active service and serving the country very well indeed. However, the Typhoon situation will require the industry to continue modernising its approach to address the capability and through-life support requirements of those customers, as it does in the UK, rather than simply focusing on aircraft production and supply. Through-life support costs are hugely important, and we look forward to showing the way ahead through the Green Paper that I mentioned. Certainly, we will work with industry to ensure that, in future, our requirements for new equipment are designed from their inception with exportability in mind. That is very important in, for example, the unmanned air systems environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde asked for reassurances on the JSF. Again, it must be SDSR dependent, as in everything else, but the UK’s contribution to the JSF development will not change—it is fixed by the memorandum of understanding that we signed jointly with the US in 2001. There are significant work share benefits for the UK aerospace sector and it is important to recognise that those benefits come because of the excellence of that sector, which has won those contracts in competition in world markets. That is a great tribute to British engineering and the sector itself.
The UK’s plans to purchase further joint strike fighters are incremental—we already have some bought for test purposes—and they have always been based on the programme reaching technical maturity levels and being affordable within the overall resources for defence. We will regard future purchasing plans accordingly, as part of the normal planning process and the outcome of the SDSR. The UK continues to play an important role in the JSF programme through the provision of expertise and resources, including RAF pilots who are now flying the short take-off and vertical landing—or STOVL—flight test aircraft.
The SDSR underpins all this work and, together with the new national security strategy, will provide a coherent and consultative approach to security and defence across government. Our National Security Council has agreed that the overarching strategic posture should be to address the most immediate threats to our national security while maintaining the ability to identify and deal with emerging ones before they become bigger threats to Britain. This flexible, adaptable posture will maintain the ability to safeguard international peace and security, to deter and contain those who threaten Britain and her interests and, where necessary, to intervene on multiple fronts. It will also, crucially, keep our options open for a future in which we can expect our highest priorities to change over time.
It is very clear that the current defence programme is unaffordable and tough choices will need to be made. It cannot be said too often that the programme for the next 10 years is £38 billion over-committed, a sum that we simply cannot fund. That is additional to any requirement to cut budgets beyond that. That over-commitment of the existing budget is the legacy of the last Government.
Graham Jones
Will the Minister accept that the reason for the £38 billion overspend is the Government’s choice to cut the deficit further and faster? Otherwise the money would be there.
Peter Luff
Labour Members just do not get it. It is not a matter of choice. The last Government made a choice to be—I shall choose my words with great care—a little disingenuous with the figures and to make commitments that they knew they could not meet. We have to deal with the £38 billion over-commitment before we address any budget deficit reductions, and that is the problem we face in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that as he has only just toddled into the Chamber he should not be chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the views of others?
Mark Hendrick
The Minister ignores the fact that we had a major global economic crisis and the Government had to bail out the banks after the irresponsible behaviour of generations of financiers. The reason we are in the terrible state we are in now, which the coalition Government seem to forget, is the behaviour of the bankers, not of the previous Government.
Peter Luff
It is the nature of Adjournment debates not to be too partisan, so I shall just spell it out in very simple language. The problem facing the MOD—the £38 billion—is nothing to do with international crises or bankers. It is because the last Government made commitments that they had no money to pay for. It is nothing to do with deficit reduction or the crisis. I could not be clearer about that. The £38 billion is a problem that we have inherited that we would have had to deal with irrespective of any need to address the extraordinarily large structural deficit that we also have in the UK. The £38 billion is a starting point before we address the consequences of the crisis.
John Woodcock
I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for coming in slightly late for his speech. Members on both sides of the House accept that there is an over-commitment in the budget. Will he accept the findings of the Defence Committee’s report today that there is a grave danger that if the correction is done in the wrong manner—and it is being done very quickly—we will lose the capacity to maintain or restore capability in vital areas in future years?
Peter Luff
The Select Committee’s statement was constructive and thoughtful. I have not read every word of it yet, but it is a very helpful document. In some areas, it has not quite understood the process, but never mind—it is a good response, and today’s debate shows that Members on both sides of the House, including me, understand how important it is to maintain these capabilities and to ensure that we can take part in the next generation, particularly of unmanned aerial systems, which are the future of fast jet production. I will not labour the £38 billion point any more, but it does set the framework of what the Government have to contend with.
For Britain’s defence, and despite all the financial constraints we linger under—both inherited ones and the structural problems caused by irresponsibility in fiscal policy generally—that means taking strategic decisions for the long term. These are the realities we face as we approach the critical decision-making phase of the SDSR. I reiterate that no decisions have been taken on any of the issues debated in the House this evening. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to the A400M. Everything is in the pot, including the Nimrod MRA4. Everything is there together, and nothing has been singled out or decided. We have to do that to ensure we address both the fiscal challenges and the defence issues facing our country.
Mr Hanson
The contracts for the A400M were signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) before the election, but that has been put in abeyance by the coalition Government. So a decision has been made on something that would, it had been decided, go ahead.
Peter Luff
I would like to be more explicit, but I cannot be. We are, and I quote:
“Pleased that agreement in principle on the future of the A400M programme has been reached between Partner Nations and Airbus Military (AMSL); this is an important stage in agreeing an amended contract.”—
the contract now needs to be amended—
“Work on the amended contract continues, and we expect it to be concluded later this year. However, as these discussions are ongoing and at a critical state, it would be inappropriate to provide any further details at this stage.”
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, therefore, that the issue is not just about the SDSR; negotiations are also going on at present.
I said that no decisions had been taken. However, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made one such commitment at Defence questions earlier this week: he is keeping the RAF. I hope that provides some reassurance to hon. Members.
The potential prize is great: modernised, well-supported armed forces ready to defend and promote British national interests and successful manufacturing industry to support that. The UK military aviation industry is a strategic asset, and this Government will ensure that it remains so. We are committed to increasing the exportability of our equipment and delivering the industrial and technology support our armed forces need. The MOD’s defence industry and technology policy Green Paper will be a significant step towards achieving those aims. I welcome the opportunity to engage with our industrial partners in the coming months to ensure that, despite the serious financial challenge we face, these aims will become a reality.
Question put and agreed to
Sentences for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 7 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
Criminal Bar (Public Funding)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you preside over this debate, Mr Bone. I am pleased to have secured a debate on such a topical and important subject, and to be able to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) to his position. It is my first opportunity to do so in this Chamber, and I hope that he is enjoying the multifarious complexities of the task with which he has been entrusted, because it is an unenviable one. In many respects, he inherits an unfortunate and complicated history, and it is one through which he will no doubt tread with a combination of charm, urbanity and skill. Certainly, he will need all three.
I should declare an interest here. For the last 28 years, I have made my living at the Bar, a large part of which has been at the criminal Bar. Therefore, it is right for me to declare at the outset of this debate a strong financial personal interest. It was that interest that has caused me, over the past few years, to hesitate long and hard before bringing to the Floor of the House any issue to do with the professional structure or remuneration of the profession of which I have been a member for so long. It is precisely because of the gravity of the current situation and the need for a voice to be raised in defence of what are often minority, quiet and civilised professional values—they lack a voice in the discussions of the House—that I decided to overcome my hesitation. Given that I have been contacted by many members of the Bar and that I head my own chambers in Lincoln’s Inn fields, I can say that I am conscious of the interests of many junior and young barristers who are affected by the current predicament with which the criminal Bar is faced, and with those qualifications and caveats, I felt that it was right to bring such issues to the House’s attention.
At the heart of the criminal justice system is the professional exercise of the art of advocacy. The efficient conduct of cases in the courts is the essential pivot around which revolves the entire administration of justice. Incompetence and poor quality in the representation of prosecution or defence will inevitably lead to the failure of justice, prolonged delays, aborted trials, appeals and much greater cost. I hope that the Minister and I will at least agree on that important statement. It goes without saying that the heart of the criminal courts in our system is the adversarial combat between advocates on either side. If that combat is conducted with expedition, skill, relevance and a strict fidelity to the relevant issues in a case, it assists the judiciary to make its decisions. The judiciary knows that, which is why it has a direct interest and a powerful voice on behalf of the quality of advocacy in our courts.
The criminal Bar is the profession of specialist advocates in the criminal courts. It has a long and proud tradition. Its codes and professional atmosphere are exacting and competitive. It upholds high standards, celebrates and seeks to emulate the examples of luminaries of the past and present. Those include names who have bestridden the parliamentary stage in ages gone by, including Carson, Smith, Hastings, Marshall Hall, Peter Rawlinson and—I dare to add a name of which I am particularly fond—Marshall-Andrews.
A strong emphasis on ethical conduct is instilled into the novice barrister from his earliest experience. On the consistent reliability of such standards of moral integrity and of skill in the efficient dispatch of cases rests the trust of the judiciary, which knows that the accuracy and justice of its decisions are substantially dependent on the quality of those who represent Crown and accused. It is largely from their senior ranks that the judiciary are drawn.
Furthermore, the availability of an independent, fearless and professional cadre of advocates, who are obliged under the rules of their profession to take up a case regardless of the unpopularity of the cause or the power of the opponent, is a vital constitutional protection of the individual. It is by the efforts of such men and women in seminal cases throughout the years that many of the rights that we take for granted today were first established. No dictatorship or tyranny can long tolerate the existence of such a profession. Therefore, the continuing vigorous existence of the criminal Bar is a potent public good. I am afraid to say that the previous Government in their language and conduct did not appear to recognise that. It is important to many in this House that this Government—I dare to say our Government—recognise the value to the public interest of the criminal Bar and its professional values.
If this debate—I look at the Minister directly here—could elicit from the Minister a firm statement in support of the value of the criminal Bar and its professional values, it would have done some good. It would give enormous encouragement to many hundreds of junior barristers and others to believe that this Government were going to restore to pride of place in their considerations of the criminal justice system a respect and understanding of professional values.
For 20 years now, the Bar has been joined in the practice of advocacy in the higher courts by solicitor-advocates. A previous Conservative Government accepted the argument that the public should have the choice not to be represented by a barrister. I do not believe that the criminal Bar as a whole was, at the time, particularly resistant to that innovation. The view was held, and I agreed with it, that provided the criminal Bar occupied a level playing field it would, by virtue of its specialisation and standards of training and skill, be able to hold its own. Few believed back then that many solicitors in busy litigation practices would have the time or the inclination to visit the courts, and for some time that is how it proved.
However, that is no longer the case. For good or ill, higher courts advocates are now established and increasingly a prevalent feature of the criminal courts. As pressure on the available rewards have increased in other areas, the lure of the advocacy fee has been impossible to resist. The solicitor occupies the shop window. He is also the contractor with the Legal Services Commission for the provision of legal services. If a barrister is to be engaged, it is he who must refer the case. Traditionally he has done so by seeking out barristers whose reputations and proven records have staked a claim to his attention.
However, the solicitor’s position in the high street and in the police station means that he is able if he wishes to do so—and why should he not wish to do so?—to represent his firm’s client from the inception of criminal proceedings through to their end. If he is unable to manage all the case load that his practice brings him, he is now able to return some of it to another solicitor-advocate, who, as I understand it, can often be expected to split the fee and to return the favour some time later. In an age of decreasing margins, these are attractive options. Thus, the criminal Bar is being gradually stranded by a steadily withdrawing tide of work.
At the same time, the criminal Bar has sustained a consistent and dramatic reduction in the rates of legal aid for advocacy in criminal cases. Very few citizens are able to bear the cost of a serious criminal trial. However, the last Government made legal aid available without means-testing to anyone charged with a sufficiently serious offence. That was no doubt an attempt to control the costs recovered by a defendant in the event of acquittal and the costs of the bureaucracy associated with the assessment of means. However, it brought about some startling results, such as the sight of MPs being granted legal aid for expenses abuse cases and the sight of millionaires being represented on public funds. It also meant that the last Government in effect took predominant control of the market, making individuals less likely to pay for their own representation while simultaneously taking an axe to the remuneration.
I ask the Minister if he accepts that the rates of remuneration of the criminal Bar have been severely reduced; I hope that he does. In the course of my speech, I intend to ask him a number of questions, to which the answers would be welcome.
Let me give some examples of how the rates of remuneration of the criminal Bar have been severely reduced. For the most complex very-high-costs cases that are more than 60 days in length, the rates of remuneration have been actually reduced—not in real terms, but in actual terms, in the sense that these are headline figures and, therefore, have been cut by up to 20% since 2004. This year, according to the Ministry of Justice’s own figures, remuneration for cases of between 40 and 60 days has been reduced by 39.5%. On any view, those are extraordinary reductions. A barrister in a complex case can now be working for between 20% and 39.5% less than he was either in 2004 or in 2009.
Finally, on the very day that the House dissolved, 6 April, the statutory instrument was laid, amid rumours that civil servants were being bussed in at weekends to complete the processes, that enacted a further cut of 13.5% across the board in remuneration over the next three years. Another 13.5% was simply wiped out from the margins that criminal barristers are able to earn.
On any view, those examples, which are typical of the general trend of the last seven years, represent a severe contraction of public funding for the criminal Bar. The combined effect of all these developments has been to cause a crisis of confidence in the profession; I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to describe it as that.
The criminal Bar knows that it cannot expect special treatment and in the current financial climate it knows that it has no right to ask for such treatment. However, I believe that the present Government must take into account this recent history in responding to the imperative need to curtail public expenditure in the next few years. If the criminal Bar is to survive, with the powerful public interest that it represents, the Bar, the Law Society and the Government must be prepared to work together to rectify some of the competitive disadvantages, imbalances and unintended consequences that have resulted from recent changes.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the leadership of the Bar has been active in promoting imaginative—even radical—ideas to help to resolve these problems. For example, it has set up a working group to find and suggest to the Government savings in the criminal legal aid budget. These savings include those that would accrue from the lifting of the present rule that prevents the use of funds restrained pending trial, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, from being used to finance the legal costs of a trial. I strongly commend to the Minister that modest proposal.
However, by far the most significant proposal is for members of the Bar to form companies, which would be given the unwieldy working title of Procure Cos. Those companies would become direct contractors with the Legal Services Commission for the commissioning of legal services. This idea does not meet with universal accord within the profession. It is revolutionary in its ramifications. These new entities, which would be controlled by barristers, would commission solicitors to carry out legal work for the first time, thus standing on its head the traditional, centuries-old arrangement.
It is not at all clear how such a system would operate. At the moment, an advocate at the criminal Bar is retained in a competitive market, in which professional ability is at least a factor in his selection. Even where the barrister is unknown to the solicitor, the latter will have received an account from the barrister’s clerk of the barrister’s strengths and recent experience and he will have been given a choice, perhaps, of one or two other barristers. The solicitor, with his professional knowledge of the case, will choose the barrister who he thinks will best suit his client.
Under the new proposal, however, the clerk in the barrister’s chambers—the chambers from which the Procure Co that is run by the same barristers has agreed to commission services—will have only the accused to consult. There will be no professional intermediary. That is difficult, for all kinds of reasons, for many within the profession to contemplate.
There are further major reservations. How will the new entities set up in sufficient time the administrative and commercial infrastructure required to manage all the complex considerations that are involved both in commissioning services from other lawyers, experts and others, and in competing in a tender exercise for contracts, given that they have no established trading history on which to assess the viability of their bid, particularly if the contract is awarded on price?
However, I say to the Minister that, if these problems can be surmounted, there are clear public gains from allowing the Bar to have access to the commissioning of legal services. First, the Bar is the specialist advocacy profession. The preparation and presentation of a case in court is the major part of the legal services that are provided in criminal litigation and yet the profession that specialises in that core service has until now been unable to participate in managing the delivery of that service. If the Bar is widely acknowledged—as it is—to be a driver of quality and exacting professional standards, there can be nothing but good in allowing it to compete. Secondly, since the cost base of the Bar is low, that will help to keep down costs.
Nevertheless, I say to the Minister that it is plain that, if the Government are interested in this idea, it is essential that the entry of the Bar into commissioning legal services is facilitated by rules that it will be able to adhere to and conditions that it will be able to fulfil from a standing start. The criteria for the awarding of contracts must attach an appropriately high priority to the quality of advocacy and the depth and range of experience in specific areas that are offered by the potential bid. To that end, the promotion of a system of quality-assured advocacy standards, with defined levels of competence, is not only inherently desirable in itself but a necessary element. Similarly the Bar must be given adequate time to prepare for such massive and fundamental change to its structure.
If the Government believe that there is merit in this idea, the Minister must soon indicate so and begin to consider a timetable for change. We know that there will be a legal Green Paper this year. Will it contain the Government’s preliminary view of these proposals for new structures? What view do the Government take of the proposal to pay a single fee for a case without the ring-fencing of the advocacy element within it? As the Minister knows, that alone could dramatically increase the competitive imbalance that I have described.
When will the criteria for the new tender for contracts be set out? What will the Government learn from the recent civil family tender? I understand that a serious problem has arisen from exaggerated overbidding. Some solicitors have applied for contracts far beyond their capacity to cope with; others have been careful to apply only for what they do well. The Ministry scaled down the bids across the board, leaving some well-established firms of good reputation in the field with nothing. How will the Minister prevent such mischief from happening again?
The last Government proposed a draconian reduction in the number of solicitors’ firms able to offer legal services in the criminal courts. I do not hesitate to say to the Minister that although I understand the advantage of having fewer contractors, those considerations must be tempered by a realistic awareness of the damage such an unmitigated approach will do. I hope that the new Government, whom I am proud to support, will measure the impact of their reforms carefully and calibrate them according to clear and transparent principles and criteria. Those must include, above all, a high if not decisive regard for professional quality and skill in both sides of the profession and a clear commitment to entities with proven merit and track records in the provision of legal services in the criminal courts.
I conclude with four critical questions. First, will the Minister assert the Government’s belief in the value of the independent referral criminal Bar as a professional source of essential expertise and quality in the provision of advocacy in the criminal courts? Secondly, will he accept that the criminal Bar has already sustained recent, substantial and even severe cuts in remuneration and that it should not, as a result, have to sustain a disproportionate burden as a result of additional measures of that kind? Thirdly, will he accept that the Bar must be afforded adequate time to adapt its systems and administration before the introduction of the new round of tendering for legal aid contracts?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wishes funding for the profession to be safeguarded. Given that the comprehensive spending review for the Ministry of Justice proposes a £2 billion cut in its £9 billion budget, where does he think that should fall—prisons, probation, sentencing or other issues? Or does he oppose the Government’s CSR proposals for the Ministry of Justice?
Mr Cox
I recognise that the Government must find £2 billion out of a budget of £9 billion, but I ask them to recognise that the Labour Government imposed 13.5% in cuts over the next three years, against a background of consistent reductions in remuneration over the previous seven years.
I say to the Government—I was careful to word my question as accurately as I could—that any burden sustained by the criminal Bar should be proportionate and take into account the measures already passed. I have not asked for the Bar to be excluded from the exercise of necessary retrenchment, nor does the Bar ask it. It asks for fairness and proportionality. It asks for what has gone before—recently, and as a result of the Government to which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) belonged; the statutory instrument was laid on 6 April—to be taken properly into account.
Thirdly, will the Minister accept that the Bar must be afforded adequate time to adapt its systems? That is crucial, as I said, if the Bar is to enter the commissioning process. It is also important that the means of entry should be facilitated so that it can do so from a standing start.
Finally, will the Minister accept that it is fundamentally in the public interest that the Bar should be able to enter the competitive market for legal aid contracts? If so, although the profession is deeply uneasy about the revolutionary changes that it would impose, as I think he knows, the Bar and its leadership are prepared to work with him and this Government to find new structures and new savings in the criminal legal aid budget. That answers the question asked by the right hon. Member for Delyn.
I hope and believe that in partnership and amity, and above all with a respect for the professional skill, expertise, quality and values represented by the criminal Bar—a novel departure from the attitude of the past decade—solutions can be found, and the vital public interest represented by the criminal Bar can be preserved in its continuing prosperous existence.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It might be helpful for Members to know that I intend to start the winding-up speeches no later than 20 minutes to 11. Before I call Mr Turner, I remind Members that it is normal practice to be here at the start of debates.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I apologise for being late, Mr Bone. I am afraid that public transport let me down.
I declare an interest as a criminal lawyer. I was called to the Bar in 2005 and practised criminal law from a firm of solicitors in Hull for a number of years. Shortly before my election to the House, I was in the latter stages of pupillage at my local chambers, of which I remain a member. I hope, therefore, to bring practical experience to the debate as both a junior member of the criminal Bar and a solicitor who has practised criminal law and been heavily reliant on public funding.
In the time allowed, I hope to dispel a couple of myths. The first is that publicly funded criminal lawyers are taking excessive sums from the public purse. In my experience, the opposite is true. Colleagues at the Bar work long hours and receive modest fees for their services. In preparing for this debate, I asked a criminal solicitor in Hull, Mr Waddington of Williamsons solicitors, what a 25% cut to his criminal practice would mean to his business. It is worth mentioning that Williamsons is the biggest criminal firm providing services to my constituents. Mr Waddington described the prospect of 25% cuts as “disastrous”, and greater cuts as “catastrophic”.
Although no one would expect Mr Waddington to clap his hands at such a prospect, it is important to mention that he was also concerned about access to justice for the most vulnerable. As a law-abiding citizen, as he put it, he was particularly concerned about the potential effects on innocent parties in criminal proceedings, such as victims of crime and witnesses who might be subject to cross-examination by unrepresented defendants if criminal solicitors and barristers were forced to refuse instructions.
In my experience, colleagues at the criminal Bar and solicitors do not feel that the previous Government were overly generous during the past 13 years, but the cuts threatened by the new Justice Secretary and the coalition Government are likely to force them to close their doors for good.
Despite the consistent accusations of irresponsible spending, it is indisputable that the previous Labour Government streamlined and made efficiency savings, especially in criminal legal aid. As recently as March, the previous Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:
“The Government strongly believe that there must be a significant restructuring of the provision of criminal defence services in order to achieve greater value for money from legal aid, while still ensuring fair access to justice and enabling legal aid providers to remain profitable and sustainable.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 13WS.]
That is a crucial point. The solicitors and barristers to whom I speak are genuinely concerned about their practices and about whether they will be sustainable after £2 billion of cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget.
It is true that the Labour Government carried out significant reform of legal aid. Most prominently, Lord Carter carried out a review of legal aid procurement, a key aim of which was to reduce criminal defence rates. Those were substantially reduced—by 13.5%—but I am not saying that what happened was perfect, because I am aware of examples where injustice resulted. Cutting costs is clearly a priority for the Government, but at what cost? The Justice Secretary has confirmed that his Department will play its part in reducing public spending, but I submit that legal aid has been stretched enough. If the coalition Government try to stretch legal aid yet further, I fear it will snap.
The Labour Government recognised that legal aid could not reasonably be exempt from efficiency savings and, of course, I recognise that the criminal legal aid bill is more than £1 billion. However, I urge the Government to consider a number of issues in the comprehensive spending review. Cuts to criminal legal aid may well lead to defendants being unable to access appropriate legal representation, because criminal practitioners will decide that enough is enough, and that may compel defendants to represent themselves. That will inevitably lead to the system being clogged up, as defendants battle through what is a procedural and legal minefield. Miscarriages of justice may result from poor-quality advocacy caused by defendants representing themselves, or by the inappropriate use of inexperienced advocates, and there may also be expensive delays in court time.
Cuts to legal aid for criminal cases have already encouraged the use of employed higher court advocates, who offer less experienced representation. Speaking from my experience as a criminal solicitor and, indeed, a junior member of the Bar, I can say that there are some good-quality higher court advocates. However, the truth is that the Bar is very special. The training for it is very different, and there is no comparison between higher court advocacy and barristers. The Bar is far superior because barristers do the job all the time. Higher court advocates will waltz into a Crown court once a fortnight or once a month, but a member of the Bar is there continually.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point about the lack of experience of higher court advocates. Would he agree that one of the absurdities of the Crown Prosecution Service’s obsession with using higher court advocates is that people who are highly qualified in terms of civil service work are taken out of the system and away from the work that they should be doing in reviewing cases? That work is then delegated to often less experienced assistants within the CPS. The public sector unions frequently complain about that current fad, because it puts employees within the CPS under pressure.
Karl Turner
I am grateful for that intervention. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman or have put it better myself.
Criminal practitioners are still coming to terms with a number of the significant reforms introduced by the previous Government that have impacted on pay and the availability of work. In particular, the graduated fees scheme has led to solicitors keeping work in-house, rather than instructing the criminal Bar.
As I have said, there has been a real reduction in fees of 13.5% over three years. A 4.5% reduction took place this financial year, which is bound to have a significant impact. Regardless of the merits of the reforms, they have resulted in a considerable upheaval in the funding of the criminal Bar. That should be taken into account in any future review and in any decision that the Minister needs to take. Further cuts to criminal legal aid, whether to the criminal Bar or to criminal solicitors’ fees, will lead to the social exclusion of the most vulnerable at a time when they are already likely to be suffering cuts in other publicly funded services, on which they rely heavily.
In conclusion, the criminal Bar plays an essential role in maintaining a fair justice system. Further cuts to legal aid will result in an unfair system, with access to justice being available only to those who are able to pay for it. That will inevitably undermine democracy and justice. Given the lack of sympathy that the electorate will have for the offender, it seems too easy to attack criminal legal aid. However, there is a real danger of taking that less politically damaging action and, in doing so, seriously undermining the very foundation of our society. I am very proud of being a member of the Bar and of the traditions of the profession, which I respectfully submit are being put at risk by the actions that I believe will be taken by the Government. I therefore urge the coalition to carefully consider those points and to resist dropping the axe on criminal legal aid and on such essential services.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing an important debate, in which I must declare an interest. I have been a practising solicitor, albeit infrequently, for more than 16 years and for 11 years I was involved with instructing the criminal Bar. I therefore certainly have an interest in the debate.
There is obviously the risk of being accused of special pleading for the profession, but there is no risk of winning any votes in this debate—we all know that there are few votes to be won in standing up for lawyers. I also want to declare an interest in the rule of law, which I am sure all hon. Members who have contributed will share. That subject is of interest to my constituents and to this country. Clearly, a principle of the rule of law is that it cannot exist without there being access to justice for every citizen. An independent legal profession, of which the criminal Bar is clearly a crucial component, is the foundation of that principle.
We, in this country, can be proud of our record—of our principles, of upholding the rule of law and of our legal aid record. In any legal aid debate the statistic is always mentioned that we spend more per capita—per head—than almost any other country. However, at the same time—and rightly—one must consider public services and outcomes. So what is the outcome of this expenditure on legal aid? A recent report entitled “Effective Criminal Defence in Europe” considered which jurisdiction was best at providing an effective criminal defence. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that the jurisdiction that came out best, along with Finland, was this country. That was largely due to the source of legal aid.
Why do we have this legal aid system? It was established some 60 years ago not because we were cajoled by an international agreement or because we felt we should be subject to any European convention; it was established because we wanted to apply the principle of the rule of law. That was summed up well by the US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in 1965, when he said:
“There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”
An independent criminal Bar funded through the legal aid system helps—indeed, it is crucial—to uphold equal justice. What is that equal justice? It is equal justice for the innocent and the guilty, for the falsely accused who gain publicly sympathy, and for the evil criminals who command public contempt. Looking back over my 16 years in the profession, I can think of some clients for whom the public would not want a penny of public money spent, but legal aid provides it and the rule of law demands it.
It might be helpful to have some distance when making the case for the criminal defence service. The following words were written by a solicitor, Paul Booty of McCarthy Stewart Booty:
“As far as those outside the profession are concerned, we get little sympathy, as all we do is drain the public purse ‘getting off’ undeserving, unemployed, drug-taking individuals on technicalities. We twist the law to our own advantage and are thoroughly unscrupulous, with no sympathy for the victims of horrendous crime. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should endure pay cuts from the government year on year; and who cares anyway, because we all drive Bentleys.
The reality could not be further from the truth. We are called to the police station at any time of the day or night. Quite often we are faced with detainees who, if they are ‘regulars’, are extremely vulnerable individuals, often living on benefit with mental illness, depression and dependency. These people are human beings and deserve dignity and fair treatment.”
And so say all of us, both those with a direct professional interest and those outside in the country.
However, although we certainly want to ensure that the system upholds dignity and respect, we also recognise, particularly in these economic times, that it cannot be immune from cuts. When looking for cashable savings in the Ministry of Justice budget, it is obvious that the legal aid budget will have to shoulder a distinct burden when cuts are made. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) was too generous about the previous Government’s record, particularly their legacy for the economy and for the criminal defence service, which has been cut to the bone in many areas and left with great concerns for the future. We can certainly look at how cuts can be made and at high-cost cases, and means-testing is at last coming back to play a part. There will also be proper case management, particularly in preliminary hearings, where we can be much smarter and more cost-effective.
I want to look briefly at the relationship between barristers and solicitors. It is all too easy to play off barristers and solicitors. Historically, they are complementary professions, which is one of the reasons that we have such a proud record. There are enormous strengths in both professions. In comparison to international litigation, the relationship between barristers and solicitors in the UK makes us pre-eminent as a profession. Similarly, in criminal law there is, in the main, a good relationship. The contrast between High Court advocates and the Bar has often been characterised too starkly. In the main, the improvement is helpful, but it needs to be dealt with carefully, with proper training and quality, particularly for High Court advocates.
Obviously, we need to avoid the abuse of the referral fee arrangements that sadly seems to be emerging in various areas. However, we should not pit one against the other. That is not the real threat to the independence of the legal profession and the Bar. There are opportunities in the commissioning arrangements for smaller solicitors’ firms to be subcontracted by barristers and brought into the family of commissioning, where previously they could be excluded by large contracts. The big threat is in the commissioning field, where we are entering a brave new world, and in the contracting process presently applied by the LSC. I believe that the way in which the LSC has operated in the past provides the biggest threat.
There are warnings that must be taken into account and that are already clear in the field of practice, and there are warnings in procurement processes. What has happened to family legal aid is a legacy of how the previous Government oversaw the decimation of highly skilled and committed solicitors, often with great experience of dealing with key issues and vulnerable clients carefully. Existing experience has, in many ways, been excluded from the process. The rug has been pulled from under the feet of many providers. We have been left with legal aid deserts, as we prophesised when in opposition. Poole in Dorset, with a population of 138,299, has been left with one family law solicitor to provide publicly funded work.
Providing solicitors of choice for vulnerable defendants is a matter of concern. In mental health law, those who currently provide for the most vulnerable often have expertise in dealing with vulnerable clients, but now solicitors are effectively being imposed on those clients by the LSC. In the area of administration, there was an example in July of the duty solicitor rotas being reissued twice for a six-month period. Firms were missed off the rotas, areas were put in the wrong position and a simple process led to chaos. Is that the prospect for the commissioning process for the Bar and others?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that across England and Wales the number of solicitors’ firms is diminishing fast? In Stapleford, a town in my constituency, there is now no solicitor available to provide advice for people with real need in family circumstances. They must travel many miles into Nottingham for that advice, and they are often vulnerable, quite literally, faced with a violent partner.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes her point well. In that context, the Minister is facing difficult decisions on funding restraints. That context is so important that I am sure he will take account of it. There is an impression that the Ministry is in chaos and that it is having to pick up the bill, but it is not the same the other way round; there is zero tolerance of any minor error when the LSC submits a bill and funding is not provided. As the Public Accounts Committee rightly concluded, the LSC lacks a grip of the basics and is ripe for reform, and I look forward to that reform being pursued by the Government.
Finally, we have to talk about money—something we do not like doing—because there is a concern about cash flow and payment. Solicitors often have to wait some time for payment, and now the goalposts have been moved by the LSC. Previously, it would step in to help if 5% of a bill was awaiting payment, but now it has moved that to 10%. That is a warning to the Bar about what happens when we get into bed with that area of commissioning.
In conclusion, it is important that we stand up for the important principles of the rule of law that underpin legal aid. We of course must cut waste and inefficiencies, which I am sure the Minister has been tasked with, look at high-cost cases and properly reform the LSC to ensure that it is fit for purpose, whatever form it takes, to deal with the new environment. Above all, we must ensure that we do not undermine the strengths of the criminal justice system and an independent legal profession accessible to all.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes); as a young barrister it was always a pleasure to receive instructions from him in chambers. I must declare that for the past seven years I was a member of the junior Bar, practising first in London and then in-house for a firm in Kent before coming to this place.
The key point for me, having been through the system—practising, not going through the criminal justice system in another way—is that we have in our society a great belief in our liberty and freedom. The criminal justice system and the legal profession might not be perfect, but when one looks around the world one sees that it is one of the finest. It is the front-line professionals—those at the Bar, in-house barristers and High Court advocates—who ensure that people’s liberty is preserved. If there is any chance that people’s liberty may be put in danger, we must consider seriously, in terms of the whole concept of our society, how to preserve that liberty and freedom.
On the point about criminal legal aid and the criminal Bar, the people on the front line are those at the junior Bar. For a case in the magistrates court, it will be a member of the criminal Bar who will have to travel to the court, take instructions, give advice and, after that, pass the case on to the more experienced member, if so be, of Queen’s counsel.
It was a real pleasure to listen to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), and I fully agreed with his eloquent speech. If there are drastic cuts in legal aid, the junior members of the Bar will be most affected. Over the past 20 years, the Bar has worked hard to ensure that it is diverse, that it is not simply people with independent means who can come to the Bar, and that people from all different backgrounds are able to come to the Bar on merit. If there are drastic cuts, there will be an element of going back 20 years, and that cannot in any way, shape or form be right.
People often equate barristers with high earnings, but there is a key difference for members of the Bar: income tax is linked to earnings. They have to pay tax on their earnings, not their receipts. Legal aid is already at difficult levels; any further reduction would mean that if there was a delay in money coming in, those who could carry on in fair weather, and who have been there for a long time, would no longer be able to do so. The taxation system must take into account the fact that members of the Bar pay tax on earnings, not receipts.
It is accepted that the monitoring and regulation work of the Legal Services Commission over the past number of years has been absolutely awful. We hear stories—and facts, such as those that are set out in the report that I have here—of lawyers being overpaid by £25 million. When the person in the street hears that, they say, “Lawyers are paid a lot.” We must ensure proper regulation and monitoring of the current system, to see whether it is having an adverse effect on criminal justice, and to see how the current means-testing approach, brought in by the previous Government, is being applied.
I spoke to a practitioner on the front line—a solicitor in Kent—who said that there is a four-week delay in legal aid. Then, when the case goes to the Crown court, there could be a situation at a preliminary hearing, or a plea and case management hearing, where someone turns up without a representative, and the case has to be adjourned. Adjourning the case takes us back to a position where taxpayers’ money is wasted. We are far from having an efficient, well-run and proper system, but that is what must be put into practice.
We have at present a means-tested system that leads to scenarios in which people act either pro bono or under fixed-fee rates, and they may not be of the quality or have the expertise that the independent Bar can provide. Defendants may decide that they are better off just pleading guilty because, at the end of the day, they do not have the means. That goes against our fundamental principles. If someone is innocent, they should be able to fight their case all the way. We should go back to a position that this country can be proud of, in which innocent people have the means to fight for their freedom.
I know that other hon. Members wish to come into the debate. I was taught at the Bar that brevity is a virtue, not a vice, and I am very much going to apply that advice. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon discussed independent commissioning by the Bar, direct access, and regulatory caveats in respect of quality assurance. At this time, when there are difficulties, we must consider carefully how we can move forward and preserve the Bar’s independence. That is one of the best ways, at this difficult time, to move forward and preserve the Bar’s identity.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Before calling the last Back-Bench speaker, I would like to remind Members, especially the new Members here, that it is normal practice for the Chairman to be notified in advance that a Member wants to speak in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate. I shall not attempt to claim anything like the level of detailed expertise that he and other hon. Members have on this subject, nor shall I be able to defend the livelihood of the criminal Bar quite as assiduously as they have this morning. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred to special pleading. I am not sure whether any of what has been said this morning falls into that category. I feel that perhaps my role here is to make it clear to anyone flicking through the TV channels who stumbles across this debate that they are not actually watching a courtroom drama.
I am pleased that the coalition programme includes a fundamental review of the legal aid system. That was inevitable and unavoidable, in today’s economic climate. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to the fact that we have the most generous system of legal aid in the common-law world. Of course, we should be proud of that, if all the money is being spent well.
I acknowledge that a comparison of the costs of our legal aid system and those incurred in inquisitorial systems is not necessarily straightforward because of the differences between the two. The basic principle, which I am sure that all of us support, is that, whatever the outcome of the comprehensive spending review as it relates to the legal aid system, we should not be in a position where people are not represented in criminal cases.
There are clearly some failings in the present system. All the previous speakers expressed concerns about the level of fees. As Members will know, if 50% of the legal aid budget is being spent on 1% of the cases, it may not be that the fees are excessively high but that perhaps the cases are taking longer than is necessary—not deliberately, but perhaps there is a slight incentive to ensure that they go on longer than is totally necessary. That needs to be looked at, particularly if it means that less funding is available for less high-profile cases in which we would also want people to be properly represented.
I assume that what the Prime Minister said about senior people working in the public sector earning a multiple of no more than 20 times what the lowest-paid workers in their field receive may impose some interesting restrictions on the level of fees that might be available to barristers doing work that is funded by legal aid. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that when he responds to the debate.
On another aspect that I am sure other Members are concerned about—the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to the availability of legal aid in MPs’ expenses cases—the name van Hoogstraten will be familiar to all Members here today. The safest thing I can say is that he is a colourful gentleman. Estimates of his fortune vary widely—hundreds of millions would probably be a safe figure to quote—yet apparently he received £1.12 million in legal aid. I do not know whether there have been changes since he received that funding that would preclude that from happening now. Very helpfully, the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, which indicates that perhaps nothing has changed, and that such funding would still be available to someone who claims that they have no cash assets—Mr van Hoogstraten’s assets had been frozen. We clearly have to address that.
Tom Brake
What sort of action can we take? If a small number of complex cases ties down half the available funding for legal aid, can anything be done to shorten the process without impacting on the quality of legal advice and the handling of the case? The difficult balance between setting the fees at a publicly acceptable level, and setting them at one that ensures that there are people able and willing to advocate, needs to be found. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will clarify his view on whether the Legal Services Commission has a better idea of the costs and profits associated with legal aid cases, to which other hon. Members referred. The Minister will know that the Legal Services Commission was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee.
There are no panaceas. Some have advocated no win, no fee arrangements as a solution, but, clearly, it is unlikely that anyone would want to pursue, on that basis, cases involving the police.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the problem of funding criminal legal aid cases, but does he accept that one problem is whether it is right to make people of means who are acquitted pay for their legal representation when they emerge from the court free and not guilty? We have to grapple with that question. Ultimately, although van Hoogstraten was convicted by a jury, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial and, for legal reasons, it was adjudged that there could be no further trial, so he is not, perhaps, the best example. We should focus on people of means who have been convicted. Finally, and I do not want to take up too much time, one problem is—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It is difficult when we have a room of lawyers, but interventions are supposed to be short.
Tom Brake
May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way earlier? I was not aware that he was rising until I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye. He makes a valid point, and I was going to come on to financial contributions and to what extent people should be willing to contribute to support their case. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The hon. Gentleman is right in relation to Mr van Hoogstraten: he was eventually acquitted in the criminal case. As I understand it, however, he was found guilty in a civil case, although he has stated that he will not be handing over a single penny in relation to the outcome of that case. The hon. Gentleman has raised important points for the Minister to respond to.
On the CPS, if cases are adjourned unnecessarily, costs are incurred, and there may be scope for improving on that. Clearly, this would not assist the legal profession, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what success he is having in stopping cases going to court through the use of virtual courts, and the extent to which they can contribute to the process. As someone who is not legally qualified, in any shape or form, I hope that my few comments still inform today’s debate, and that we hear some convincing responses from the Minister shortly.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Bone; I share the pleasure of others in serving under your chairmanship for the first time. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on contributing to it. It is also worth mentioning the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) who have sat through the debate and shown an interest in this matter, and the contribution of the Whip, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). It shows that there is considerable interest in the matter before us.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon began by saying that the art of advocacy was key to his profession. I declare a non-interest in that I am not a barrister and never have been. Today, I am undertaking the art of advocacy on behalf of my noble Friend Lord Bach, who was the Minister in the Department responsible for these matters, and obviously cannot speak here today and defend the previous Government’s record. Prior to the election I had responsibility for prisons, probation and, latterly, the police, so I contributed to the work of the Bar in that role. I hope we can discuss some of the key issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised and hear some of the solutions that the new Government wish to bring forward.
I begin by, in a sense, disagreeing with the hon. and learned Gentleman in what I hope is a positive, constructive and amiable way. The previous Government did recognise that the Bar and the criminal Bar have an important role in our democratic society. I wish to place on the record the fact that the right to a fair trial and representation is essential in a democratic society, because it is just as much a part of our democratic process as this House and this debate today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East also recognises, there are challenges in that role that demand skills, professionalism and the support of Government, not only to achieve independence, but to recognise and value the profession as a whole. I hope that there will be common ground on that, whatever our political differences on other issues.
Mr Cox
I hope hon. Members understand that the, perhaps, acerbity with which I referred to the previous Government’s record was coloured by remarks from successive Home Secretaries about bent briefs and lawyers who tried too hard. In the light of the extremely enlightened comments that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I am sure he will agree that those were unfortunate remarks, which gave the profession the belief that its values were not shared by the then Government.
Mr Hanson
I said what I said, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that I know the Bar has a valuable role and that it serves a full position in our democratic society.
The previous Government had to look at the difficult decisions that we faced in terms of the potential deficit, which we are now challenged to look at across the board, and at how we find efficiencies in the way in which we support the legal aid system financially. My noble Friend Lord Bach, as Minister before the election, tackled that issue head-on. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the notice and order issued on 6 April, before the dissolution of Parliament, which placed on record some decisions that we had to take.
In 2008-09, £2.1 billion was spent on legal aid between the criminal and civil budgets; that is an important amount of resource. It is important work and it is vital that we recognise that legal aid is essential, as is the advocacy role, in developing a civilised society. People depend on legal aid for access to representation in both criminal and civil cases, particularly those who have difficult legal problems, particularly in times of economic hardship. Legal aid practitioners provide a fantastic service and should be paid accordingly. As the previous Government recognised, there are issues with how we rebalance the funding, identify the best efficiencies and run the system in the future, and the Minister will have to face those challenges.
We have seen a huge increase in the legal aid budget from £545 million in 1982-83 to £2.1 billion in 2008-09, which is an average increase of 5.3% a year. The previous Government believed that that was unsustainable, as I believe the current Government will.
Mr Burrowes
The figures for the legal aid budget show that it has increased, but is it not important to break them down to show where there have been increases? For example, the criminal legal aid budget in the lower courts is under control, and indeed savings are being made, which is unique in recent years.
Mr Hanson
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I was coming to the fact that at the moment the criminal legal aid budget is about £1.1 billion of the £2 billion, and that the civil and family legal aid budget is around £900 million. What has happened over the years—this is why Lord Bach made his decision when he was the Minister—is that the criminal law side of the legal aid budget was beginning to eat into the resources available for the civil and family legal aid budget.
Mr Hanson
There are cases to be made for all sorts of things. The fact that crime fell by 36% might have something to do with some of the issues that we brought forward over the past 13 years, but such matters are for a wider debate in due course.
We had to consider how to make savings on that budget, and the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned his concern that we made cuts of around 4.5% a year for the following three years, including this year, which totalled about 13.5%, in advocates’ graduated fees, coupled with extending those fees to cases due to last up to 60 days. We had a choice, and Lord Bach could have taken that hit in one go—proposals were before him to make a drastic cut of 17.9% immediately—but we chose to phase that in over three years as part of the savings that we knew we had to make in the Ministry to ensure that we met the coming CSR obligations. The Minister will surely face similar obligations, perhaps with the increasing difficulty of a further £2 billion of savings in his Ministry’s budget if we believe what the Lord Chancellor and other hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East said that that would be very difficult for the Ministry and the people who depend on legal aid, particularly if further cuts to the service are driven forward over and above the challenges that we had to face and which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned.
The Labour Government highlighted the importance of driving down costs and of ensuring that we consider areas such as the tendering process and developing alternatives. We considered a range of reforms and, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said, more must be considered, such as high-cost cases and the status of the LSC. We had planned to introduce proposals, if we were re-elected, on agency status for the LSC. Efficiencies could be made in the system as a whole, and we need to consider them generally to ensure that we receive extra value from the system.
I want to give the Minister 15 minutes to respond, but I shall touch on three areas of concern to Labour Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East said, we face proposed cuts of £2 billion in the Ministry of Justice over the next three years if we believe what is said about the CSR. Will the Minister say whether that will fall in part on legal aid in the next year and beyond? If not, how does he expect the Prison Service, the probation service, sentencing policy and other aspects of the Ministry’s funding to be able to meet that level of cuts, which I believe are unnecessary given the choices that the new Government could have made on those issues and public spending?
We were not afraid of saving resources, which is why we introduced the measures that the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about, but a line must be drawn, and I would welcome the Minister’s support for protection of the public and defence of people’s right to enjoy the services of the profession. What consultation will he have with the Bar and service users on those issues and the points that have been mentioned? How will he ensure that the social and welfare aspects of the legal aid budget—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East—for those who depend most on legal aid services are considered? Such people depend on those for housing and employment issues, and in civil cases dealing with social welfare concerns. An article in The Times in August tantalisingly raised the possibility of that being a major target for the Government. That choice would be wrong, because the Government would again ensure that the burden of public spending cuts fell on those who are least able to bear them: the vulnerable, and those who need the service most and do not have recourse to other forms of finance for their legal requirements.
There are key issues for the Government to address, and I welcome this debate. The Labour Government took a responsible approach to these issues, and tried to save resources efficiently and effectively. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will watch carefully to see how the Government respond to the challenges that they, not the economy, have set for themselves ideologically to cut public spending still further. We shall watch to see whether that impacts on the poorest and damages the safety of our society through other choices being made on prisons, probation and sentencing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Bone. I believe that this is your first debate as Chairman, and I hope that it is the first of many. I am a non-practising solicitor, but I have never engaged in legal aid work. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate, which is timely. Many issues have been raised, and I will do my best in the time available to address them.
My hon. and learned Friend is an experienced criminal barrister and, as I would expect of a leading silk, argued his case strongly, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner).
I should say at the outset that the Government agree that we need good-quality advocates to prosecute and defend in criminal cases, and to ensure that the criminal justice system works effectively and fairly. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon and others have argued passionately for the continued future need for an independent Bar, and I support that. However, it is important to recognise that the legal landscape in this country is changing and we must all acknowledge that; we must adapt to it, and to the financial realities of the current economic climate.
I will deal later with the various points made, but before that it may help if I speak about legal aid more widely in the current context. As hon. Members know, the Government have pledged to reduce the budget deficit to deal with the acute financial crisis and to encourage economic recovery. That is something that the whole Government must do. However, we are not driven only by economic considerations; the financial situation is a rare and urgent opportunity to develop imaginative and creative policies. I accept that our policy should not be determined only by the need to deal with the deficit.
In June, we announced that we were considering our policy on legal aid. That reflects the aim of creating a more efficient legal aid system as set out in the coalition Government’s document of 20 May. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for Carshalton and Wallington voiced their concerns about the operation of the Legal Services Commission. I confirm that I have established a good working relationship with the LSC and that we are working through some of the issues. I should also say that the Government have decided to replace the LSC with an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, in the belief that that will strengthen accountability and control of the legal aid fund.
As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, there have been several reviews of legal aid in recent years under the previous Government. For example, Lord Carter of Coles’s report of July 2006 proposed a market-based approach to reform. The previous Administration implemented some of Lord Carter’s recommendations, but they did not succeed in implementing price competition for criminal legal aid work.
I can confirm to the right hon. Member for Delyn that we are seeking to develop an approach to legal aid spending that takes into account the necessary financial constraints, the interests of justice and the wider public interest. We are seeking to develop an approach that is compatible with necessary access to justice for those who need it most, the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, the efficient performance of the justice system and our legal obligations.
The cost of the legal aid system as a whole has risen over time. The scheme now costs over £2 billion per annum and, as has been recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, it is one of the most generous schemes in the world. We spend significantly more on legal aid than most other comparable countries. For example, the per capita spend on legal aid is about £9 per head in Australia and Canada, and £11 in New Zealand, but we spend £38 for every man, woman and child in England and Wales. In the current financial situation, that is unsustainable.
Tom Brake
My point is not directly related to the debate, but I would like to raise a point with the Minister about legal aid, particularly the availability of legal aid to British citizens in foreign countries and the extent to which the Government are able to publicise its availability.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. It does not help when the hon. Gentleman starts by saying that his point is not relevant to the debate.
Mr Djanogly
As I have said, the cost of the legal aid system has risen over time. The problems were well recognised by the previous Administration, but their piecemeal attempts at reform often served only to add to the upward pressures on cost, and they did little to address the underlying causes of cost or to look at the situation in the round; they found it too complicated to deal with. We want to take a different approach and look at the whole legal aid system and the wider justice system. With respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, legal aid is not only about the fees paid to lawyers; that is the wrong starting point. The starting point should be more fundamental questions, such as: what is legal aid for? What is the role of the state in legal aid? Who needs access to legal aid? How should we fund legal aid? What are the alternatives, in civil cases, for resolving disputes in a way that avoids expensive court processes and the need for lawyers? How should we set the price we pay when legal aid is required? Importantly, what can be done to encourage the resolution of legal problems, both criminal and civil, in a timely and proportionate way?
My hon. and learned Friend asked about timing. We have been assessing such questions over the summer as part of our consideration of legal aid, and I can confirm to him, and to the right hon. Member for Delyn, that by autumn we will be in a position to seek views on our emerging proposals in a full consultation. I also confirm that the resulting Green Paper will outline our proposals for the way forward for criminal legal aid.
I will now look specifically at issues of criminal advocacy. The world is changing in a number of ways. I have already mentioned the need to reduce public spending, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has rightly highlighted the fact that in the dying days of the last Parliament, the previous Administration decided to reduce advocate fees by 13.5% over three years, with the first stage of that cut coming into effect last April, and he provided details of those statements. Although we have no plans to reverse that decision, I confirm to my hon. and learned Friend that we want to look at the efficiency of the whole legal aid system, which I agree will go beyond the criminal Bar. At this stage, however, I am not prepared to rule out any specific types of reform.
Another change in the landscape is the increasing number of higher court advocates competing for work with the criminal Bar. I understand that there are now at least 2,500 solicitor-advocates in practice in the higher courts. That means that the Bar no longer has exclusive access to Crown court work. I know that the Bar welcomes healthy competition and believes that it is well placed to offer specialist expertise in advocacy, particularly in more complex cases. Equally, the Bar has grown over time. Thirty years ago, there were just over 4,500 barristers in self-employed practice. Twenty years ago there were more than 6,500, and today the number of barristers in private practice is greater than 12,000. Taken together, the changes mean that it is unlikely that there will be enough publicly funded criminal case work to support the number of people who wish to earn a living from publicly funded practice at the criminal Bar. That is a simple economic fact of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham spoke about the need to recognise and protect the diversity of the Bar. I agree with his sentiments and it is an important issue. However, the numbers of black, minority ethnic and women barristers are affected by issues other than simply fees. As I have already argued, legal aid exists to provide help for those who need it. In criminal cases, that means the defendant who cannot afford to pay for representation in cases that pass the “interests of justice” test, which in practice tends to exclude the more minor criminal cases. Let me be clear: it is not the purpose of legal aid to provide a living for any particular number of lawyers. Instead, taxpayers’ money should be targeted at those who cannot afford to pay for their own defence, when that is required in the interests of justice.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon raised the issue of a single fee for Crown court litigation and advocacy. Given the likelihood that a single fee for Crown court cases covering litigation and advocacy would encourage greater efficiency between litigator and advocate, one should expect that point to be considered carefully, among other options for reform. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
As a point of principle, the so-called VHCCs—very high-cost cases—consume a disproportionate amount of the legal aid budget. Half the Crown court legal aid budget is now swallowed up by fewer than 1% of cases. I am keen to do all that we can to reduce the number and costs of long, complex cases that are bad for the justice system. We will look at that issue in the Green Paper but to clarify, contributions are returned to acquitted defendants, although means-tested contributions now mean that those who can afford to do so pay towards the cost of their representation.
Earnings at the criminal Bar vary enormously. We know that some barristers at the most junior end are far from fully occupied, and as a result their earnings are low. However, at the more senior end of the Bar, earnings can be high. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about fee levels. The previous Administration published information on that, which showed that for 2008-09, the highest-paid barristers took £928,000 from the criminal legal aid budget. One hundred and twenty barristers were paid more than £250,000 in criminal legal aid, and a total of 416 were paid more than £150,000. I accept that those figures are subject to a number of caveats. In particular, those fees include VAT and do not take into account chamber expenses.
Mr Djanogly
I do accept that, but I wanted to give some idea of the amount of public money that is being paid out.
Looking at the wider regulatory picture, we are currently commencing the Legal Services Act 2007, which will encourage greater competition and innovation in the provision of legal services and a better focus on the consumer. That programme of work has already made important changes to the way that legal services are regulated in England and Wales, and it will also allow for alternative business structures. It will allow lawyers and non-lawyers to work together as one enterprise to provide legal and non-legal services.
To help pave the way for those new business structures, legal disciplinary practices have already been introduced. That has made it possible for different types of lawyers to work collaboratively to provide legal services. For decades, members of the criminal Bar have complained that solicitors have the whip hand. It is time for the Bar to embrace the new opportunities and equality of position that the Legal Services Act will provide. I hope that that opportunity will be grabbed.
As recognised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, I was encouraged to hear Nicholas Green, QC, the chairman of the Bar, recently indicate that the Bar is preparing to change and adapt by setting up procurement companies that will enable groups of barristers to bid for criminal defence work. I have met Mr Green and other senior members of the Bar, and I will continue to work closely with them on the issue. Mr Green has been travelling the length and breadth of England and Wales to explain to members of the Bar, face to face, why it is time for the Bar to prepare for change. That is a sensible course to advocate, and I urge all members of the Bar to look carefully at the material that the Bar Council is producing on the subject. I do not think that the majority of members of the Bar, as part of a referral profession, can afford to be aloof as we move forward in what is likely to be an increasingly competitive environment.
I do not want to pre-empt the consultation paper that we plan to publish this autumn, but we must consider whether there is a case for the greater use of competition in providing legal aid. I think that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that, as long as it is done correctly and fairly.
In conclusion, I say to my hon. and learned Friend that however our thinking develops, I want a level playing field so that barristers, other advocates and litigators can compete on an equal basis. The Bar Council is right to advocate change, so that the Bar can not only survive but prosper in the longer term in a changed legal services market.
Rail Services (Enfield)
(13 years, 7 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
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I was delighted to hear that this is the first time that you have chaired Westminster Hall, Mr Bone. I can confirm that this is my first debate in Westminster Hall. I am sure that you will agree that at our respective ages, it is good to be maidens in anything.
I am grateful to have secured the debate. I requested it because of the significant disquiet about delays and overcrowding from Enfield Town, Turkey Street, Southbury, Enfield Lock and Brimsdown railway stations. Unlike in other parts of north London, there are barely any alternatives to rail for commuters in Enfield. I am grateful to have had my right hon. Friend the Minister’s time on many previous occasions, when she has shown considerable interest in commuter services for my constituents. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who has worked closely with me on the issues under discussion today.
I am keen to show that the new franchise agreements could be used positively to support wider community objectives as well as to deal with the immediate transport issues, but to understand that opportunity, we need to appreciate the local geography and how the railway is organised. That will enable us to learn from past mistakes and look to the future.
Let me start with the local area. Enfield as a community is already changing. There are, of course, classic suburbs, but it is worth noting that across the wider borough, there are six of the most deprived areas not just in London, but in Europe. However, there are also opportunities, particularly in the Lea valley, where we can succeed in regenerating and place shaping for the future. Such plans exist, but they will depend on the right infrastructure. In theory, the Lea valley and Enfield as a whole are linked by the umbilical cord of the railway system. Clearly, there is commuting straight out of London, through Enfield and up to Cambridge, Stansted and beyond. We can attract, but also need services to attract, inward commuting to help to support regeneration.
What is the railway offer? In our part of London, we have one main line from Cambridge and Stansted that goes through the eastern corridor of Enfield and the Lea valley to Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street. It is run by National Express East Anglia. That franchise also runs the suburban line through central Enfield, which serves two end points—Cheshunt and Enfield Town—running through Seven Sisters. There is a second suburban line, run by First Capital Connect into Moorgate via Finsbury Park, which serves western Enfield.
Both suburban lines are overcrowded. There is no question about that, particularly for the underground interchanges, and the train capacities are limited. In particular, from Cheshunt and Enfield Town via Seven Sisters, there are at best six trains an hour, with perhaps six to eight coaches. In the off-peak period, there are at best two services an hour from Enfield Town. Such services can hardly be described as underground or even metro standard. The problems have been compounded by limited investment in recent years. I should add that only five stations across the whole west Anglia network are gated, and revenue is being lost as a result.
As for the main eastern Lea valley line, which goes through Enfield Lock and Brimsdown, we have a mix of limited-stop and local trains, governed by 15-minute scheduled Stansted Expresses. West Anglia is one of the most demanding and pressurised rail corridors in the country. There is no place for a fast train to pass a slower one until Broxbourne, some 17 miles from central London, with the obvious result that the faster trains do not go fast enough and the slower trains are going slower than required and are not able to stop and serve all the stations. That leads to immense frustration for commuters on platforms, who are quite keen to get on those trains. There are no winners at the moment.
The railway area that I am talking about is predicted to grow, in passenger transport terms, by up to 37%. Admittedly, we may see some variation in that, given current economic circumstances, but it is a fast-growth area. It is true that over the whole franchise, there will be up to 120 new carriages in 2011-12, but they will principally be focused on the 12-coach train fast services. The losers will be Enfield suburban services. So it really is a case of when, not if, we can invest in additional track and signalling as well.
I now turn to the wider national picture, examining the linkage between Government rail policies and the franchising process. As we know, National Express operates under a franchise awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority in 2004. The specification focused on improving performance, but it also allowed more Stansted Express trains, which, as I have explained, did not do Enfield services any favours. At best, we were marking time, but services were made worse on the eastern Lea valley line.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the franchise agreement did not deal with the underlying problems, but just worked the existing railway harder. Of course, that has not necessarily been to our advantage. It shows that we have lacked investment and are still waiting for that investment. In that respect, the previous Government cannot avoid the blame, because they had been controlling the SRA since 2005.
Latterly, the Labour Government had three simultaneous desires: to maintain a command-and-control process in relation to the railways, to move the taxpayer to fare-payer ratio from 50:50 to about 30:70, and to try to breathe life into a money-go-round of fares generating profits for investment. That led to the unacceptable highly leveraged bids for a number of franchises. The most notorious was the east coast bid by National Express, which failed commercially in 2009. Sadly, the record shows that that was not the only failure; there was one in 2006 as well. I am no great literary scholar, but as Oscar Wilde might have put it, to lose one operator is a misfortune; to lose two is somewhat careless. Unfortunately, it proves that the franchising money-go-round is not working.
That brings us to the national position on franchising. If the money-go-round is not working, the funding rules must change, but that depends on how franchises are constructed. The basis of franchising has a history of always changing. Objectives have focused on lowest net subsidy, highest premiums or achieving specified service performance and quality for passengers. That meant increasingly that although operators might have been working in the private sector, they had a straitjacket on them that prevented them adding the value that passengers and commuters want.
In parallel, the contractual length of franchises had been adjusted. Sometimes they were on a bespoke basis. A franchise was longer if a railway needed more investment in trains. However, in recent times the norm has been about seven years, sometimes with an extension for good behaviour. Fundamentally, as many of us recognise, that short-termism does not incentivise major investment by the private sector.
Furthermore, the franchising rules did not achieve the right outcomes for National Express East Anglia lines in Enfield. Passengers’ overall satisfaction is measured by the national passenger survey. The operator has consistently performed below the London and south-east sector average and well below the highest franchise in the sector. That is despite punctuality having improved.
I noticed today—I trust that the Financial Times is correct—that an announcement has been made to grant a temporary extension to the franchise for another seven months. I understand the reasons behind that and accept it fully, but what concerns me is that many passengers might interpret that as an endorsement of what has happened in the past. That clearly is not the case. It is designed ultimately to allow us to have a better system for the future.
The new franchising reform consultation suggests that future franchise bids will be judged on the quality of the overall package of proposals. My constituents will welcome that. Let us look to the future. Public funds are tight. We must look to a new partnership between the Government and the private sector to secure long-term funding by train operators to leverage better services and facilities. That is good news. Enfield is awaiting a new franchise; it will be one of the first. The Government emphasis on outcomes and long-term franchises presents us with short and long-term opportunities.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that this new franchise might be a model for other franchises, such as in south-east London?
Nick de Bois
I am grateful for that intervention. In fact, I will go on to address such issues—particularly local ones in London, which I am sure my hon. Friend faces in his constituency. That is exactly my point: now is the time to be bold and imaginative, notwithstanding the constraints that we are all working within.
I shall turn to the priorities that commuters wish to see. These include refurbishing trains, so that we can get consistent appearance and quality, and improving security by introducing ticket barriers, and perhaps increasing CCTV as well. More stations protected by ticket barriers will lead to better revenue protection. In addition, investing in the key interchanges of Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale, which service Enfield, will be crucial in making them more accessible. A fundamental priority is train frequency.
I accept that, in the short term, infrastructure will largely be as it is now, which limits what can be achieved. I commend to the Minister an interesting recent report from the London borough of Enfield showing a positive case for a more frequent local train service between Enfield and Liverpool Street in the off-peak. That analysis is based on journey-time savings and does not include the other expected community and economic benefits. I believe the benefit-cost ratio, as the report demonstrates, would be under current rules of 1.46:1. That is before we take into account the greater community and economic benefits. I understand that 1.5 is the guideline for investment. There is a strong case.
As an aside, many stakeholders regret that the current official proposals for four trains per hour to Stratford from the Lea valley line through Enfield will only exist for the 2012 Olympic games. The Enfield report shows how a revision to train-stopping patterns on the Lea valley line could regularly achieve four trains per hour, peak and off-peak, to the busiest stations in the areas requiring regeneration. I am happy to commend the report, on which much work was done, to the Minister.
Other short-term matters must be highlighted, including work to solve passenger crowding at the Victoria line interchanges. I look to action on the local level crossings, which are a source of risk—all too tragically, in Enfield, very recently. I also look to action on performance delay. Improving disability access, particularly at the key interchange routes, is a must.
Further progress on studies about expenditure during the new investment periods is needed. For example, a long-term franchise should be able to address the broader spectrum of opportunities, including the case for partial four-tracking on the Lea valley line, which will improve the service, as I have explained, as previously it was two-track.
To conclude, I fully support the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that he will involve all elements of the rail industry more fully in the decision-making process. I support the decision, and regard it as vital to accelerate the rail value-for-money review under the leadership of Sir Roy McNulty. It is vital that we look to improve our existing infrastructure even in these hard times and his work should help drive that forward.
For Enfield, it is crucial that franchise agreements set out not just clear performance indicators but levels of investment and service agreements that can be benchmarks, and that they send a clear signal that economically important areas served by railways—such as my constituency and neighbouring areas—are open for business and that we can help rail services to support that and regenerate the area. Our business community and developers will be keenly watching franchise agreements before making investment decisions. West Anglia will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, be a test for the new Government of the new rail management and franchising system. Those routes could be exemplary and even a fast-track trial area for a new approach to delivery. A new franchising policy presents us with such an opportunity, delivering, as it says in the coalition agreement,
“the improvements that passengers want—like better services, better stations, longer trains and better rolling stock”.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing the debate and presenting an impassioned case for improvement to rail services in the borough of Enfield. I recall him raising the issue in Transport Question Time shortly before the summer recess. I know that he is a staunch campaigner on these matters in his constituency, standing up for the interests of local commuters in a highly effective way, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), whom it is great to see in the Chamber today. As the near neighbour of both my hon. Friends—I represent Chipping Barnet—I well understand the importance of transport links in the London suburbs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North set out his concerns about reliability and performance. As we have heard this morning, train services to Enfield are operated by both National Express East Anglia and First Capital Connect. In my ministerial capacity, I take a close interest in the performance of all train operators, but my role as MP for Chipping Barnet means that I have an additional reason to scrutinise the performance of FCC on the Great Northern line, as it serves my constituency as well as Enfield.
That franchise experienced significant disruption between October 2009 and January of this year. That was largely caused by industrial action, and Thameslink services were the worst affected. However, there were also problems on the Great Northern line, which serves Enfield. It was particularly regrettable that action by drivers meant that no trains ran on Remembrance Sunday last year on the suburban Great Northern line services. I am relieved that the problems that led to that disruption have gone away for the moment, and that First Capital Connect’s overall public performance measure has recovered to reach the levels prevailing prior to that episode. However, the underlying issue for the railway—namely that on a number of routes drivers are not under a contractual obligation to work on Sunday—obviously has yet to be resolved.
As far as National Express East Anglia—the main focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks this morning—is concerned, in the latest period for which complete performance data are available, 90.8% of NXEA’s trains arrived on time, according to the PPM moving annual average figure. That is an improvement, albeit a modest one, on the 88.6% reliability levels that it inherited from the previous franchise in 2005. It is also worth noting that PPM figures are aggregated across a diverse franchise, covering long-distance, rural and commuter services. That means that they do not necessarily give us all the answers, when it comes to the specific performance of Enfield services. As my hon. Friend pointed out, NXEA’s most recent national passenger survey results indicate that it is below the average for London and the south-east. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is room for improvement.
My hon. Friend referred in some detail to capacity and his constituents’ concerns about crowding. The latest passenger loading data confirm that overcrowding is indeed an important issue on some Enfield services. Anxiety about overcrowding in a number of parts of the UK’s rail network increased during the previous Government’s term in office. In my view, one of Labour’s most serious mistakes was that it took far too long to wake up to the seriousness of this problem. It took, for example, over a decade to get moving on projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink. Four successive Labour Secretaries of State for Transport promised extra carriages under the HLOS—high-level output specification— programme, but that political decision came late in the day and less than a quarter of what they promised had arrived by the time that Labour left office. That leaves the current Government to deal with the problem during very lean times, when the pressing need to deal with the deficit that we inherited from our predecessors places intense pressure on the public finances.
The issue for consideration today is how we address the problems experienced by commuters—problems of the kind outlined by my hon. Friend—in an affordable way, consistent with our pledge to address the deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.
First, I should mention that I meet senior representatives of the rail industry and the Office of Rail Regulation every month to assess performance levels on all lines, and to scrutinise carefully the record of Network Rail and the train operators. Of course, the ORR takes the lead on these matters, but I am grateful to those who participate in what is a very useful process for me. Following on from my hon. Friend’s intervention at Transport questions, I raised the issue of NXEA services in Enfield with the group.
As my hon. Friend was kind enough to acknowledge, the Government’s wider reform agenda has the potential to drive forward progress in addressing a number of the issues that he raised. Our approach has three parts: first, reform of Network Rail; secondly, reform of rail franchising; and thirdly, taking forward capacity enhancement programmes where they can be reconciled with our commitment to address the deficit.
As hon. Members will be aware, making progress on reliability and delivering extra capacity depends in no small part on ensuring that Network Rail, as the infrastructure provider, delivers high-quality services to its customers in an efficient and cost-effective way. In the case of the NXEA services that we are considering, the most recent industry figures indicate that Network Rail was responsible for just over 60% of delays on the franchise. In particular, I am advised that Network Rail infrastructure has suffered a number of overhead line problems.
I very much welcome the fact that the franchise operator and Network Rail are working together to try to address the problem. However, if we are to improve Network Rail’s performance and reduce its costs, the company needs to be made more accountable for its actions, and that includes demonstrating greater accountability for its decisions on executive bonuses. We are considering a number of options, and we are working with the ORR and other stakeholders to take that work forward. I should make it plain, however, that the status quo is not acceptable, and we will be making changes in due course.
As we heard this morning, the Government are consulting on reforms to the rail franchising system, and those are the second element of our strategy for addressing the problems outlined by my hon. Friend. The reforms are aimed at moving away from a system in which Whitehall specifies highly detailed and prescriptive inputs for franchises—what my hon. Friend referred to as the command-and-control approach to the railways. Instead, we want a stronger focus on the quality of outcomes for passengers, while giving the professionals who run our railways more flexibility to apply innovation, enterprise and specialist expertise in working out the best way to deliver outcomes.
We need a more qualitative approach to the assessment of franchise bids—an approach that judges the quality of a bid’s overall package of proposals to invest in the railways, improve services and grow passenger numbers—rather than focusing solely and exclusively on the binary question of the level of subsidy or the premiums to be paid. Again, I hope that that will address some of the problems involved in what my hon. Friend referred to as the money-go-round.
Franchises should also be longer. We expect 10 to 15 years to become the normal, expected length, with the possibility of franchises running for up to 22 and a half years, where significant investment is promised. The increased certainty that longer franchises will give train operators will encourage private sector investment in the railways and help to deliver the improvements that passengers want. My hon. Friend called for us to include better services, better stations, longer trains and better rolling stock. On the specific improvements that he asked for, I hope that he will understand that I cannot prejudge the process that will commence once the franchise re-let is under discussion, but I encourage him to take part in the consultation on the re-let as and when it starts.
Our reformed franchises will set demanding passenger satisfaction outcomes for train operators to achieve. Train operators that do not comply with franchise requirements will face sanctions. Ultimately, in the case of very serious failure, sanctions will include termination of the franchise. The approach that we have set out in our consultation document will enable and incentivise train operators to respond more effectively and efficiently to commuters’ concerns. I expect our proposed measures to help address a range of the customer service and capacity issues that my hon. Friend outlined.
At this point, I should respond to my hon. Friend’s questions about the timetable for re-letting the East Anglia franchise. I reiterate that I decided to cancel the franchise competition initiated by the previous Government to ensure that the new franchise was issued under the reformed system, and to ensure that passengers using NXEA services could have the benefits of the changes that the coalition has promised to deliver. The franchise was due to be re-let and to commence on 1 April 2011, but a contractual extension has been agreed until October 2011.
I turn now to the third element of Government policy that is relevant to the matters under consideration: delivering additional capacity, where that can be reconciled with our commitment to address the crisis in the public finances that we inherited from the previous Government. The Department for Transport is funding 120 new carriages for the East Anglia franchise. Most will be used on the Stansted Express route, with some deployed on Cambridge commuter services. The carriages are expected to enter service from March 2011, and that will free up carriages that will be used to strengthen services on other parts of the NXEA network. The decisions on exactly where those carriages will go have yet to be made, but I am advised that stations in Enfield will be among those that benefit from the extra capacity.
Additional capacity will be introduced on First Capital Connect lines to Enfield in December 2010. In the morning peak, five of the six stations in the borough—Gordon Hill, Enfield Chase, Grange Park, Winchmore Hill and Palmers Green—will have three additional six-car train services to Moorgate, and one of the existing services will be doubled in size from a three-car to a six-car train. The five stations will also be served by additional services to Hertford North and Gordon Hill from Moorgate. The remaining station, Crews Hill, will be served by two additional six-car train services.
In the evening peak, the same five stations will have an additional three services, two of which will go to Gordon Hill, with the third going to Hertford North. That is except for Grange Park, which will have two additional services running to Gordon Hill. All those additional services will be six-car trains. Additional services will also run from Gordon Hill to Moorgate. Crews Hill will benefit from an additional six-car train running to Hertford North. There will be three more services during the morning peak, and extra carriages will be added to one of the existing services. Evening peak service capacity will see similar improvements and increases in capacity. Those morning and evening peak improvements are part of the additional 3,800 peak-time seats being added to Moorgate services from December.
In conclusion, I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The Government are working to ensure that we have a reliable railway and that crowding problems are addressed. We face the difficult task of achieving that at the same time as tackling the state of the public finances that we inherited from the Labour Government. I have summarised some of the most important initiatives that we are taking to seek to achieve those important goals. When the consultation process begins for the re-let of the franchises serving my hon. Friend’s constituency, I very much hope that he will make his views known. I am sure that they will be a valuable and welcome contribution to that important process, just as his remarks this morning have been a valuable and welcome contribution to the debate.
Diabetes (Young People)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.
First, I would like to acknowledge the help that I have received in preparing the background information for today’s debate. I particularly wish to mention the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Diabetes UK, the Eye Health Alliance, the Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, and last, but by no means least, my daughter Siân, who suffers from type 1 diabetes and who has helped in the preparation of what I am about to say.
In the past, too often health policy discussions have focused on hospitals, doctors and nurses, with no real recognition of the millions of people who live with long-term conditions. Over the past few years the situation has improved, and now we at least recognise that health care is as much about helping patients to manage their conditions more effectively throughout their lives as it is about mending broken bones in hospital, although the latter is, of course, important. Nevertheless, we are on a long journey. We now recognise that demographic pressures and lifestyle-related conditions, including obesity and the rising incidence of diabetes, pose major public health risks, yet every time we make that statement we risk overlooking a serious and growing problem, because it ignores people with type 1 diabetes—many of them children—whose condition cannot be prevented by changing their lifestyle.
So, what is type 1 diabetes? It is a chronic, life-threatening condition that occurs when the body’s immune system attacks insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. A normal, healthy body will regulate blood glucose using insulin, but in someone with type 1 diabetes, the blood sugar level can go too high or too low because there is insufficient, or no, insulin to control it. Insulin is the hormone that transfers glucose from the bloodstream into the cells to be used for energy. Type 1 diabetes is typically diagnosed in childhood. The peak age is between eight and 12 years, although in some cases it can be much higher. I heard today of a case in which the age on diagnosis was 23. As a result, most patients with type 1 diabetes live with the complications of uncontrolled blood sugar for many more years than those who suffer from type 2. Unlike type 2, type 1 diabetes is not in any way linked to being overweight, to lack of exercise or to any other lifestyle factor. Living with type 1 diabetes involves a relentless process of managing the condition, and there are no days off.
People with the condition have to rely on a programme of finger-prick blood sugar tests and insulin pump infusions or injections up to 10 times a day, just to stay alive. Although these tools prolong life, they are not a cure. Even with insulin injections, type 1 diabetes brings devastating long-term complications, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure and, in some cases, limb amputation. In addition, there is a small but very real chance of sudden death, and life expectancy is reduced by about 20 years.
I recently tabled a question to the Department of Health about its estimate of the number of people with type 1 diabetes. It turns out that the Department does not have an estimate of the total number, but extrapolations from quality outcomes and framework data suggest that the figure might be about 230,000, which is some 10% of the diabetes population.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is important that the Department of Health and the coalition Government show leadership in this area. Is my right hon. Friend not concerned by the latest figures, which seem to suggest that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about 4% a year, with the biggest increase in children under five, in whom there has been a fivefold increase in the past 20 years? Does my right hon. Friend not agree with me that we need assurances from the Government that they will look into what is happening, and will look at what can be done both to tackle the condition when children are diagnosed, and to understand why it is occurring and increasing in the way that it is?
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The figures that she has cited are correct, and I was about to go on to mention them.
I have mentioned the Department of Health’s estimate. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation cites estimates that put the number of children and adults living with type 1 diabetes as high as 390,000, or 15% of the diabetes population. In a political context, that translates into approximately 500 people in every parliamentary constituency. There seems to be more consensus on the number of children and young people with type 1 diabetes: about 25,000 children in the UK have it. That means that as many as one child in every 700 has type 1 diabetes. Of all children and young people with diabetes, 98.6% will have type 1.
It is also worth noting that although the condition is not linked to lifestyle factors, the incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about 4% a year. The biggest increase is in children under five, in whom there has been a fivefold increase in the past 20 years, as my right hon. Friend has said. To summarise, this is a complex condition that affects children and young people in significant numbers, and it has a profound impact on their lives.
Diagnosis often occurs on the occasion of the first major episode of diabetic ketoacidosis, with symptoms typically evolving over a 24-hour period. The symptoms are predominantly nausea and vomiting, pronounced thirst, excessive urine production and abdominal pain that might, in some cases, be severe. Left undiagnosed and untreated, diabetic ketoacidosis is fatal. In 2009, an eight-year-old boy died from undiagnosed diabetic ketoacidosis. An ambulance was called but, as it was thought that the boy was a low priority, was never dispatched. When an out-of-hours GP was called, the boy was diagnosed with swine flu and prescribed Tamiflu. He died days later. A major problem is that many GPs are not properly trained to recognise the symptoms and make a diagnosis, and there are countless examples of young people being treated for an entirely separate condition, when the real problem is that diabetes has been uncontrolled and not even recognised, and appropriate action therefore not taken.
As well as creating the risk of a major catastrophe and having ongoing consequences for physical health, type 1 diabetes has a profound effect on the lives of children with the condition and their families. It pervades every aspect of a sufferer’s life. Everything that the person eats, drinks and does involves a mathematical equation. For the child and their family there are no days off, and even a few hours of trying to forget can be dangerous. Living with this complex, chronic condition is at times very distressing and stressful for many parents, and it is a source of constant anxiety, and often embarrassment, for young sufferers.
A survey carried out by the parent group, Children with Diabetes, showed that a significant majority of parents had seen their household income decrease, and that there had been a notable impact on family life. The potential for long-term complications is clear and present, and is obviously a worry for many parents. Many children worry about being seen as different from their peers, and a disturbing 50% of parents say that their children have been bullied as a result of having type 1 diabetes. Although children and young people with diabetes are different in the sense that they continually have to manage their condition, they are like any other young person in most other ways. They are subject to the same pressures and temptations, such as the ones to use alcohol or illegal drugs, which could be fatal in their case.
Young people with diabetes have also succumbed to a trend that is informally known as diabulimia. They manipulate their insulin to achieve significant weight loss. In 2004, in “Living with Diabetes”, Susan Caltieri bravely explained how the phenomenon had affected her life. She said:
“Instead of dealing with the root of the problems—the relationship I had with my diabetes—1 started blaming my weight, thinking the only way to achieve my ambitions of getting on to the stage was to be skinny. I discovered that by decreasing my insulin and eating less, I could lose weight quickly. Eventually there were periods of time where I didn't inject insulin at all and could lose up to half a stone a day. 1 had developed a serious eating disorder...I don’t know how I actually survived. I was completely oblivious to the damage I was doing my body.”
Caroline Flint
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time and I congratulate him on securing this debate. What he is outlining to us is a worrying trend among young women who feel that they have to be a certain size to be attractive. Does he not agree that it is also worrying that we have heard nothing from the coalition Government, in the form of a public health measure, about how they will ensure that young people, particularly young women, with type 1 diabetes are supported so that they understand the dangers to their health of not taking their insulin? Moreover, how will the support that is there be affected by the unnecessary change to GP commissioning at a local level?
Mr Howarth
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. It is a worry that the change in the system, which will vest more power with GPs, could have a negative effect; I hope that it does not. Will the Minister give serious consideration to the way in which conditions such as diabetes will be managed in those changed circumstances? I fear that GPs’ knowledge of the subject is too sketchy for them to be able to deal with the matter properly. As and when a Bill comes before the House, I will—if my party’s Front Benchers do not—table some amendments on the issue. To be fair, I should mention that the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), has raised the important issue of young women and body size and image and so on. The idea that young women have to be stick-thin to be attractive or employable is outrageous. I had not intended to raise this subject, but I have discussed it in the past with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the Minister for Equalities.
Although this story does not involve a diabetic, it is related to the issue that has just been raised. A young woman spent her entire life, from the age of seven, training to be a violinist. She performs in concerts and provides backing music for groups. I am talking about the way in which rock groups have attractive young women playing a violin and a cello behind them. This particular young woman had to perform at a festival. The agent who recruited her said that one of the requirements in the contract was that she got down to size zero. I am not talking about a pop star or a model—although I condemn such behaviour in those cases as well—but a serious musician who was expected to get down to that sort of weight. It is outrageous, and I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley raised the matter.
Diabetes UK has estimated that the number of young people with type 1 diabetes who manipulate their insulin to achieve weight loss could be as much as one third of all patients. Although it is possible that the figure may not be that high, discussions that I have had with one of my local hospitals—Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—and specifically with Maureen Wallymahmed, revealed that it is extremely hard to quantify the problem because young people tend to hide the condition from medical staff. I warmly commend the work of the unit at Aintree. It manages the transition in treatment from childhood through to adulthood, which is another area that requires attention.
The causes of the trend to manipulate insulin are deeply ingrained in society and cannot be simply addressed. One thing is clear, though: young people with type 1 diabetes need easily available help and constant access to support. Where appropriate, that should include access to relevant psychological therapies.
One obvious difference between young people with diabetes and older patients is that those young people spend far longer periods of their lives living with variable blood sugar levels. Consequently, the ongoing physical risks that they face typically occur much earlier in life than with type 2 diabetic patients. Complications can include heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure and limb amputation.
For the purpose of this debate, I shall take one example of those complications. Diabetes can affect vision in several ways, but the most serious impact is generally on the blood supply to and within the retina. Most sight loss due to diabetes can be prevented, but it is crucial that the condition is diagnosed early and treated promptly. Up to one third of patients with diabetes will have background diabetic retinopathy, which needs to be monitored carefully as it can develop into irreversible sight loss. Early detection through screening and treatment is vital to prevent unnecessary sight loss. The Department of Health figures suggest that more people with diabetes are now being offered screening for retinopathy than ever before and to a higher standard, which is very welcome. However, the speed of progress appears to vary significantly across the country, with some primary care trusts not offering screening to old people with diabetes, which is a cause for concern.
In these difficult financial times, it is worth focusing on the cost of diabetes management to ensure that we are making the most of all available resources across the whole health system. Treating diabetes and its complications is extremely expensive. Each year, the NHS spends 10% of its budget on the condition. Given the lack of reliable data it is difficult to put a definitive figure on the cost to the NHS of treating type 1 diabetes. However, we know that once diagnosed, type 1 diabetes requires intensive control for the rest of the person’s life, and with the risk of complications, the cost of treating the condition in the NHS is high.
One of the major challenges that the NHS faces is to help patients manage their conditions more effectively, so that the necessary admissions for acute care can be avoided. Better management not only saves huge potential costs, but makes a significant contribution to improving the lives of patients with type 1 diabetes. To achieve that, we need to ensure that funding within the NHS supports care pathways and innovations that help patients manage their condition effectively, which means that medical research is vital.
At present, there are no definitive answers about what causes type 1 diabetes or how we can cure it. The only way that a cure will be found is through greater investment in medical research. In 2009, the Government funding bodies—the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research—committed £51 million to research to tackle the growing problem of diabetes. Of that amount, only £6 million was applicable to type 1 diabetes. By contrast, last year the United States Government spent $150 million, the Australian Government $36 million and the Canadian Government $20 million on funding world-class research to cure, treat and prevent type 1 diabetes.
We could take the easy option and leave it to others to carry out the research, but aside from the dubious ethics that that would involve, it would of course miss the point that investment in medical research provides wider economic gains as well as obvious health benefits. A recent report by the Office of Health Economics, a health think-tank, concluded that a £1 increase in UK Government or UK charity spending on medical research could lead to an increase in private research spending by the pharmaceutical industry of between £2.20 and £5.10. Other research by the Wellcome Trust has estimated that every £1 spent on public or charitable medical research yields additional GDP for the UK that is equivalent to a net return of 30p per year in perpetuity.
Once innovative treatments or technologies are available, it is essential that patients with type 1 diabetes have access to them. Insulin pump therapy is internationally viewed as the gold standard treatment for type 1 diabetes, reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia—very low blood sugar—and long-term complications. Despite that, however, less than 4% of the UK’s type 1 population use a pump—far behind Europe, at 15% to 20%, and the United States, at 35%. Given the long-term costs of managing the complications of type 1 diabetes and the immediate-term costs of unnecessary unplanned hospital admissions, the UK figure has all the hallmarks of a false economy. Indeed, I have heard of instances of young people being refused a pump because the control of their blood sugar levels has not been considered bad enough. Clearly, there is an issue that needs looking at, regarding the advice that medical practitioners are following.
Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends that insulin pump therapy is used as a treatment option for adults and children over 12 if attempts to meet long-term blood sugar levels fail or result in the patient having disabling hypoglycaemia. The NICE guidance also recommends that children under 12 with type 1 diabetes have access to insulin pump therapy if multiple daily injections are considered impractical or inappropriate.
However, despite that NICE guidance on eligibility, there is considerable inequity in insulin pump provision across the country. In some areas, less than 1% of people with type 1 diabetes use an insulin pump. Figures released earlier this month by the Medical Technology Group indicate that there is indeed a “postcode lottery” of insulin pump access across the UK, with access varying from 0.4% of the type 1 population in Luton to 17% in Blackburn.
Only five of 113 primary care trusts that were questioned had any kind of strategy in place to implement the NICE guidance on insulin pumps in line with their statutory duty to adhere to NICE technology appraisals within three months of issue. I hope the Minister will follow up that issue with PCTs. Decisions about funding for pump services seem to be based on cash-flow benefits rather than on the benefits that such services would provide for patients.
Another exciting development that offers real hope to patients, as long as they are able to access any future solution, is the artificial pancreas—the first realistic hope for a cure for type 1 diabetes, albeit a mechanical one. Vital research supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is working towards developing an artificial pancreas system, a technology that will do the job of a healthy pancreas. Such a system would provide exactly the right amount of insulin to the body exactly when it is needed.
The artificial pancreas system requires three things: an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm. Insulin pumps and CGMs are already available and researchers from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation have developed an algorithm that will allow the two devices to communicate with each other. Artificial pancreas systems are expected to be publicly available within the next five years.
However, there is a real risk that while people with type 1 diabetes in the US and other countries will be able to use that new technology, people with type 1 diabetes in the UK will miss out, because they do not have access to an insulin pump or a CGM, and because the structures and expertise are not in place here to support the existing technology, let alone the next sophisticated technological development. Rectifying those problems would be a real indicator that we are serious about having an NHS that has the principles of excellence, efficiency and equity at its heart.
I recognise that the cost of an insulin pump, which is about £3,000, is significant. However, given that NICE recognises the value of bariatric surgery—what is normally known as the insertion of a gastric band—as a mechanism to tackle type 2 diabetes and given that such surgery costs up to £7,000, we need to get the costs of adopting innovative medical technology such as an insulin pump into perspective.
In conclusion, what needs to be done? Given that many cases of type 1 diabetes go undiagnosed, we need to improve awareness among GPs, so that the condition can be diagnosed in the first place. There is an argument that GPs should be given a series of protocols on how they should deal with certain symptoms. Increased understanding of the nature of type 1 diabetes is particularly important given that Government proposals envisage that GPs will take the responsibility for commissioning care as well as being the first point of call for diagnosis.
In addition to the early identification of diabetes, we need to encourage commissioners to plan adequately for treating the long-term complications. That would include ensuring adequate provision for retinal screening, to close the gap between those being offered screening and those actually receiving the test. In particular, we must address the “postcode lottery” that exists in relation to that procedure.
Above all, we need to ensure that patients have easy access to care that is shaped around their personal needs. In many cases, that will mean providing access to a multidisciplinary team, with patients enjoying a consistent relationship with advisers. In addition, psychologists and all those involved in the care of vulnerable young people need to understand the risks of behavioural complications, such as diabulimia, and the social pressures that can lead to those complications.
It is hugely important that GPs are made aware of type 1 diabetes. If they do not know about the condition, they will not recognise it; if they do not recognise it, they will not diagnose it; and if they do not diagnose it, the consequences for some young people could be fatal.
We therefore need to be imaginative in the way that the NHS funds and provides new therapies. There are numerous ways to provide advice. The important thing is that patients get that advice when and where they need it. Although special hospital units, such as the one at Aintree that serves my constituency, will continue to play a vital role, we need to be open to the idea of using other locations as a means of delivering care, particularly in the primary care sector.
Ongoing telephone support, community-based pharmacy care and mobile technology all have a role to play. The key is to ensure that we integrate these solutions, so that they work effectively across the local health economy to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce long-term complications.
If I have painted a gloomy picture, perhaps I can conclude by making a slightly more upbeat point. The dangers and risks to young people of type 1 diabetes are great, and recent developments can make them even more serious, but there are examples of leading sportsmen and women, entertainers and a host of other people successful in their chosen professions who manage to cope with type 1 diabetes, have a life and career and even bring up a family. In many respects, their lives exceed their expectations and those of society. With help, type 1 diabetes can be managed, and young people who have it can achieve everything in life of which they are capable. Our responsibility is to ensure that they get that help.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing this important and pertinent debate. It is timely, given that we have a new Government and a new Health Secretary with responsibility for the issue. This is a great opportunity for us to help him to help those with the condition. I register that I am a type 1 diabetic whose condition is controlled by injections of insulin.
Diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, is a chronic condition for which there is as yet no cure. Type 1 diabetes is believed to be genetic, rather than a consequence of lifestyle; type 2 diabetes is firmly believed to be a consequence of lifestyle and diet, and not necessarily of genetic factors.
The treatment regimes for types 1 and 2 are slightly different. Treatment of type 2 is very much about diet, exercise and changing a sedentary lifestyle. Medicines might be introduced to induce what insulin the body still produces to work better, although injections of insulin are increasingly being prescribed for people with type 2 diabetes, particularly those who have had the condition for a long time. The type 1 diabetic is someone whose pancreas has effectively packed up and said goodbye, so in order to stay alive, they must take injections of insulin—there is no alternative. Medication is sometimes prescribed later in life to ensure that the insulin taken works a little faster or more efficiently. For those considered to be at risk of other complications that tend to come with diabetes, such as strokes or heart problems, statins and other such drugs can be prescribed.
Just under one in five people with diabetes has type 1. Most are likely to have been diagnosed before age 40; I have had the condition since my late 20s. This debate is about diabetes in young people, so I will focus on that. I am glad that I was not diagnosed with diabetes as a young person, because it has a major impact on a young person’s life, educational chances, social interactions and psychological attitude to life.
The typical treatment for somebody with type 1 diabetes is perhaps three injections a day of fairly fast-acting insulin, taken at meal times. Before going to bed, they might take a fourth injection of a slightly longer-lasting insulin to maintain their body’s balance through the night, when they are not exerting themselves and require a different type of insulin. There are dozens of types of insulin—fast-acting, slow-acting, mixed—and which insulin or insulin mix is right is a decision for the patient and their GP in light of their circumstances.
The condition changes with age. The first insulin that someone is prescribed is not necessarily the one with which they will continue later in life. New insulins come on the market all the time, promising better control and fewer complications, and from time to time the treatment regime is reviewed and the GP or consultant may recommend change. Of course, that can cause complications, as the effect of any change is specific to the person. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Knowsley will know, if his daughter has ever been asked to change her treatment regime, that a degree of adjustment must take place before the patient is comfortable with the new regime.
Many people with diabetes make contact with the health service only once a year. It is a condition that must be managed by the diabetic themselves. For 364 days of the year, they are their own consultant. They know their body better than anyone else, and they must take the decision whether to increase or decrease the dose according to how much energy they are expending or what type of food they are about to eat. Once a year, the diabetic has a medical check-up. Some good GP practices bring in people twice a year: once to see the GP, once to see a specialist nurse. Some diabetics might see a medical professional three times a year in addition to seeing their consultant in hospital, but most people who have been diagnosed and are living with the condition normally come into contact with the health service only once a year. It is vital, therefore, that at that point the health service can detect whether there is a problem, analyse what it is and make correct suggestions about any changes in treatment.
For young people of primary and secondary school age, one big problem is the stigma of diabetes. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about what the disease is, what it does and what the condition brings. A young person might be told, “I’m sorry, you’re going to have to inject yourself,” but there is a stigma to that. They need a clean, perhaps private environment in which to make that injection. Although great advances have been made in injection devices—some are disguised as pens—there is still a stigma attached to having an injection, even a small, subcutaneous one. They are not great big syringes, as they used to be in the old days, but even with those advances, there is still a stigma.
Injections are not the only part of it. A sensible diabetic will want to test their blood sugars, which means taking a blood sample and putting it through a testing machine so the reading can advise them what injection of insulin is required. A clean, discreet environment is needed, which is difficult to find for someone in school—far more difficult than for me, a Member of Parliament. That is another reason why I am glad I did not have the condition as a child.
There are three stages for a young person with diabetes. Often, in a primary school environment, they may be the only person with the condition. Kids are quick to pick up on somebody who is a little bit different or has special requirements. Often, the primary school might have difficulty coping with a child who has diabetes. Many cases are on record—Diabetes UK has done a lot of work to highlight the issue—in which primary schoolchildren have not been able to get teachers or other school staff to assist them with testing or injecting because the school insists that a parent come in to do so. Working parents simply cannot do that, so in some cases, parents have had to move children away from their desired school to a bigger school, or one that can cope with a child who has diabetes.
We then move to secondary school. Although secondary school is ever longer ago, we can perhaps remember what we were like as teenagers, and the reality is that people do not want to be different when they are at secondary school. They do not want to admit that there is something that they cannot do, particularly if they are male. The reality, however, is that, with the right treatment, there is nothing that they cannot do. However, if they cannot, for whatever reason, do what they need to do, they will have difficulties doing what they wish to do.
We then come to the third stage—higher education. Things are different again when people go up to university. They may break the link with their home-town medical support, whether it is a GP or a consultant. They suddenly come into a university environment, which is very different from the home environment. The encouragement to do all the things that a diabetic should not do, in terms of when and what to eat and how much to drink, becomes that much greater. Young students with diabetes have reported to me that whatever medical support services there are at universities lack an understanding of that pressure, so there needs to be some improvement in that area.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley rightly mentioned the NICE guidelines on insulin pumps, and it is worth realising what they say, because they are quite limiting, in terms of the number of people who can be prescribed pumps. The guidelines recommend that the therapy be used when every other treatment has failed. Someone who has not got on well with injecting insulin or medication will be put on an insulin pump as a last resort. The NICE guideline for children under 12 says that they
“can have access to insulin pump therapy if multiple daily injections are considered impractical or inappropriate.”
There are lots of incidences of young children finding that injections are impractical and inappropriate because their school cannot help them, but their cases do not always come to light.
The criteria are very narrow. In many respects, a child should be put on a pump as soon as they are diagnosed—that should be done straight away, no question. What seems to be holding us back is not simply the cost of the machine, which is about the size of an iPhone, and which is permanently attached, giving the wearer a small dose of insulin throughout the day so that they can go off and do everything they want without having to worry about syringes, needles and all the rest of the paraphernalia. What is important, however, is that pumps have proper back-up from technical and medical staff who understand them, and that is where there is a big gap. The all-party group on diabetes came across the case of a child on a pump who lives in Portsmouth, but who is supported by a hospital in Leeds.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I apologise for missing the start of the debate, which is particularly topical, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and I had a meeting with the JDRF this morning and discussed the very point that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) raises. I was struck by a number of points, which I hope that he will agree with. One is that the importance of what he has just said about managing the disease in a far more cost-effective and efficient way cannot be overstated, and we can have remote monitoring of blood sugar and dosage levels with a pump. The most shocking thing that I have heard is that although our wonderful scientists in Cambridge are developing an artificial pancreas, which is an amazing breakthrough that will mean a mechanical solution to type 1 diabetes, UK citizens will not be able to avail themselves of the technology. Pump usage is only at about 4%, including among the young group that we are discussing, but levels of pump take-up in the US and other areas are as high as 40%. It is absolutely self-evident from the point of view of cost-effectiveness and long-term treatment that the adoption of pumps should be a high priority—
Mr Sanders
The points about take-up were also made extremely well by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. Getting in place the support systems for pumps will help those who make decisions about budgets locally to ensure that the equipment is there and in play for everybody who is prescribed one.
In a sense, the great hope for the future is a pump that also tests blood sugar, adjusts the dose accordingly and communicates, if the patient wishes, with a medical professional about what is happening to the patient’s body. When that happens, clinicians will be able to gather much more information from diabetics, rather than just hearing what they have to say. Of course, people will tell their GP, “I’m doing everything you said I should,” but the reality may be just a little different, so that new information will take things much further forward.
In conclusion, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. How much notice does his Department take of international comparisons regarding care and research? The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned the fact that take-up here is much lower than in the United States. Should that factor be taken into consideration when we discuss what are appropriate treatments and what budgets should be? What efforts are being made to co-ordinate international research into effective treatments and a cure for diabetes? A cure may be a long-term possibility, but it would be silly if several different countries, with several different groups of taxpayers, funded the same research at the same time. Some international co-ordination would be in everybody’s interest.
Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. I hope to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.30 pm.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I can assure you, Mrs Riordan, that I will not speak for that long.
I want to highlight the impact that diabetes, like all chronic conditions, has on not only the individual, but their family, friends and community. That is particularly relevant, given the age at which people are being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the huge increase in the number of children who are diagnosed with it. About 25,000 children in the UK have type 1 diabetes. Some 98.6% of children and young people with diabetes have type 1. The incidence of type 1 diabetes increases by about 4% each year. The biggest increase is in children under the age of five, among whom there has been a fivefold increase in the past 20 years.
When children are diagnosed with diabetes, it has a profound effect on their families. The parent group, Children with Diabetes, did a survey of parents, in which 85% said that their household income had gone down; 83% said that they had problems with their marriage and family life; 84% said that their child’s treatment was affected by where they lived; 71% said that they were concerned about long-term complications; 60% said that their children were most worried about being seen as different, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) said; and 50% reported that their children had been bullied at school as a result of suffering from type 1 diabetes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) asked me to contribute to the debate because of its importance to him as an individual. That made me think about constituents I have seen and the problems that they have had. My hairdresser, who is a very important person in my life, told me that his niece, Sophia, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of five. There was no history of diabetes in the family. The family spent ages completely terrified, wondering what the problem with their young daughter was, only to find that she had type 1 diabetes. Her mother, Nicole, tells me that she came home on the day of diagnosis with a load of equipment, not knowing what to do or understanding the consequences. She knew that she had to give up her employment, because she could not control the diabetes and did not know the consequences for her daughter. Her husband had to accept the fact that, unlike other married couples, they could not leave their daughter with other people, because those others were frightened about knowing how to care for her. Nicole was concerned about just not knowing how the family would approach routine family life, celebrations, festivals and even Christmas.
Nicole told me today that the single thing that was of benefit to her was the recently set up parent group at St. George’s hospital in Tooting. The scales fell from her eyes as the clinical paediatric nurse, Richard Todd, told her how she could cope with Christmas—all the food and treats of the period—and how she could have access as a carer to discount cards, which no one had told her about in the past, although her daughter has had type 1 diabetes for seven years. She could also just meet other families and mums, and discuss the consequences, for them and their family, of their children’s diabetes. If there is anything I would ask the Minister to do, it is to consider the fact that St. George’s will not carry on the parent support service, because it does not feel able to keep Mr Todd’s services. I am sure that there are many demands on the hospital, but that parent group—just from one parent’s perspective—had an enormous impact.
The other time when a problem begins to arise in a family’s life is when children transfer from primary to secondary school. While having a pacemaker, or another condition, might affect a child’s school preference place, despite having type 1 diabetes Sophia did not obtain a school place in the Minister’s constituency, although her mum and dad wanted her to go to school there so that they could be close at hand if anything happened and so that all the burden would not fall on the school. At the school, in turn, there was a fear about having Sophia there. Of course, with the transfer to secondary school the issue of puberty comes into play, with its impact on the treatment of type 1 diabetes, and the need to understand whether mood changes result from the illness or the normal changes that any teenager goes through.
Having a child with type 1 diabetes can also have a financial impact. I know from other families who have been to see me that that can involve simple things such as school uniforms. One mum who came to see me bought the uniform for her daughter who was going to secondary school, only for her to be diagnosed with the condition over the summer holidays; in that period she lost two or three dress sizes. Apart from the sheer fear that that must have created, the financial impact for a single mum on benefit is huge. There are implications for all the things that we would want to happen: getting mums back into work; flexible working; the need to work close to home; and the need for the wider family to understand things. I am sure that that is only a small and perhaps secondary consideration, but in the treatment of this chronic disorder, diagnosed in children so young, it has a huge impact for the wider family. The soft services of parent groups, which might be seen as less important in times of financial restraint, are crucial in enabling parents to understand the difficulties and problems, and in preventing some of the problems that other families have probably been through.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, for the first time, or certainly the first time in my experience. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing the debate.
We have heard a number of telling statistics about diabetes. As has been said, of the young people and children who have diabetes in the UK, about 98.6%—a very large proportion—have type 1 diabetes. It is estimated—and it is a pity that we have to talk of estimates, and do not really know the true figures—that type 1 diabetes affects more than 25,000 children and young people. As we have heard—there are some very useful definitions—it is a chronic condition, which can be life-threatening, and which occurs when the body’s immune system attacks insulin production cells in the pancreas. It is usually diagnosed in childhood, but as with most other conditions children are often kept waiting for a diagnosis. People must live with and manage the condition for the rest of their lives. Even when it is managed through regular injections, type 1 diabetes can bring long-term complications, such as heart disease, stroke or blindness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned.
Claire Perry
On that point, a shocking statistic that I was told this morning is that the management of the disease is so sub-optimal that it is estimated that more than 80% of relevant children have blood sugar levels that are too high, despite the best efforts of their parents, the community, hospitals and support groups. That has enormous long-term health and economic consequences. Surely better management of the disease at an early stage would save the children, the family and the taxpayer enormously in the long run.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and we heard earlier that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about 4% each year. The biggest increase is in children under five. A fivefold increase in the past 20 years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said earlier, is a matter of great concern. It is important that more attention be paid to helping GPs, pharmacists, other health practitioners and teachers to identify type 1 diabetes in children and young people. As with many long-term conditions, early identification is the key, because the later the diagnosis of diabetes, the greater the impact.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley asked the Minister in an Adjournment debate on diabetes last week to introduce protocols for GPs on dealing with certain symptoms. That would ensure that GPs were better equipped to diagnose diabetes. The Minister said then that he would consider the point and would have more to say on it during today’s debate. I hope that we shall hear his answer.
As we have heard, the Government’s NHS White Paper proposes to give GPs the power to commission services, instead of primary care trusts, which will be abolished. I have raised on a number of occasions recently the fact that there is great concern that many GPs do not have the depth of knowledge required to commission specialist services for conditions such as diabetes. GPs may not have the skills, experience or desire to assess whole-population health care needs, to manage the market, to negotiate contracts and to monitor performance. That is becoming a key point of concern, because GPs did not necessarily come into medicine to do those things. Indeed, I understand that the Royal College of General Practitioners is urging the Secretary of State for Health to put back his plans for GP commissioning. The college’s report on the Government’s consultation has unearthed “major concerns”. That is in line with the responses from medical charities such as Rethink and campaigns such as the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, which also have concerns that GPs lack the skills and experience for commissioning across such a range of conditions.
There are also concerns that in taking on such a wide role, GPs’ primary role of making diagnoses and providing patients with all the information and support that they need could be affected. Some of the statistics are already becoming a cause for concern. Surveys by Diabetes UK have found that 20% of young people feel that they rarely, if at all, discuss their goals for their diabetes care during check-ups. Further, only 26% have attended a course to help them learn about managing their diabetes. The essence of managing a long-term condition is recognising that people must become expert patients. If they are young, their family members must become expert carers. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to make sure that GPs are better equipped to diagnose conditions such as type 1 diabetes and to continue, and improve, their support for people with the condition?
There is a clear need for people with diabetes to be given better information about how to manage their condition. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who chairs the all-party group on diabetes, has tabled early-day motion 72, which notes that 65% of the 2 million people in the UK with diabetes are not taking their medication as prescribed, because two out of three do not understand what those medications are for or how to take them. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) what it is like to land at home with a host of medications, without having a real idea of what to do with them.
Mr Sanders
It is helpful that the hon. Lady has raised that point, because it is an important element of the issue. There are enormous savings to be made by preventing wastage, but we are not just talking about tablets—there is also medical equipment. Increasingly, people with chronic conditions depend on medical equipment. Being able properly to take and analyse a blood sugar reading is a very important aspect of a diabetic’s ability to treat themselves.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. I understand that the early-day motion argues that people with diabetes have a right to expect a personalised information prescription, so that they receive clear and consistent information on diabetes, which will enable them to start to understand their condition and treatment options.
Will the Minister outline what action the Government plan to take to ensure that the NHS at a local level provides diabetes care and support in line with the standards set out in the EDM? The Minister will know that I am always concerned to ensure that we consider carers’ issues in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has just touched on some of those issues. We should consider the effect that long-term conditions, such as type 1 diabetes, have on family members and carers. My hon. Friend described it as a soft issue, but carers are the backbone of support for children and young people in this situation, and there is an impact on them.
The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation states:
“Type 1 diabetes pervades every aspect of a person’s life.”
Of course, it also affects their family. As we have heard, everyday activities, such as eating and drinking, which are often difficult enough with children—particularly young children—involve much thought and planning on the part of carers of children and young people with type 1 diabetes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the survey carried out by the parent group, Children with Diabetes. As she said, it found that 83% of parents said that their family life was affected by a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes—quite understandably—and 84% of parents said that the treatment that they received was affected by where they live. That should not be the case; we should not have a postcode lottery. Some 60% of parents said that their children were most worried about being seen as different—children are, of course, always worried about that—and, most worryingly, 50% reported that their children had been bullied as a result of having type 1 diabetes.
The hon. Member for Torbay talked about the stigma associated with treatment by injection. Clearly, bullying in schools can be a result of stigma and perceived difference in children. That is of great concern. Diabetes UK has found that many parents of children with diabetes are forced to give up work, for reasons outlined in today’s debate. In a recent survey, half of primary school pupils with type 1 diabetes and a third of their secondary school counterparts reported that their parents had to reduce their hours or give up work to help to administer insulin injections.
The report also revealed that two thirds of primary school pupils and four fifths of secondary school pupils questioned think that school staff do not have enough training in diabetes. That is not surprising given the findings of an earlier 2008 survey of primary schools. It found that 42% of schools that had children with diabetes did not have any policy advising staff about the supervision of blood glucose monitoring by the child, 48% did not have a policy advising staff on how to help carry that out, 41% did not have a policy advising staff on how to supervise medication of any sort, and 59% did not have a policy advising staff on how to give medication. So the load is falling directly back on to the parents, because the schools do not have a policy.
When we consider type 1 diabetes, it is important to look at the people around the child or young person with the condition and to consider the level of support, information and training that is needed. The children’s charter for diabetes states that discrimination in education should end and that children with diabetes should be treated with respect. I hope that the Minister agrees with that sentiment.
As I say, one of the major concerns among diabetes charities and groups, such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, is the postcode lottery that they feel exists regarding the treatment of type 1 diabetes. We have talked a lot in this debate about insulin pump therapy, because that is rightly viewed as the gold standard of treatment for the condition. Insulin pump therapy reduces hypoglycaemia and long-term complications, and it can make life easier. As we have heard, the treatment involves a bleeper that delivers small amounts of insulin throughout the day.
Those pumps are a cost-effective treatment that can help reduce contact with primary care, reduce hospital out-patient and in-patient admissions and, most importantly for children and young people, deliver a better quality of life. As we have heard, less than 4% of the population with type 1 diabetes use a pump. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, that figure is far below the level of use in Europe, where it is at 15% to 20%, and the United States, where it is at 35%. In fact, given the number of children and young people who go on holiday to the States, it is likely that they will run into pump therapy when they are there. Of course, people also read about the therapies available in other countries on the internet.
It is clearly important that insulin pump therapy becomes available. As we have heard, it can be used by adults and children over 12 and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, NICE guidance also recommends that children under 12 with type 1 diabetes have access to insulin pump therapy if multiple daily injections are considered impractical or inappropriate.
The hon. Member for Torbay provided a vivid description of the stigma, bullying and other issues that arise in school. For example, he mentioned how hard it is to find a clean and private place in which to administer injections. I have touched on the difficulties of schools not having policies, and teachers not supervising the situation. Clearly, children of almost any age will almost always find it impractical in a school setting to administer injections. In those cases, insulin pump therapy will always be better for the child or young person.
As we have heard, it is worrying that there is considerable inequity in insulin pump provision across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about the figures released this month by the Medical Technology Group, which show that there is a postcode lottery, in terms of access to insulin pumps in the UK. We can compare the cost of insulin pumps, which are £3,000, with the cost of bariatric surgery for the morbidly obese, which is about £7,000. Both of those treatments have beneficial effects, save the NHS money and improve the quality of life for the patient. Bariatric surgery use has increased tenfold from 2000 to 2007 but, as we have heard, our levels of prescribing insulin pumps are only a quarter—or a fifth—of levels of usage in Europe. Given that GPs are to take on a commissioning role, will the Minister state what action the Government plan to take to ensure that insulin pumps become much more readily and evenly available across the UK?
I would like to thank the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Eye Health Alliance, Diabetes UK and, of course, the Members’ Library for their excellent briefings on the subject, which have helped us all in today’s debate. I started my preparation for the debate not really understanding very much about the condition, and particularly how it affects children and young people, and I feel that I do understand it now. Given the number of people involved with the issue in every constituency and the prevalence of the condition, all hon. Members should understand it as well as I hope we will by the end of the debate; the discussion has been excellent from that point of view. I pay tribute to the children and young people who are living with this condition, and to their parents. I hope that through this debate and the questions that we are asking the Minister, we can improve the service and support that they receive from health and other services in future.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing the debate and, indeed, on taking part in last week’s debate. He has brought a sharp focus to an issue that is often not debated—even when we discuss diabetes, it gets rather lost in the broader picture.
I have a constituency interest in the matter. Before the general election, a number of children in my constituency who were supported by Diabetes UK wanted to make me aware of what could be done in schools and families to support them better. There are beacons of hope and places that are doing exceptionally good things that make a huge difference. However, as has been well documented in the debate, there is clearly a lot of work to be done. I have a lot to say in response to the very many good points that have been made in the debate.
It is helpful that the debate is not just grounded in the technicalities of the issue, but grounded in the life experiences of individuals. We have heard such points made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the right hon. Member for Knowsley and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who has direct experience of the matter. That is powerful because when it is done well, it helps to give a real sense of the difference that can be made to a person’s life—they no longer have to be defined by the condition; they can get on with their life. I hope we share that goal as we discuss how to shape services going forward.
I pay tribute to Diabetes UK and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which, through the speeches of hon. Members from all parties, has contributed to the debate and does much well beyond that. This is a welcome opportunity to focus on a condition that does not get the same headlines as cancer, cardiovascular disease or, for that matter, type 2 diabetes. It presents a threat not only to children’s health but, as we have heard in the debate, to their well-being and, in turn, that of their families.
The debate has rightly focused on what we can do to improve matters. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who understandably has had to leave to attend to other business, raised a few points with a policy emphasis that were rather churlish, but I understand that they were well meant. I am sure that she and I will have an opportunity to debate those on another occasion.
Mr George Howarth
I am loth to rise to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), on the grounds that she is more than capable of defending herself, but the key issue that she raised was not too party political; it was about how young women are viewed and how they respond to the pressures to conform to a particular body shape.
Mr Burstow
I will come shortly to the point, which was absolutely well made, and certainly line up with the right hon. Lady’s comments on that. As has been mentioned, the Minister for Equalities has done a sterling job on behalf of the Government to place the issue at the front and centre. She has not resiled from the issue and will continue to pursue it as she has done so far. I was more anxious about that concern being aligned with the Government’s direction of travel on GP commissioning, which I will return to because it was raised, quite fairly, in the debate.
We have heard today about type 1 diabetes—a complex, lifelong, progressive condition that requires careful long-term management to prevent the severe and sometimes fatal complications that have been described. A 2009 survey of children with diabetes in England revealed that 23,000 children and young people currently have type 1 diabetes. There has also been a national diabetes audit, which included a separate report on paediatric diabetes that gives us a fair picture of the extent of childhood diabetes and how well it is being managed. Although Britain has one of the highest numbers of children diagnosed with diabetes in Europe, we have one of the lowest numbers of children controlling their diabetes well, and we have heard what the implications can be for those children and their families. That is extremely worrying, because poor glucose management increases the chance of the child experiencing complications. I echo the view, expressed by many Members in the debate, that that is an area where we can make significant and sustained improvements. I want to describe what we are trying to do about that.
The first question is: how can we ensure that more children receive an early and accurate diagnosis of diabetes? The challenge for GPs is that type 1 diabetes can be difficult to spot. A child might present with the vague symptoms of extreme tiredness and weight loss, which can be mistaken for other illnesses. Type 1 diabetes is quite rare, so GPs might not come across many cases in their practice. That explains why there have been instances of the sort that have been described today: tragic cases of symptoms being overlooked and children diagnosed only after becoming seriously ill.
The National Patient Safety Agency is currently looking at a number of reports of misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis and is working with the national clinical director for diabetes to look at what we can do to improve diagnosis rates and reduce emergency admissions. Clearly, we will have to look at protocols and how they might serve as a tool that can be used, but we need to ensure that the work is properly concluded before we decide whether that is an appropriate mechanism.
It is true that building professional awareness is key to improving diagnosis rates. We need GPs and A and E staff, in particular, to consider diabetes as a possibility when they see children with appropriate symptoms, and we must ensure that they are equipped with a range of diagnostic tools to do so. NHS Diabetes, the improvement body for diabetes care, is working with various royal colleges and other bodies to improve professional standards and ensure that best practice is reflected in their training curricula. NHS Diabetes is also working with Diabetes UK to publish best practice guides on how a child with type 1 diabetes should be cared for. Therefore, material is being generated that will help a wide range of professionals not only in the NHS, but in education and social services, to recognise the symptoms and understand what good care looks like. In addition, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has been placing posters in GPs’ surgeries, highlighting the signs and symptoms to help people recognise the condition.
Once diagnosed, children need a combination of high-quality clinical care and wider support to ensure that they manage their diabetes effectively. I concede that across the NHS we have a mixed picture, as has been well described. That is the picture the Government have inherited, and we are determined to improve it. Children with diabetes often need multiple referrals to different specialist services, so well integrated multidisciplinary care is crucial to service delivery.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley broke the ground for the building of the centre in Aintree that he described, which I understand will bring diabetes clinics closer together and make it much easier to access those services. We want to see more such centres of excellence. I welcome that development but stress, rather as he did, that too often the focus is on how many hospitals, doctors and nurses there are. Beds and buildings are not as important as good services, particularly when it comes to managing long-term conditions such as diabetes, as well co-ordinated and well thought-out services that are closer to the patient and can respond to their personal circumstances and fit around their lives will meet their needs better.
Barbara Keeley
While preparing for the debate, I noted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) are lucky enough to represent the two parts of the country where integrated health and social care is thought to be working the best. While talking with the King’s Fund the other day, I learned that there are only six places in the country where it is judged to be working that well. On GP commissioning—several Members touched on this point—how can the Minister ensure that that will improve, because our fear is that that major, top-down reorganisation will mean that those five or six places will be the only ones in the country?
Mr Burstow
Had I turned to the next page in my brief, I would have reached an answer to that question, so I will come back to it in a moment. My final point about care is that the latest paediatric diabetes service survey suggests that the picture is improving. It is important to stress that there is movement in the right direction, but there are still deficiencies.
On the question of GP commissioning and how we better integrate the commissioning and joining up of services, a point that the hon. Lady and others have missed in much of the commentary on the White Paper is the clear intention for local authorities to hold a new role in assessing population need. That assessment will be critical to the future of the commissioning of health and social care and to the new role of local authorities in public health, which is key to early prevention of type 2 diabetes. The notion that there is fragmentation and atomisation is far from the truth. The intention is to ensure that we have that alignment of services, which would be much better achieved through the partnership between local authorities and GP consortiums.
Mr George Howarth
I recognise the problem to which the Minister refers, but Knowsley primary care trust and Knowsley council, for example, already have a number of integrated posts; the chief executive of the PCT is also the director of social services. The process that the Minister is seeking to create through the reforms to a large extent already exists in places such as Knowsley, yet it seems that they will undo what has already been created.
Mr Burstow
As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has already said from the Front Bench, that is not the norm but the exception. We want that to become the norm. The point is that that has not happened everywhere. We need approaches that ensure that we design services in ways that involve all the key players, including clinicians and local authority social services, where appropriate. That is the ambition of the White Paper.
We want to unleash the potential of GPs by aligning them much more closely as commissioners with the services. I note that the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation supports the White Paper and sees it as a key way to lever the changes that Members have argued for in the debate. It sees the reforms as an opportunity to secure things that are not delivered under the current NHS architecture, such as insulin pumps, and I certainly wish to ensure that that happens.
Mr Howarth
I apologise for making so many interventions, but I want to make this simple point. One of the consistent themes in this debate has been that the weakest link in the system for treating young people with diabetes is the service that GPs provide, particularly in diagnosing diabetes in the first place. I cannot see the logic, from a diabetes point of view, in handing all the power and control to people who do not understand the disease.
Mr Burstow
The right hon. Gentleman and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation seem to be in different places. The foundation takes the view that the condition is best managed through primary care. As I said, we must upskill, ensure that the signs and symptoms are better understood, and use the clinical skills of GPs more effectively.
Mr Burstow
I will give way in just a moment—I want to pick up on another point. I am surprised that the hon. Lady keeps going on about GP commissioning, when it was her Government who introduced practice-based commissioning. We are building on those reforms, and see them as an essential way of ensuring that taxpayers’ money is most effectively geared to delivering the best possible health outcomes for people with diabetes and other conditions.
Barbara Keeley
I do not think that Opposition Members are alone now that the Royal College of General Practitioners has expressed major concerns about GP commissioning and is pleading with the Health Secretary to put the reforms back.
I want to raise a point about local authorities and coterminosity with PCTs. We have a better coterminosity situation—and have struggled to get to it—but I know that some local authorities around Greater Manchester will be faced with having not one but two, four or five GP consortiums. As I said, health and social care integration is working in places such as Knowsley and Torbay, where great work has been done to bring things together. The fragmentation is coming out because of the nature of the reorganisation.
Mr Burstow
Again, I do not recognise that characterisation, in that coterminosity does not exist in many parts of the country under the current model. As the hon. Lady has rightly said, integrated models of care, and collaborative approaches and behaviours are not present in many places. The desire and intent behind the White Paper is to make them the norm.
I want to do justice to this debate. We could have a debate about the White Paper, and I am sure that at some point the Opposition will choose to do so. If they do that, we would be only too happy to meet them point by point, but I want to talk about some of the key developments that will bear down on this problem and really help to transform lives.
The coalition Government want to make a significant move in respect of their commitment to introducing a much stronger payment system for children’s diabetes services, which will help to bring them out of the shadow of other NHS services. As a start to the process, a new mandatory tariff, which we plan to introduce in stages from April 2011, will recognise paediatric diabetes care as a clear and discrete specialism within the NHS, and will provide a clear funding stream to support such services over the long term.
At present there is a non-mandatory tariff, which was rushed in for April 2010, but it is wholly inadequate because it fails to take into account the complex nature of paediatric care, which this debate has articulated. As a result, under the current system, many paediatric diabetes services either continue to be under-resourced—we have heard about that today—or are funded through other budgets. Hence, they can sometimes be relegated to a second-class status in the NHS. The new tariff, as part of a more patient-focused funding model, will help to put us on the right track.
Mr Burstow
I will. The hon. Gentleman has listened to the whole debate, and I appreciate the fact that he has done that.
Mr Campbell
We have reached the point about money, and I can assure the Minister that the first concern of a parent of a child diagnosed with type 1 diabetes is the health of the child, not money. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) discussed support for families. May I ask what representation the Minister has made to the Department for Work and Pensions on disability living allowance, which is available to many families of young people with type 1 diabetes?
Mr Burstow
I obviously have many conversations with colleagues in the DWP, but as that is the first occasion on which that matter has been raised in this debate, and as I want to do justice to other speakers, I shall move on to ensure that I answer their questions.
Let us deal with family support more generally. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden took us through some of the statistics; the impacts on families’ lives are truly disturbing. We need to ensure that appropriate and tailored support services are in place, including the right support for carers.
I am concerned that where peer support services are provided, they are not given priority. However, not all peer support services need funding; they need willingness and support to ensure that they carry on. I would certainly commend peer support as one of the ways in which people can cope with self-care and the ongoing management of the conditions that have been discussed in this debate.
Let me deal briefly with emotional support for children in particular, and the children’s charter, which has been mentioned several times. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay spoke about the impact of a diagnosis at a young age. Part of that comes back to providing proper emotional support in formal settings—schools and other settings. We must ensure better alignment in the way that we develop our thinking around public mental health strategies, and we will be saying more about that in a cross-Government strategy on mental health later this year. I am sure we will want to pick up, at least in thematic terms, on the public health issues in the White Paper that we will publish, also later this year.
I very much welcome Diabetes UK’s children’s charter, which will help to establish the kind of support that children and young people need to help them cope. Also, a guide has been developed to help commissioners ensure that children with diabetes receive the emotional and psychological care that they need.
In the last four minutes, I want to speak about insulin pumps. The right hon. Member for Knowsley rightly raised that key issue in the debate and in an article that he published today. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has clearly recommended pump therapy for children and young people if daily injections are not working. Frankly, I am disappointed and shamed that many primary care trusts are dragging their feet on making pumps available. That should have been sorted out; I should not have to come to this Chamber to explain why that has not been done, given how long the recommendations have been there. It is a pity that the delay was not challenged more in the past, and that the previous Government did not get around to sorting it out. I expect to see real improvement in this area as a result of the new funding arrangements that have been discussed in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay raised some important points about obstacles, and I want to ensure that, through the all-party group on diabetes, we have further conversations about what we can do to kick down those obstacles, and to ensure that the important research on artificial pancreases that is being done in this country is not undermined by the treatment not being available because there is not a route through the pumps. That point has been powerfully made in the debate, and I want to ensure that we follow through on it.
Research has been touched on in broader terms, and I want to mention a couple of examples of work that is being done at present. We are looking at how to provide better psychological support for children with diabetes, and how we can improve education and training in diabetes for children and families. We are also funding a major trial on the effectiveness of insulin infusion treatments versus standard injections. Alongside that, there is a vibrant third sector investing in research.
We have heard about work at Cambridge university to develop an artificial pancreas to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia in children and adolescents. The link to telehealth that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay referred to is important, and I want to ensure that the message is clearly understood and that we build it into some of the work that the Department is doing. I am about to run out of time, so I will have to write to my hon. Friend about international research.
Hon. Members raised points about schools. I shall elaborate in more detail by writing to all those who have taken part in the debate, but it is key that schools understand their responsibilities in respect of well-being and safety, and that they provide appropriate support for children who need to take medication at school.
The Government are determined to improve care for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This is not something that we will put on the back burner. We have inherited a legacy but intend to build on and really improve those services.
Inter-city Express Programme
(13 years, 7 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
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I asked for the debate today to give voice to the north-east’s campaign to ensure that the inter-city express programme is allowed to go ahead, due to the economic impact it would have on the region. It would have profound implications for the north-east because the investment would be the biggest in the north-east since Nissan in the 1980s. That is how important it is, not only for the north-east, but for the rail infrastructure and the UK economy at large. Hitachi has already said to me in writing that the preferred site for the factory to manufacture the trains would be in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency.
My area’s involvement in the railways goes back to their beginning. Locomotion No. 1 travelled along the railway line a few hundred yards from the potential factory site on its way to Darlington in September 1825 to start the Stockton and Darlington Railway. That is how long my area has had its historic relationship with the railway. For something like 160 years, train building was a massive industry in south Durham, just a few miles away from Newton Aycliffe at Shildon wagon works, which closed in 1984 with the loss of more than 2,000 jobs. The inter-city express programme provides us with the opportunity to bring train building home.
In 2007, the Department for Transport issued an invitation to tender to transform the UK’s inter-city train services and replace the outdated diesel high-speed trains that have provided the service since the 1970s. Agility Trains, a joint venture between Hitachi and John Laing, won that contract. Agility Trains will deliver state-of-the-art super-express trains based on the highly successful 395 Javelin trains in Kent, which have recently won a Passenger Focus independent survey for being the best trains. Hitachi also manufactures the bullet train in Japan.
If the programme goes ahead, Hitachi will build a purpose-built factory in my constituency alongside the second largest industrial estate in the north-east. The best way of describing the inter-city express programme is as a service and supply contract to provide new trains and a dramatic improvement to the inter-city services on the east coast main line between London, south Wales and the south-west. The contract was privately financed and managed on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that payments are not due until the trains are delivered in 2015, after the next election. The cost of the service is spread over 27 years of operation, with payments made on a per train, per day basis. Payments depend upon delivery of a clean, reliable and fully serviceable train, thereby ensuring that the interests of the supplier—Hitachi—and the passengers are aligned.
The programme will deliver a significant increase in seating capacity, a reduction in journey times and a huge increase in reliability and comfort without need for hugely expensive track upgrades. It will also mean that passengers will be able to travel on trains that do not dump toilet waste on the track. We need to move on from the Austin Allegro era of technology.
On 26 February 2010, a written ministerial statement said that Sir Andrew Foster would subject the inter-city express scheme to a value-for-money assessment. On 6 July, the Secretary of State for Transport published the results of that assessment:
“Sir Andrew suggests that the inter-city express proposition is ‘positive and attractive’ in a number of ways. He suggests that the PFI-style funding arrangement is novel and well aligned in terms of financial incentives. The faster acceleration and longer carriages would have a positive impact on network and passenger capacity, and the specification has also taken network sustainability and environmental imperatives seriously.”
Sir Andrew raised some technical questions about the trains, but the Secretary of State said:
“I see this as a lesser issue”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 10WS.]
Hitachi has been working closely with the Department since July regarding the issues raised by Sir Andrew, and I am sure that they can be resolved. It wants to simplify the bi-modal technology for example, to bring down costs. Bearing that in mind, the economic case for the inter-city express programme to go ahead is significant.
Not only will the programme bring improved rolling stock to the railway infrastructure, which is required in the 21st century if the economy is to grow, it will also mean so much to the economic growth of the north-east. The programme helps fulfil the Government’s stated aim of rebalancing the north-east economy in favour of private sector growth. Public financial input will not be needed until after the next election, and will be recouped through the innovative financial formula Hitachi has drawn up.
Some argue that it should be left to the train operators to acquire the trains they need, but, surely, economy of scale means that this proposal is the cheaper option, and it offers sufficient volume to attract a major manufacturer to the UK. Therefore, it goes some way towards meeting the Government’s stated aim of growing the private sector—something we all want to see—and Hitachi will put in the investment up front. If the inter-city express programme goes ahead, and I know that the Minister cannot give an answer today, Hitachi has said that its preferred site is Newton Aycliffe. In a letter to me, it stated that, on a range of criteria, including required land size, test track availability, road access, proximity to deep sea ports, local labour availability and flexibility, and ease of business with local and regional agencies and authorities, County Durham and Newton Aycliffe scored highly. That is a tribute to the people of Newton Aycliffe, to local decision makers, and to the north-east’s ability to attract foreign investors, of which there are 500, about 100 of which are in County Durham.
However, what benefits will Hitachi bring to the region? Some 800 direct jobs; up to 9,000 jobs in the supply chain, seven out of 10 of which will be in manufacturing, mainly in the region but also nationally; and for every £1 of investment there will be £48 return over 20 years. Hitachi will start building a £90 million purpose-built factory next year. Some 200 construction jobs will be generated, and private sector investment precedes any public sector investment, which will be over a 20-year-plus period. Over two decades, the region will benefit in net gross value added terms by £660 million, and Teesport will also benefit because some components will be imported from Japan.
The inter-city express programme will replace the rolling stock on the east coast main line. As someone who uses the east coast main line weekly, I know that the rolling stock needs replacing. At present, demand outstrips supply on the line. With rail travel from the north-east to London costing three times as much as flying, and as there are no longer flights from Durham Tees Valley airport to Heathrow, but only from Newcastle, there is an acute problem that needs to be remedied. The new carriages with extra passenger capacity will help to resolve the problem.
The 800 jobs will help to pump much needed expenditure into the local economy through wages. Newton Aycliffe town centre is going through a period of regeneration, and the boost to the local economy that Hitachi offers will help see the local shops boom and breathe new life into the town. Newton Aycliffe has the skills that Hitachi requires. The recent global economic downturn has seen many people with those skills put out of work. The initiative will help to put those idle hands back to work.
I have said that the initiative will match some of the Government’s stated objectives—rebalancing the north-east economy in favour of the private sector and providing work to those who have skills, as well as offering apprenticeships to our young people who do not have those skills. The Government want to create 2 million private sector jobs in the next five years, and this initiative will help to do that. The programme is private-sector led. Hitachi has also committed to using local suppliers first and foremost. If it goes ahead, the investment and the presence of Hitachi will provide the north-east with the largest private sector investment since Nissan 25 years ago.
The issue has united the north-east in a campaign to ensure that the inter-city express, and Hitachi’s presence in Newton Aycliffe, goes ahead, and to put the case for the region. The groups that have got together to do that include: North East chamber of commerce; Durham county council, with the support of the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal groups, as well as the controlling Labour group; the Federation of Small Businesses; the northern TUC and Unite. They have come together to promote the importance of this project to the north-east. The Northern Echo is running a “back on track” campaign because this is so important to local people. A petition launched by the partners is attracting thousands of signatures.
The Secretary of State for Transport has kindly agreed to meet a delegation of business people from the north-east next Tuesday so that we can again make the case for the opportunities that the proposal will provide for the north-east. The partnership has produced a report stating the north-east’s case for the inter-city programme to go ahead, and I sent a copy to the Minister earlier today. I hope that she found it useful. The north-east has learned over the years to stand up for itself, and is saying “We’re here and we can do the job.” Hitachi, one of the biggest companies in the world, has faith in the region, and I hope that the Government also have faith in it.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said:
“I welcome Hitachi’s interest in building rolling stock in the North-East, and I very much hope the project will go ahead—it would bring enormous benefit to our region.”
In a letter to me, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) said:
“I am pleased that Hitachi has announced publicly that it intends to establish a new train assembly plant in the UK, should the Intercity Express Programme go ahead. We recognise that this would represent a significant boost to the economy in your constituency. This is to be welcome.”
The Foreign Secretary said in a speech in Tokyo on 12 August:
“I am…here to announce the significant new emphasis that the British Foreign Office will give to providing direct support to the UK economy, helping British business secure new opportunities in the emerging economies and putting our diplomatic weight behind British enterprise as well as helping to bring Japanese and other investors to Britain.”
He went on to say:
“We will work alongside British businesses and the rest of Government and other Governments around the world to use our political influence to help to unblock obstacles to commercial success”.
The Secretary of State for Transport met the president of Hitachi, and the Japanese ambassador, and talks have taken place between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Japan because the issue is so important for bilateral relations.
I understand that a decision on the programme will be made as part of the comprehensive spending review. Will the Minister tell me whether the announcement will be part of the statement, or ancillary to it? How are the talks with Hitachi going since the Secretary of State made his written statement in July? How does the Department’s position marry up with the Foreign Secretary’s position that everything must be done to attract Japanese companies to Britain, and to remove any obstacles to that? What prospect does the Minister see for the north-east’s economy if the proposal does not go ahead?
I am not a deficit denier, but one way of solving the problems of the deficit is to increase the economy by increasing the private sector. The inter-city express programme and the Hitachi plan for locating in the north-east would do just that. When the decision on the inter-city express programme is eventually made, I hope that those who make it know the difference between slimming and starving, because starving the north-east’s economy is not the answer.
I am here today to promote the interests of my constituents and those of the north-east. There is great support in the region throughout businesses and parties. I hope that the Minister will consider these representations when her colleagues make the final decision on the inter-city express programme, and that they make the right decision. I believe she knows that that is to let the project go ahead.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this debate on this important issue.
Mrs Villiers
Before the interval for voting, I was congratulating the hon. Member for Sedgefield on his passionate support for the IEP. I thank him for the correspondence that he has sent to the Department, setting out a number of the points that he has raised, and for the report that I received today on the case that he has prepared for the IEP project. I am grateful for all of those. My colleagues at the Department and I will be giving serious consideration to all the points raised in the report and in today’s debate.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, alongside a delegation from his constituency and around the north-east, is due to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to put these points to him directly. The coalition Government have made it clear that rail has a key part to play in our transport strategy. Although our priority has to be tackling the deficit that we inherited, the Government fully recognise the significant economic benefits generated by investment in transport infrastructure—a point that has been explicitly acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, we must apply a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to all our planned infrastructure projects, targeting investment where it makes the most difference and where it will generate the greatest economic benefit.
That is the background against which we need to assess the future of the IEP. There can be no doubt that the project has encountered a degree of controversy since the previous Government embarked on it over half a decade ago. The objective was, as we have heard, to replace Britain’s fleet of InterCity 125 trains, and to invest in capacity and passenger journey improvements on the east coast and Great Western lines. The procurement process began early in 2007, and two years later, Agility Trains was announced as the preferred bidder. An important component of Agility is Hitachi, the manufacturers of the Japanese bullet train.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield, Hitachi simultaneously announced its plans to build the new train order in the UK. This summer, the company announced that its preferred site for a new manufacturing facility is Newton Aycliffe in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As he has explained, that town has historic ties with the railways. As we heard today, Hitachi has said that it proposes to use the site in County Durham to bid for orders abroad, and has aspirations to export British-built trains to Europe. The parallel with the successful model used by many Japanese car manufacturers is obvious; it is a very positive example of what can be achieved. As the hon. Gentleman explained, the facility has the potential to create hundreds of new jobs, and potentially many more in supplier industries. He has put the case articulately and strongly for the economic benefit that will accrue to his constituents and the wider north-east.
Of course, such inward investment would be very welcome and entirely consistent with the Government’s stated goal of rebalancing the economy and promoting manufacturing industry. I take on board the strong points that the hon. Gentleman made about the skills base in the north-east, and how appropriate it would be to support a facility of the kind that Hitachi has announced the intention to build.
However, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that the decision on the IEP needs to focus on objective and established procurement principles—namely, on whether the project provides the right solution for passengers and the railways; whether it delivers value for money, compared to the alternatives; and whether it is affordable for the taxpayer.
In its original form, the order would have been the single largest procurement of rolling stock ever, and one of the biggest private finance initiative transactions in British history. During the later part of 2008 and 2009, the capacity of the debt market contracted and the previous Government decided that it would be better to split the transaction into smaller parts.
The deteriorating state of the debt market was just one of the challenges that faced the project. A further issue arose when the previous Administration changed their mind on electrification. Having published in 2007 a long-term plan for the railways that had a limited role for electrification, the Government put out the tender for a fleet, with a significant proportion of diesel trains as part of the IEP proposal. Two years later, at the height of the contractual negotiations, the Government announced they had changed their views and proposed to electrify. That meant that the order had to be changed to an electric and bi-mode mix, which led to an increase in costs. By the time Labour left office in May, £26 million had been spent on consultancy and preparation costs, without the contractual close stage even having been reached. That has caused a degree of concern.
The project was in some difficulty when the previous Secretary of State, the noble Lord Adonis, decided to commission an independent review by Sir Andrew Foster. When it was published in July, the Foster report presented a measured and thoughtful analysis of the relevant issues. As the hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed out, Sir Andrew had some very positive things to say about the IEP. He described the proposition as “positive and attractive” in a number of ways. He described the PFI-style funding arrangements as
“novel and well-aligned in terms of financial incentives”.
He concluded that faster acceleration and longer carriages would have a positive impact on network and passenger capacity. He acknowledged that the specification had also taken network sustainability and environmental imperatives seriously. Unfortunately, he also had some concerns about the project. He concluded that the previous Administration had made a number of mistakes on the programme. In particular, they did not engage the railway industry well enough and had sought to micro-manage the process. Importantly, the Foster report also highlighted that although the project has always exceeded the Department for Transport’s economic thresholds, its value for money has seen a decline over time, while its costs have increased.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Although I acknowledge and am extremely sympathetic to the case made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on behalf of his constituents and the north-east, is the Minister considering carefully Sir Andrew Foster’s conclusion that he is not convinced that all credible alternatives to IEP have been identified? He sets out the case in his report for a short-term IC125 refurbishment, which would be both cost-effective and technically feasible. The skills, buildings and infrastructure enabling that work to be done already exist in places such as my constituency of Crewe, where Bombardier can already carry out that work.
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely, as I am just about to come to that point. As he rightly says, Sir Andrew did make some points about the possible alternatives to the current IEP proposition.
In response to Sir Andrew Foster’s report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government would use the period up to the spending review to give further consideration to the future of the IEP. In accordance with Sir Andrew’s recommendations, the Government are reviewing all the credible options in light of value for money, affordability and their compatibility with the plans for further rail electrification. That means careful consideration of how the IEP proposal could be reduced in cost, and evaluating alternative ways of addressing the problem that the IEP was designed initially to solve—that is, how to address the problems surrounding the ageing high-speed train fleet. As my hon. Friend points out, the alternatives include the possibility of refurbishing and extending the life of the existing InterCity 125 rolling stock. In that regard, compliance with disability deadlines will be an important factor to bear in mind in the assessment.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that the north-east should once again get second best, while the constituency of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) is, I think, served by a line with brand new trains?
Mrs Villiers
I am saying that we have to carry out a very careful assessment of what the right outcome is for this programme, and what the right way is to address the problem of the ageing InterCity 125 fleet. That is what the Government are doing at the moment.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
One thing was omitted from the original planned routes for the implementation of IEP, and that is the inclusion of the London-Norwich line, to the great disappointment of the people who live along it. The problem is that the rolling stock is not only ageing, as is that of the high-speed train fleet, but actually the cast-offs from the main lines to the north-east and north-west. If the routes are to be renegotiated, I hope that the line will be included, but I have to say that this is a lunatic way to procure trains. We heard about the Austin Allegro, famously specified by civil servants. I would not like this to be a similar instance of specification by civil servants that is not suitable for industry.
Mrs Villiers
Many parts of the network would like to have extra capacity, and I shall take my hon. Friend’s concerns on board as a representation. Regarding additional projects of that sort, it clearly all depends on what proves to be affordable, but we intend to learn lessons for the procurement process from the experience of the IEP.
As regards reappraisal of the original IEP concept, the Department has listened with great care to the ideas put forward by Agility on how to improve the value for money of its proposition, and I would like to put on record our sincere thanks to Agility for the diligent and constructive work that it has done, in contributing to both the Foster review and the re-evaluation process that followed. I am very aware that the issue is taken seriously in Japan.
Phil Wilson
Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that the answer is not to give the existing rolling stock a lick of paint, but to invest in the infrastructure? The rolling stock has been around since the 1970s, and the technology that we have brought on board through Hitachi is cutting-edge. The trains that it uses are comparable with the Javelin ones used in Kent, which are some of the best in the country. The kind of technology that Hitachi wants to bring on board is suitable for people in the north-east of England and elsewhere who would benefit from it.
Mrs Villiers
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the respective merits of the different options will be carefully and rigorously considered before a decision is made. This entire debate will be a helpful contribution to the decision-making process.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Secretary of State for Transport has met the president of Hitachi, as has the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I have discussed the project with the former Japanese Minister for Transport, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), discussed the matter on a visit to Japan. We are taking the concerns of the Japanese Government on board in discussions on the process. Agility’s proposals are due shortly, and they are likely to include plans to standardise the design of the new trains, as was recently reported in the railway press. I am also advised that Agility expects to offer a significant cost-saving, while still meeting the specification that it was originally asked to meet. We will then be able to complete our assessment of both the IEP and the credible alternatives on an equal footing.
In conclusion, I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take into account the representations that we have received from him today, and the representations in the report that he has submitted to us, along with those that he and colleagues have made in the past. The decision on the future of the IEP will be made on the basis of the fullest possible evaluation of all the relevant matters. I am, of course, well aware that the recent period of uncertainty has been a cause for concern to those with an interest in the project, such as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and the Government really appreciate the patience shown by all concerned, not least Agility Trains. However, there is a complex interaction between the IEP and other key programmes under review as part of the comprehensive spending review. In light of that inescapable fact, it seemed impossible to make a sensible and objective decision on the IEP in isolation from the conclusions that we have to reach on those other interdependent projects, and from the overall decisions on the resources available for transport infrastructure.
Although the stage that we have reached means that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the answers on the programme, as he has kindly acknowledged, the Government are anxious to resolve the matter, and we will convey the decision to the House as soon as we can, as part of the spending review process in October. I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his contribution, and I look forward to continuing discussions with him on the subject. As I say, we will report to the House as soon as is practical regarding this decision, which is crucial not just for the north-east but for the future of the railway network in this country.
Fresh Produce Procurement (Prisons)
(13 years, 7 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
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I am really pleased to have this opportunity to highlight an issue of some concern to me and, I hope, to convince the Government to put right a couple of misguided policies introduced by the previous Administration. Ministers not only have an opportunity early next year to take action on at least one of those policies; they also have the opportunity to promote the localism agenda that is at the very heart of the coalition agreement.
Until 2007, prisons were supplied with fresh produce by local suppliers, one of which, Brambledown (Kent) Ltd, is based in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Indeed, Brambledown used to supply a wide range of fruit and vegetables to both the Sheppey prison cluster and a number of other Kent prisons. In 2007, the then Government changed their procurement policy for prisons. They scrapped local supply contracts and introduced a national framework contract. That contract was awarded to a company called 3663 First for Foodservice, which is part of a multinational group based in South Africa.
I would have understood the logic of the previous Government changing their procurement policy if such a move was designed to save taxpayers’ money, but written answers that I have received to questions show that not to be the case. In the two years prior to the changeover, the average annual cost to the public purse for the provision of fresh produce to prisons was £8.7 million, whereas in the three years after the changeover it was just over £9 million. What those figures show is that the only people who appear to have lost out in this deal are the local suppliers who have seen their business plummet in the past four years.
To give an idea of the extent of the impact that the Government’s policy had on individual companies, Brambledown (Kent) Ltd saw its annual income from the Prison Service drop from £345,000 in 2004 to just £375 in 2008. I have spoken to a number of prison governors and they have confirmed what I suspected, which is that the service and quality of food have not improved under the national procurement regime, and prisons have lost their much-valued link with local suppliers. I think that if the Minister were to ask governors, he would find that many of them would welcome the opportunity to purchase more of their fresh food locally, because it enhances their position in their local community.
Of course, one advantage of buying from local suppliers is that often much of the produce is grown locally, which leads me neatly on to another aspect of the previous Government’s procurement policy: the Government’s lamentable record on supporting British farmers, producers and processors. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publishes statistics that show the proportion of domestically produced food both used by Departments and supplied to hospitals and prisons under contracts negotiated by the NHS supply chain and the National Offender Management Service. Coincidently, the latter was established in 2007, the same year as the food procurement policy for prisons was changed. Or perhaps that is not a coincidence, because the decision to change the procurement policy and the decision to create the National Offender Management Service were, in my view, equally misconceived. Setting aside the merits of those particular policies, the statistics contained in the DEFRA document make interesting, but very depressing, reading, particularly coming as I do from a constituency in the garden of England with a sizeable farming community.
Let me quote a handful of product groups from DEFRA’s statistics. Just 2% of poultry used by the Prison Service comes from British producers. A miserable 18% of pork meat is home bred. If we think that is bad, it gets worse. The proportion of orchard fruit, which includes apples, pears and plums, that the Prison Service sources from domestic producers is 0%. Not a single apple sourced by the Prison Service comes from domestic producers, and the same goes for soft fruit and bacon, which to my mind is scandalous and deeply unpatriotic.
No doubt I will be told that foreign produce is cheaper, but I do not accept that argument; cheap is not always best. It might be that buying French Golden Delicious apples instead of Braeburn apples from Kent is superficially advantageous. However, when one considers the harm being done to British farmers by this policy and the impact that transporting fruit and vegetables long distances in chilled containers has on our carbon footprint, buying local starts to make an awful lot more sense.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), the new Prisons Minister, and his colleagues in other Departments will pursue a different procurement policy from that of the previous Government, who set a very bad example. How can we expect consumers to support British farmers if Ministers are not prepared to do so? Let us not forget that it is taxpayers’ money that Ministers are spending. I am pretty sure that British taxpayers would much prefer their money to be spent on British food.
I urge my hon. Friend to do two things that would make him popular not only with farmers in my constituency but with the public at large. These days, being popular with anybody is a very rare thing for a politician. First, I should like the Minister to issue a guidance note to his Department officials instructing them always to purchase domestically produced goods unless doing so would place a disproportionately high burden on the taxpayer. Secondly, I should like my hon. Friend to refuse to renew the national framework contract when it comes up for renewal next May, and instead revert to a system of allowing prisons to enter into contracts with local suppliers. Pursuing such policies would help to promote the coalition Government’s localism strategy, and that must be worth a brownie point to any Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to him for providing me with the opportunity to examine our strategy in this area and to see whether it should change when the contracts come up for renewal next May. There is a significant attraction in my hon. Friend’s arguments. Anyone arguing for a politician to be popular is likely to be on pretty strong ground. He helpfully outlined his arguments to the Ministry of Justice, which has enabled me to provide a comprehensive answer to him.
Before I focus in depth on my hon. Friend’s remarks, I should like to respond to the point he raised in a letter to me in September concerning Brambledown (Kent) Ltd. He kindly told us in private that we appeared to have missed that company off the list of contracted suppliers, which gave me the opportunity to examine the position without public embarrassment to the Ministry if we got our answer wrong. He was correct to say that Brambledown did not appear on the list of contracted food suppliers. The reason for our response, which did not mention Brambledown, is that it was not a contracted supplier to the National Offender Management Service, but it continued to supply the Sheppey cluster of prisons under existing local ad hoc arrangements. That continued until an electronic ordering system was introduced in 2007-08, which brought the transitional arrangements to an end.
Contracted suppliers are those who are awarded contracts to provide goods to prisons following a fairly contested tender process, which ensures that they meet minimum criteria and are capable of meeting the Department’s requirements. The response listed 18 fresh produce suppliers who were contracted to supply prison sites.
Despite the charm and skills with which my hon. Friend made his case, there is a strong argument for the existing method of supply. Food supply contracts that are awarded by the Ministry of Justice, particularly those for prisons, are not just a straightforward matter of whether the supplier operates on a national or local basis. There are many key factors in deciding the best approach and I should like to share a few of them with the Chamber.
Operational concerns are very much at the forefront of our decision making. It is worth remembering that discontent about the quality of food, changes to menus, and failure to deliver what was previously promised have been known to be the catalyst for serious disturbances. As well as being a key issue in control, food demonstrably contributes to prisoners’ overall well-being. A high proportion of prisoners are from socially excluded sections of the community, with lifestyles that are more likely to put them at risk of ill health than the rest of the population. Many have never registered with a doctor or a dentist, have drug habits and/or mental illness and live chaotic lives without a stable home. Prison gives an opportunity to improve the health and lifestyle of prisoners to the benefit of all, and diet is a major component of a healthy lifestyle.
Prisons aim to provide food that is nutritious, well prepared and served, reasonably varied and sufficient in quantity and that also meets a range of religious and cultural needs. Inadequate portion sizes, lack of variety and poorly cooked food can contribute to serious complaints and dissention. Providing prisoners with the opportunity to choose a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet, with enough knowledge to make informed choices, is important because prisoners can be in custody for long periods and are largely dependent on prison food.
Then there are the commercial and supply chain considerations. In the 2009-10 financial year, the Department spent around £60 million on food for prisoners. Although that is a big sum in itself, it amounts to an average cost of just £2.22 per prisoner per day for all food and beverages. Given that contaminated food can have disastrous consequences among a closed prison population, those costs have been achieved against a background of tight regulation and control.
I could go on with the list of factors that require consideration, and I have not even begun to touch on the environmental footprint of the vehicles that deliver food. The point is that any contractor appointed to supply food to prisons must meet all of those stringent criteria. Typically, smaller suppliers do not have the organisational infrastructure and resilience to meet the requirements day in, day out, which results in a higher proportion of contracts being awarded to larger suppliers.
Before moving on, I should also point out that the choice of a supplier that operates nationally as opposed to just locally does not mean that the produce is not sourced locally. That is an issue for our supplier—in this case it is 3663. National operators draw heavily on domestically produced food and will obviously use it when it makes commercial sense to do so. It is also not the case that our arrangements cause unnecessary mileage in delivery. National operators often have regional depots and use them to keep their mileage and costs to a minimum. Because those depots can carry the full range of products required by a prison, they are able to send just one vehicle to that prison, whereas several vehicles would be used by a number of locally based suppliers to fulfil the same overall requirement.
I will now turn to the specifics of the current food supply arrangements serving prisons. The Department uses two contractors to fulfil its requirement for food. The first of these, 3663 First for Foodservice, provides groceries, fresh produce, chilled and frozen food. The other supplier, Hovis, provides fresh bread and morning goods. Contracts with those suppliers have operated since 2007 and they offer 1,500 products for prisons to create meals with.
The delivery of products is only the beginning of the meals service. The 128 public sector prisons in England and Wales employ about 1,050 catering staff and 3,500 prisoners to prepare the food for more than 75,000 prisoners each day of the year, which amounts to more than 82 million meals a year, all served at predetermined times through 900 service points. That service is particularly challenging, given the tight financial constraints that prison kitchens must operate under.
Prisoners are provided with three meals a day, choosing from a multi-choice, pre-select menu system that is compiled to cover a minimum of four weeks. That menu format takes account of seasonal variations and prisoners’ preferences, and it is capable of meeting differing dietary requirements, such as vegetarian, vegan and religious meals.
Prison governors bear the ultimate responsibility for prisoners’ diets. They are required to approve food as being fit for service to prisoners and to approve local food budgets. The prison kitchens are run by catering managers, who are responsible for implementation of standards, training of staff and control of the food budget.
Gordon Henderson
I hear everything that my hon. Friend has said and it is quite logical. He says that it is the governors’ responsibility to ensure that inmates receive proper food. However, why is it that the governors themselves would prefer to revert to using local suppliers?
Mr Blunt
I heard what my hon. Friend said about that issue. I confess that, in the visits to 20 or so prisons that I have already made, I have not discussed the issue of food supply with governors. Food supply has not been raised with me directly as an issue of concern for the governors. Following this debate, however, I will make my own inquiries on my future visits to prisons as to whether there is an issue about food supply. I am looking at all the services that are provided in prison, to see whether nationally provided services are better than locally provided services or not.
I will quite happily share my prejudice that I would prefer it if things were locally managed and locally resourced. As far as I am concerned, there needs to be a pretty high test to move to a nationally provided system. As my hon. Friend will have gathered from the tenor of my remarks, on the basis of what I have seen so far the argument that I am making is that I actually think the national food service supply chain that we have at the moment is meeting that test. However, as I get to the end of my remarks I may give him a little glimmer of hope.
More than 20,000 items of food are ordered each week across all temperature ranges. That means that the total cost of the delivery of food per day tops £230,000. To put that into perspective, it is equivalent to visiting a cash and carry warehouse to empty the shelves each day. Even if such visits were practical, there could be no guarantee of the consistency or the completeness that the prison environment demands.
The supply chain infrastructure to support this volume of food is significant and yet it also manages to deal with a wide variety of prison locations. Those locations range from Victorian prisons, which have small entry gates, low arches and limited turning space, to prisons in city centres and prisons in rural areas, which are accessed by small country lanes that vehicles have to negotiate. Few prison buildings are conducive to the delivery of the volume of food that is required and yet deliveries must be made each day, without fail, to ensure the continued running of the prison.
As I mentioned previously, food deliveries are made from a number of regional supplier depots. The deliveries are consolidated as far as possible, given the constraints that I have just outlined, so that the number of gate openings and associated security risks are minimised. Each delivery can take up to two hours to complete, depending on the security and regime of the prison. For that reason, deliveries are centrally co-ordinated to an exacting timetable. That maximises the efficiency of deliveries and minimises their impact on the prison operation.
Hovis and 3663 have introduced consistent working practices in their depots for their contracts with us. That means that each depot is easily able to support other regions in the event of a supply chain interruption. The two suppliers that are in place have been rigorously tested through open and fair competition, to ensure that they are capable of managing deliveries into prisons and can support those deliveries with robust contract management. There is little as challenging in this field as procuring food for the 82 million meals that are served in prison each year, given the limited facilities offered by prison kitchens and the tight financial constraints that they have to operate under.
The food suppliers comply with central specifications, to ensure that all food that is delivered is of good quality, safe and free from any contamination. Products are tested, where appropriate, to ensure that quality and quantity standards are met.
Reliable management information gives prisons the assurance of safety, traceability, provenance and quality that they need for the prison regime to operate with confidence. Central to that relationship between prisons and suppliers is the confidence that the suppliers can provide consistency. An undersize apple handed out at the servery will create issues of order and control, so we use suppliers that are sensitive to that need and that use their sourcing ability to maintain consistency from their supply base.
I apologise to my hon. Friend, who is a representative of the garden of England, that I used the example of an apple just now. [Laughter.]
Gordon Henderson
Will my hon. Friend say whether he feels that a Braeburn apple from Upchurch in my constituency will upset prisoners more than a French Golden Delicious apple?
Mr Blunt
Happily, the effect of this existing contract is that that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for our supplier, which is 3663. It is its responsibility to procure apples for us. I do not know the details of its apple procurement contract and I am delighted that I do not have to know them. As I say, that is a matter for 3663.
It is very proper for my hon. Friend to pursue that point with 3663 on behalf of his local orchards—to ask, “Why not? Why are these local orchards unable to compete in that way?” Like him, I have a prejudice in favour of domestically produced food and as long as the interests of the taxpayer are protected, of course we should be buying British.
Both suppliers—3663 and Hovis—are large national organisations. That is appropriate to the needs of the Ministry of Justice in terms of volume, spend and complexity. An arrangement such as the existing one exploits the capabilities of large suppliers in terms of volume leverage, sourcing capability and relationships with brand manufacturers. It provides more product choice, given that large suppliers have access to wider product ranges and have a strong capability in procuring from specialist subcontractors, hopefully including suppliers of Braeburn apples.
There are some other factors to consider in the type of supplier tiering that is being promulgated. The EU procurement directives preclude the Ministry of Justice from negotiating with suppliers on prices, but the main contractors can negotiate with subcontractors on prices and pass on the benefits. In addition, small and medium-sized enterprises are spared the costs of having to conform to onerous public procurement processes and the costs of having to interface with Government e-procurement systems, because the main contractor does it for them.
Furthermore, the supply chain risks rest with the main contractor, which allows prison caterers and governors to focus on the day-to-day operation of their prisons. The unit prices currently paid by each prison reflect that. Consequently, they are homogeneous and fully inclusive of all risks. Unit prices also cover charges for keeping vehicles waiting and they do not vary according to the actual cost of delivery or indeed the number of deliveries.
Any attempt to base prices on local circumstances would introduce complications into budget allocation. In other words, prisons that could benefit from low delivery charges would have to release part of their budget to those prisons that would have to pay more because of their remote location.
Prices are carefully managed and are determined by the price of the raw commodity, the costs of processing and packaging, transportation and distribution costs, overheads and an element of profit, which is around 1%. The cost to serve the contract is spread across the total range of products, keeping administrative and management costs to a minimum. The cost to provide meals varies from prison to prison. That is due to the differences in the prison populations and the choice of products ordered, which vary depending on the age, sex and cultural mix in the prison.
I know that my hon. Friend regards value for money as being extremely important. Value for money is tested and secured throughout the life of each contract. Prices are examined through open-book reviews and by reference to commodity indices. The Ministry of Justice undertakes monthly product reviews to determine the optimum spend profile for each product area. Each opportunity to improve on efficiency or to save money, without detriment to the quality of the product, is thoroughly explored.
I am advised that overall this national contract, which is being maintained in an era of high food price inflation—10.5% in 2009 and 4.1% for the current year so far—will deliver £5.1 million of cash savings during the period of the contract, between 2007 and 2011. When inflation is factored in, the real savings to the National Offender Management Service run to tens of millions of pounds.
However, product price is not the only driver behind contracts. Underpinning them all is the need to support prisoners and rehabilitate them back into society. When 3663 recently opened a new depot in Kent, it sought prisoners on release to form part of its new team. Subsequently, 11 ex-offenders were employed in depot operations, benefiting the supply base, the community and the Ministry of Justice.
Social sustainability is only one element of the total cost to the Department. A false choice is often posited between value for money or efficiency and sustainability. Unsustainable procurement is not good stewardship of taxpayers’ money. The Ministry of Justice is committed to reducing its impact on the environment by continuously improving the environmental performance of its operations and estate. For example, 3663 delivers virgin cooking oil to prisons. After use, the waste vegetable oil is collected by a national oil collection company and sent to a third-party operator for recycling and conversion into biodiesel, which is then returned to the 3663 depots, where it is used to fuel trucks loaded with supplies for delivery to prisons, thus completing the circle and reducing distribution costs for the Department.
The supply of food is of significant benefit in reducing risk and contributing to the overall objectives of the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, given the importance of food in prisons, we will re-examine how it is delivered and consider every option. If my hon. Friend, who has listened to my arguments in this debate as I have listened to his, can identify further proposals, I invite him to continue this conversation. It need not take place formally on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to listen to any further submissions that he wishes to make.
The timing of this debate is ideal, given that the current generation of contracts is due to expire in May 2011 and that planning is already under way. In considering every option, I want not just to look at the obvious but to challenge thinking on the issue. For example, most of what used to be a large network of farms and market gardens operating in prisons were closed in the past decade. There is certainly merit in revisiting the idea in order to make prisons more self-sufficient, lower costs, and get more prisoners working. About 425 prisoners already assemble some 100,000 breakfast packs every day as part of a supply chain developed with our current suppliers.
To conclude, this has been an excellent opportunity to discuss a subject that might seem uninspiring and that risks being considered simplistically. As I have outlined today, it is complex and of great importance, so I will be paying close attention to the development of policies and procurement strategies in the area. I welcome the attention that my hon. Friend has given it and the constructive contribution that he has made with this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill has today been introduced into the House of Commons.
This Bill would end eligibility for child trust funds and abolish the health in pregnancy grant from January 2011, and repeal the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009.
The Government announced on 24 May that they would reduce and then stop Government payments to child trust funds. The Child Trust Funds (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, made on 22 July, have already reduced Government payments. The Government also announced at the Budget on 22 June that the health in pregnancy grant would be abolished, and that the introduction of the saving gateway would be cancelled.
All of these measures will contribute to the reduction of the UK’s budget deficit. The changes being made to child trust funds, including through this Bill; the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant; and the cancellation of the saving gateway’s introduction are expected to save £370 million in 2010-11, and around £800 million in future years.
The Government have also published today an initial assessment of the equality impacts of the measures included in the Bill, and an initial estimate of the impacts of the changes being made to child trust funds upon account providers. Copies of these documents have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available from the Vote Office.
Horserace Totalisator Board
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
The Government announced in the Budget on 22 June that they would over the next 12 months resolve the future of the Tote in a way that secures value for the taxpayer and which recognises the support the Tote currently provides to the racing industry.
In line with that objective, the Government are now preparing to launch an open market process in the late autumn in which they will invite proposals from interested parties. This process will be open to all organisations who have an interest in the Tote, and the Government expect to be in a position to update the House early in the new year.
The Government will continue to liaise closely with the board of the Tote and with racing interests as this process unfolds.
Ex-Service Personnel (Prison Population)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and I wish to make the following joint statement.
On 6 January 2010, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice—under the previous Administration—announced in a written ministerial statement, Official Report, columns 6-7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) which estimated that 3% of the prison population in England and Wales are ex-regular service personnel. DASA has since revised their estimate to 3.5% to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database which did not include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
DASA has also determined the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison. They are predominantly male (99.6%), British nationals (96.7%)), ex-Army (77%) other rank (92%), with 50% being aged 45 and over. Only 1% are recorded as officers and 7% had no rank status attached to their records. DASA calculated that for veterans in prison the time between discharge from the armed forces and the start of their current sentence ranged from 0 to 41 years. 41% began their current sentence 10 years after leaving the services, with only 6% having started their current sentence within a year of being discharged. However, DASA estimates that for males aged 18 to 54, the proportion of the ex-regular service personnel in prison was 30% less than the proportion of the general population in the same age group.
The DASA follow-on report on the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison is being placed in the Library of the House and published in full on their website:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub =VETERANS_IN_PRISON
DASA’s report provides a detailed statistical analysis of the demographic variables of veterans in prison. It does not explore why veterans come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence will consider what further work might usefully be commissioned to understand the reasons behind this.
Independent Medical Expert Group (Armed Forces Compensation Scheme)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
As a result of Lord Boyce’s review of the armed forces compensation scheme, published in February 2010, an independent medical expert group was established. Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE FMedSci has led this group, which comprises senior licensed consultants drawn from relevant specialties, representatives of ex-service organisations and serving members of the armed forces.
The group’s role is to advise on the appropriate levels of compensation for a number of specific injuries, illnesses and diseases highlighted in the AFCS review as being areas requiring further detailed work. The group is providing advice on a range of complex issues, including:
Genital injury
Paired injuries
Hearing loss and acoustic trauma
Non-freezing cold injury
Mental health
Brain injury
Spinal cord injury
There are several important topics that the group has begun that require more detailed analysis, including on mental health issues. As a result of this, I am going to extend the group in its current form to March 2012. I will review the group’s status in 12 months’ time. Therefore I am renaming the group the “Independent Medical Expert Group”.
Ofsted Report (Armed Forces Initial Training)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Today Ofsted publishes its report on welfare and duty of care in armed forces initial training, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. Over the course of a year, Ofsted inspected 10 initial training establishments, meeting with recruits, trainees and staff to assess the effectiveness of the care and welfare arrangements.
Training to join the front line in the armed forces is recognised as a challenge for recruits and trainees and the staff who look after them, which is why providing a safe and supportive environment is essential if the training is to be fully effective. I am pleased that Ofsted regards most recruits and trainees as well motivated, thoughtful and confident individuals who feel safe and well supported.
Ofsted reports that where problems exist, they are not related to the quality of welfare and duty of care support, but to structure, management systems and staffing issues and it is these aspects of provision that are judged as being “inadequate” in two locations. These concerns are being addressed and followed up through the chain of command.
The impact of operations on the training environment is noted by Ofsted in the report and this, combined with the current resource climate, means that we must strive to continue our efforts to improve ensuring that the impact of change is evaluated and the effect on recruits and trainees remains positive.
Informal Energy Council Meeting
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
I represented the United Kingdom at the EU Informal Energy Council in Brussels on 6 to 7 September 2010.
The Council began with a discussion of energy consumer policy, focusing on the issue of vulnerable consumers. There was broad agreement on the need for greater transparency of information and on the importance of technology, including the use of smart meters, to allow consumers to make better choices. This discussion will form the basis of a report benchmarking national policies for discussion at the December Energy Council.
The Council continued with a debate on energy infrastructure, including the development of a low-carbon grid. Member states referred to issues of planning and the length of time needed to get certain permissions as particular obstacles to infrastructure development. The debate moved on to financing, with widespread agreement that the majority of the energy infrastructure investment which would be needed across Europe in coming years would need to come from the private sector but that there was a role for the EU in facilitating that investment and providing finance in exceptional circumstances. I noted the importance of regional projects, such as the North sea offshore grid. The Commission confirmed that it intended to produce a communication on infrastructure in November, focusing on barriers to investment and key priorities for the next two decades.
The Energy Commissioner then presented the Commission’s initial position on the EU’s response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. He emphasised the importance of minimising the risks of a similar incident in the EU by ensuring the highest standards of safety across Europe. He noted that the EU already had a framework of safety regulations in place and great experience of drilling, particularly in the North sea.
The Council ended with a working lunch where Ministers discussed energy efficiency.
Bovine Tuberculosis
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and families. The situation is steadily getting worse—the number of animals slaughtered each year is unacceptable and more farms are affected as the disease spreads across the country. The area of England affected by bovine TB has grown from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of England. 6.4% of herds in England were under bovine TB restriction at the end of 2009. The figure was 14.3% in the South West. In 2009, over 25,000 cattle were slaughtered due to TB in England.
The cost to Government of controlling bovine TB in England was over £63 million in 2009-10 (excluding scientific research). These costs are rising year by year and there is a strong case for early effective action to turn this around. Furthermore this has been raised as a concern by others across Europe and we are under increasing pressure from the European Commission to strengthen our controls.
Eradicating bovine TB is our long-term goal, but it is clear that the approach to date has failed. We need to take additional measures urgently to stop the disease spreading and to start to reverse the rising trend. The farming industry, veterinary profession and Government need to work in partnership to achieve this.
There is no single solution to tackling bovine TB—we need to use every tool in the toolbox. Cattle measures will remain the foundation of our bovine TB control programme but we will not succeed in eliminating the disease in cattle unless we also tackle the disease in badgers. The science is clear, there is no doubt that badgers are a reservoir of the disease and transmit bovine TB to cattle. No other country in the world with a similar reservoir in wildlife has eradicated TB from cattle without stringent wildlife control measures.
That is why the coalition Government have committed, as part of a package of measures, to develop affordable options for a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB in cattle. I am today launching a consultation on the Government’s proposed approach to badger control in England.
Badger culling has the potential to reduce bovine TB in cattle by rapidly reducing the overall number of infected badgers, thus reducing the rate of transmission of the disease to cattle. The main body of evidence on the impact badger culling has on incidence of bovine TB in cattle is the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT) which took place between 1998 and 2007. The results of this major Government-funded trial demonstrate that badger culling, done on a sufficient scale, in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way, and over a sustained period of time, would reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high incidence areas. Analysis of the results covering the whole period from the beginning of culling to July 2010 show that the beneficial effects of culling persist over this time and that the initial detrimental effect seen at the edge of the culled area had disappeared by 12 to 18 months after culling stopped.
The proposal on which I am launching the consultation today is to issue licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable farmers and landowners to cull badgers, at their own expense. Under existing arrangements farmers and landowners are already able to apply for licences to vaccinate badgers. Under the Government’s new proposal, they will be able to use vaccination either on its own or in combination with culling. The Government’s proposal will empower farmers to take control of reducing the risks of transmission from the wildlife reservoir at the local level.
Licences would be subject to strict criteria to ensure that the badger control measures are carried out effectively, humanely, and with high regard to animal welfare. This will include a requirement that any culling must take place over a minimum area of 150km2 so we can be confident it will have a net beneficial effect. This means that we would expect to receive licence applications from groups of famers and landowners rather than individuals. Applicants will also need to demonstrate that they have considered taking further steps to minimise the potential detrimental effect at the edge of a culling area. Culling licences will only permit culling by cage-trapping and shooting, and by shooting free-running badgers, carried out by trained, competent operators with the appropriate licences. We have ruled out gassing and snaring on the basis that we do not currently have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are humane and effective methods of culling.
I have looked carefully at the potential for using badger vaccination. Based on veterinary advice and the available scientific evidence my assessment is that vaccination will not be as effective as culling in quickly lowering the weight of infection in the badger population. Vaccination does not guarantee that all badgers are fully protected from infection and it would take some time to develop immunity within a local population. In addition, the fact that the first injectable badger vaccine was only licensed in March 2010 means that there is only very limited experience of using vaccination in the field and no hard evidence on the contribution badger vaccination would make to reducing the disease in cattle. However, vaccination is still likely to reduce disease risk and have greater disease control benefits than taking no action to tackle bovine TB in badgers. In addition, when used in combination with culling, vaccination could help to mitigate the perturbation effects of culling.
The Government’s highest priority are to reduce the deficit and it is vital that any new policy is affordable. This is why we expect the farming industry to bear the direct costs of badger control. Government will fund the licensing operation and monitor the impacts of the policy.
I do not approach these issues lightly. No one wants to kill badgers, but the scientific evidence and veterinary advice clearly suggests that this is the quickest and most effective way to bring down the weight of infection in the badger population and in turn reduce the rate of transmission of bovine TB to cattle. We also do not want to see culling for longer than is necessary and we intend to review how the policy is working after four years.
I have met with the Badger trust and separately with other interested stakeholders to explain the evidence and rationale behind the proposal. All have been offered the opportunity to discuss the consultation in further detail with DEFRA.
The consultation is available on DEFRA’s website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/tb-control-measures/index.htm) from today and will close on 8 December 2010. Copies are also available in the Libraries of both Houses. A decision on this policy will be made early in 2011, taking account of views provided during this consultation, and the available scientific and economic evidence.
The consultation document also highlights that we are planning a number of changes to existing cattle measures to ensure that that they are better targeted on the basis of disease risk. Most existing cattle measures will remain firmly in place; in some cases we will be looking to tighten controls where we know there is a higher disease risk; and in some cases we will be looking to reduce burdens on farmers but only where we are confident that this will not increase disease risk.
I am today publishing the report of a review of pre-movement testing which is available on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/ atoz/tb/premovement/index.htm). This has concluded that the current policy has been successful in reducing bovine TB spread, provided a significant benefit for the taxpayer and a net benefit for the farming industry. The pre-movement testing policy will therefore remain in place, though we plan to look again at the current exemptions to see whether they are still necessary.
We will be making some minor changes to TB testing with immediate effect. These include reducing the testing of new and reformed herds, stopping the testing of young calves, rationalising post-breakdown testing in low-risk herds where bovine TB is not confirmed and rationalising the testing of herds neighbouring a confirmed TB breakdown. These changes will reduce costs to the taxpayer and the burden on famers without increasing disease risk, and will ensure we are not gold-plating EU legal requirements.
Over the next few months I also intend to make changes to TB terminology, strengthen controls on high risk unconfirmed breakdowns, reduce the number of tracing tests and extend the use of gamma interferon testing to all confirmed breakdown herds in the two yearly testing areas. And I will ensure better support for TB restricted cattle farmers by enhancing their options for selling surplus stock. Further details of these changes will be announced in due course.
The coalition Government are committed to dealing with this terrible disease and reducing its burden on farmers and the taxpayer as quickly as possible. A decision on our approach will be taken following the consultation on badger control being launched today. I intend to publish a comprehensive and balanced bovine TB eradication programme early in 2011.
Britain's Values in a Networked World
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to make the House aware that I will deliver a speech entitled “Britain’s Values in a Networked World” at the Old Hall and Crypt, Lincoln’s Inn today. This is the third in a series of four major policy speeches which set out the Government’s active and activist approach to foreign policy.
In this speech I will address how this Government will pursue a foreign policy that remains true to our values while promoting Britain’s security and prosperity. As part of this approach, I will be making three specific announcements.
First, I am determined to strengthen the FCO’s institutional capability on human rights both at home and overseas, building on the work of previous Governments. Following the publication of the consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel, the FCO will be re-issuing its guidance to its own staff on the need to report any alleged incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that they encounter in the course of their work. I will make this guidance public.
Secondly, I have decided to convene an advisory group on human rights to include key NGOs, independent experts and others. It will meet regularly and have direct access to Ministers. This group will ensure that we will benefit from outside advice on the conduct of our policy.
Thirdly, as I explained to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 8 September the FCO will strengthen its human rights reporting and make it available to a wider audience. Going forward, we will report to Parliament and the public, both through a Command Paper and by making best use of the internet.
A copy of my speech will be placed in the Library of the House and published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) by 16 September.
Court of Justice (Appointment of Lithuanian Judge)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
At a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 29 September 2010 the appointment of a Lithuanian judge to the Court of Justice is to be considered.
The nomination is in respect of: Mr Egidijus Jarašiunas.
Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Attorney-General, the Foreign Secretary agrees to the appointment.
Sino-British Joint Declaration (Hong Kong)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The latest report on the implementation of the “Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong” was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2010. I commend the report to the House.
Interpretation and Translation Services (Justice Sector)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The Government are proposing to make changes to the provision of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector. We need to reduce waste and cut costs but we shall do so in a way that safeguards quality.
Articles 5 and 6 of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR) give the right to interpretation for those who are arrested and who face criminal court proceedings. In addition, we expect the European Union to adopt a directive in the autumn intended to ensure that the rights enshrined in the ECHR are implemented consistently across all member states.
Currently, the non-binding National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System sets out how criminal justice organisations are expected to source interpreters and translators in England and Wales. The National Agreement gives the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) as the first source for foreign language interpreters and translators and the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People Directory (now called the National Register of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD)) for British Sign Language and other language services for deaf and deafblind people. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice C and H also require that whenever possible the police should use interpreters from these registers when interviewing suspects.
Members of staff in justice organisations identify interpreters using the registers and then contact them directly. Once the assignment is complete, invoices are processed individually. This is an inefficient, labour-intensive process.
The Ministry of Justice is engaging with the market to explore how interpretation and translation can be delivered more efficiently. The exercise is a “competitive dialogue”, which allows us to explore with potential providers the best way for them to meet our requirements. Although we are not able to be certain what the result of this exercise will be, we are anticipating a “framework agreement” with a number of preferred suppliers. This will set out a template or “call-off” contract. Justice organisations will then easily be able to use the “call-off” contract to meet their specific requirements. The quality of interpretation will be ensured through the terms of the contracts.
At this stage, we expect most police forces, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, the Tribunal Service, the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service to use the framework. We expect the framework agreement to be signed in early 2011.
A move to contracts will eventually render the National Agreement redundant and we expect to withdraw it in due course. We aim however to retain elements of the agreement as good practice guidance and many of its fundamental principles will form the basis of the agreements with suppliers.
Potential suppliers were invited to lodge an expression of interest in a letter issued on 10 August. A notice was issued in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 August. The procurement “pre-qualification questionnaire” was made available on 24 August. The deadline for return of the questionnaire was 13 September. The competitive dialogue process with short-listed tenderers will start in October.
The Government are clear that there is scope for greater efficiency in this area of their business and it is important that savings are made. But in taking this work forward it will ensure that the quality of interpretation and translation in police stations, in the courts and elsewhere is maintained.
DFID's Programme in Bangladesh
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Today we are publishing by Command Paper the Government response to the former International Development Committee’s report on “DFID’s Programme in Bangladesh”. The report was published on 4 March 2010.
The report was positive about DFID’s programme in Bangladesh. It commends DFID’s work on governance, extreme poverty and the balance we are striking between support to service delivery and capacity building. The Minister of State for International Development visited Bangladesh 12 to 14 July 2010, reinforcing the UK’s commitment to helping Bangladesh reduce poverty and deal with the impacts of climate change.
Arrangements for Handling National Security
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Government have received and welcomed the second annual report of Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of arrangements for handling national security matters in Northern Ireland.
The report finds the now established national security arrangements free from major structural problems, more efficient than analogous arrangements elsewhere, and in a more acceptable human rights context than anywhere comparable.
Consistent with his terms of reference, the report was submitted to both the Home Secretary, and to me.
The Home Secretary and I welcome the content of this report which I am today bringing before Parliament. I have placed copies in the House Library.
Independent Monitoring Commission (24th Report)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I have received the 24th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). This report has been made under articles 4 and 7 of the International Agreement that established the Commission. It reports on the murder of Bobby Moffett in Belfast on 28 May 2010. I have considered the content of the report and I am today laying it before Parliament.
The IMC concludes that:
“The murder was committed by members of the UVF acting as such;
These members had sanction at central leadership level. The fact that there was no subsequent condemnation of the killing by the leadership means that the UVF has in effect adopted the consequences of the murder;
There were two main reasons for the murder and the way in which it was committed: to stop Mr Moffett’s perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged;
Senior leadership in the UVF could have prevented the murder had it determined to do so”.
In May 2007 the UVF issued a statement renouncing violence and committing to a process of transformation from a military to a civilian organisation. This was a major turning point for them. Last year they also took the step of decommissioning.
The IMC observes that
“the murder does not blind us to the progress the UVF has made hitherto or of itself mean that the process [of transformation] will be reversed. But it does call into question the reference in the May 2007 statement to becoming a civilian organisation and shows that when faced with what it saw as a challenge to its standing and authority, the organisation reverted to physical force”.
The IMC goes on to say that
“If this murder is to mark the end of the use of physical force it will require a more profound change of culture and attitude by the leadership and the organisation”.
The murder of Mr Moffett was brutal and shocking. The conclusions of the IMC in respect of the behaviour of the UVF leadership are a challenge to the UVF leadership to renew their determination to deliver fully on their collective commitment to transform their organisation.
Equality Act 2010
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I have today published guidance notes about the sections of the Equality Act 2010 relating to taxis and private hire vehicles which are coming into force.
The Equality Act 2010 contains new provisions which will, when commenced, tighten the law by placing duties on taxi and PHV drivers to provide assistance to people in wheelchairs. Before these duties come into force, we are making provision for those drivers who themselves suffer from a condition which makes it difficult to provide assistance, to apply for an exemption from these duties. Drivers will be able to apply for these exemptions from October. I have today published guidance to local authorities and drivers to this effect so that they can prepare accordingly.
Also from October, the sections of the Equality Act 2010 which oblige taxi and PHV drivers and PHV operators to carry guide dogs will be commenced. This obligation is already prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so in practice there will be no change for drivers. However, the guidance I have published today will reassure drivers and licensing authorities that any existing exemption notices which refer to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will still be valid once the Equality Act sections are commenced.
The guidance notes have been published on the Department’s website and will be brought to the attention of all the taxi/licensing authorities and the principal taxi/PHV organisations.
Copies of the guidance notes have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.